Analysis of Glyoxilide Therapy and Curriculum Vitae Of Tom Henshaw, Retired Physical Chemist

Dr. William F Koch , due to numerous legal and other attacks, never fully published his formula or method of making Glyoxilide, a treatment he devised for treating cancer in the 1910’s. I asked a veteran, expert chemist to review his published papers and letters which left some clues in order to better understand the mechanisms of action of his clearly effective and often curative treatment for cancer.

 Tom Henshaw is a retired physical chemist (PhD), with over 35 years of research and development experience. He specialized in broad-based scientific and technology innovation in the arenas of physical chemistry, bioscience, and energy. When he was presented with a problem, he liked to develop new approaches for solving it and create technology to implement those solutions. He wrote some papers, published some patents and earned some awards along the way.
 He summarized his background/credentials below.
 Education
 B.A. Chemistry, University of Colorado, Boulder, 1980
 PhD. Physical Chemistry,University of Denver, 1987
 Work History
 Consilium Consulting, 2016 – 2022
 Pioneer Astronautics, 2011 – 2015
 Directed Energy Solutions/Neumann Systems Group, 2000 - 2011
 US Air force Research Laboratory, Directed Energy Laboratory, 1995-2000
 National Jewish Health, Infectious Disease Pharmacokinetics Laboratory, 1992-1995
 US Air Force Academy, National Research Council Postdoctoral Fellowship, 1988- 1992
 The Background Science That Binds It All Together
 Chemical kinetics, reaction mechanisms, thermodynamics, and spectroscopy
 Interesting Projects I Have Worked on Over the Years
 Development of a nanoemulsion for topical drug delivery
 Development of a nanoparticle-based Photocatalytic Oxidation Reactor for NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Systems
 Development of a mobile biomass-based gasification process for CO 2 - Enhanced Oil Recovery
 Development and demonstration of a chemical based laser for the US Air Force
 Design, fabrication and demonstration of a novel carbon and acid gas capture system for the exhaust gas produced from coal and gas combustion
 Diagnostic development for measuring the pharmacokinetics of drug absorption in TB and AIDS patients
 Patents
 inventor on numerous patents on the topics named above
 Publications
 Numerous peer reviewed papers, presentations, technical reports on the topics named above
 Awards
 Team recipient of the Colorado Springs Economic Development Corp. Award for Technical Innovation (NSG Pollution Control System), 2008 and 2009
 Industrial Advisory Board Member, Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, University of Denver, 2008-2010
 Runner-up for the national 2000 US Air Force Basic Research Award for the development of the All Gas Phase Iodine Laser (AGIL)
 Team recipient of the Air Force Research Laboratory Directed Energy Annual Giller Award for excellence in laboratory research, 2000
 Funding Awards
 Grants and contracts from DOD, DOE, EPA, NASA
 Best Regards,
 Tom

 HENSHAWS ANALYSIS OF KOCH’s THERAPY:

 Hi Pierre,
 The Koch webpage presents an insightful overview of Dr. Koch's research on oxidative therapy. I also find the readings to be somewhat ambiguous and difficult to follow. This is partially because the writings are over a century old, and the terminology used at that time differs significantly from contemporary descriptions of chemical and biological reactivity. Additionally, the reproduction and resolution of the chemical drawings are suboptimal, further complicating comprehension. In this document, I will attempt to elucidate his proposed oxidation catalysts and reactivity from a chemist's perspective. Please note that I will not delve into or evaluate the medical or therapeutic case studies, as these fall outside my area of expertise.
 Dr Koch’s Oxidation Catalysts
 Here I’ll try to distill some of what Dr Koch was proposing regarding the oxidation process. He seems to be focusing on small carbonyl (>C=O) substituted ethylene (H2-C=C-H2) or allene-like (H2-C=C=C-H2) compounds. Dr Koch basically identifies an arsenal of five “catalysts” that mediate the oxidation process. These are “Glyoxylide”, O=C=C=O; “Malonide”, O=C=C=C=O, Ketene, H2C=C=O; “Lactene”, H2C=C=C=O; and 1,4-Benzoquinone (or p-quinone), O=Ar=O, where the Ar is denoted as a six-carbon aromatic ring structure. They all have carbonyl groups which are strong electrophiles (electron deficient, thus electron seekers) which react with electron rich targets (chemists call them nucleophiles). All these molecules are unstable except for quinone. The quotation marks are the names he used but today they are called ethylenedione and carbon suboxide for Glyoxylide and Malonide, respectively. I am not sure what Lactene is called today (not an organic chemist). The ketene and quinone names are unchanged in today’s literature.
 My opinion
 Straight-chain carbonyl compounds, especially O=C=C=O, are highly reactive. Ethylenedione is classified as a bi-radical with two unpaired electrons. O=C=C=O was proposed by Dr Koch in 1913. Ethylenedione was recently studied through advanced spectroscopy, it has a very short picosecond (~10 -12 sec) lifetime before dissociating into two CO molecules. It has eluded detection for 100 years. Due to its instability, O=C=C=O cannot be stored or transported. It cannot be made under ordinary chemical approaches (sometimes called a thermal route). In Dr. Koch's model, I surmise a parent molecule such as glyoxal or quinone must be delivered directly to the target site, where it decomposes (Dr Koch’s term is dehydrogenates) to release O=C=C=O radical and cause the subsequent oxidative damage. However, its transient nature complicates any detailed spectral, thermal, and kinetic analysis, and thus the confirmation of Dr Koch’s oxidative therapy mechanism and the use of “Glyoxylide”.
 I think Dr. Koch was trying to convey that quinone may act as a precursor reactant that forms secondary oxidative intermediates such as ethylenedione or carbon suboxide as noted in his aerobic glycolysis mechanism. These intermediates enhance oxidative decomposition potential by "activating oxygen," making it more reactive to disrupt toxins. Dr. Koch suggested the activated oxygen is in the peroxide form, though no explicit active form is mentioned. Here Dr Koch quotes, “… 1:4 Benzoquinone in catalytic dilutions dehydrates, activates oxygen and is changed to Glyoxylide and Malonide, restoring the oxidations within the tissues to such a vigorous normal that no disease toxins whatever can resist being burned,” ( from Clinical Demonstration of the Laws of Chemical Structure that Determine Immunity to Disease, and their Application in the Treatment of Patients 1939) .
 So that’s Dr Koch’s essence of the oxidative approach to therapy. Note: “burned” is another way of saying oxidation. But how does it chemically work? That answer is given below.
 Dr Koch’s Reagent Therapy and How It works
 So I came across this explanation from Dr Koch on how his compound works at the website: https://williamfkoch.com/kochs-publications-1950-1967/dr-kochs-explanation-of-the-function-of-his-reagents/ (accessed 2-9-2025). My interpretation follows his explanation below.
 SURVIVAL FACTOR IN NEOPLASTIC AND VIRAL DISEASES - 1961
 Dr. Koch’s Explanation of the Function of His Reagents:
 The compound itself is a chain of carbonyl groups with fairly high molecular weight. Our explanation of its action is that it initiates an oxidation chain reaction by chipping of a hydrogen atom from an exposed carbon atom in the toxin molecule, thus producing a radical, which combines oxygen to form a peroxide radical. This peroxide radical acts upon another toxin molecule in the sane way and it forms another peroxide and so the chain is carried by a peroxide of the toxin and this continues until the poison is all oxidized out of the way.
 My Interpretation of Dr Koch’s Reaction Scheme
 After 1,4 benzoquinone (referred hereafter as quinone) is administered, it converts to Glyoxylide (also known as ethylenedione). A redox reaction occurs via hydrogen atom abstraction from an exposed carbon in the toxin. Ethylenedione (•C₂O₂•) acts as the oxidant and is reduced by gaining the hydrogen atom (H) from the toxin, while the toxin (abbreviated as H-T, where H is on an exposed carbon atom) acts as the reductant and loses the hydrogen atom to become a reactive radical (T•). This radical reacts with oxygen (O₂) to form a radical peroxide (TO2•), initiating a chain reaction that continuously degrades the toxin (H-T) with TO2• regeneration until depletion. The scheme might look like:
 C2O2 + H-T  HC2O2 + T· (C2O2 abstracts an H atom from the toxin H-C-T to form T· radical) (1)
 T· + O2  TO2· (toxin radical adds oxygen to form a peroxide radical TO2·) (2)
 TO2· + H-C-T  TO2H + T-· (peroxide radical continues chain reaction with the toxin H-T) (3)
 T-· + O2  TO2C· (peroxide radical chain reaction continues) (4)
 Reactions 1 is the chain initiation step. In this step, C₂O₂ abstracts a hydrogen atom (H•, proton plus one electron) from H-T , leaving behind a toxin radical with its unpaired electron (T•). Both the electron and proton move together in H , unlike electron transfer (ET) reactions like ClO 2 redox where only the electron (e⁻) moves. Reactions 2, 3, and 4 are chain carrier or propagation steps. The chain reaction continues until H-T (the toxin) is depleted or terminated by radical recombination (e.g., TO₂ + TO₂ → T₂O₂; T• + TO₂• → T=O + TO₂H; T• + T• → T₂). Once the toxin’s chemical makeup is altered by hydrogen atom abstraction into a radical form, it can no longer perform its intended chemical and biological functions and instead undergoes self-annihilation. A common example of H atom abstraction is lipid peroxidation with the hydroxy radical: Lipid-H + HO• → Lipid• + H₂O. Here the hydroxyl radical (HO•) abstracts H• from a lipid, forming a lipid radical, which then propagates oxidative chain reactions.
 Summary. Dr. Koch’s mechanism involves a redox system initiated by a radical H atom abstraction. This triggers a radical chain reaction that consumes the toxin until the reaction stops or the toxin is depleted. He uses compounds that release radical carbonyl compounds to start the redox process or are themselves reactive carbonyls. Quinone, which decomposes into the O=C=C=O radical, appears to be called Glyoxylide. Thus, quinone (and possibly glyoxal) are the key therapeutic compounds, known for their stability and potential medical use. (As you know, various quinones has been used as an agent for anticancer, antibacterial, antiviral, and anti-inflammatory therapies). It's unclear whether quinone or Glyoxylide is specified as the “catalyst”. Are the therapeutic compounds bottled as quinone or Glyoxylide? Glyoxylide is especially transient, difficult to produce chemically, and requires special instruments for detection. The family of "catalysts," including Glyoxylide (O=C=C=O), Malonide (O=C=C=C=O), Ketene (H2C=C=O), and Lactene (H2C=C=C=O), are not suitable for therapeutic use on their own. This is due to their instability, which prevents them from being isolated, stored, or even safely transported within the body to an active site. Therefore, the drug's identity is ambiguous. He mentioned some “catalyst” dilutions ranging from 10^-12 to 10^-30. Without specifying units, if it's molar, that's a very dilute mixture. He calls them catalysts but in the strict definition of a catalyst they are not regenerated but only decomposed in this mechanism. Dr. Koch may refer to these reagents as catalysts because they initiate a radical chain reaction where the toxin and toxin peroxide radicals are continually regenerated in the chain reaction. Quinone may have potential therapeutic utility, but possibly in a different manner.
 Quinone and Oxidation Thermodynamics
 The quinone family are natural compounds with significant medicinal potential such as antimicrobial, antitumor, antiviral, and anti-inflammatory agents. Quinones are highly reactive electrophiles that can undergo non-enzymatic reactions with various nucleophiles, including thiols, amines, and other electron-rich species. This reactivity arises from the electrophilic nature of the quinone carbonyls, which readily undergo Michael addition and redox cycling. Quinones accept and donate electrons easily, making them reactive in oxidation-reduction (redox) reactions. These include the one-electron reduction to form semiquinone radicals (SQ•⁻), which can react further with nucleophiles. A two-electron reduction forms hydroquinones (H2Q), which may regenerate quinones via oxidation.
 In keeping with Dr Koch’s thesis of peroxide formation, let’s look at quinone’s redox reaction with oxygen (O 2 ) through the mechanism of an electron transfer redox process. I’ll use electrochemical data to establish whether quinone (Q) can thermodynamically reduce O₂ to "activated oxygen," i.e., superoxide (O 2 •-), hydroperoxyl radical (HO₂•), and hydrogen peroxide, H 2 O 2 . If these are favorably formed, it carries a pretty good oxidizing potential to wallop bacteria, viruses and various diseased cells as well as performing cell signaling processes. These reactions are stand-alone redox couples and are not assisted by enzymes or other catalysts like that found in the electron transport chain in mitochondria. The values for the electrochemical reduction potentials for quinone (Q), semiquinone (Q•-), and hydroquinone (H2Q ) are presented at pH 7 and 298K (25 0 C) in Table 1 below. Also included are O 2 and the active oxygen forms of superoxide (O 2 •-), hydroperoxyl (HO 2 •), and hydrogen peroxide (H 2 O 2 ) half reactions. To do this we compare and evaluate the redox potential between the species involved in the reaction and the environment it occurs in (i.e., pH). If the overall redox potential is positive, then the overall reaction is favorable and can proceed spontaneously to products. If the redox potential is negative, the reaction is “uphill” and needs an external energy input to drive the rection to products. These considerations are based on the change in the Gibbs free energy of the system.
 Redox Calculations . You don’t have to worry about the calculation details that follow, I’ll put it in plain speak at the end (hopefully!).
 Table of Reduction Potentials for Quinone and Oxygen Compounds
 Reduction Reaction
 E 0’ (V) [pH7, 298K]
 Reference
 Q + e- ⇌ Q•-
 0.099
 Song and Buettner (2010)
 Q•- 2H + + e- ⇌ H2Q
 0.473
 Song and Buettner (2010)
 Q + 2H + + 2e- ⇌ H2Q
 0.286
 Song and Buettner (2010)
 O 2 + e- ⇌ O 2 •-
 -0.18
 Armstrong et al., 2015
 O 2 + H + + e- ⇌ HO 2 •
 0.1
 Armstrong et al., 2015
 HO 2 • + H + + e- ⇌H 2 O 2
 1.46
 Armstrong et al., 2015
 Step
 Reduction Half Reactions
 E0’ (V)
 1. Reduction of O 2 to O 2 ·- by Q
 O2 + e- ⇌ O2•-
 -0.18
 Q + e- ⇌ Q•-
 0.099
 Net Reaction
 O2 + Q•-  O2•- + Q
 E cell = E red -E ox = -0.18 – (0.099) = -0.279
 -0.279 V
 E 0’ < 0, therefore DG >0, reaction nonspontaneous and unfavorable for O2•- formation
 2. Reduction of O 2 to HO 2 · by Q
 O 2 + H + + e- ⇌ HO 2 •
 0.10
 Q + e- ⇌ Q•-
 0.099
 Net Reaction
 O2 + Q•- + H + ⇌ HO2• + Q
 E cell = E red -E ox = 0.10 – (0.099) = 0.001
 0.001 V
 E 0’ ~ 0, DG ~ 0, reaction is near thermoneutral, close to equilibrium. At lower pH (higher H + ), system favor products
 3. Reduction of O 2 to HO 2 · by Q
 HO2• + H + + e- ⇌ H2O2
 1.460
 O2 + Q•- + H + ⇌ HO2• + Q
 (the reverse of Net Reaction 2)
 0.001
 Overall Reaction
 O2 + Q•- + 2H + + e- ⇌ H2O2 + Q
 E cell = E red -E ox = 1.46 + (0.001) = 1.461
 1.461. E 0’ > 0, therefore DG < 0, reaction spontaneous and strongly favorable for H2O2 formation
 Results: From the analysis above, when Q is coupled into the O2 electron transfer redox systems it favors the formation of HO2 and H2O2 but not superoxide. (Note: superoxide is favorably formed in the mitochondria electron transport chain but that is because NADH, FADH2, Coenzyme-Q aids in the electron transfer processes). The superoxide is not favorable under these conditions because we have defined a near physiological pH (~7.0), in which protons are available, which protonate superoxide and thus making HO₂• formation more favorable than O₂•⁻. Note that Q acts as a redox catalyst, facilitating electron transfer without being consumed. It is continuously regenerated in the redox cycle. However, if Q is permanently modified through bond breaking or formation, such as by oxidative stress, it ceases to function as a catalyst. This mechanism differs from Dr Koch’s because quinone in the electron transfer mechanism is recycled while quinone in Dr Koch’s mechanism quinone is decomposed into the ethlyenedione radical.
 So back to Dr Koch. The role of quinone as a redox mediator is certainly plausible. However, I believe its utility would lie in the electron transport (ET) redox arena rather than H-atom abstraction redox. When quinone was being administered, the benefits might have been due to the ET redox system mentioned earlier or a hybrid system involving enzymes or co-enzymes. (In biological reaction systems, reactions are often coupled, making a thermodynamically unfavorable reaction more favorable when paired with an enzyme or coenzyme.) There are a variety quinone based anti-cancer drugs being used today (probably very expensive compared to quinone).
 The reaction O₂ + Q•− + 2H⁺ + e− → H₂O₂ + Q indicates a redox cycling process (i.e., a catalytic system) where semiquinone (Q•−) transfers an electron to molecular oxygen, resulting in the production of hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) . Q is then regenerated by oxidation of Q•− and then reduced back to Q•− in follow-on reactions. This type of redox recycling reaction readily occurs in the mitochondria, where quinones, such as ubiquinone (CoQ), are parts of the electron transport chain (ETC). So, this could be broadly consistent with Dr Koch’s view that the quinone is acting like a catalyst but not in the manner he described.
 A Therapy in the Future ?
 This is probably old news to you, and I am probably way out my lane here, but the proposed reaction of Q•⁻ reducing O₂ to form H₂O₂ could be a plausible therapy for redox signaling or oxidative destruction of various pathologies. It is essentially like ROS formation in the ETC at Complex I and III in mitochondria except its externally administered, and in the right doses it could initiate a positive cell signaling or oxidative response. For instance, H₂O₂ formation at low levels can act as a signaling molecule by regulating IL-10 and adaptive stress responses, while at high levels it can cause oxidative stress and mitochondrial dysfunction in diseased cells.
 So, could the quinone redox system (Q•⁻ / O₂ / H₂O₂) damage mitochondria in cancer cells? It may be possible through some of the following mechanisms:
 1. Redox Cycling and Excessive ROS Generation
 Quinones can undergo redox cycling, alternating between oxidized (Q) and semiquinone radical (Q•⁻) forms generating H2O2. Inside the mitochondria, Q•⁻ can donate electrons to O₂, forming hydrogen peroxide, H2O2: O2 + Q•- + 2H + + e- ⇌ H2O2 + Q. If the cancer cell is deficient in antioxidant defenses, excess H₂O₂ may cause oxidative damage, which could result Mitochondrial dysfunction, DNA damage, Lipid peroxidation, Protein oxidation (Schieber M., and Chandel, N.S., 2014).

 2. Disrupting Electron Transport Chain (ETC) and ATP Production
 · Quinones linked to Complex I or III can intercept electrons, causing leakage and disrupting the mitochondrial proton gradient. This reduces ATP synthesis, which is vital for cancer cell growth. Disrupting the ATP production can lead to an energy deficit, making cancer cells more susceptible to apoptosis or necrosis. Raimondi V., Ciccarese F, Ciminale V. (2020) Oncogenic pathways and the electron transport chain: a dangeROS liaison. Br J Cancer. 2020 Jan;122(2):168-181.
 3. Inducing Ferroptosis (Iron-Dependent Cell Death)
 · Some quinones induce ferroptosis, a cell death caused by lipid peroxidation. Given cancer cells' high iron levels, Q may increase ROS generation, react with Fe²⁺ in a Fenton-like reaction, and exacerbate oxidative stress via OH radical formation. This leads to mitochondrial lipid peroxidation, causing mitochondrial rupture and cell death. (Takashi, Y., Tomita, K. et al., 2020).
 The quinone redox system may not even have to enter the mitochondria. It could disrupt the cellular machinery by oxidation of the cysteine thiols at the cell membrane (Disulfidptosis), or the GSH/GSSG balance within the cytoplasm.
 So that’s it for now. I hope this helps. Please feel free to respond, critique, or throw it in the rubbish bin (😊).
 Best Regards,
 Tom
 References
 Armstrong, D. A., Huiea, R.E., Koppenol. W. H., et al. (2015). Standard electrode potentials involving radicals in aqueous solution: inorganic radicals (IUPAC Technical Report) . Pure and Applied Chemistry 87(11-12): 1139–1150.
 Handbook of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology , 5th Edition, (2018), Lundblad, R. L. and
 Macdonald, F. M., Editors; Phys. and Chem. Data, Chapter 71, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
 Raimondi V., Ciccarese F., Ciminale V. (2020) Oncogenic pathways and the electron transport chain: a dangeROS liaison. Br J Cancer. Jan;122(2):168-181.
 Schieber M, and Chandel NS. (2014). “ROS function in redox signaling and oxidative stress.” Curr Biol. May 19; 24(10): R453-62.
 Song and Buettner, 2010. Free Radic Biol Med, September 15; 49 (6):919-962 .
 Takashi, Y., Tomita, K. et al., (2020). “Mitochondrial dysfunction promotes aquaporin expression that controls hydrogen peroxide permeability and ferroptosis,” Free Radical Biology and Medicine, Volume 161,Pages 60-70,
 (Optional Read . In a reaction between two atoms or molecules that undergo change by the addition (reduction) or loss (oxidation) of electrons is called a redox couple. The electrical work W (units in Joules, or J) done in a redox reaction can be stated as the product of the total electric charge q (in Coulombs, C) transferred and the electric potential difference E (in V, or J/C), W = q∙ E. The total charge q transferred during the reaction is related to the product of the number of moles of electrons n, and the Faraday constant F (96485 C/mol, or J/V⋅mol), or (n∙F). The potential E (V) is the maximum potential that the reaction can produce, and thus the maximum electrical work becomes W max = q∙ E = -nFE, where the negative sign indicates work is done by the system. The Gibbs free energy is the energy available to do work. The Gibbs free energy change, DG, for a redox reaction is the maximum electrical work (i.e. non P∙V work) done at constant temperature and pressure. In a spontaneous, reversible redox reaction the work done on its surroundings is equal to a decrease in the Gibbs free energy change of the system, -DG. It follows that the Gibbs free energy DG is related to the potential E, via DG = -W = -nFE. So, when E is positive DG is negative, and we say the reaction is spontaneous and proceeds without any external energy input and the reaction products are favored over reactants.)

Summary: His career was notable for the development of numerous important technologies from lasers to nanoparticles. Here is his analysis of Dr. William F. Koch's Glyoxilide treatment for cancer.


New Study Provides Legal Support For The Vaccine Injured

A study from Yale was published this week that describes the clinical and immunologic profiles of those that suffer from chronic post covid vaccination syndrome (PVS), a disease that, before this paper, did not exist despite the fact I have specialized in diagnosing and treating it for over three years.
 I cannot overstate how important the new Yale study is to the legal and medical plight of these patients. Actually, scratch that, I can overstate it because, let’s be clear, the study is on a pre-print server and until it gets fully peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal, opposing lawyers will still be able to gaslight both me and my patients in the courtroom (I say this because an earlier version of the study is still on a pre-print server 18 months later).
 The disability hearings I have participated in so far have been traumatic for my PVS patients (and me). Opposing lawyers repeatedly deny the association of their illness with the vaccine by aggressively attributing it to other causes, most often Covid itself.
 Know that, just as I have devoted massive amounts of pro-bono efforts to defend persecuted doctors, I have also done the same with my PVS patients who are trying to get disability and/or workers compensation. Support in the form of paid subscriptions is immensely helpful in continuing this kind of work so please subscribe if you can:
 Subscribe now
 Fro instance, recall my recent post where I described “losing it” on the stand when the opposing lawyer went so far as to accuse me of tailoring my testimony for a medically destroyed pro-bono PVS patient of mine… so that she would then have the funds to pay for my care . If it wasn’t on Zoom, I probably would have made the nightly news for leaping out of the witness box and punching him right in the #$%@ face (obviously I would not do that but it was cathartic to write).
 However, and at the risk of sounding egotistical, the Yale study actually does little to further my clinical (not immunologic) knowledge of their illness because as my readers know, three years ago I opened a specialty clinic with my partner Scott Marsland where we have focused on studying and treating what has turned into the most complex and idiosyncratic disease I have ever encountered. Welcome to the new specialty of “Bioweapon Medicine.”
 I wrote a series of posts 18 months ago which described PVS nearly identically to that of this Yale paper:

 However, I do think the paper is historic in that this absurd, idiotic ruse of “system” doctors diagnosing (er, I mean dismissing) all of my patients with the more politically acceptable diagnosis of “Long Covid Syndrome” (LCS) will hopefully come to an end.
 From the introduction to the paper:

 Ya don’t say? Here we are, four years after the mRNA rollout, and finally there is a paper which introduces the concept that the Covid vaccines can cause a devastating chronic illness like Covid can.
 Maybe, just maybe, the “gas lighting” by “system” doctors will subside (if they read such papers). For any who have read the earlier posts above, you may recall that 70% of my practice suffer from PVS while only 30% have LCS. What is the difference you ask? Easy:
 PVS begins in direct temporal relationship to receiving a Covid vaccine

 LCS begins in direct temporal relationship to having fallen ill with Covid

 Although yes, in a minority it can be difficult to differentiate the exact trigger, and yes, others are “hybrids” in that both triggers likely contributed, in the vast majority it is child’s play to arrive at correctly identifying the cause of the syndrome.
 For instance, if the patient starts trembling with vertigo and chest pain within minutes from receiving the shot, which then progresses over days into the fuller syndrome of fatigue, post-exertional malaise, and brain fog, it ain’t “Long Covid.”
 From the Yale study:
 “A large fraction of individuals reported the onset of symptoms to be as early as within one day of COVID19 vaccination.”
 Are there any other differences between the two? Actually, there are, although they are few and largely inconsequential such that my therapeutic approaches are nearly identical. In my three years of caring for these patients, I have found that:
 On average, PVS patients are far sicker (higher rates of complete disability and neuropathies) than LCS patients (with some notable exceptions)

 LCS patients without treatment are more likely to enjoy slow improvements over time than PVS patients. This is not to say that PVS patients are refractory to the therapy of “a tincture of time” but rather the effects are much less.

 LCS patients can have post-covid pulmonary disease (i.e. residual active organizing pneumonia or fibrosis) in a minority

 PVS patients can have spike antibody levels “through the roof” (i.e. >25,000) while LCS patients almost never crest 4,500.

 My observations above are further supported in the Yale paper:
 “The molecular mechanisms of PVS remain largely unknown. However, there is considerable overlap in self-reported symptoms between long COVID and PVS, as well as shared exposure to SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein in the context of inflammatory responses during infection or vaccination.
 This overlap is not hard to understand as we have long maintained that LCS and PVS are “spike protein induced diseases” (the name I gave to our FLCCC conference on the topic two and a half years ago):

 Similarly, as stated in the Yale paper:
 “Given the striking similarities between long COVID and PVS symptoms, there has been speculation regarding the potential causal role of the persistent presence of spike protein driving the chronic symptoms”
 We are now getting closer to proving that the spike protein is a “pathogen” - defined as any organism or agent that can produce disease in a host . I wish the entire field of pathology will eventually come to know this simple fact (recall that pathologists are expert at identifying pathogens.. except nearly the entire worlds pathologists are still unaware of this fact as I detailed in one of my most popular posts ever):

 The most important point I want to make about LCS and PVS is that they are NOT new diseases! An identical syndrome has been associated with numerous other infections (and vaccinations), such as Epstein-Barr virus, Lyme disease, mycoplasma, influenza, Giardia etc.
 PVS and LCS are identical to a disease called “myalgic encephalitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). For the purists, yes, I know that ME and CFS have different historical origins and emphasize different aspects of the disease, but they ultimately refer to the same underlying condition which is characterized by profound fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, and worsening of symptoms after exertion.
 From the earlier version of the Yale study:

 However, as you can see above, those three symptoms are just the “tip of the iceberg” in this disease. The chart above illustrates that powerfully: 13 different symptoms are reported over 50% of the time.
 As per my previous post on the symptom burden of PVS patients, after the “Big Three” above, the next most common are:
 Sensory neuropathies (burning, tingling, pins and needles, numbness, pain, electric shock like feelings)

 Dysautonomia (POTS, i.e. high resting heart rates, spikes in heart rate on position change or minimal exertion, labile blood pressures, temperature dysregulation - feeling hot or cold or sweating, then GI issues like abnormal stomach emptying and peristalsis).

 “Cranial” issues ( vertigo, tinnitus, dizziness, headaches, visual disturbances)

 Atypical Motor neuropathies (fasciculations, weakness, ALS like syndromes, tremors, shaking, convulsions, ballismus, flaccidity, and dystonic reactions).

 Others (a rthritis, skin diseases, cancers, heart attacks, strokes, blood clots, autoimmune diseases, myalgias, etc

 Editor note: This study was done by a group of immunologists and primarily focused on the numerous immunologic profiles and abnormalities they found in PVS patients. I am ignoring these for now, but will include a brief summary in the post-script.
 Know that the Mayo Clinic was quick to recognize the rising epidemic of ME/CFS in Covid when they decided to publish this position paper below in November of 2021, warning of a rising epidemic of ME/CFS due to SARS-CoV2 (but not the vaccine)::

 A study of patients ill 6 months after mild or moderate acute COVID-19 found that about half met criteria for ME/CFS. 14 One review suggested that the number of cases of ME/CFS could double as a result of the pandemic. 6 Like ME/CFS patients, those with post-COVID conditions have recounted being dismissed by health care professionals. 15
 Know that, as they describe in that paper and I will expound upon personally, ME/CFS is devastating medically and legally because:
 “System” doctors do not have the time, skill, or interest in treating such a complex, often refractory, and idiosyncratic disease

 Besides “pacing of activity levels,” no single treatment works in everyone (not even close) and some fail to respond to even a dozen trials of therapies.

 ME/CFS is a “clinical diagnosis" which means that the diagnosis is based upon the symptoms the patients report - there is no definitive diagnostic test; physical exam findings are often unrevealing. Blood work is either completely normal or non-specific. Imaging is almost always normal (MRI brain, CT’s ultrasounds, X-rays etc.)
 ME/CFS is thus one of the worst diseases to present with in medicine because doctors literally decompensate intellectually and psychologically when all the testing is normal but the patient is reporting 7-15 often debilitating symptoms. This leads them to diagnose the patients with anxiety, depression, or the worst fate of them all - “functional neurologic disorder” (FND). Once that appears in your chart, you are cooked in terms of getting other clinicians to take you seriously or offer you treatments to mitigate your suffering.

 The point of this post, is that because of the above, it is very very difficult to get disability. Neurological exams by disability physicians will often find normal strength, tone, gait, reflexes etc. Mental status exams - normal. Vital signs - normal. Echocardiograms and pulmonary function tests - normal. Clearly the patient can go to work, or at least sit at a desk for 8 hours no?
 Answer - NO! And that is due to the most maddening and horrific symptom of them all which is “post-exertional malaise” or PEM. Meaning, when my ME/CFS patients try to exert themselves, even as little as going to the curb to get mail, or God forbid, emptying the dishwasher or running an errand, they are “destroyed” for hours to even days later. “Destroyed” meaning so fatigued that they cant get out of bed, or their other symptoms flare - headaches, dysautonomia, dizziness, neuropathies etc.
 Prognosis of ME/CFS
 I need to correct myself now because the real “worst thing” about the disease is its prognosis which is why the denials of disability for PVS patients is not only catastrophic, but also devastatingly cruel given the vast majority were coerced into getting the vaccine. As per the Mayo Clinic paper:
 ME/CFS substantially impairs occupational, educational, social, and personal activities.
 The degree of impairment can exceed that of rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, depression, heart disease, cancer, and lung disease. There is a wide spectrum of severity ranging from mild to very severe:

 Up to 75% are unable to work, and an estimated 25% are consistently housebound or bedbound. The level of severity can fluctuate, with 61% reporting being bedbound on their worst days.

 A systematic review concluded that the chance of full recovery is only 5%.

 One ME/CFS-focused clinical practice estimated that 50% of its patients were still ill after 2 decades whereas a second estimated 93% (oral communication, US ME/CFS Clinician Coalition, March 2019).

 Temporary remission is reported, but relapses often occur. Patients most commonly report a fluctuating illness pattern in which symptoms wax and wane but are always present.

 Now some might understand why “disability” claims are skyrocketing to historical record levels in the U.S in the wake of the mRNA campaign, a trend expertly captured by the work of Ed Dowd and his team (note the chart only goes up to 2022, it has gotten even worse since):

 So, if ME/CFS is a devastating illness in “normal” times, what was it like for PVS patients in Covid? Beyond the fact my patients would all present with histories of either physicians “getting angry” when they would tell them the vaccine caused this, or they would be gaslighted by the physicians telling them, essentially, “it’s all in your head”, or they would say, “I don’t know what this is” and then order endless tests and/or referrals to get them out of their office. Referrals to physical therapy were particularly pointless and/or harmful.
 Remember the “atypical motor neuropathies” that I listed above? Know these were some of the most devastating symptoms to witness (and treat) and which also unfortunately triggered the worst narrative of Covid which is that the vaccine injured were “faking it:”

 The above was helped along by supposed Covid vaccine toxicity expert Alex Berenson, someone I cannot think about without developing near rage after he publicly lambasted one of my patients, Angelia Desselle, for “faking her symptoms.” His public dismissal of her helped fuel the above narratives as evidenced in this article in which the journalist writes:

 “Late last month, a video resurfaced from 2021 of Angelia Desselle, a then 45-year-old woman from Louisiana attempting to walk while supposedly experiencing these symptoms, which she claims were developed after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. This is just one example of many.
 Since Desselle's video was reposted on Twitter, it's been viewed more than 72 million times, helping to reignite controversy over the safety of COVID vaccinations.”
 Berenson went even further by even dismissing Long Covid as a real disease:

 I wish “Doctor” Berenson could know what would happen when my ME/CFS patients attempt to exercise. For the sickest, it would lead to an almost complete medical collapse followed by hours to days of worsening symptoms. I won’t even bother to address his recommendation to try antidepressants.
 From the Yale study:
 In conclusion, people reporting PVS after covid-19 vaccination in this study are highly symptomatic, have poor health status, and have tried many treatment strategies without success. As PVS is associated with considerable suffering, there is an urgent need to understand its mechanism to provide prevention, diagnosis, and treatment strategies.
 Conclusion
 This study is the first to recognize and describe the disease that I have been treating for over three years, a disease which I had been calling “Long Vax syndrome” but which I will now call PVS.
 Knowing that PVS exists is extremely important because, conveniently, no-one can be held liable for my patients having gotten ill from Covid (LCS) but they hopefully can be held liable for having mandated a toxic, illogical, barely tested, and poorly manufactured (understatement) “vaccine” which destroyed their health and livelihood.
 Although I am not a lawyer, based on the suffering and disability I see on a daily basis, I would imagine a fair compensation for one of my disabled PVS patients would run into the millions of dollars (and still would not fully compensate some).
 Unfortunately, to date, I have “won” a workers compensation case for only one patient. In a half dozen other disability cases, all were denied.
 I truly hope this paper passes peer-review and publication so that it will support my expert testimonies in disability hearings as they are truly the only way for society to even come close to reversing the immense harms and suffering that the mRNA campaign inflicted on millions of people around the world.

 If you appreciate the effort and time I spend researching and writing my post as well as defending doctors and patients, support in the form of paid subscriptions is greatly valued.
 Subscribe now
 IMMUNOLOGIC FINDINGS
 My colleague AMD did a more comprehensive review of the immunologic findings by the Yale group in their post yesterday so here I will present a concise summary of them:
 The COVID vaccine spike protein can persist for years in the body.

 In many cases, COVID spike protein persistence eventually stopped but symptoms continued

 CD4 and CD8 cells had signs of being “exhausted,” i.e. partially losing ability to respond to infections due to a chronic over-activation of them (e.g., by persistent vaccine spike protein).

 Viral re-activations were found, most notably with Epstein Barr virus, but also with herpes

 Significant increases in IgM reactivities against 65 antigens, IgG 309 reactivity against 1 antigen and IgA reactivities against 39 antigens in PVS compared to controls after multiple testing corrections.

 Among these antigens, two showed log₂fold change of greater than 2: anti-nucleosome IgM [which is strongly associated with lupus] and anti-AQP4 IgA [which is associated with a rare autoimmune disorder that attacks the central nervous system, particularly optic nerve and spinal cord].

 Per AMD:
 This study is extremely important as it provides objective proof the vaccine is indeed doing something harmful and abnormal, and that it is occurring long after vaccination. As such, when this topic is broached with a skeptical doctor (or academic) you can now say “did you know a multi-year Yale study recently discovered that the vaccine does chronically damage the immune system of certain recipients and cause a variety of persistent and debilitating symptoms?”

Summary: Corporate lawyers beware: "Post Covid Vaccination Syndrome" is now a "real disease." A new Yale study will hopefully help me and my patients' lawyers win them compensation in disability hearings.


Like Penicillin, ‘Miraculous’ DMSO Could Change the Lives of Afflicted Millions

Rosa Azucena Aguirre received intravenous DMSO after she severed her spinal column in a fall. (From left) Pre- and post-surgery X-rays, and recently taking physical therapy. “What Rosita has achieved now is fantastic because she is independent,” said her husband, Juan Ayala.

 In 2017, Rosa Azucena Aguirre, fifty-one years old, fell through a skylight and landed one floor below and face up on concrete. Her X-rays show a horrifically mangled lower spine that took some eight hours of surgery to align. Mrs. Aguirre, who lives in Quito, Ecuador, was left paralyzed from the waist down.
 While most traumatic spine breaks are treated with high-dose steroids, Mrs. Aguirre was given a safe, natural substance virtually unused in the United States: dimethyl sulfoxide, or DMSO.
 “I was told after surgery that Rosita would never walk again,” her husband Juan wrote to me in Spanish. “I accepted it, and I got stronger.” But in the course of five months of intravenous therapy, he and her treating doctor, Lance Grindle, watched as remarkable changes occurred in Mrs. Aguirre’s lifeless legs.
 Subscribe now
 A half-century after it was lost to medicine, DMSO may yet take its rightful place in the medicine cabinet and maybe even in the pantheon of medical cures.
 Check PubMed for DMSO, and more than 39,000 studies come up, many of them documenting efficacy in treating dozens of conditions in laboratory animals and people. Then ask why your doctor doesn’t even know about DMSO—and why the FDA long ago all but banished it from clinical use.
 A seasoned physician with a fierce moral compass, who writes under the Substack pseudonym A Midwestern Doctor , AMD is determined to change that—part of a mission to resuscitate proven and potential cures that have been lost to our pharma-dominated medical culture.
 First up is DMSO, a drug and over-the-counter supplement that can be injected, delivered intravenously, taken orally, or applied topically—where it quickly moves through the skin to the circulatory and other systems. As natural as penicillin, DMSO can be found in some vegetables and is a smelly, oily byproduct of wood pulp processing.
 “Whenever the occasional miracle drug comes out that works too well with a wide range of applications,” AMD wrote in the second DMSO post last September, “it is inevitably consigned to the dustbin of history regardless of the data put forward for it.”
 AMD’s nine articles—amounting to 399 printed pages—have alone drawn more than two million views and have been boosted by other influencers— Dr. Pierre Kory , Dr. Joseph Mercola , and podcaster Joe Rogan —earning them bona fide viral status. The articles have drawn ten thousand comments, including sometimes-startling testimonials of spinal injury reversed, Parkinson’s improved, and mundane reports of urination restored, and hemorrhoids, dental disease, and skin conditions vanquished.
 Published studies since the 1960s suggest a range of possibilities for DMSO that have not been fully realized. Although many studies are old, small (though not all), lack control groups, and involve laboratory animals as well as people, their sheer number suggest this forgotten medicine deserves revival.
 Together, they show DMSO quells or eliminates pain , heals wounds and musculoskeletal injuries, prevents scarring , treats traumatic brain injury and its destructive swelling , treats many skin conditions like chronic skin ulcers ; alleviates or cures a range of autoimmune and internal organ disorders including rheumatoid arthritis , multiple sclerosis , ulcerative colitis , myasthenia gravis , and pancreatitis , and helps neurological conditions such as headaches , circulatory disorders , concussion-associated brain and behavioral issues, and perhaps even Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease .

A 2023 review of skin uses alone concluded, “DMSO has shown promise in the off-label treatment of basal cell carcinoma, pressure ulcers, scleroderma, herpes simplex, cutaneous fungal infections, and amyloidosis.” Another review, among several, found it safe with adverse reactions that were “mostly transient and mild.”
 And yet, after decades of promising research, the FDA anointed interstitial cystitis in 1978 as the only condition for which DMSO was, and still is, approved. (Of note, the FDA press office could offer no guidance for this article on its use, approved or not.) In a spot-on critique , AMD attributes the long-ago stonewalling of DMSO to FDA’s embrace of the “scientific supremacy of randomized controlled trials.”
 Who, after all, would pay millions to test a cheap drug with the potential, as shown in a famous 60 Minutes segment, to help a once-paralyzed woman step slowly with a walker; keep an injured pro-football player in the game; and resolve a woman’s two-year excruciating whiplash injury?
 “I think if I would have said it was good for a sprained ankle, but only if the ankle sprain were on the left side,” DMSO’s pioneer, Dr. Stanley Jacob, told Mike Wallace in 1980, “DMSO maybe might be approved today.”
 To kill DMSO, AMD wrote, FDA repeatedly cited the anaphylactic death of a woman in a research study who continued to take DMSO after having an allergic reaction, as well as eye changes in dogs that reversed after treatment and were of little consequence in numerous other studies.
 “Nobody’s died from using DMSO,” an FDA official, Richard Kraut, said years later in the 60 Minutes interview. “It’s a relatively safe drug as [far as] drugs go.”

 Betsy Malcolm, a two-year-old with Down syndrome, received DMSO and vitamins in her bottle. Within three weeks, she began crawling and has achieved other milestones. Studies demonstrated such improvement but have not been followed up.

 A Child Blossoms
 Betsy is a vibrant two-year-old with Down syndrome, “a magical little girl, a precious soul,” according to her mother. Last fall, her parents Ian and Kristen Malcolm tried DMSO for their delayed but thriving child, first on her skin to make sure it was safe and then in her bottle with milk.
 Within three weeks, they saw change. Betsy started crawling. She was more engaged in language and more active. After two months, she sat up. Since then, her vocabulary has grown, and, though still raw, Kristen said, “She looks like she is speaking with intention.”
 Betsy also was given selenium, magnesium, and other new vitamins, so who knows? Her parents are delighted. “It feels like it was a tipping point,” Ian said, “and now things are speeding up.”
 In 1975, two clinical trials documented DMSO’s potential for children like Betsy. In one from Chile, fifteen children under three years old received two essential amino acids and DMSO; Betsy was incidentally also taking amino acids. Known to cross the blood-brain barrier, DMSO is thought in the Chilean study to have helped the amino acids activate neuronal function that is suppressed in Down syndrome children.
 The progress of the children who received DMSO compared to untreated children was clear: “Greater receptiveness to outside stimuli…greater interest in the surrounding environment…improved muscular tonus…muscular coordination and statics also presented significant improvement, which in turn resulted in better sociability and less dependency.”
 The studies weren’t perfect . DMSO’s odor, for one, makes it difficult to guarantee unbiased conclusions, even when researchers aren’t told who is treated and who isn’t.
 “In Chile, they are still offering to treat Downs with DMSO,” said a doctor in Ecuador who has used it for thirteen years. “Still doing it probably means that it works.”
 Stopping Stroke
 In 2023, strokes—officially listed as cerebrovascular disease—killed 162,000 Americans, the fourth leading cause of death. But what if there was an effective, readily available drug or supplement to sharply curb that? There likely is one—hiding in plain sight in the medical literature.
 As early as 1976, a study of post-stroke rhesus monkeys showed DMSO afforded “significant protection from the severe neurological deficits” compared to “dexamethasone and no-treatment controls.” In following years, animal studies showed DMSO could curb damage when blood supply was cut off to the brain. And, in 2002, a pilot study of people given intravenous DMSO at stroke onset, showed seven of eleven were “improved or markedly improved” up to six months later—triple the improvement of a control group.
 AMD and colleagues have long used DMSO against stroke. “We feel it’s a crime it’s not the standard of care,” AMD told me. “So many could be spared from lifelong disability with it.”
 DMSO works in both ischemic (blood-clot caused) and hemorrhagic (brain-bleed related) stroke, obviating the need to wait for a CT scan before initiating treatment. AMD believes DMSO should be in every ambulance, where it could be given intravenously to stroke as well as spinal cord injury patients.
 Lacking that, there are alternatives. “In the case of topically, I put it over the arteries that feed the part of the brain affected by the stroke,” AMD wrote to me. “I made up the latter approach and I have not seen any data on if this ‘works’ but it seems logically plausible and has worked when I tried it (although IV does more).”
 A similar protocol to reverse a suspected stroke, from naturopathic doctor Amandha Vollmer, suggests rubbing DMSO on the neck, head, shoulders and spine, while consuming small amounts in water periodically.
 “Given soon after a stroke, DMSO can dissolve the clot that causes the stroke, restoring circulation and avoiding paralysis,” Vollmer writes. “A substance that can stop a stroke as it’s happening is something many might want in their home medicine chest.”
 Decades ago, Dr. Jacob gave all his patients a “stroke kit” with a DMSO vial and a syringe . The instructions were provided by his son, Jeff Jacob. They read:
 “In the event of a stroke, the entire content of the vial is to be injected into the buttocks as soon as possible. The sooner the better. Do not waste time.”

 “I was told after surgery that Rosita would never walk again,” said Juan Ayala of his wife Rosa Aguirre. “I believe that efforts should be made to popularize” DMSO.

 Feeling Restored
 When Rosa Aguirre severed her spinal column, the DMSO she received helped curb the catastrophic swelling and inflammation that makes healing from such trauma all but impossible.
 Before treatment, “There was no feeling from the waist down, none whatsoever,” said Dr. Grindle, who grew up in California and practices in Ecuador. After DMSO, “she had sensitivity down to her feet.”
 Grindle’s first observation was encouraging. Mrs. Aguirre did not—and never did—develop skin ulcers, mostly likely because of the innervation of small capillaries under the skin as DMSO reached bundles of nerves on the outside of the spinal column. This, in itself, Grindle said, was “an achievement.” But there was more.
 “When I started, we came up with the idea: whoever attended her would mark a line on her skin between feeling and not feeling,” he explained in a telephone interview. “The little lines just walked down her leg, like a few millimeters or so every day.”
 Grindle wrote in an email, “I would speculate here (this is just speculation ) that the DMSO, during the months of treatment, went on to not only limit edema and inflammation but later on intervened in actually repairing the cells, starting with the outer layers of the damaged nerve bundle. DMSO can repair cells.”
 In a recent video provided by her husband, Mrs. Aguirre, now fifty-seven, gingerly picks up one foot, then the other, as she grasps parallel bars in a therapy session. She drives with mechanical aids and can transfer to a wheelchair. She is “working on” using a walker, her husband said. “What Rosita has achieved now is fantastic because she is independent,” he wrote in an email. “I believe that efforts should be made to popularize” DMSO.
 Her recovery was limited, Grindle believes, by a five-day delay in administering the 50 grams of DMSO that she received daily for four months, then intermittently for about six weeks. If not for that, “I would venture to say she could be walking without assistance now,” Grindle said. “Injury isn’t the thing. It’s the swelling of the place where the spinal trauma occurred. Not receiving the blood supply causes most of the sequelae.”
 A 2022 study of rabbits with spinal injury showed “considerable neuroprotective effect of DMSO on neurological, biochemical, and histopathological analyses.” Tragically, that conclusion came decades after a 1975 review of the medical literature showed DMSO “highly desirable as an agent used for treatment of head or spinal cord trauma.”
 Meanwhile, the steroids almost always used in such cases, a 2022 review concluded, have been shown in meta-analyses to have “no effect on neurological improvement.”
 In other words, they fail.

 DMSO is marketed as Rimso-50 for interstitial cystitis, the only FDA-approved treatment. It is also used to aid in the delivery of other medications in the body and to preserve transplant organs.

 Bucking the Dogma
 For anyone who followed the FDA’s vilification of off-label covid drugs like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine—most surely to enable emergency use authorization for mRNA vaccines—DMSO denial is no surprise. In something akin to karma, the actions of the agency, along with the White House and Big Pharma, have spawned a movement to liberate cheap, effective, and off-patent drugs. Witness AMD and legions of medical freedom followers.
 That movement, and the doctors who started it by bucking covid dogma, may have helped Make America Healthy Again become a decisive campaign issue. One of Robert F. Kennedy’s goals, as the newly approved Secretary of Health and Human Services, is to put proven, off-patent medications to good use.
 Dr. James Miller is a surgeon-turned-family-practitioner—a consequence of his pandemic opinions—who discovered DMSO through AMD’s articles, starting last September. He has found “phenomenal success,” he told me, in treating migraines, neurological issues after stroke, and skin rashes. Starting slowly and often using only topically, Miller has seen DMSO partially clear Bell’s palsy (the patient mistakenly limited application to one facial area), and nerve pain in a patient with chronic Lyme disease.
 In one case, a lupus patient first took DMSO topically, then orally. “Lupus went away after three weeks, and isn’t taken orally anymore,” he said. A patient with a kidney stone—and had had difficult surgery for one before—started rubbing DMSO on his back, then taking it orally. “Last I heard, he was perfect,” Miller said.
 “Not 100 percent of my patients with late stage hip arthritis are walking without a cane in a week,” Miller said. “But some are.” These positive outcomes are “humbling” and have made him cautious of overusing DMSO, potentially the proverbial hammer: “You start seeing nails everywhere.”
 Miller is the rare physician with the independence to practice as his research and experience dictate. But his kind is rare, and his patients, fortunate.
 Other people, meantime, struggle with how to use it, a process that can involve daunting research. (I, for one, tried DMSO for tinnitus but the one published study involved an ear spray mixed with anti-inflammatory and vasodilatory drugs along with daily injections. The DMSO drops that I applied to my ears did not work, which is why we need medical guidance and doctors willing to treat.)
 On a Crusade
 A Midwestern Doctor is one of those rare gifts of a horribly mismanaged pandemic. What began in 2020 as an effort to use existing drugs to treat Covid-19 has morphed, especially as vaccines proved harmful, into something far more consequential: “A once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to expose the dangers of the pharmaceutical industry,” said AMD.
 Not one to simply criticize, AMD wants to offer alternatives—DMSO is one—that may effectively and inexpensively alleviate and prevent human suffering.
 “All the DMSO stuff,” AMD wrote in an email, “is part of a broader push I’m making to fix the healthcare system.” That means taking on pharmaceutical “scams” like statins , osteoporosis , and acid reflux drugs , antidepressants and blood pressure medications; and mismanaged conditions like skin cancer and spinal pain with mainstream advice (avoid sun) and treatments (painkillers) that make matters worse.
 AMD’s language sometimes borders on hyperbole in describing DMSO’s possibilities: “miraculous…revolutionizes care…remarkably safe…remarkably effective…lifesaving.”
 What is certain is that DMSO deserves its rightful place in medicine.
 “My father is smiling in Heaven,” Stanley Jacob’s son Jeff wrote in an email, “knowing that DMSO has a new voice and has not been forgotten.”
 RESCUE with Michael Capuzzo is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Summary: The FDA long ago buried dimethyl sulfoxide, but a crusading physician and the medical freedom movement may resurrect it for stroke, paralysis, chronic pain, and more.


The FDA's Relentless Persecution Of Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski

Before I begin, please know there is a self-narrated audio podcast version of this post here. A free preview is available to all but to listen to the full audio podcast version, upgrading to a paid subscription is required.

 In a recent post , I tried to introduce a conceptual tool which I (as humorously and self-deprecatingly as possible) named after myself. In brief, “The Kory Scale” (TKS) is based on the hypothesis that the more a new or existing medical therapy is attacked in a coordinated, sustained fashion by the medical establishment and media, the more likely the treatment is both highly effective and safe.
 This hypothesis is based on the simple fact that the more effective and safe (and cheap and widely available) a therapy is, the more it threatens the massive markets of the bio-pharmaceutical industrial complex. And that industry “don’t play” when their profits are threatened.
 The gangsterish “don’t play” phrase is appropriate because pharmaceutical companies behave very similarly to organized crime syndicates as described by Dr. Peter Goetsche in his book Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare as well as the Pfizer executive whistleblower Peter Rast in his book, “ The Whistleblower: Confessions of a Healthcare Hitman. ”
 Those books strongly establish that pharmaceutical companies follow the same patterns that are observed in criminal enterprises (e.g., pushing addictive and harmful drugs on the populace, manipulating their own research trials, routinely buying off government officials, covering up harms, overstating efficacy etc.).
 A defining characteristic of criminal organizations is that they are bound by “omerta:”

 My colleague AMD pointed this out in their article on Big Pharma corruption of public health when they reviewed accounts of Big Pharma whistleblowers:
 When the stories of each whistleblower are reviewed, you will observe how widespread the omertà is in the pharmaceutical industry, and that even “competing” companies will enforce this universal code.
 The industry’s criminality is also evident in the record of criminal fines that those in the industry routinely pay. T his report by Public Citizen from 2018 found that from 1991-2017, the entire pharmaceutical industry’s civil and criminal fines totaled $38.6 Billion dollars . I find it alarming that costs nowadays are reported in the unit of billions (I recall wanting to just be a millionaire as a kid). I feel that we thus have become numb or normalized to the insane magnitude of that number. Remember, a billion is… a thousand million . Per my math, the above comes out to $4 million dollars paid out in fines every day for 25 years. I am not going to even bother to calculate that industry’s profits over that time period.
 The sadness is that Pharma is only ranked #2 in terms of criminal industries. The “top dog” in criminals fines is actually the financial services industry which pays triple the amount that Pharma does each year.
 Another example of the level of criminality Pharma is capable of comes from my last post when I estimated the efficacy of chlorine dioxide using the Kory Scale and I provided knowledge of 4 successful assassinations and 3 unsuccessful assassination attempts of researchers and practitioners of chlorine dioxide therapy. Although it hurts his Kory Scale score, it is truly fortunate that no assassination attempt has been made on Dr. Burzynski’s life (as far as I am aware of).
 Subscribe now
 Before I go further, I just want to celebrate that “there is a new Sheriff in town,” given my friend and colleague RFK Jr. is now the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Apologies to all my readers who do not like when I swear, but please, just this once, after 5 years of watching Big Pharma destroy the society I am a part of, can I say “fuck yeah!” As this post will lay out, Bobby will now be overseeing a health agency that has been behaving as a criminal organization (or at least a hapless organization that is controlled by criminals).
 Although I am not a criminologist, my understanding from movies and news reports is that “turf wars” break out all the time amongst criminal gangs and cartels. I believe Pharma has shown a track record of protecting their turf.. at all costs and for a loooong time. It has been over 100 years since Rockefeller took over Medicine as portrayed in this powerful short film called “The Birth of Big Pharma” by another friend and colleague, the amazing documentary Director Mikki Willis).
 Thus, scores on TKS increase proportionally to the degree, breadth, and viciousness of the attacks generated from “the Pharma controlled medical establishment” in response to reports of efficacy of the proposed therapy (i.e. attacks from the AMA, FDA, NIH, DOJ, medical journals, pharma-controlled media, and the military).
 Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski and his “Anti-Neoplaston” Therapy
 A couple of years ago I watched this shocking documentary about the decades long plight of harassment of Dr. Burzynski by the FDA, the Texas Medical Board, and the National Cancer Institute. I have to admit that it likely became a major influence in my inspiration for The Kory Scale.
 Let me just say straight off that I know little about anti-neoplaston therapy outside of what I learned in the documentary. However, I do know professionally that it has been extremely effective and/or curative in some patients while others have not reported responses (welcome to cancer). The exact incidence and magnitude of effectiveness is thus unknown to me but I argue that based on its score on TKS, it must be at least moderately effective and even if the overall incidence of efficacy is low, it can and has led to a considerable number of remarkable documented remissions of advanced cancers, especially in the brain.
 Further, through my review of his case, Burzynski never “promised it as a cure” because he knew it did not work in everybody, but he had accumulated enough dramatic responses and full remissions to know it should simply be a treatment option in cancer, but not a cure-all for cancer as there is NO SUCH THING. Pharma knows that reality all too well. For instance, outside of a handful of chemo-sensitive cancers, chemo has an absolutely atrocious record of toxicity and inefficacy in treating cancer, particularly with solid tumors given that on average it merely extends life for varying periods of often just months while incurring significant toxicity and loss of quality of life. For instance:
 Age-adjusted death rates for cancer have remained remarkably stable or have even increased since 1930.

 In the last 15 years, chemo and new cancer therapies have led to an improvement in survival of just 2.4 months .

 Another aspect that I believe brought Burzynski even more persecution is that anti-neoplaston treatment is not cheap as it runs approximately $9,000 a month. Apparently it is quite costly to collect and purify the peptides from healthy donors. That price point is likely what made it attractive to those that later tried to “steal” his therapy from him. I also suspect the treatment got even more expensive due to the massive legal bills incurred through the 3 decades of innumerable indictments by “the establishment.” The final blow making his therapy unaffordable to many (which you will learn of below) was the collusion of the health insurance companies in not covering anti-neoplastons.
 Now, before we run antineoplastons through the Kory Scale, know that I have since revised the elements on the scale, (adding some novel actions taken against Burzynski) while adopting a more categorical than discrete scoring system in assigning points to such actions (point assignments are still personal and arbitrary though).
 Version 2.0:

 The History Of Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski and Anti-Neoplaston Therapy
 A Polish native named Stanislaw Burzynski attended Brooklyn Medical University, where he graduated first in his class at age 24 , and then received his PhD in biochemistry the following year. While undergoing his research to acquire his PhD, Dr. Burzynski made a profound discovery. He found a strain of peptides in human blood and urine that had never before been recorded in biomechanical research. As his curiosity in his peptides evolved, he made another profound observation. People with cancer seemed to lack these newly discovered peptides in both their blood and urine, while those who were healthy appeared to have an abundance of these peptides. Dr. Brzezinski wondered if there was a way to chemically extract these peptides from the blood and urine of healthy donors and administer these peptides to those with cancer. Perhaps it could be useful in treating the disease.
 Further, from this account on the Wayback machine:
 In 1970, three years after graduating from the Medical Academy of Lublin , Burzynski emigrated to the United States and took a position as researcher and associate professor at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. With the help of a grant from the National Cancer Institute , Burzynski continued his antineoplaston research. But when a grant renewal was denied in 1976, Burzynski decided that if he wanted to see his theory through to the end, he would have to do it on his own.
 But first he had to find out if it was even legal to manufacture, sell and administer antineoplastons in Texas. As a later court order would detail, Burzynski asked officials at the Texas Department of State Health Services if he could legally treat patients with antineoplastons.
 The court order, which included a history of the steps he took in opening the clinic, states that the officials gave him a verbal green light, but never gave written consent .
 Based on what the officials told him, he decided to open a private practice and research lab in a business park near the Westchase area.
 The problem is that as he started treating patients with his therapy, he began achieving a number of remarkable successes.
 I have to say in reviewing his case, his decision to go into private practice is likely what triggered everything that befell him. Had he “stayed in the fold” and continued his research, Pharma could have easily partnered with or bought him out, stole his therapies, or just kept him dependent on grants while also manipulating trials to make it seem anti-neoplastons was as or more effective than it was (its what they do).
 At the risk of foreshadowing, like with ivermectin, Pharma eventually ended up doing the opposite - they conducted chart reviews and manipulated trials concluding that anti-neoplastons did not work. I believe they did this not only to “kill off” the popularity of the therapy, but also to support their unrelenting legal persecutions of Burzynski as you will read about below.
 So basically, he opened a private clinic while separately starting a company that manufactured the anti-neoplastons, and then he treated cancer patients from all over. The treatment became increasingly popular by word-of-mouth via reports of increasing remissions. Whoa Nelly. In short, Burzynski was now “poking the bear.”
 On the above point, to give you context for what happened (and to be able to read his Wikipedia page with sufficient skepticism for its veracity), know this:
 Thomas Elias , the author of The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government's Campaign to Squelch It . He remains convinced that the FDA persecuted Burzynski because he threatened the livelihood of the doctors on the agency's review boards.
 "These are the very people who stand to lose the most if Burzynski's drug is proved," he says. " These are the people who radiate kids' brains at St. Jude 's regularly ...These are the people who are the enemies of this drug, because they have the most to lose from it... If this drug is approved, it will basically say that what they've been doing for all these decades is junk, and wasting money and lives."
 Elias says that he did not set out with the intent of writing a book hailing Burzynski, but the more he researched, the more the data pointed to one conclusion. He says he randomly selected patients throughout the country to interview and follow up on. Most of those who followed the treatment plan were alive and improving, he says. "But the ones who gave up on the treatment, they were dead. Without exception."
 I also submit the below, incredibly moving testimony by a Police Sergeant and father of a little girl with brain cancer who testified in support of Burzynski at a Congressional Hearing which was called in the late 1990’s to investigate the FDA’s repeated persecutions of Burzynski (umm, where is my Congressional hearing about the Medical Boards and the ABIM’s perrsecution of me and my colleagues for our advocacy for ivermectin in Covid? Ron my friend, are you reading this?). The father testified as follows:
 “Kristin developed a highly malignant brain tumor that spread throughout her spine and her brain. The doctors told us that we had really two options, take her home, let her die, or bring her in for massive dosages of chemo and radiation simultaneously. In either event, she was going to die. They were quite certain of and very quickly. Believing her only chance to be the standard route, we gave her the chemo and radiation. It burnt her skull so bad, she had second-degree burns and her hair never came back. To change her diapers, we had to wear rubber gloves because her urine was so toxic and it burnt her. She still had cancer. We were told, Sorry. We've done everything we can. Now she's going to die, probably within a couple of months.
 And I conducted my own investigation into Dr. Burzynski. I have no doubt the man is not a fraud. I have no doubt that he does what he does out of earnest's belief that his medicine works. Now you're in a position to judge for yourself whether it works or not, but it's well-established by the FDA that it's non-toxic.
 Eighteen months later, we took my daughter off the anti-oneuloplastin. She had not died. She had no signs of tumor. She remained free for 18 months of cancer. She died last July of neurological necrosis. Her brain fell apart from the radiation. The autopsy showed that she was completely cancer-free . Out of 52 cases of that disease ever, no one died cancer-free, just Chrissy. She didn't die of a terminal illness. She died of my inability to care for her properly, and she died from bad advice. She died because there's a government institution that disseminates false information and is not looking out for welfare of the people .
 If you want to get emotionally riled up, watch and listen to him deliver the above testimony (I literally get tears welling up and then the feeling of wanting to punch a fucking wall comes over me every time I watch it):

 The Regulatory And Legal “Lawfare” Crusade Against Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski
 You need to know that almost all of the persecutory actions detailed below occurred before “the establishment” was able to “prove inefficacy” with fraudulent reviews and attempts at manipulating the studies. It was also before any patient complaints or lawsuits. The timing is the tell.
 In 1978, FDA representatives warned Burzynski that he was violating federal law because he was not administering antineoplastons in the context of a clinical trial. Burzynski promptly filed and then received Investigational New Drug (IND) status in 1979, allowing him to use it as an experimental therapy while studying it in clinical trials (1 5 points )

 In 1981, FDA wrote in a letter: "The FDA advises persons who inquire about Burzynski’s alleged cure that we do not believe the drug is fit for administration to humans and that there is no reason to believe Dr. Burzynski has discovered an effective cure for cancer (15 points)

 In 1983, the FDA commenced a civil action to try to close the clinic and stop all patients from receiving the medicine ( 25 points). Before the judge in this case had announced her ruling, the FDA sent her a letter warning her in advance.
 “If this court declines to grant the injunction sought by the government, thus permitting continued manufacture and distribution of anti-neoplastons, the government would then be obliged to pursue other less efficient remedies, such as actions for seizure, condemnation of the drugs, or criminal prosecution of individuals.” ( 25 points - insane)

 Ultimately the FDA obtained an injunction from the federal district court prohibiting Dr. Burzynski and the Burzynski Research Institute from shipping antineoplastons in interstate commerce without first obtaining the approval of the FDA. The injunction, however, did not preclude intrastate distribution of the antineoplastons ( 15 Points )

 In 1984, the Texas Board of Medical Examiners sent agents to try to convince his patients to file a complaint against him and his experimental treatment.
 Burzynski: “ This was shocking me. What is surprising that they were using state money, taxpayer money, to travel long distances from Houston to California to convince my California patients to file complaints against me. This was completely irrational.” ( 20 points - insane).

 In July 1985, as part of a criminal investigation based on a referral from the FDA to the Department of Justice, the government applied for and obtained a warrant. FDA officials raided Burzynski's office . They took whatever documents they could — including patient files — and dragged patients into grand jury hearings. Instead of securing indictments, the FDA only succeeded in making thousands of people feel their privacy had been violated ( 50 points)

 In 1988, the Texas Department of Health ordered Dr. Burzynski to cease and desist treating cancer patients with antineoplaston therapy absent FDA new drug or investigational drug approval (IND) (Problem - he already had IND status)

 In 1992, Burzynski was essentially forced to enter a lawsuit by one of his patients against Aetna Life Insurance company but it was dismissed despite brazen, illegal actions by Aetna and their lawyers (their only punishment was having to pay Burzynski’s legal fees). He appealed. When he was granted the right to appeal, the judge summarized what Aetna and their lawyers did to deserve the reprimand in the first case, it is worth a read. Note it is written by a Judge:
 Aetna, through the Hinshaw Firm, sent out a form letter to a large number of insurance companies. Aetna and Hinshaw describe the letter as an "informal discovery request." That is a rather bland description. It opens: " This letter is sent to you as a result of an action filed by Aetna Life Insurance Company that may directly affect your company. You may have paid and may still be paying claims for cancer treatments of your insureds with an experimental substance used by Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski of Houston, Texas ." It next informs the recipient of the pending civil RICO action. Then appears the following sentence: " This letter is to warn you of potentially fraudulent claims for insurance reimbursement that may have been made to your company and to ask for your help in obtaining any claim history that your company may have with Dr. Burzynski " (emphasis supplied). The letter also contains several strongly pejorative statements. For example, it labels antineoplaston treatment as "worthless, " apprises the recipient of the 1983 FDA action against Burzynski and of unfavorable reports from the medical community on the treatment, notes that Dr. Burzynski has failed to receive FDA approval for the drug , and relays that a " Texas Grand Jury is currently investigating his operation."

 The judge who wrote the above granted that Burzynski’s appeal go forward.
 In May of 1993, the Texas Medical Board again took Burzynski to court. Listen to a different judge reflect on the case some years later:
 “My memory isn’t quite clear what the Board's problem was. The Board did not bring any expert witnesses to contest points that were raised by Dr. Bursyznski. Now, without an expert witness to render an opinion in certain areas, I can't give any credence to an opinion raised by a layman. Some of the most dramatic testimony on Dr. Burzynski's behalf came from Dr. Nicolas Petronas, a Georgetown University expert who was a member of the National Cancer Institute's team that analyzed seven of Dr. Burzynski's cases. The basic conclusion was that in five of the patients with brain tumors that were very large, the tumor resolved, disappeared. (50 points)

 I am going to interrupt this exercise to show you a 42 second clip of a fiery and inspiring exchange between Burzynski and the Texas Board lawyer at that hearing.
 Know that as a temper-prone, foul mouthed New Yorker who has himself “lost it” on the stand of late in a number of expert deposition defenses of persecuted doctors and patients during Covid, I “can identify” with his anger and words here, which were masterful really:

 1993 - In response to the decision to find Burzynski not liable, the Texas Board then threatened the judge on Burzynski’s case that they would “re-write his proposal for his decision and proceed to take adverse action against Dr. Burzynski.” The judge advised them “that would not be a wise decision” (don’t mess with Texas judges apparently ( 15 points )

 The FDA wouldn't wrangle an indictment until 1995 — and that was a doozy: Seventy-five counts, mostly for mail fraud and shipping an unapproved drug across state lines, that would've put Burzynski behind bars for nearly 300 years.
 It was a brazenly ridiculous, unfounded charge. Watch below as his lawyer Rick Jaffe explains the insanity of the above actions. Fun fact: Rick Jaffe was my lawyer as the lead plaintiff in a case we brought against the State of California for passing that insane Covid bill which mandated that California physicians only spout “consensus opinions” to their patients and not their own opinions):

 When the trial began in 1997, the jury deadlocked, and a mistrial was declared. The judge then tossed the 34 mail fraud counts, citing lack of evidence. For its part, the FDA dropped 40 counts, leaving — 12 years after the raid and seizure of patient records — only one count of contempt. Burzynski was promptly acquitted. (50 points)

 Know that throughout the above proceedings, Burzynski's patients picketed outside the courthouse and testified before Congress. From this article : “As far as they were concerned, the FDA was persecuting a noble man who merely wanted to offer a nontoxic alternative to radiation and chemotherapy.
 It gets even better, because not only were his patients outraged but so were the jurors in his trial. From this article called “Twelve Angry Jurors ” in 1997, some quotes:
 The voir dire, where lawyers speak to prospective jurors in a group, seemed at times as if it would deteriorate into an angry mob scen e. One prospective juror told prosecutors the FDA was like the Gestapo. A 24-year career marine said the case made him ashamed of his country , and that he found it very disturbing. When asked if they had any questions, one woman stood up and asked, “Why isn't the FDA being prosecuted for violating our constitutional rights?” Jurors took just two-and-a-half hours to find Burzynski not guilty on the remaining charge.
 After the trial, an investigative arm of the Justice Department, the Office of Professional Responsibility, started investigating possible prosecutorial misconduct in the Burzynski case . After the not-guilty verdict, prosecutor Michael Clark was seen on local news shows, sweating profusely as he told reporters that he will be exonerated of any wrongdoing.

 Then, undeterred by the 1993 ruling, the Texas Medical Board took Dr. Burzynski to a higher district court. But get this, at the time, they claimed that “the efficacy of anti-neoplastons in the treatment of human cancers is not the issue” but rather that they wanted to suspend his license “because his treatments have never been FDA approved.” He was again exonerated (25 points)

 Now, why would the Texas Medical Board continue on with this empty pursuit? Well, it was eventually realized, even by the mainstream press, that the Food and Drug Administration had been pressuring the Texas Medical Board to continue trying to take away Dr. Buryzinski’s medical license.
 A clip from this TV news program that was featured in the documentary: “For this story, we wanted to talk to the FDA about its policies and procedures. The agency did agree to talk to us on background where it wouldn't be quoted, but it repeatedly refused our request for on-camera interviews. While they were busy pressuring the Texas State Medical Board to try to revoke Dr. Burzynski’s medical license, they were even busier trying to revoke Dr. Burzynski completely from society by trying to place him in prison. And so the fiercest fight in FDA history began.
 In 2009, the FDA issued a warning letter to the Burzynski Research Institute, stating that an investigation had determined the Burzynski Institutional Review Board (IRB) "did not adhere to the applicable statutory requirements and FDA regulations governing the protection of human subjects ."

 In December 2010, the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners filed a multi-count complaint in the Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings against Burzynski for failure to meet state medical standards.

 In November 2012, a Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings administrative law judge ruled that Burzynski was not vicariously liable under Texas administrative law for the actions of staff at the clinic.

 In July 2014, the board filed a 202-page complaint against Burzynski to the Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings. The complaint addressed allegations by the Board including misleading patients into paying exorbitant charges, misrepresenting unlicensed persons to patients as licensed medical doctors

 In February 2017, following lengthy hearings, the Texas Medical Board recommended Burzynski's medical license be revoked, with the revocation suspended, and a fine of $360,000 for billing irregularities and other violations
 Ed: know that “billing irregularities” are the achilles heel of every US physician. “They” can always find a miscoded claim when reviewing medical records, no matter how innocuous, and then they can charge the doctor with billing fraud and imprison them. Know this has happened to really good doctors I have come to know of. This is one of, if not the main reasons why my tele-health practice is fee-based and does not take insurance.

 In March 2017, the Texas Medical Board sanctioned Burzynski, placing him on probation and fining him $40,000. After being sanctioned for over 130 violations, he was allowed to keep his medical license and to continue to practice. Staff recommendations had been more punitive. Probation terms included additional medical training, disclosure of the Board's ruling to patients and medical facilities, and monitoring of his patient records. ( 50 points)

 1996 CONGRESSIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING IN SUPPORT OF DR. BURZYNSKI
 Upon the commencement of the FDA's 1995 grand jury against Dr. Burzynski, an oversight and investigation subcommittee was organized by Congressman Joe Barton in an attempt to intervene in the FDA's relentless harassment of Dr. Burzynski and his patients.
 Jurors from previous hearings and throngs of former patients showed up to protest. By this time Burzynski had saved the lives of more than 300 people who were supposed to have been dead.
 Check out these comments from Chairman Joe Barton at the hearing (38 seconds)

 Manipulation of Anti-Neoplaston Trials by the National Cancer Institute
 From this account in 2011:
 There was one minor ingredient in some of the antineoplastons that Burzynski had not patented because lawyers had counseled him that it was so common and well known that a patent would never be granted. The company that had patented that ingredient went to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), where the doctor who had defected from the Burzynski clinic was quickly made section chief.
 That company immediately received FDA approval for trials while Burzynski continued to be stonewalled in his attempts to receive FDA approval for trials. Burzynski had determined 12 years earlier that the ingredient was insignificant, and only needed to be included in one of the antineoplastons. He publicly predicted the trial would not work. Burzynski was frustrated by the bureaucratic corruption but with his background, not too surprised, he soldiered on.
 When the National Cancer Institute’s research trials failed, associate director Michael Freidman came back to Burzynski and offered to do trials with his antineoplastons, but only if he would agree to make major changes to the protocols that he’d spent decades developing. At first he refused, and Freidman threatened to find other sources for antineoplastons. Burzynski fired back that federal employees shouldn’t contemplate patent infringement. The NCI finally agreed that Burzynski’s protocols would be followed. The protocols were simple and routine for cancer trials. Patients with very large tumors, multiple tumors, and metastases were to be excluded. These protocols are designed to rule out complicating factors that can skew results.
 When a year passed with no patients being enrolled, Burzynski suspected something was amiss. The NCI said it had trouble finding patients, and then altered the protocols to include the complex cancers behind the back of Burzynski, who could have changed the instructions for dosages to treat such advanced cancers if he had known. The dosages would have had to have been increased at least three times. As the conflict escalated the NCI quit sending information to Burzynski who had to resort to legal means to get access to the trial data about his own medications.
 He went on TV and said that he had gotten the distinct impression that the NCI wanted the patients to die so that the experimental trial would be over as soon as possible. When Dr. Burzynski finally got the data for the trial, he learned that there were only nine patients enrolled and they had suffered from severe fluid retention, something that he monitored and was able to prevent with his patients. He suspected that the antineoplastons were being diluted. The FDA later added insult to injury by publishing in a medical journal that the antineoplastons did not have cancer treatment potential. Some researcher made the mistake of including figures that showed the antineoplastons in the patients’ blood were three to 170 times less than the Burzynski clinic typically measured . The trial had been sabotaged. (100 points)
 I then found this:
 After all of the dust had settled, even more corruption came to light from internal memos. Going back all the way to 1991 the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services had been filing patents on the one ingredient Burzynski had not patented, claiming that the rights to manufacture, use, and license it belonged solely to the government. Shortly after the patents were filed, Michael Freidman, who had obstructed Burzynski’s trials at the National Cancer Institute, became deputy commissioner at the FDA, working directly under the commissioner who’d declared war on Burzynski. This breathtaking audacity did take Burzynski aback. Powerful government officials and the pharmaceutical industry had been conspiring to steal his invention .
 DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGNS IN THE MEDIA
 Recall that “Astroturfing” is when special interests disguise themselves and publish blogs, start Facebook and Twitter accounts, publish ads, letters to the editor, or simply post comments online to try to fool you into thinking that independent, authoritative, or grassroots movements are speaking.
 Wikipedia is likely the most powerful tool in Disinformation and/or Astroturfing. Dr. Burzynski’s Wikipedia page is a huge, steaming pile of negative propaganda which portrays him as a fraud, profiteer, and a charlatan while completely discrediting antineoplaston therapy ( 40 points) .
 The below section from his Wikipedia page is particularly important as it, to me, represents a boilerplate example of how Pharma discredits effective therapies that are inconvenient to the industry. If you substitute ivermectin, HCQ, or chlorine dioxide for antineoplaston in the below paragraph, I can find dozens of news article using similar arguments and descriptors:
 “Although Burzynski and his associates claim success in the use of antineoplaston combinations for the treatment of various diseases, and some of the clinic's patients say they have been helped, there is no clinical evidence of the efficacy of these methods. The consensus among the professional community, as represented by the American Cancer Society [ and Cancer Research UK is that antineoplaston therapy is unproven, and the overall probability of the treatment turning out to be as claimed is low due to lack of credible mechanisms and the poor state of research after more than 35 years of investigation. Antineoplaston treatments have significant known side effects including severe neurotoxicity . Hypernatremia is also a significant risk given the high levels of sodium in antineoplaston infusions. ”
 Three propaganda messages were included in the above; 1) there is no clinical evidence of efficacy, 2) the “experts” have concluded similar, and 3) it is dangerous and carries significant risk. Rinse, repeat. These types of paragraphs appear throughout the world’s (I mean Pharma’s) legacy media whenever an off-patent or cheap and widely available therapy is found effective.
 Now you guys know why I have a tattoo on my right arm which says “Insufficient Evidence:”

 Kory Scale Score for anti-neoplaston therapy: incalculable.
 Hey readers, what therapy should be “run through the Kory Scale” next?

 If you appreciate the effort and time I spend researching and writing my posts, Op-Ed’s and doctor defenses, support in the form of paid subscriptions is greatly appreciated.
 Subscribe now
 Since we are on the topic of alternative cancer treatments, I would be remiss if I did not highlight my own complementary cancer care practice with my partner S cott Marsland , where we treat patients with combinations of scientifically supported repurposed medicines and dietary interventions based on the now validated Metabolic Theory Of Cancer as part of a prospective, observational study (which has just begun the data collection phase).

 P.S. What I have seen in my almost one year of treating cancer patients with this approach are a growing minority of remarkable remissions, a majority of disease stability without progression, and another minority of non-responses, failures, and deaths (the latter outcome is something that others treating similarly ever seems to admit to on the internet). Cancer is a wicked disease but we are learning and we are helping many (but not all) immensely. I also believe that is what Dr. Burzynski (and now apparently his son) achieved with their treatment approaches.

Summary: Patients and even grand jurors were outraged at the prosecutors going after Burzynski. Readers have asked me to assess the efficacy of his anti-neoplaston therapy using the Kory Scale. Lets do it.