Cancer Cure: Dr. Burzynski Therapy

  • More Options

VN:F [1.9.16_1159]
Rating: 8.3/10 (63 votes cast)
Is This Documentary Broken?
(Click Here To Let Us Know)

Documentary on Stanislaw R. Burzynski’s revolutionary cancer cure treatment based on his discovery on the mechanics of cancer, which lead him to the creation of the Antineoplaston Therapy. Dr. Burzynski’s Therapy has successfully cured thousands of terminal cancer patients for the last 30 years and has demonstrated to be 3 to 5 times more effective than the conventional chemotherapy and radiation treatments.

In spite of the success of his therapy, he has faced the prosecution of big pharma and the FDA which has tried to stop his therapy from spreading in the United States.

Visit the Burzynski Clinic and learn more about the ANP Therapy here:
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com

Cancer Cure: Dr. Burzynski Therapy, 8.3 out of 10 based on 63 ratings

Related Documentaries

From The Web

  • Ian Ketterer

    I am so happy to see this documentary posted on documentaryheaven.com! I submitted the link to them yesterday! I wanted to let you all know that the bastards in the Texas state government are at it again. They are trying to get Dr. Burzynski’s medical licenses revoked! He goes on trial in April 2012 unless we do something about it and take action! Please visit the link below. To learn all about what you can do to help this amazing Doctor! I also wanted to point out that I am not associated with the making of tuis documentary what so ever. I’m just addicted to all things documentary related, like everyone else that uses documentary Heaven on an every-night basis haha. I actually originally watched this documentary on Netflix two days ago and after I finished it, I immediately logged on to Documentary Heaven to see if they had it and they didn’t. So I found it on YouTube and submitted it to Documentary Heaven! Thank you DH for helping raise awareness to this tremendously important cause! Here is the website to learn all about various ways you can help:

    https://www.burzynskimovie.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=126

    • Woodski

      I really can’t believe that people can watch and read all the evidence in an amazingly explosive documentary like this, and still have doubts about what the western medical profession is capable of. Its not like this is the only story out there, WAKE UP PEOPLE! !!!

  • ijs

    Wow. The crazy is strong in this one. 

    All the standard tropes: “I’m a martyr”, “I’m a lone genius”, “big pharma are trying to stop me”,  “3 to 5 times more effective than the conventional chemotherapy and radiation treatments”. 

    This movie is little more than a plug for his clinic where he charges tens of thousands of dollars to exploit desperate people with an unproven therapy; he makes the pharmaceuticals industry look like a paragon of virtue.

    Of course if really has the answers he deserves a Nobel Prize. All he has to do is release his data and let the scientific community repeat his work. To no one’s surprise he doesn’t do that. 

    So why won’t he release his data and why have his “trials” been running for decades at huge expense to the hapless participants (an ethical horror in itself)? Could it be that he knows this obscenely lucrative house of cards would collapse under scrutiny?

    Check out a more balanced view at quackometer.net, 
    sciencebasedmedicine.org or even the Wikipedia page as of 6 March 2012.

  • georg wachberger

    i am very skeptical about this kind of story. yet
    i found this an untypcial documentary in the way
    that there were congressional hearings, (credible)
    patient testimonies and seemingly many quotations
    instead of hearsay.

    someone proposed quackometer as more balanced
    source on the subject. i would expect a web site with
    such name presenting me with the complete opposite
    point of view, but definitely not with a more balanced
    one.

    i do not pretend to be able to judge any of this after
    seeing a documentary by one party, but i find it
    questionable if a medical doctor making his case in
    a very scientific way, meaning by clinical trials, real
    patients and patents, is called a quack. he might be
    wrong, but you can be wrong and still you do not have
    to be a quack.

  • ReBasEco

    I haven’t seen the doc yet, but it’s common sense that a cure for cancer would put half the pharmaceutical companies out of business and cripple the rest. Just like a cold fusion would destroy the oil companies. Rich people will not let that happen.

  • ReBasEco

    Okay, those congressional hearings weren’t staged and those survivors aren’t actors. If they were they’d be winning awards for it. I already knew the system was corrupt, but this is a convincing argument for those who don’t want to believe what kinds of people are running the mega corps and governments. It’s tough to swallow, especially if you have kids because you need faith in goodness to pass on to them. All I can say is don’t believe what you want, believe what you must for the species to move forward.

  • Ghorroj

    I’m rather afraid that this documentary has a few fatal flaws in it’s argument:

    1) Not once does it cut to the Doctors detractors; it’s all one-sided, and in his favour. While emotional responses are hard to mimic, it’s easy enough to make someone believe that what they’re saying is the truth. This is especially true if someone wants to believe it.

    I do want to believe it. Unfortunately, this simple flaw leads me to suspect that it’s a crock of crap. At the very least, it means that further research into the doctor and his claim via an unbiased medium is necessary.

    2) There are no results from independent studies into the Doctor’s discovery noted in the documentary. If they existed, surely he’d be crowing about them, and they would be mentioned. I find it hard to believe that no-one has tried to repeat his results in the 30+ years since the initial discovery.

    An experiment which yields non-repeatable results is not science, and is likely flawed.

    On closing, I’d have to say that the entire thing sounds far more like an infomercial into some wonderful new product that costs six months pay and isn’t absolutely guaranteed to work anyway. I remain skeptical.

    • Woodski

      In answer to your points,
      1) I would think the doctors detractors could be viewed as the FDA. You didnt see them represented?

      1a) Agreed, it’s hard to mimic emotion when your holding your child that is supposed to be dead, and isnt, because of the man you are defending against the FDA (aka the detractors) in federal court. So I guess we could assume she wasn’t.

      1b) Yes, it is easy to believe in things when you have even a handful of people telling you the same thing. Something the medical profession is expert at.

      I could go on and on, point by point about your post Ghorroj, but to tell the truth, the thought exhausts me, I simply have one question for you….
      Did you actually watch the same program that I just watched?

      Unfortunately, its people like yourself who will continue to hold up progress in the area of western medicine being anything other than ‘treating symptoms’ . When this happens, (and it does every day) what we create is a system of never ending symptoms, drugs, side effects of drugs, more drugs, more symptoms until we are bankrupt and poisoned, and preferably dead. As dead customers cant complain. There are so many things wrong with the western world, let alone the medical profession, I can hardly go into it all here. Suffice to say, if it looks like poo, if it smells like poo, then in all probability, its poo! And the FDA stinks like a sewer.

  • Sammy

    Bastards is all i can think… !!@!@@@@ Unjust BASTARDS!!

  • kirkelicious

    Bastards indeed…. capitalising on the hopes of desperate people by selling them snake oil.

  • Crazy

    Despicable. This man should be in jail.

  • Matthew Doell

    This documentary seems to say that patent theft was attempted and failed. Why would Dr. Samid, Elan Pharmacutical or anyone for that matter try to steal a patent for something that doesn’t work?

  • Flans

    This is not a documentary but a commercial. a documentary describes several sides of the story.

  • Sad

    It’s sad that some dim-witted folk eat up this garbage. Possibly it’s even sadder that this idiot is allowed to ‘practice’ at all. Exploiting the ill for capital gain is awful (no not the ‘big pharmas’ – sheesh).

    Hopefully, anyone who is ill will consult a REAL doctor.

  • Darrin
    • jnes

      wow, wiki reference.

  • http://www.pressingtheissue.com Mike

    This documentary is proving what more and more people already know: The FDA needs a SERIOUS overhaul! If you get your opinions from Quack-meter or whatever it’s called, then you are already one sided… Dr. Burzynski is actually a real doctor, and you can’t go by everything that you read at Wikipedia!

    Why are people so ignorant? WAKE UP!

    • Rafa

       Or, to take it the other way, Burzynski is a dangerous quack and the only information out there that claims otherwise is unsubstantiated, unproven and unprovable.

  • Gil Siburt

    Please go on together with your excellent blog posts, I actually like them.

  • James

    Phuck Big-Pharma!!!

  • G50rich

    Not hard to believe considering “911 Eyewitness”

  • Sophie

    This is really something to investigate more closely. I do not really understand you people who just seem to consider Dr. Burzynskis Antineoplastons a hoax.
    But I agree on that this documentary doesn’t really have an objectional view on the subject and that it’s telling nothing but the negative effects of traditional treatment. BUT, and these things are actually very remarkable:
    1. There can’t possibly be a load of people being cured with the Burzynski method just by believing in it – it can’t all be placebo, and it’s impossible that they’re all faking.
    2. From what I understand, statistics cannot be faked while coming to percentages – it’s just black on white that the Burzynski methods HAVE better results than traditional chemotherapy/radiation.
    3. The Burzynski methods must be some kind of threat against traditional medicin, otherwise FDA wouldn’t have put charges against them so many times, that’d just been irrelevant.

    Finally: Why should we exclude this possible cancer treatment just because it happens to be non-toxic and from what the documentary shows, very effective? Why should we stop people from having the opportunity to chose between radiation and/or chemotherapy and Antineoplastons?
    If your choise is to try antineoplastons, causing you no harm, before you try radiation and chemotherapy, that might cause you even more harm than your cancer, then I won’t judge you. And no one else should either.

    I admire Dr. Burzynski for his fantastic work and I might even try to continue it when I’ve finished my medical studies.

    • ijs

      >This is really something to investigate more closely.
      It has been. There’s no clinical evidence that it does anything at all.

      >1. There can’t possibly be a load of people being cured with the Burzynski method just by believing in it – it can’t all be placebo, and it’s impossible that they’re all faking.
      They’re not faking, they’re mostly dying. 

      >it’s just black on white that the Burzynski methods HAVE better results than traditional chemotherapy/radiation.
      Er, how did you decide that? Because he said so and said it in a serious sounding video? You don’t decide science by playing the martyr and making emotion charged videos – you do the work present the evidence and let the numbers speak for themselves.

      >3. The Burzynski methods must be some kind of threat against traditional medicin, otherwise FDA wouldn’t have put charges against them so many times, that’d just been irrelevant.
      The FDA isn’t charging him because he’s a threat, they are charging him because he’s a quack taking advantage of desperate people.

      >Why should we exclude this possible cancer treatment just because it happens to be non-toxic and from what the documentary shows, very effective?
      It’s not excluded because it is non-toxic (why on earth would you do that?). It is excluded because it is doesn’t work and he refuses to provide the evidence to the contrary.

      >I admire Dr. Burzynski for his fantastic work and I might even try to continue it when I’ve finished my medical studies.
      Hopefully by the time you finish your studies you’ll be able to tell the difference between actual science and quackery.

  • rxNK12

    I think that it’s undoubtedly important to keep in mind that all documentaries – even those that put a great amount of effort into being neutral – fall victim to bias. Moreover, it’s even more crucial that films so brazenly prejudice to one point of view be watched with diligent scrutiny. It then falls on the viewer to educate themselves further on the opposing viewpoints in their pursuit for the information withheld from such documentaries. I urge you to not allow this film or the viewpoints of the commentators to sway your opinions on this topic (as well as any other topics) until you have an understanding of it free from the agendas of others.
    THAT BEING SAID:

    You might want to do your research about Dr. Burzynski prior to watching… You might just spare yourself the hour and forty-seven minutes of misguiding narration in an attempt to appeal to pathos. If you wish to learn about the FDA and Big Pharma, there are plenty other far more informative documentaries/literature that focus solely on these important issues. Hope that helps.

  • http://twitter.com/ttwarrior1 Chris Robinson

    would this guy charge you thousands if you really really needed help, is he really charging thousands of dollars???? you are correct and i dont not believe they want a cure, they just want to control it.

  • SeanDB

    I’ve seen other documentaries regarding this matter which led me to believe that the doctor in question had eventually been permitted by the FDA to begin the second stage in getting his treatment approved but because of the high cost of such a trial he was unable to do so without the backing and support of a large investor which would normally be a pharmaceutical company that can produce the drug in question if it eventually won approval. As I understood it the issue was that he was unable to acquire this financial backing as approval of his treatment would mean that whichever company produced it would lose a considerable amount of money as his treatment would be cheaper and take less time.