Pure Parents

Question:

> That’s right, pretty big discrepencies because this article is **not** > referring to Thomas Navarro. Thomas is five years old. The child in > this case was four in 1996. I wonder how you missed that little point > and then snipped it from the part that you posted here? Full section > below. Gavin.

if i missed something it was a simple mistake. i have no hidden agenda for or against burzynski. you are getting all paranoid over the wrong poster, bucko. There is nobody as enslaved as the fanatic, the person in whom one impulse, one value, has assumed ascendancy over all others.     Milton R. Sapirstein Getting caught is the mother of invention.   Robert Byrne

Response:

Letter taken from the Navarro’s website. http://www.cancerbusters.com/ They are fighting for the "right" to treat their child with Dr. Burzynski’s antineoplastons. But the FDA wants him to go through the same hell that the child below went through. The "good" old corrupted FDA, always protecting the  pharmaceutical cartels’ monopoly and blood Visit my website. Exposing the Cancer Indu$try http://www.geocities.com/freee80/ From Colleen Reeck http://www.cancerbusters.com/letters/colleen.html Dear Navarro Family, I just sent this letter to Tom Brokaw and I thought you might like to see it. I’m pulling for Thomas and hope he gets the treatment he needs. Mr. Brokaw, Thank you for doing the recent piece (January 28th) on little Thomas Navarro. As the mother of a child with cancer who went through 3 years of FDA-approved hell (chemotherapy, radiation, and stem cell transplantation), only to lose her life, I say shame on the FDA for standing in the way of what these parents know is best. We were going to take our child to Dr. Burzynski after two year-long chemotherapy protocols (approved by the FDA) failed to cure her. Our daughter’s oncologist found a clinical trial for peripheral stem cell transplantation, and because it was covered by insurance and Dr. Burzynski was not, we opted for the former. Well, that FDA-approved stem cell transplant caused our daughter’s skin to peel off in sheets, leaving raw tissues exposed and needing burn treatment. It also destroyed her mouth tissues to the point she could no longer swallow her own saliva. Prior to that, chemotherapy destroyed her spleen, necessitating a very painful spleenectomy. Almost three fourths of the children we knew at our hospital died, and some of the others are now back at the hospital with recurrences. Chemotherapy is a failure for children. If you research the real cure rates 10 or 15 years after treatment, you will find that the picture is not as successful as the FDA would like us to believe. And those who do survive face the threat of developing secondary cancers, heart disease, and other lifelong medical problems. I say, unless someone comes up with a genuine nontoxic cure for childhood cancer, let the parents of these children choose the treatment of Dr. Burzynski. I will never get over the guilt I feel at choosing a conventional FDA-approved treatment rather than Dr. Burzynski’s treatment. My child may not have been cured by Dr. Burzynski’s treatment, but with his treatment her short life would not have been one of suffering. Sincerely, Colleen Reck Before you buy.

Response:

That’s right, pretty big discrepencies because this article is **not** referring to Thomas Navarro. Thomas is five years old. The child in this case was four in 1996. I wonder how you missed that little point and then snipped it from the part that you posted here? Full section below. Gavin. Exposing the Cancer Indu$try http://www.geocities.com/freee80/ Child’s Treatment Provides Study of Contrasts: Burzynski versus Mainstream Medicine http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski2.html On July 3, 1996, the Burzynski clinic admitted a 4-year-old boy who had undergone a surgical resection of a medulloblastoma, according to the clinic’s annual report released to The Cancer Letter. Burzynski’s management of the case as well as his stated rationale for medical decisions do not appear to be mainstream, oncologists said. The fact that Burzynski was able to make several treatment choices without running afoul of FDA regulations raises questions about the agency’s adherence to the standards of oncology practice, experts said. In mainstream medicine, early stage medulloblastoma is regarded as a treatable disease. "Basically, if you treat a kid who has had a resection, and has no metastatic disease, we expect that survival should be at the 70 to 80% level with reduced dose irradiation and chemotherapy," said Larry Kun, president of the American Society of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, chairman of radiation oncology, and program leader in neurobiology and brain tumors at St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital. When the boy was admitted to the protocol, he met the eligibility criteria, Burzynski said. Indeed, the 1996 version of the protocol states that, "patients who did not receive standard therapy are eligible." FDA requested that the provision be removed the following year, Burzynski said. The letter of the protocol notwithstanding, the decision to admit a child with a treatable cancer into a phase II preliminary study is problematic, said Norman Wolmark, chairman of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast & Bowel Project. "One has to come to grips with what would justify withholding effective standard therapy for a treatment regimen that is undergoing investigation," Wolmark said. "Even if one were to consider clinical trials in such a setting, those trials would have to be rigorously controlled, and the experimental regimen would have to be compared to the standard of care." Burzynski said antineoplastons offer a reasonable treatment option for medulloblastoma patients. "For such patients, radiation therapy certainly would cause lifelong adverse effects, and certainly mental retardation," Burzynski said. "And, certainly, there was no assurance that this was a curative treatment." "This statement is entirely false," said Kun. "The current standard for a resected patient is a reduced dose of radiation, in conjunction with chemotherapy, as practiced at every major center in North America now. "This treatment seems to be associated with rather limited kinds of deficits," Kun said. "The majority of kids will show changes in the order of 10 or less than 20 IQ points. These kids will likely require some assistance with learning, but the early information tells us that they are capable of learning independently at a respectable level and continue to do well." Burzynski said the boy had some residual tumor. "He had the involvement of the right lateral portion of the fourth ventricle," Burzynski said, reading from a treatment summary. "At that time his tumor measured 2.4 by 1.7 centimeters." The tumor was evaluated by an in-house radiologist, and Burzynski reviewed the scans himself, he said. "At that time, I was reviewing all of the scans," he said. Duke oncologist Henry Friedman, who had evaluated the boy prior to initiation of the Burzynski treatment, disagrees with Burzynski’s assessment of the patient. "There was no measurable residual disease at the end of surgery," Friedman said. "There was stuff in the lateral ventricles that was initially interpreted by many institutions, including us, as metastatic tumor, and later was shown to be heterotypia. We had better radiologists look at it over time and realized that this thing was not a tumor." After eight months on antineoplastons, the child’s disease progressed, Burzynski’s annual report shows. "He had progression, because he had some interruption in the treatment program," Burzynski said. "So we said that, perhaps because of the interruption, the tumor was growing. We asked FDA to allow his treatment under a special exception." Burzynski’s letter to FDA dated March 21, 1997, states that the child’s tumor had shrunk by 40 percent. However, the scans showed a new nodule of about 1.3 cm. by 0.7 cm. "There is a good chance that by increasing the dosage of Antineoplaston A10 to the maximum, his new small nodule will also respond to treatment," Burzynski wrote. The letter requested that the child be upgraded to the maximum dosage under the special exception program. Friedman disagrees with Burzynski’s claim that the boy’s tumor had shrunk. "This is unequivocally not a kid who would have had measurable disease that one could have said responded to therapy," he said. "It was not a tumor. It was heterotypia." "All the antineoplastons did was delay the onset of conventional therapy until the kid ultimately progressed," Friedman said. FDA approved Burzynski’s request. The boy was taken off the treatment eight months later, in October 1997. Burzynski’s annual report to FDA notes his reason for withdrawal as "progressive disease." The child’s family remains loyal to Burzynski. "I believe antineoplastons are a potential cure," the boy’s mother said to The Cancer Letter. "I regret that there wasn’t a more concentrated formula available, so he could have a higher dose of the drug without a greater amount of fluid. Without the toxicity of conventional treatment, his body was allowed to recover from the side effects of surgery." The boy’s mother said he has had four resections, the most recent of which was followed by radiation. The boy has responded to treatment, and his intellect has not been impaired, said Thomas White, a pediatrician in St. Petersburg, FL. The Cancer Letter http://www.cancerletter.com/ > If you are referring to Quackwatch, please provide the link to this > article. I found nothing when searching under "navarro". If not > Quackwatch, then where? Very peculiar that there is absolutley none of > the information you reference on the Navarro’s website. > sure….here’s the link. it’s not like i am lying or something. geez.

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski2.html – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> the end of the article states: > After eight months on antineoplastons, the child’s disease progressed, > Burzynski’s annual report shows. > "He had progression, because he had some interruption in the treatment > program," Burzynski said. "So we said that, perhaps because of the > interruption, the tumor was growing. We > asked FDA to allow his treatment under a special exception." > Burzynski’s letter to FDA dated March 21, 1997, states that the child’s > tumor had shrunk by 40 percent. However, the scans showed a new nodule of > about 1.3 cm. by 0.7 cm. > "There is a good chance that by increasing the dosage of Antineoplaston A10 > to the maximum, his new small nodule will also respond to treatment," > Burzynski wrote. The letter > requested that the child be upgraded to the maximum dosage under the special > exception program. > Friedman disagrees with Burzynski’s claim that the boy’s tumor had shrunk. > "This is unequivocally not a kid who would have had measurable disease that > one could have said responded > to therapy," he said. "It was not a tumor. It was heterotypia." > "All the antineoplastons did was delay the onset of conventional therapy > until the kid ultimately progressed," Friedman said. > FDA approved Burzynski’s request. > The boy was taken off the treatment eight months later, in October 1997. > Burzynski’s annual report to FDA notes his reason for withdrawal as > "progressive disease." > The child’s family remains loyal to Burzynski. "I believe antineoplastons > are a potential cure," the boy’s mother said to The Cancer Letter. "I regret > that there wasn’t a more concentrated > formula available, so he could have a higher dose of the drug without a > greater amount of fluid. Without the toxicity of conventional treatment, his > body was allowed to recover from the > side effects of surgery." > The boy’s mother said he has had four resections, the most recent of which > was followed by radiation. The boy has responded to treatment, and his > intellect has not been impaired, said Thomas White, a pediatrician in St. > Petersburg, FL. > so hopefully readers can see the discrepancies between the way the info is > presented here and how it is presented in the ‘thomas’ story’ section of the > navarro site. > pretty big discrepancies. > "A man may be a fool and not know it – but not if he is married." > H.L. Mencken > http://www.lifehousemusic.com/lh_music.html catchytune. says me.

Before you buy.

Response:

> If you are referring to Quackwatch, please provide the link to this > article. I found nothing when searching under "navarro". If not > Quackwatch, then where? Very peculiar that there is absolutley none of > the information you reference on the Navarro’s website.

sure….here’s the link. it’s not like i am lying or something. geez. http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski2.html the end of the article states: After eight months on antineoplastons, the child’s disease progressed, Burzynski’s annual report shows. "He had progression, because he had some interruption in the treatment program," Burzynski said. "So we said that, perhaps because of the interruption, the tumor was growing. We asked FDA to allow his treatment under a special exception." Burzynski’s letter to FDA dated March 21, 1997, states that the child’s tumor had shrunk by 40 percent. However, the scans showed a new nodule of about 1.3 cm. by 0.7 cm. "There is a good chance that by increasing the dosage of Antineoplaston A10 to the maximum, his new small nodule will also respond to treatment," Burzynski wrote. The letter requested that the child be upgraded to the maximum dosage under the special exception program. Friedman disagrees with Burzynski’s claim that the boy’s tumor had shrunk. "This is unequivocally not a kid who would have had measurable disease that one could have said responded to therapy," he said. "It was not a tumor. It was heterotypia." "All the antineoplastons did was delay the onset of conventional therapy until the kid ultimately progressed," Friedman said. FDA approved Burzynski’s request. The boy was taken off the treatment eight months later, in October 1997. Burzynski’s annual report to FDA notes his reason for withdrawal as "progressive disease." The child’s family remains loyal to Burzynski. "I believe antineoplastons are a potential cure," the boy’s mother said to The Cancer Letter. "I regret that there wasn’t a more concentrated formula available, so he could have a higher dose of the drug without a greater amount of fluid. Without the toxicity of conventional treatment, his body was allowed to recover from the side effects of surgery." The boy’s mother said he has had four resections, the most recent of which was followed by radiation. The boy has responded to treatment, and his intellect has not been impaired, said Thomas White, a pediatrician in St. Petersburg, FL. so hopefully readers can see the discrepancies between the way the info is presented here and how it is presented in the ‘thomas’ story’ section of the navarro site. pretty big discrepancies. "A man may be a fool and not know it – but not if he is married." H.L. Mencken http://www.lifehousemusic.com/lh_music.html catchytune. says me.

Response:

>   Seems to me that the patient or their family should by all rights be the > ones to decide which treatment to try first or last. What was all that stuff > about freedom ? Free country? What?

<snipped> Ah, but we are merely mindless masses who need Big Brother to protect us from all the nasty people who would take advantage of us.  We don’t have the brains to read the scientific data for ourselves and make an informed decision. — Light, Love, & Laughter, Kitten, Goddess of Mischief "Thousands of years ago, cats were worshipped as gods. Cats have never forgotten this." – Anonymous "Just for today, do not worry;  Just for today, do not anger; Earn your living honestly; Honor your parents, teachers and elders; Show gratitude for every living thing."- Dr. Mikao Usui Before you buy.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > ok, now wait a second…… > > after researching this navarro case topic a bit, found this statement > on the > > infamous QW site: > You should know better than taking anything on QW as gospel. > and you would know if you were familiar with my MHA posting history that i > am one of the least likely folks to take what barrett says as ‘gospel’. <G> > perhaps that is why i said that i know his articles are purposely anti-alt > slanted and asked for any more objective info available….. > fact is, i found discrepancies in the navarro’s (apparently) non-updated > website and the QW quotes. > i am quite curious as to the actual FACTS of the matter. > i am not sure if the navarro’s are giving updated and correct info and i > KNOW that barrett is not objective when it comes to alternative modalities. >  I don’t go > near the site if I can help it. > oh, you should check it out from time to time. > barrett isn’t infallible and everyone here knows that his info his > ultra-biased. > As far as Burzynski is concerned, FDA does not allow him to treat > patients who haven’t already exhausted standard treatments with no > success.  A patient cannot just *choose* to receive this treatment. > The patient has to be admitted for one of the test groups in order > to receive treatment. > the statements on the portion of the navarro site that i read were in direct > conflict with the picture presented on QW. > i am curious to find out who is lying (or simply misrepresenting info) and > why. the navarro’s painted the picture of an FDA who is STOPPING their son > from the AP treatment. > QW says that he’d already HAD 8 months of the treatment which burzynski then > halted. > see?! > seems that it should be easy enough to figure out the actual facts (like, > for an OBJECTIVE journalist or something) and then folks could have a > clearer and less emotional basis for comparison. > basically, i trust ** no one ** when it comes to internet hearsay. > i like to get lots of info from various different sources and then make a > call……

I’m the same way.  Kinda irritates the debunkers trying to disguise themselves as skeptics. <wg> As for Burzynski, I’ve done a little reading about him, but not enough to be any type of authority.  It seems that at one point, the controls on his trials weren’t quite so stringent, but then the FDA came in and tightened the guidelines on who he can accept in his trials.  I found a few articles that said something about FDA raiding his office a time or two trying to find evidence of him practicing outside the guidelines. And something about them trying to charge him because some out-of-state patients were going to him for treatment and taking their meds with them back to their home states.  I’d have to look it all up again to get the details.  Seems quite a tangled story. — Light, Love, & Laughter, Kitten, Goddess of Mischief "Thousands of years ago, cats were worshipped as gods. Cats have never forgotten this." – Anonymous "Just for today, do not worry;  Just for today, do not anger; Earn your living honestly; Honor your parents, teachers and elders; Show gratitude for every living thing."- Dr. Mikao Usui Before you buy.

Response:

  Seems to me that the patient or their family should by all rights be the ones to decide which treatment to try first or last. What was all that stuff about freedom ? Free country? What?

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Do you think that Burzynski would have an even higher % of cures if he > treated patients before the damage of Conventional therapies? > It’s possible.  If he’s having the success with terminal patients that > is being claimed, it would stand to reason that he would also have > success with patients whose cancer is not as advanced. > And why is he not? > Why is he not treating patients with less advanced cancer?  Because the > FDA has things set up where one only tests new therapies/treatments on > terminal patients who have already exhausted accepted medical > treatments. > > > ok, now wait a second…… > > > after researching this navarro case topic a bit, found this > statement > > on the > > > infamous QW site: > > You should know better than taking anything on QW as gospel.  I > don’t go > > near the site if I can help it. > > As far as Burzynski is concerned, FDA does not allow him to treat > > patients who haven’t already exhausted standard treatments with no > > success.  A patient cannot just *choose* to receive this treatment. > > The patient has to be admitted for one of the test groups in order > > to receive treatment.  Here’s a link to the current trials being > > conducted by Burzynski’s team. > > http://www.cancermed.com/clntrls.htm > — > Light, Love, & Laughter, > Kitten, Goddess of Mischief > "Thousands of years ago, cats were worshipped as gods. Cats have never > forgotten this." – Anonymous > "Just for today, do not worry;  Just for today, do not anger; Earn your > living honestly; Honor your parents, teachers and elders; Show gratitude > for every living thing."- Dr. Mikao Usui > Before you buy.

Response:

> > ok, now wait a second…… > after researching this navarro case topic a bit, found this statement > on the > infamous QW site: > You should know better than taking anything on QW as gospel.

and you would know if you were familiar with my MHA posting history that i am one of the least likely folks to take what barrett says as ‘gospel’. <G> perhaps that is why i said that i know his articles are purposely anti-alt slanted and asked for any more objective info available….. fact is, i found discrepancies in the navarro’s (apparently) non-updated website and the QW quotes. i am quite curious as to the actual FACTS of the matter. i am not sure if the navarro’s are giving updated and correct info and i KNOW that barrett is not objective when it comes to alternative modalities. >  I don’t go > near the site if I can help it.

oh, you should check it out from time to time. barrett isn’t infallible and everyone here knows that his info his ultra-biased. > As far as Burzynski is concerned, FDA does not allow him to treat > patients who haven’t already exhausted standard treatments with no > success.  A patient cannot just *choose* to receive this treatment. > The patient has to be admitted for one of the test groups in order > to receive treatment.

the statements on the portion of the navarro site that i read were in direct conflict with the picture presented on QW. i am curious to find out who is lying (or simply misrepresenting info) and why. the navarro’s painted the picture of an FDA who is STOPPING their son from the AP treatment. QW says that he’d already HAD 8 months of the treatment which burzynski then halted. see?! seems that it should be easy enough to figure out the actual facts (like, for an OBJECTIVE journalist or something) and then folks could have a clearer and less emotional basis for comparison. basically, i trust ** no one ** when it comes to internet hearsay. i like to get lots of info from various different sources and then make a call…… "A man may be a fool and not know it – but not if he is married." H.L. Mencken http://www.lifehousemusic.com/lh_music.html catchytune. says me.

Response:

Do you think that Burzynski would have an even higher % of cures if he treated patients before the damage of Conventional therapies? And why is he not? T

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> ok, now wait a second…… > after researching this navarro case topic a bit, found this statement > on the > infamous QW site: > You should know better than taking anything on QW as gospel.  I don’t go > near the site if I can help it. > As far as Burzynski is concerned, FDA does not allow him to treat > patients who haven’t already exhausted standard treatments with no > success.  A patient cannot just *choose* to receive this treatment. > The patient has to be admitted for one of the test groups in order > to receive treatment.  Here’s a link to the current trials being > conducted by Burzynski’s team. > http://www.cancermed.com/clntrls.htm > — > Light, Love, & Laughter, > Kitten, Goddess of Mischief > "Thousands of years ago, cats were worshipped as gods. Cats have never > forgotten this." – Anonymous > "Just for today, do not worry;  Just for today, do not anger; Earn your > living honestly; Honor your parents, teachers and elders; Show gratitude > for every living thing."- Dr. Mikao Usui > Before you buy.

Response:

> Do you think that Burzynski would have an even higher % of cures if he > treated patients before the damage of Conventional therapies?

It’s possible.  If he’s having the success with terminal patients that is being claimed, it would stand to reason that he would also have success with patients whose cancer is not as advanced. > And why is he not?

Why is he not treating patients with less advanced cancer?  Because the FDA has things set up where one only tests new therapies/treatments on terminal patients who have already exhausted accepted medical treatments. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > ok, now wait a second…… > > after researching this navarro case topic a bit, found this statement > on the > > infamous QW site: > You should know better than taking anything on QW as gospel.  I don’t go > near the site if I can help it. > As far as Burzynski is concerned, FDA does not allow him to treat > patients who haven’t already exhausted standard treatments with no > success.  A patient cannot just *choose* to receive this treatment. > The patient has to be admitted for one of the test groups in order > to receive treatment.  Here’s a link to the current trials being > conducted by Burzynski’s team. > http://www.cancermed.com/clntrls.htm

– Light, Love, & Laughter, Kitten, Goddess of Mischief "Thousands of years ago, cats were worshipped as gods. Cats have never forgotten this." – Anonymous "Just for today, do not worry;  Just for today, do not anger; Earn your living honestly; Honor your parents, teachers and elders; Show gratitude for every living thing."- Dr. Mikao Usui Before you buy.

Response:

If you are referring to Quackwatch, please provide the link to this article. I found nothing when searching under "navarro". If not Quackwatch, then where? Very peculiar that there is absolutley none of the information you reference on the Navarro’s website. http://www.cancerbusters.com The FDA is helping Dr. Burzynski? I can’t wait to see this article. …Waiting. Gavin Phillips Exposing the Cancer Indu$try http://www.geocities.com/freee80/ – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> ok, now wait a second…… > after researching this navarro case topic a bit, found this statement on the > infamous QW site: > "The boy’s mother said he has had four resections, the most recent of which was > followed by radiation. The boy has responded to treatment, and his intellect > has not been impaired, said > Thomas White, a pediatrician in St. Petersburg, FL." > quackwatch also states that the boy DID receive burzynski’s treatment for > 8months. and that burzynski himself  stopped the treatment: Burzynski’s annual > report to FDA notes his reason for withdrawal as "progressive disease." > so, free80,  is that navarro site link that you provided not an updated page or > did i just miss this important info?? > i still think that the FDA should not be able to tell a parent what to do > regarding their child’s health care, but it seems that some facts were missing > about what actually occured between burzynski and the FDA. > from the account on QW, it sounds like the FDA was actually helpful to > burzynski. > yes, i know QW is  slanted to the anti-alt end of things, but does anyone else > have any updated info from other more objective sources?? > "A man may be a fool and not know it – but not if he is married." > H.L. Mencken > http://www.lifehousemusic.com/lh_music.html catchytune. says me.

Before you buy.

Response:

> Letter taken from the Navarro’s website. > http://www.cancerbusters.com/ > They are fighting for the "right" to treat their child with Dr. > Burzynski’s antineoplastons. But the FDA wants him to go through the > same hell that the child below went through. The "good" old corrupted > FDA, always protecting the  pharmaceutical cartels’ monopoly and blood

ok, this is the crux of the matter then–correct me if i am wrong: IS it up to the FDA  to restrict or administer parents’ healthcare options?? my vote is a resounding NO. i found this statement from the ‘thomas’ story’ section of the navarro’s site very, very disturbing: "It took us three hours just to get him to tell us the name of the drug he would be using on Thomas. Vincristine would be administered on Mondays and Fridays, with radiation Monday through Friday. The doctor still would not tell us the names of the other drugs that would be used, let alone the dosage and duration. I had to get a list of the side effects from the PDR when we finally did get the names of the drugs from the doctor. Even though prescription drugs obtained at a local pharmacy (not to mention over-the-counter drugs) must be accompanied by a list of side effects, parents are not told about the side effects of deadly chemotherapy drugs. " supposing that this actually happened, can any of the sci-medico types clue me in on why it would/should be so difficult to get specific info from the doctors regarding drugs and treatment? (i have experienced this same type of reticence and / or vague brush offs from physicians on occasion also.) and this: " because Thomas does not have "measurable tumor," Dr. Burzynski is not permitted to treat Thomas, even though medulloblastoma ALWAYS recurs. Also, because we have not subjected Thomas to chemo- therapy plus irradiation, Dr. Burzynski is not permitted to treat Thomas." so if i went to burzynski tomorrow and asked for treatment (i have no tumor and haven’t had chemo/radiation) the FDA would step in???? this is crazy. if they want to let their kid ride a motorcycle without a helmet when he’s older, if they want to let their kid go trick-or-treating unsupervised, if they want to give their kid candy after every meal….is the FDA going to step in?? where do we draw the line for governmental meddling in parenting rights? "A man may be a fool and not know it – but not if he is married." H.L. Mencken http://www.lifehousemusic.com/lh_music.html catchytune. says me.

Response:

> ok, now wait a second…… > after researching this navarro case topic a bit, found this statement on the > infamous QW site:

You should know better than taking anything on QW as gospel.  I don’t go near the site if I can help it. As far as Burzynski is concerned, FDA does not allow him to treat patients who haven’t already exhausted standard treatments with no success.  A patient cannot just *choose* to receive this treatment. The patient has to be admitted for one of the test groups in order to receive treatment.  Here’s a link to the current trials being conducted by Burzynski’s team. http://www.cancermed.com/clntrls.htm — Light, Love, & Laughter, Kitten, Goddess of Mischief "Thousands of years ago, cats were worshipped as gods. Cats have never forgotten this." – Anonymous "Just for today, do not worry;  Just for today, do not anger; Earn your living honestly; Honor your parents, teachers and elders; Show gratitude for every living thing."- Dr. Mikao Usui Before you buy.

Response:

ok, now wait a second…… after researching this navarro case topic a bit, found this statement on the infamous QW site: "The boy’s mother said he has had four resections, the most recent of which was followed by radiation. The boy has responded to treatment, and his intellect has not been impaired, said Thomas White, a pediatrician in St. Petersburg, FL." quackwatch also states that the boy DID receive burzynski’s treatment for 8months. and that burzynski himself  stopped the treatment: Burzynski’s annual report to FDA notes his reason for withdrawal as "progressive disease." so, free80,  is that navarro site link that you provided not an updated page or did i just miss this important info?? i still think that the FDA should not be able to tell a parent what to do regarding their child’s health care, but it seems that some facts were missing about what actually occured between burzynski and the FDA. from the account on QW, it sounds like the FDA was actually helpful to burzynski. yes, i know QW is  slanted to the anti-alt end of things, but does anyone else have any updated info from other more objective sources?? "A man may be a fool and not know it – but not if he is married." H.L. Mencken http://www.lifehousemusic.com/lh_music.html catchytune. says me.

Response: