All language subtitles for Cut Poison Burn

We interrupt the regular program schedule
to bring you President Nixon State of the

Union Message from the Capitol in
Washington, D.C.

I will also ask for an appropriation of an
extra 100 million dollars to launch an

intensive campaign to find a
cure for cancer and I will ask

later for whatever additional
funds can effectively be used.

The time has come in America when the same
kind of concentrated effort that split the

atom and took man to the moon should be
turned toward conquering this dread disease.

With 100 words, Richard Nixon effectively
declares war on cancer.

A national cancer program is birthed.

Its director will report to the president
himself and it has appropriated $1.

6 billion for its first
three years alone.

The American Cancer Society is
instrumental in getting the bill passed

and launches its own star-studded
campaign.

Send a check to the American Cancer
Society.

It's great to be alive.

With a massive coordinated effort,
the United States, which little more than

two years earlier had put
a man on the moon, would

someday soon conquer the
most feared disease here at home.

So Thomas has been
here for two weeks, going

on three weeks now,
and he's doing very well.

Our home is in Tucson, and when Donna and
I made the decision that there was going

to be no radiation or chemo used on Thomas,
the doctor decided to start handiness.

As a result, he told our attorney that
because we had chosen that to speak to him

directly enough to go with convention
therapy, that it left him no choice but to

file charges against us with child
protective services for medical and

neglect, child abuse and child neglect,
which he did.

It is the consent form to do radiation
that we did at the University Medical

Center, and when we initially did it,
the doctor filled everything out,

and then he went on to explain that
possible side effects would be hair loss,

skin redness, fatigue, nausea,
vomiting and loose BMs.

And that's where he stopped.

He said, go ahead and sign it.

And I thought, well,
gosh, if that's all we're

dealing with, maybe it's
not as bad as I thought.

So I had signed it and he left the room.

About ten minutes later, he came back and
said, oh, by the way, dad, I forgot.

He took it out of my hand and put it with
the others and put the carbons back.

He'll also have fluid in the middle ear,
hearing loss, hypothyroidism, spinal

growth deficit, possible loss of IQ,
memory loss, secondary tumors,

hypopotuitarism, low level
hormones, and radiation

necrosis, which is where
the brain turns hard.

And that's when I knew we were in trouble.

If your child was dying of cancer,
wouldn't you want the best treatment

available, I know why my husband was put
to six cycles of chemotherapy and we were

told up front, it's probably we have no
effect.

The biggest cover up in the cancer
industry is that the industry is based on

wealth, not health.

In this matter of life and
death, some say the federal

government is making
matters worse, much worse.

And here you are pleading for
the life of a person and they're

talking about the integrity
of their bureaucratic process.

The couple's battle for
alternative treatment is at the

center of a national debate
over medical freedom of choice.

These guys are part of a
club and believe me, that club

has nothing to do with
protecting the American people.

Why are people terrified when they hear
the word cancer?

Because they know it doesn't work.

They know that what
we're doing in this

country and in the
western world doesn't work.

The image of cancer as a fearful disease
is a well-deserved image, I think,

in the American mind.

And it's never been surpassed.

It's always been number
one in terms of the disease

that the people in this
country fear the most.

The word strikes terror in people's
hearts.

And we know from our current situation
that when people are terrorized,

when they're afraid, then they'll do
almost anything to survive.

September of 99, Thomas was experiencing
flu-like symptoms.

And after about three weeks, I had said to
Donna, this doesn't make sense.

So I had called my
personal physician and she

took a look in one of
his eyes with a flashlight.

And she said he needs to see his doctor
right now.

Donna comes out and screams my name and
then drops to the ground.

She said her boy is time.

Since the war on cancer began in 1971,
more than 14,800,000 Americans have died

from some form of the disease.

1,500 die every day.

That's 565,000 men, women, and children in
2009 alone.

More people will die from cancer in this
country in the next three years than all

the American soldiers who died fighting
since the American Revolution.

From 1920 to the present
time, we have made little

or no progress in the
treatment of adult cancers.

So a person who gets prostate
cancer or breast cancer today

will live as long as a person
who got it in 1920, no big change.

With all the radiation therapy that we
began in the 10s and 20s, combination

chemotherapy in the 60s, immunotherapy
that began in the 70s, pet scans,

MRI scans, you name it, billions and
billions and billions of research dollars

that we've thrown into this whole area of
cancer research and treatment,

little or no significant progress in the
treatment of adult cancers.

In the early 1900s, pneumonia was the
number one cause of death.

People were terrified of pneumonia, because
even though some survived, most did not.

Now, when we have cancers, the number one
cause of death, because we treat pneumonia

now successfully with antibiotics,
and no one's afraid of pneumonia.

But with cancer, the treatment we have,
the majority, overwhelming majority die.

Nothing we've done in a century has
substantially reduced the death rate of

various cancers relative to the population
density.

We are a total failure.

The question is there are so many
different ways to pursue this,

and no one knows what the right one is.

So, we try lots of things, and any time
human beings try lots of things,

a lot of them are not going to work,
but some of them will.

And we've had some
successes, for example,

testicular cancer, what
Lance Armstrong had.

When I was training as a medical student
in an intern, that was uniformly fatal.

Now, many of those men, are long term
survivors, so in certain cases,

lymphoma is Hodgkin's disease,
testicular cancer.

There have been major
breakthroughs that

have made huge
differences to people's lives.

Unfortunately, the more common cancers,
colon cancer, breast cancer, prostate

cancer, lung cancer,
those cancers are not as

susceptible to our
treatments at this point.

Cancer itself is a very complex disease.

There are more than
200 different types of

diseases that all come
under the rubric cancer.

Malignant, out of control,
cell growth, that's what cancer

is, and there are many different
forms of it, unfortunately.

Cancer, in its various forms, has
confounded humanity for centuries.

An Egyptian papyrus from
1550 BC, describes cancer as

a tumor against the gods,
for which there's no cure.

Hippocrates, the father of Western
medicine, who lives in 400 BC,

notices a tumor's nasty ability to spread
out as if it has tentacles and names the

disease Carcanoma, the Greek word for
Crab.

But he has no idea how to treat it.

More than 2,000 years later in 1884,
William Holstead, a surgeon at Johns

Hopkins, performs the first radical
mastectomy.

But he thought that cancer cells just
spread by, sort of, marching in a straight

line, and therefore, if you had a breast
cancer here, then you had to remove all

the tissue around it, and
not thinking that cancer

cells could get in the
blood circulate around.

And the radical mastectomy
stuck around for 75 years,

even though it was based
on biology that was defective.

Dr. Holstead probably,
if he had lived long

enough, would have
changed it, but he didn't.

And then ushered in the paradigm that we
need to search and destroy cancer cells.

So that's the paradigm that we've lived
with for over 100 years.

Now, we add to that chemotherapy,
we add to that radiation therapy,

with the intent of killing the cancer
cell.

They kept telling me you're a prime
candidate, it's all contained,

we'll just take out the lung, and,
you know, but I just kind of like my lung.

I didn't want to lose it.

In March 2007, 70-year-old Gloria La Barge
is diagnosed with mesophiliaoma,

a form of cancer in which
malignant cells are found in the

protective sac that covers most
of the body's internal organs.

To the best of her knowledge, she has
never been exposed to asbestos,

the most common cause of the disease,
prognosis for survival, eight to 18 months.

After taking the lung out, they would do
chemo and radiation, just to make sure

that they got it all, but they never know
whether they've gotten it all or not.

That's the scary part, and you go through
all of that, and you never know.

You absolutely never know.

Conventional medicine doesn't know how to
treat cancer.

They treat cancer at the symptoms of it.

They don't treat the underlying condition
of it.

Doctors, we'll look at the lump or the
bump, and they say there is the cancer.

That's defined as the cancer.

And so, then they will treat the lump or
the bump.

They will do whatever they can to get it
to go away.

They will burn it away, they will cut it
out, or they'll try to poison it.

And if they can succeed in getting rid of
that lump or bump, then they say,

aha, we got rid of the cancer.

Thomas is laying in bed now because
they're done looking at him.

And the doctor walks in and said, Mr. and
Mrs. Navarro, your son has a brain tumor.

It's always fatal.

We're going to be doing surgery tomorrow
morning, and turn around and let the room.

On September 19, 1999, Thomas undergoes
brain surgery.

The biopsy of this tumor leads to a
diagnosis of meduloblastoma cancer.

Jim and Donna are told that without
immediate treatment, the condition will

recur in nine months.

Right away, I did not want to do
chemotherapy and radiation.

I knew what would happen to Thomas.

Once he had chemo and radiation,
his quality of life would be non-existent.

I mean, with radiation alone, if you have
an average child with an average IQ of

100, they lose 4 IQ points per year
accumulative.

So, in five years, you have a mentally
handicapped child.

And then you have all the other side
effects.

Because as a radiation to the brain,
you have hypopotuitarism, hypothyroidism,

spinal growth deficit, loss of hearing,
blindness.

Why would you want to put
a four-year-old child through

that, and then in five to ten
years have a recurrent cancer?

So, I was dead against it.

First specific evidence that radiation is
carcinogenic dates back to the 90s.

Carcinomas of the hands and
other radiation injuries commonly

afflicted the operators of
unshielded x-ray machines.

The extreme penetrability
of hard x-rays and gamma

rays makes them carcinogenic
to all parts of the body.

Whatever the kind of radiation,
its effects depend upon the dosage,

the length of exposure, and the individual
susceptibility to cancer.

Well, you see, radiation is the treatment,
which is over 100 years old.

And obviously, it was created at the time
when the knowledge of cancer was just

minimal, which was microscopic.

And obviously, radiation is causing a lot
of destruction in the body.

Everybody knows about it.

For majority of patients, the medical
profession thought that this was

irrelevant because they realized that this
patient will be dead anyway in another two

or three years, or maybe even a year
later, so this means that chronic adverse

reaction for radiation didn't matter because
this patient would not live long enough.

We had surgery and we
had radiotherapy, but we

had very little beyond
that until about the 1960s.

And it was realized around that time that
the reason why surgery and radiotherapy

were not succeeding is
that there were cells that got

out of the surgical field
and the radiation field.

And circulated around, and eventually
these metastases killed patients,

and so that you needed something else,
chemotherapy.

Ironically, it's an event
in World War II that gives

rise to the premier
weapon in the war on cancer.

On December 2, 1943, the German Luftwaffe
launched a devastating air raid on the

Allied Navy's stationed in Baudi,
Italy.

Among the U.S.

vessels destroyed is
the John Harvey, which

carries a secret cargo of
2,000 mustard gas bombs.

Several hundred of the attack survivors
are exposed to the poison gas,

and what doctors discover in treating them
is startling.

The blood counts just disappeared and they
died from bone marrow failure,

and lymph nodes in all the tops you
couldn't even find them.

And so he thought that maybe these would
work against cancers of those organs led

to the development of nitrogen mustard.

The first trials to see whether this would
work were done, of course, in animals.

Dr. Gilman, who was really one of the
founders of toxicology and pharmacology,

selected this one mouse that had a huge
tumor, and injected it with poison gas

equivalent, and saw
that the tumor shrank,

and the mouse was able
to move and look party.

Then they stopped giving it the poison
gas, and the tumor came back.

They gave the poison gas again,
and the mouse recovered again,

and they thought this is amazing.

Now, in fact, he reports in his memoirs
that, subsequently, they did the same work

with other mice, and they never got as
good a result.

So if they'd picked the wrong mouse in the
first place, we might never have been

embarked on using chemotherapy in this
way.

In the late 1960s, a team led by Vincent
de Vida pioneers the use of combination

chemotherapies to successfully treat
Hodgkin's disease.

Similar treatments are
used to dramatically reduce

the mortality of certain
childhood leukemias.

When that happened, the people who were
health advocates thought that we had

reached a point where some massive effort
would now allow us to go over the top and

cure the majority of patients with cancer.

We would not want to raise false hopes by
simply the signing of an act.

But we can say this, that for those who
have cancer and who are looking for

success in this field, they at least can
have the assurance that everything that

can be done by government, everything that
can be done by voluntary agencies,

in this great, powerful, rich country,
now will be done.

And so, the war on cancer begins,
and with it comes an explosion in the use

of chemotherapy.

Overwhelming evidence of a new weapon
against the cancer, finding chemotherapy

with radiation, increases survival by as
much as 50%.

Billy's drug alimpeda, when taken with
chemo, may extend the lives.

Tamoxifen, newly approved by the FDA, to
reduce breast cancer risk by as much as 50%.

When I was a drug chemist, one of my first
jobs was to design a Tamoxifen derivative.

Any time you have to design
a derivative of an existing

drug, that means there's
something wrong with the drug.

And what we found in the lab was that
Tamoxifen was actually causing cancer.

The chemist that I was working with,
my superiors, etc., just said,

you know, it's a billion-dollar industry,
and Tamoxifen is not coming off the market.

And if we can design a
safer derivative, great, but if

we can't, Tamoxifen is going
to remain on the market.

Multiple studies in the 1990s show that
while Tamoxifen reduces the incidence of

breast cancer, it more than doubles the
occurrence of uterine cancer.

Doctors often tell women, well,
even if you get uterine cancer,

we'll be on top of it, and that just
requires a simple little hysterectomy anyway.

But it's only used for five years.

Why?

And that's because after five years,
the risk increases of developing breast

cancer caused by the Tamoxifen.

Tamoxifen has generated more than $6
billion in sales for its maker,

AstraZeneca, and is part of an industry
worth some $70 billion a year.

One shot is $7,500, and a pill is one
pill, $300.

The stem cell transplant
went through, combined with

the radiation, combined
with all the chemotherapy.

Prior to that, we understand was over a
million dollars.

Ray Lamy is diagnosed with bladder cancer
in 1980 at the age of 36.

Since then, he has suffered through
battles with non-Hutchkins lymphoma,

Indolemphoma, and now aggressive lymphoma.

I just read in the paper the other day,
the average cancer patient between the

time they're diagnosed and the time that
they die is $350,000 in medical expenses.

So that's big business, and it is big
business.

Heavy trading today in the biopharma
sector, after thousands of stock moving

and potentially treatment changing,
cancer drug studies came out overnight.

Bristol wants Imclone primarily for its
blockbuster cancer drug, Herbitux,

which racked up nearly $425 million in
sales in the last quarter.

Our Cancer Center was the first in the
region to offer no valley-shaped beam

robotic radiation therapy.

They're also testing
this drug in combination

with other cancer drugs
for other tumors as well.

So it's about expanding
the use of Herbitux to make

it an even bigger
blockbuster than it already is.

You have doctors spending three years
learning how to do chemotherapy radiation.

You have special radio oncology.

You have cancer surgeons.

You have cancer oncology.

So you have this entire industry built on
the paradigm of purging the body.

Even though we find
that that doesn't work, that

industry is not going to
just pack up and go away.

Once we knew what the oncologists and the
radiologists wanted, the treatment that

they wanted for Thomas,
we sat down and we made

the decision that we
were not going to do that.

And then, of course, we had opposition
with the doctors.

Right away, we were medical neglect.

And it's like we're not neglecting our
child.

We just want the best for our child.

You know that this poison they're putting
in you can cause other tumors,

can cause other cancers.

And what is it doing to your body?

Your body is taking your beating.

Very difficult.

The first time I got chemotherapy.

It's hard.

It's hard.

We are suffering now from the fact that we
started out on the wrong foot,

we stayed on the wrong foot for 100 years,
and we are paying the price.

Chemotherapy and radiation therapy are not
specific.

They kill anything in its way.

The reason why people lose their hair,
the reason why people get nauseated and

vomit is because chemotherapy kills any
actively dividing cell.

So irrespective of normal or not.

And if you think of it, it's like going in
and doing an aerate, dropping bombs on a

village to get rid of a pocket of rebels
that are housed in a small area.

If you contract almost any cancer,
you're likely to die at about the same

time, whether you take chemo agents or
not.

Now, there are some exceptions,
but by and large, that is the rule.

And despite that, the FDA, the oncologists
in the world, cancer societies,

all favor, reliance upon this treatment
modality that's brutal.

And then they die at roughly the same time
they would have had they done nothing,

and they would have felt a lot better
having done nothing.

One day I was actually at work,
having lunch with a close colleague,

and had he called me up, and said she was
very concerned.

And I even joked that you had cancer
throughout your body.

It turned out to be our worst nightmare,
come true, so she had the diagnosis in

September, it was actually September 4th
of all four.

After Patty Bernhard is diagnosed with
ovarian cancer, she undergoes chemotherapy

every month for the next three years, and
would try every drug made available to her.

Sis Platinum, Taxol, Taxoteer,
Gemsar.

You know, when we would talk about the
treatments with our oncologist and the

pain that the treatments actually caused
and the resulting sickness afterwards,

there was no pain relief, no pain killer,
no mind altering substance that could even

take away the pain.

And what we went to our doctor and said,
you know, that, you know, this is

unbelievable how much this hurts her.

He said, well, I'm showering your organs
with poison, it's going to hurt.

Well, the person on chemotherapy,
the idea is where we're going to kill the

cancer cells just before
we kill the patient, and if

we can draw that fine
line, then we're successful.

So, in my view, this is primitive
medicine.

I think someday people will look back at
this period of history, and they'll laugh

at it just the way we look back at the way
they used to bleed patients.

Whoa, you're on a full year!

That one...

The oncologist was like, well,
I can understand why you won't want to do

radiation, but you have to do
chemotherapy.

And he'd already told us chemotherapy
won't work.

We're doing good.

We're doing good.

And we were telling we wanted to get a
second opinion, and they're like,

it doesn't matter how many second opinions
you get, whether it's from California to

New York, all the treatments are going to
be the same.

We all run off the same game plan,
and it's like, that's ridiculous.

There's got to be different therapies out
there.

How's it going?

Welcome to Houston.

Thank you.

So, if I was going, you look like growing
again.

Pretty good?

Yeah, very good.

Looks like you maintain your weight very
well.

Are you exercising?

Yes.

So, what are you doing?

I work out two weights, two cardio.

I see.

I'm trying to go through some classes as
well.

Everything's going very well.

It's almost 20 years.

It's been a long time.

You don't have any science and symptoms of
the tumor?

In 1985, four-year-old Paul
Michaels is diagnosed with

a cancerous brain tumor
the size of a tennis ball.

After surgery, Paul's
mother questions their

doctor about the side
effects of radiation.

We were sitting at a table like this,
and he said, regardless what you do,

radiation or not, he's going to die.

And he was four, but he wasn't stupid.

He was a bright little four-year-old.

And I thought, oh, please make him not
have heard that.

And that night when I put him to bed,
Paul said to me, man, if I die,

will you go with me?

And I told him I would.

And I think I would have.

In 1987, Mary K.

brings Paul to the Brzezinski clinic in
Houston, Texas.

And six years later, the boy who was
supposed to be dead by age nine is

cancer-free and the subject of a CBS news
special.

That is the same tumor we just saw in that
report.

It's a tiny dot.

Yes.

Do you have any question in your mind if
he saved your life?

I know he did.

Today, Paul Michaels
is a 29-year-old nursing

student who is, by all
appearances, cured of cancer.

He is one of thousands of patients who
have been treated by renowned Polish-born

doctor, Stanislaw Brzezinski, who flees
communist Eastern Europe for the United

States in 1970 and does
postdoctoral work at Baylor University

before opening his own
cancer clinic in Houston, Texas.

It is here that he pioneers
anti-neoplastons.

These non-toxic peptides
and amino acid derivatives

are synthesized to act
like molecular switches.

Turning on tumor-suppressant
genes and turning

off the oncogenes
responsible for cancer growth.

In the early 1980s, under the watchful eye
of the FDA, Brzezinski and his treatment

are confined to the state of Texas.

And patients who are told that they have
no good options with traditional therapies

flock to his clinic.

A bone marrow transplant was prescribed for
me and it didn't offer me a cure at all.

And in fact, they were
going to bring me as

close to death as possible
and then rescue me.

The doctor who pioneered this technique
said you will receive as much radiation as

people that were less than one mile from
ground zero at Hiroshima.

And Dr. Brzezinski said to me,
I think I can help you.

Three weeks after going on the IV,
it disappeared.

Totally gone.

It was a miracle.

And every CAT scan
that I had from starting

Dr. Brzezinski's treatment
showed reduction.

But in 1995, Mary Jo Siegel, Paul
Michaels, and hundreds of other patients

being treated by Brzezinski, are told that
they may no longer be able to use

anti-neoplastons.

Well, one branch of the FDA is approving
Brzezinski for phase two clinical trials.

Another is targeting him for prosecution.

They were out to destroy him.

They were serious about this.

The US Attorney was going to put him away
for life, I mean, for 300 years.

It just always amazed
me that the FDA could

spend so much time
doing something like this.

That's so... it's wrong.

It's just morally wrong.

FDA go away, FDA go away, FDA go away,
FDA go away, let us say another day.

We met with senators.

We met with, you know, different
legislative bodies, committees,

subcommittees, commerce committee.

Dr. Brzezinski saved my life.

And for that, he is facing 300 years in a
federal penitentiary.

All of them very supportive,
but all feeling very

helpless about anything that
they could do with the FDA.

I just remember what Paul said.

Do you remember what you said?

He said, I feel like I'm in
a war against cancer and

the government is taking
away the only weapon I have.

And it was like...

There's virtually no one the FDA has to
account to.

Congress performs an abysmal job of
oversight.

They might hold hearings,
chastise the FDA commissioner, but

there's no consequence for bad
acts by the FDA commissioner.

The courts rarely second-guess the
judgment of the agency.

They have broadly deferential standards of
review.

And the American people are left helpless.

You don't know their names.

They don't run for election.

They don't change with administrations.

They're not Democrats.

They're not Republicans.

They are professional bureaucrats that
hold all the power.

When the FDA begins in the late 19th
century as a division within the

Department of Agriculture, it has no
regulatory power and is so small that its

first chief, a flamboyant chemist named
Harvey Washington Wiley, sometimes takes

drugs himself to see if they make him sick
and files reports with his findings.

The department's power grows steadily,
however.

And by the 1930s, the freshly named Food
and Drug Administration is regulating the

safety and marketing of all new drugs in
the U.S., many leading drug companies

oppose the oversight.

But finally, the drug
industry began to view

regulation as a way
to reduce competition.

But how did that transition take place?

Well, it was a drug-calfolidamide that was
given to pregnant women in Europe and that

resulted in rather extraordinary
deformities.

This horrified the world and a opportunity
was seized at that point by the proponents

of greater drug regulation.

The fear of a thalidomide tragedy in the U
.S.

leads to the signing in 1962 of the
key-fawver Harris amendment and with it,

the powers of the FDA are revolutionized.

Now in addition to proving that their
products are safe, drug manufacturers are

required to supply
to the FDA substantial

evidence that the drugs
are effective as well.

You read the Food and Drug Laws,
they're very flexible.

The FDA's interpretation of those rules is
very rigid.

As FDA started adopting regulations to
determine what constituted substantial

evidence to approve a drug and started to
create all these Byzantine requirements.

They were creating this
infrastructure to protect

incumbent drug
companies from competition.

The largest players had the money to pay
for the process, new entrants did not.

This means that immediately small
pharmaceutical companies were eliminated.

Inventors, likely, past their disappeared
completely because the doctors were

severely punished by trying to use
something innovative.

Aspring, for example, would not be
approved today by the Food and Drug

Administration because it caused adenomas
and mice in the lungs.

I would like to loosen up on the
regulations and ways that allowed cancer

centers, for example,
to develop drugs without

having to go back to the
FDA every time you sneeze.

And what is the upshot of that?

The upshot of that is it costs on average
about $1.6 billion for a single drug to be

approved in the United States.

That game can only be played by the
largest monopolies on earth.

So, if you invent a drug, you discover an
agent that has therapeutic utility and in

the scientific community out there,
you can largely kiss that drug goodbye.

We have an extraordinary story for you of
a cancer doctor whose patients say he's

performing miracles, but the government
wants to close him down.

Friday, the Food and Drug
Administration raided the doctor's

office, seizing patients'
files and other documents.

Initially, I was not of interest
at the FDA because I think

pharmaceutical companies
were not interested what I had.

I think the biggest problem began when
pharmaceutical companies and the

government realized that I have something
very valuable which can get rid of cancer

in a number of people and the cancer which
was incurable by any other means.

The Texas State Attorney at
the behest of the FDA wants to

strip Brazinski of his medical
license and shut down his clinic.

We are here today because Dr. Brazinski
has for 16 years been unwilling or unable

to comply with the requirements of the
law.

Testifying at the pretrial hearing is
Georgetown University Doctor Nicholas

Petronas, who reviewed seven of Brazinski's
cases for the National Cancer Institute.

He testifies that
anti-neoplastons are the most

effective treatment for
brain tumors I have ever seen.

Spontan calls MM.

If my son goes off the
treatment, there is no doubt in

my mind that his tumor would
grow and that he would die.

The tumors will grow,
they will use the vision,

they will be paralyzed
and they will die.

Because there is nothing in the world which
can be used to save this patient's life.

You intend to continue doing
just what you have been doing

until somebody is able to
stop you, is that not true?

I am going to do what the law will allow
me to do, Mr. Harkam.

I do what that is necessary to bring my
medicines to a proverb in the United

States and everywhere
in the world and bring you

to justice for causing
the deaths of 200 patients.

And they will come back here to hunt you
until you are dead.

Are you threatening me, Dr. Birchinski?

I'm not threatening you, but that's what
I'm going to have in the future.

Well, I think that's something that will
be remains to be seen.

At the trial, several months later,
the FDA brings 75 counts against Dr.

Birchinski.

Not one of them is related to the safety
or efficacy of anti-neoplastons.

The charges were essentially shipping a
medicine across state lines.

Give me a break.

I mean, that's a lot, a capital crime.

It's ridiculous.

And it wasn't even true.

But this is a very, very tight monopoly.

Despite spending 13 years
and an estimated $8 million

prosecuting him, Birchinski
is acquitted of all charges.

With the jury form and stating,
I think this was a government witch hunt.

I couldn't find any victims.

Hi!

I'm so happy!

Oh, God!

Patients like Mary Jo
Siegel and Paul Michaels are

permitted to stay on
anti-neoplaston treatments.

But as former FDA chief counsel Peter
Barton Hut has said, if you beat the FDA

in court, you have an angry FDA that is
willing to slit your throat.

So while the government cannot strip Dr.
Birchinski of his medical license,

they can dramatically change the rules
governing admittance to his clinic.

In a cramped Houston
hotel room, four-year-old

Thomas Navarro is
dying of brain cancer.

And his desperate parents find themselves
cut up in a larger fight between a

controversial Houston doctor and the
federal government.

You researched other families that had
boys that had medial blastoma,

that had not gone through chemo
and radiation, and sought out Dr.

Birchinski, and was treated by
them, how come you didn't get in?

And my answer is always this.

Well, they got in before the FDA got
involved.

And once the FDA started seeing that he
was having success with treating cancer,

then they were like,
okay, we got to set up all

these protocols for all
these different cancers.

So we can limit him what he can do.

And then once the patient is terminally
ill, no hope, then we'll give him the

patient to see what he can do then.

And of course, they're sending him up to
fail.

The American Cancer Society does the
Navarro's no favors by placing

antineoplastons on the unproven methods
list.

This compendium is considered a blacklist
by many in the medical establishment.

No insurance company will cover treatments
listed here, and it is used to brand Dr.

Birchinski as a quack.

The American Cancer Society should have
been funding Birchinski.

I mean, his data was
clearly provocative, but

they got on board to
put him out of business.

You're the American Cancer Society,
don't you want?

Cancer to be prevented in America?

Instead, they end up on the side of the
government, arguing that the information

should be censored, suppressed, never
allowed to reach the American consumer.

Well, that speaks volumes, I think.

And then you have to ask yourself, who
does the American Cancer Society represent?

Well, the answer with all
nonprofit organizations is

defined by where their
financial support comes from.

The American Cancer Society is one of the
world's wealthiest nonprofit organizations.

It has assets including land, cars and
cash, totaling more than $2 billion.

In order to finance this operation,
the ACS has established a long history of

partnerships with deep-pocketed
corporations.

What cigarette do you smoke, Dr.?

Tens of thousands of doctors
in all branches of medicine

in all parts of the country
were asked that question.

What cigarette do you smoke, Dr.?

The brand-named most was camel.

Yes, surveys show more doctors' smoke
camels than any other cigarette.

Smoke camels, the cigarette so many
doctors enjoy.

I was stunned to learn that the first
director of the American Cancer Society,

Clarence Cook Little, resigned from that
position in 1954 to become the scientific

director of the Tobacco Industry Research
Council.

The Cancer Society itself had board
members at the time who worked

hand-in-glove with the tobacco industry
advertising firms and they were running

the Cancer Society like a
massive advertising campaign,

a tradition that hasn't
changed in that regard.

$27,000 for the Hurburon World.

First Cancer Awareness
Month was actually

initiated by the company
that makes Tomoxifen.

The devices for mammograms are made by
General Electric.

And General Electric
is in a relationship with

the people behind breast
cancer awareness month.

So, there's a huge, huge industry that has
been invested in breast cancer.

Although the goal is noble.

To me, it's obscene that these companies
are using the symbol of the pink ribbon

for commercial purposes only.

Very few dollars ever make it to really
help women.

This is the business.

American Cancer Society is a business of
getting donations.

And what I say to people when they give
money to these agencies you are

perpetuating the failure because if the
American Cancer Society actually found a

cure for cancer in their bylaws,
it said they must disband.

If cancer were really cured, really tomorrow,
would that put the ACS out of business?

I don't know, in a funny way, the entire
healthcare system, the entire system of

research in healthcare is
based on a model where

we're trying to put
ourselves out of business.

I don't think there's anything wrong with
that.

I think that's fine.

I don't think it's likely to happen in my
lifetime anyway.

The problem with American
Cancer Society is that I think

they are an impediment to
advances in cancer therapy.

In 1928, a Greek-American researcher named
George Papandicolo using funding from the

American Cancer Society shows that you can
take a few cells from the opening of the

cervix, swab them and
determine under a microscope

whether cancer has already
occurred or is about to occur.

If caught early enough,
the cancer can be prevented

but the Papandicolo
test is not put to use.

There were fights going on between
pathologists and surgeons about whether it

was ever proper for a test
to be done in a doctor's

office and then sent outside
for someone else to read.

Though originally funded by the ACS,
the Society changes course and aligns

itself with physicians and
surgeons who argue that

the test is a threat to
the practice of medicine.

For 29 years, the low-cost test is kept
under wraps while women are treated with

high-dose radiation or have their cervixes
surgically removed.

Prior to the pap smear
being used, women were

dying at very high
rates of cervix cancer.

Once the pap smear was finally put into
place, not until the 1960s, deaths and

cases of cervix cancer fell like a rocket,
unbelievably.

Today, the pap smear is performed by
physicians and technicians alike.

It has reduced the incidence of cervix
cancer by 40%, and ironically,

the ACS touts its
introduction as proof of

its pivotal role in the
treatment of cancer.

If you look at the history of cancer
therapeutics, it's like Gettysburg.

It's just scattered with bodies of all the
people who have tried to bring effective

new treatments to the market and have been
shot down.

Throughout the century, promising cures
and therapies are met harshly by the AMA,

the FDA, and the ACS.

Scientists, including the likes of Nobel
laureates, Linus Pauling, and Otto

Warburg, are considered traitorous and
their work labeled as quackery.

In the 1950s, Benedict Fitzgerald,
special counsel for the Interstate

Commerce Committee, is
enlisted to investigate allegations

of conspiracy on the part
of the medical establishment.

In 1953, Fitzgerald's report is submitted
to the United States Senate, stating,

My investigation to date should convince
this committee that a conspiracy does exist.

Public and private funds have been thrown
around like confetti at a county fair to

close up and destroy clinics, hospitals,
and scientific research labs which do not

conform to the viewpoint of medical
associations.

The report is buried.

Fitzgerald reassigned.

And today, the battle to suppress
innovation rages on.

Canadian research team has come up with
DCA.

They believe it's a cheap and simple drug
that kills almost all cancers.

You heard that right.

The real story is...

you can't have it.

Not because it's unsafe, but because your
blood's going to shoot out your eyes

because it doesn't make any money.

DCA isn't owned by any pharmaceutical
company.

There's no patent on it.

So on one hand, it could become a very
inexpensive new treatment for cancer.

On the other, drug companies
won't be interested in

funding studies for a drug
that won't make them a profit.

And in the US, the FDA has shut down all
sites selling the drug.

How do you take something that costs
pennies a day and fit it into a system

that at the end of the process is supposed
to generate a drug that's going to make

two or four billion dollars a year for
you?

Can't be done.

Back in the early to mid-80s, I was in the
laboratory and we worked on an immune

therapy and I thought this
would be very applicable for

children with bone cancer
that spreads to the lungs.

Because the cancer Dr. Kleinerman is
investigating only affects a thousand

children a year, no pharmaceutical company
will finance the trials necessary to get

FDA approval.

But through a grant, the trials are
designed and funded.

The results are remarkable and the
breakthrough cure seems imminent.

Well, the FDA and look in the design said
we don't like the design and we don't

think it should have been designed this
way.

But okay, we did it and the data's there
and the data's been submitted for

publications to one of the top oncology
journals.

But it doesn't look
like it's going to be

accepted as the pivotal
trial to get licensing.

This is children's lives.

As we argue back and forth between what
should be done, our patients are losing

valuable time.

Time they don't have.

Dr. Kleinerman's clinical
trials in the late 80s and

early 90s were funded
through a grant from the NCI.

She was one of the fortunate
researchers to get a piece

of the institute's nearly
$4 billion annual budget.

The scientists at the University of
Alberta haven't been so lucky.

There's even an idea that's way off the
map and you put it in a grant and say,

I want to test this, you know,
throw it away.

There's a tendency for the people at the
National Institute of Healthy FDA and AMA,

the whole works, to not be that interested
in trying to look at possible changes in

our healthcare system in terms of better
treatments for disease.

The problem isn't quack, quack,
quack.

The core problem is money.

The core problem is patents.

The core problem is who
is going to control this

cure or this treatment
at the end of the day.

And if it isn't the quote-unquote right
people, if it isn't the big corporations,

it just isn't going to happen.

Not only does this paradigm not work and
people suffer and die as they have the

entire century, but this paradigm blocks
out true discoveries.

This paradigm persecutes those who
actually can help.

The day I got a call from a father named
Thomas Navarro and the FDA has refused to

allow him to do what he
thinks is best for his son and they

placed a whole matter on
clinical hold while his son dies.

I've written a letter to Donna Shalella,
the key to which is the statement it

should be the right of every responsible
American citizen to seek the medical care

of their choice without government
bureaucracies standing in the way.

And one of the things we were exposing was
the fact that the FDA has never approved

the use of radiation or chemo for using on
children.

The fact that if you read the
pharmaceutical inserts on the

chemotherapies that it says right on there
from the manufacturer has not been proven

safe or effective for pediatric
application.

So my question is, if the guys that make
it say gosh, we don't know if it works and

we don't know if it's safe but we'll put
you in prison if you don't do it.

What's that all about?

It's insane.

Now the parents are getting some support
from unlikely sources.

Two of the men who are running against
each other for president.

Enter the politicians, first Republican
Alan Keyes, now Texas Governor George W.

Bush, urging the FDA
to reconsider arguing it's

the family's choice, not
the federal governments.

Parents are absolutely worried to death
about radiation and what it means to the

boy and I would hope the FDA would
reconsider.

Even though we were out there pushing our
opinion and our right, the FDA is so

powerful they still were standing up and
saying no.

Good morning Dr. Hany,
my name is Jim Navarro,

and you're probably
very aware of who I am.

I'd like to know, first of all,
why is a parent?

I don't have the right to treat my child.

For five and a half months
we've been here in a

hotel waiting, still
challenging the decision.

Why can't you allow my son an opportunity
to a non-leafle, non-toxic modality first?

I think that I would say to you that the
kind of therapy that is being offered in

traditional settings that has a proven
efficacy is what the physicians that you

saw in Arizona and over at the MD Anderson
in Houston, and many oncologists who treat

this disease in this country would be
recommending to you.

As for that reason, because there is
standard therapy available that we are

saying that is what should be done before
experimental therapy is tried.

Standard of care simply means
we've used this for decades on

a post and no one's opposed us
because we've imprisoned them.

And anyone that dares speak against us,
we throw in jail.

And they will also threaten to take all
your children away, and then bargain with

you and say, okay, we will give you back
these other children.

We just want to have this one and treat
them.

And what are you supposed to do as a
parent?

In April of 2000, Jim and Donna
take Thomas and his brother

Patrick to Mexico in an
effort to avoid persecution.

Stahl for time to get
into the Brzezinski

clinic and try an alternative
non-toxic therapy.

Realistically, for the FDA to allow it,
I don't know that they will allow it.

I think what it's going to take is a
congressional order to get them to stand down.

It's not about whether or not they want to
allow it because they don't.

It flies in the face of what they're
doing.

It disrupts their covenant with the
pharmaceutical companies.

So they're not going to go for it.

You have right to choose in the entire
commercial market except for medicine.

And it's interesting.

Your right to choose in cancer is
truncated the most.

You'll find that when conventional
medicine is not working, that is the

therapy that receives the most
attention and the most protection

by the FDA and the AMA and
the other conventional guys.

You know, people will go to Mexico to get
treatment for broken leg.

We've arranged with
Dr. Prior to meet at Chipsa

Hospital and go through
our catheterization today.

I'll do whatever I have
to do in order to keep

myself alive because
I've got too much to lose.

It is.

That's not even a question in my mind.

The catheter is just a
route of administration that

just facilitates how
easily this can go for it.

I attempted to have a catheter placed in
my chest back in Delray Beach.

And that was not going
to be possible because

they had to know why
it was being placed there.

What was going to be injected.

And once they were to
know what was going to

be injected, they
would not approve of it.

The doctor was putting his license on the
line.

The illegal therapy Gloria wants to use is
a combination of sodium bicarbonate and

leotril, also known as vitamin B17 or
amygdalen.

It is derived from the kernel
of an apricot and its benefits

in treating cancer have
been touted for generations.

There are certain places around the world
that traditionally don't have cancer.

In Hunza, a man's wealth was measured by
the number of apricot trees he owned.

They didn't have money.

It was a primitive society.

And they didn't have cancer either.

And then you have the
Wilcombe Babas and the Hopi

and the Navajo Indians
and the Aboriginal Eskimos.

These little pockets,
these little cultures around

the world that traditionally
did not have cancer.

In every case, when you
study the natural food to those

people, it's very rich in
this amygdalen substance.

Leotril comes to prominence in the U.S.

in the 1970s.

It is legal in 17 states, but is easiest
to find in Tijuana, Mexico, where cancer

patients from all walks of life come in
search of a cure.

The president had a cancer confined to the
wall of his colon or bowel.

After undergoing colon surgery in 1985,
president Ronald Reagan is told by his

doctors that there is a chance cancer cells
will spread to his liver or other organs.

In the early 80s, I was invited to train
with Dr. Vera Allison in Nevada.

We got a call.

Secret service said we want
you to intervene and be by

proxy president Reagan's
primary care metabolic doctor.

He wants and Nancy wants his wife to use
leotril therapy.

Two decades before Ronald Reagan is
diagnosed with cancer, a future Oregon

senator named Mark Hatfield meets Dr. Allison
when she treats his mother for cancer.

Mark Hatfield never forgot that.

Having befriended Reagan, obviously,
he suggested, well, there's a little gal

in Nevada and we need to hook you up with
her.

For 13 months, we took care of president
Reagan, and the way we did that,

the government hired a private doctor.

So each day, he would hook up the IV lines
according to Dr. Allison's instructions.

Occasionally, President Reagan would fly
to Mexico on state business, but what he

was down here, he was meeting Dr. Ernesto
Contreras and getting IV therapy, leotril.

And he never had one bit of chemo or
radiation.

So we had a president
who lived to his 90s, used

only metabolic therapy
in addition to surgery.

And he survived.

Leotril, however, is not the only drug
that finds its way to Mexico.

Remember what happened with tamoxifen?

It was the middle 80s.

I started to use tamoxifen, and it was not
allowed in the United States.

And the patients were coming to use
tamoxifen here.

And what we hear from doctors in the
States is, oh, you are going with this?

Quack guys are giving you something that
does not work.

Who brought tamoxifen to Mexico?

Where are these pharmaceuticals?

Why?

Because they couldn't put it out in the
States sooner.

The same happened with flutamide,
for prostate cancer, ulexin.

It was first here in Mexico.

It was not allowed in the United States.

And doctor in the States is, that's not a
good product.

Once they prove that it was an effective
medicine, then they pass it after.

So alternative medicine
at the end is something

that perhaps the
pharmaceutical needs.

This is so non-invasive and so powerful
and so simple.

I would suggest that
by Christmas time, we are

going to have a
wonderful time to celebrate.

And be with their family.

And have good news.

And have this really, really controlled
and pretty much out of her system.

Well, there are people
who say patients should be

able to get access to
experimental drugs on demand.

I have a fatal disease.

I want what I want.

Give it to me.

I'm an American.

I have the right to have that.

The problem with that is, we will never
learn whether it worked or not.

If we just simply give it to anybody who
wants it.

We've got to make sure
we understand the disease

as best as we can at
the molecular level.

Match that in a group with
how the disease responds

and know whether or not
we've really made any progress.

The worst thing that
can happen is for us to

approve something
that actually is worthless.

Sure, there are frauds out there.

And those frauds can be identified and
prosecuted.

And they should be.

But there are many, many brilliant doctors
who provide alternatives.

When the FDA approved treatment is utterly
unsuccessful.

In June 2000, Jim Navarro with the help of
Congressman Dan Burton is able to persuade

Congress to hold hearings on the Thomas
Navarro Patience Rights Act which will

allow informed patients to choose their
own therapy.

On behalf of Committee, I want to welcome
you all here today.

Mr. Navarro, it's nice having you back
with us.

Why don't you tell us how your son is doing
and what's transpired since we last met.

As we speak, Thomas is in therapy outside
the United States.

And in spite of the events of the last
almost nine months, he's doing quite well

and defeating his illness.

Mr. Chairman, you asked, can an unapproved
therapy believe to be less toxic,

be tried prior to a curative therapy that
has known serious adverse events?

The answer is no.

The conventional therapies for medial
blasphemy is one of the true success

stories of pediatric oncology in that it
allows a curative potential in over a 75%

of patients that are interim to just real
briefly because I saw some of the children

that were cured by this treatment.

I saw them.

They were mentally retarded.

They couldn't talk.

They couldn't speak.

The cancer supposedly was cured,
but the child was a vegetable.

Now I'm not sure that that's
what those parents envisioned

when they went through
the conventional treatment.

Number one, Thomas Navarro did not qualify
for the protocol because it was

specifically stated that patients must
have had an attemptive curative therapy.

Meaning chemotherapy and radiation because
of the treatment.

Ignoring the requests of Chairman Burton,
Dr. Pazdour refuses to listen to the

testimony of other expert witnesses or Jim
Navarro.

Hello, Dr. Navarro.

Can I just show you something really good?

As a man of common sense, I'm sure you'll
agree.

You've seen my son, Thomas.

This is his new best friend, Liam.

After two months of chemo
therapy, it triggered him in my

reaction to him or throughout
his head and broke his jaw.

May I show you the audience?

Sure.

This is Thomas using alternative therapy.

And this is Liam, conventional therapy,
two months for him.

Which would you choose?

Who decides?

You have to admit that this is a cesspool.

I mean, the FDA is not
some pristine, beautiful

palace where
everything is crystalline.

Everyone is spicken span.

The only thing that people are allowed to
see, I see a big sign.

And the sign says, FDA, we defend the
public health.

And of all the lies
that are perpetuated to

the American public,
that one's the biggest.

We have a serious problem in our whole
federal government.

It's tremendously important
for the members of the

Congress to be sure that they
don't antagonize in any way.

The people who give them the money.

Because they need that money for their
next campaign.

So, we have a government that is beholden
primarily to the special interest money

that they get from
special interest and their

lobbyists rather than
the people of our country.

And the industry that
spends the most money on

lobbying of any is a
pharmaceutical industry.

And it's money that pushes the whole
system so that it's the money that the

pharmaceutical companies give in political
contributions to members of Congress.

And it is the movement of people from the
pharmaceutical industry to the FDA and

back and forth where it's the money that
these people make that moves the system.

So, it's not the individuals.

It's the system that corrupts the whole
thing.

We initially got excellent response from
both sides of the aisle.

But then when we introduced the bill and
it went to committee, the bill was

basically beat down by Henry Waxman out of
LA.

He was married to a sister of a former
commissioner of the FDA.

So, you knew which side of the bread he
was buttered on.

So, there's one, two, three, four.

Yes, he said yes.

There.

When Thomas's tumors
recur in July of 2000, the

Navarro's have no choice
but to return to the states.

Thomas will undergo surgery in New York to
remove the tumors.

And according to standard protocol,
received 10 days of high dose chemotherapy.

Then we had a CAT scan done on 1st of
November.

And it still showed the tumor growing a
little bit, not a lot, but a little bit.

And at this point, the tumor was getting
so large that I said, you know,

we just can't continue this.

Because I was
beginning to experience a

pressure in my chest
and started this dry cough.

So, consequently, we
started a chemotherapy

program, which is the
last thing I wanted to do.

This mesothenialma is a very resistant
cancer.

And so, my sense is
that the layatrial in the

sodium macarbonate
were just not strong enough.

And so, I have no regrets.

Not at all.

As it corrupted what we
really want for individual

patients needs, we have
to support their wishes.

And we do the best we can without being
dogmatic.

We're learning year after year on how to
integrate both safe and small doses of

conventional care with maximum natural
therapy approaches.

Mesothelialyoma is really one of the
hardest cancers to overcome.

And so, it becomes a team effort from the
family's point of view and the doctor

team, all that contributing to this
success of this person's quality of life.

Good morning.

My name is Gloria LaBarge.

I have a 945 with Dr. Clostin.

It's important for us as classically
trained physicians to realize the

limitations of the
treatments that we have and

the costs in terms of
side effects that they have.

But it's also important for us to
acknowledge that there are, for example,

Chinese herbal remedies that have been
around for thousands of years.

And the reason that they're still used is
because they have some benefit.

On colleges throughout the country are
open to prescribing alternative treatments

if they can be shown to be safe and
effective.

But they risk losing their
licenses or even being thrown in

jail in the absence of data
from approved clinical trials.

The Office of Alternative Medicine was
supposed to solve that problem.

In 1992, it was one of the few
people who was asked to set

up the first office of
alternative medicine at the NIH.

We did that with centers Harkin and Hatch,
and a few others.

But those dollars, the dollars that are
assigned to them by way of the Senate,

has to go through the approval process of
the NIH.

The report language on that
bill was that it was to quote,

investigate and validate
alternative treatments for disease.

Well, NIH would have no
part of any investigation

or validation of
alternative treatments.

And in the eight years
that I served on the advisory

committee, our advisory
committee was of one mind.

We wanted them to do
what the legislation said,

investigate and validate
these alternative treatments.

They wouldn't do it.

It's a red headed stepchild, and always
will be.

After being tumor-free for several months,
Thomas' cancer resurfaces on his spine.

And the Navarro's make
a last desperate plea

to gain admittance
to the Brzezinski clinic.

When Syracuse did an MRI on him,
the doctor came out and shook his head and

said, we stopped counting tumors at 50.

You need to take him home.

Or by the chemotherapy.

The tumors are being caused by the
chemotherapy.

This is Chairman Burton.

I need to talk to Dr. Pasdura right away.

Does he have an assistant?

This is the assistant?

Have an assistant?

No, I want to talk to him now.

This is Chairman Burton.

Can you find him?

I love this universe.

You're going to be
fired if I don't talk to you

pretty quick, because
I'll call Tommy Thompson.

You want me to call the secretary?

If I don't talk to him in the next five
minutes, and you tell him I said that,

I will call Tommy Thompson.

Well, you get a hold of me in five
minutes.

I just get so tired of these.

You would say it is safe to head to Houston,
because I'll put them on a jet today.

I'll get a hold of Pasdura now,
because he has no clue.

Thank you so much.

Press it.

Press it.

Here you go.

On April 28, 2001, the
Navarro's 18 month battle to

get Thomas into the
Brzezinski clinic finally ends.

Okay, let's get off.

It's almost a miracle that the Thomas is
still alive at this moment.

On the other hand, when he was waiting for
the permission, his disease progressed,

and he was very close to death.

Dr. Brzezinski said he did not hold out much
hope, but he was going to give it a try.

Did you see it?

Hi, how are you doing?

In the spine, we see pretty much the same
situation.

It's pretty good.

Of course, we need to measure this exactly
to find out what's the difference.

We're going to have some normal tissue,
which is occurring inside.

It's in turn six on the fifth.

That's a big day per year.

It's a third stage.

Yes, it's Thomas's birthday.

If you would treat him two years ago,
today he'd be cured, I believe.

A lot of people don't realize that with
chemotherapy, after you're done with the

treatment, the chemotherapy
lies dormant in your

fat cells, and then a
year later re-emerges.

So you have that cellular breakdown all
over again, you lose your hair,

you have all your organs and everything
start breaking down.

Give you what?

Do you want me to turn you, or do you want
to check them out?

Then be patient.

I can't do too much at the same time.

Turn me.

I did turn you.

This one.

You were that way, sweetie.

This way, now.

Do you want to go back the other way?

Okay.

You okay?

Yes, all right.

You turn me.

I did turn you.

This way, now.

This way, right?

Turn me.

I love you.

You want water?

Yes.

Statistically speaking, Ray Lamy was cured
of cancer three times.

That's because he
survived five years past his

initial diagnosis of
bladder cancer in 1980.

Five years past his 1981 diagnosis of
kidney cancer and five years past his 2003

diagnosis of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, which
was treated with combination chemotherapy.

But he spent the last three years of his
life battling ever more aggressive forms

of the disease.

And on July 21st, 2009, he died from
lymphoma at the age of 64.

Despite vigorously pursuing treatments in
both the complimentary and conventional

worlds of cancer therapy, Gloria Labarge
succumbed to mesothelioma in July, 2008.

Our oncologist conceded that the first
line treatments were no longer effective.

He went to a vastine and it just...it
really did nothing.

It seemed like, you know, the disease was
bulletproof at this point.

You know, it would just
be a matter of time and

making her comfortable
until she would pass.

We didn't know how long that would be,
but the disease was so intense inside of

her that it turned out to be less than a
month.

He was inhibited like five times.

He was put on a respirator to breathe
form.

And on his fifth time, we're like,
what do you want to do?

Do you want to fight?

Or do you want to go home?

He goes, I want to go home.

In November 2001, two years after his
diagnosis, the Navarro's are told Thomas

only has a few days left to live.

Do you want to go home?

Yeah.

Do you miss Daddy?

One, two, three.

You're home, baby.

How you doing?

We glad you're home, buddy.

Me too.

So then we had to make the decision to let
him go, and it was very difficult.

But he fought so hard and so did we.

His death certificate
reads, respiratory

arrest due to chronic
toxicity of chemotherapy.

That says it all.

Yeah.

It says it all.

Cancer equals chemotherapy.

That's hard to eradicate that from your
mind.

So when you have a cancer, are you going
to really jeopardize yourself in your mind

by not taking chemotherapy?

It's yourself now.

You have to come in and deal with your own
demons about that.

That's hard to do.

One in two men and one
in every three women in the

United States will get
cancer in their lifetime.

But there is hope.

What we have to do is
learn how to prevent it,

and we have to learn
how to treat it better.

Now, can we prevent it?

The answer is yes.

Why?

Because risk factors that we're talking
about are controllable.

Only 6 to 7, maybe 10% of all cancers are
related to genetics.

We can't, in any individual case,
be sure of preventing cancer.

But we know a lot more
and we've known a lot

more for a long time
about the causes of cancer.

I think there's no question that diet has
something to do with cancer.

There's no question.

If you look at the migratory studies from
Japan to the Hawaii to the United States,

and look at breast cancer, you see,
you know, optics and breast cancer.

And the biggest change is the western diet
versus the Japanese diet.

Part of the problem, a
big part of the problem, is

the economic incentives
are not there for prevention.

We are taught to treat in medical school,
and we are paid to treat in practice.

We don't get taught prevention,
and we don't get paid to prevent.

So the whole system is kind of
topsy-turvy.

Prevention alone, however, will not win
the war on cancer.

What are our standards for success?

Does a tumor have to shrink?

Well, the tumor doesn't have to shrink.

In diabetes, the pancreas doesn't get
better, but we treat people with insulin,

and we turn a disease
that would be fatal if

we didn't treat it
into a chronic disease.

That's what we need to do with cancer,
perhaps.

First, can we turn a tumor into just a
lump?

We've had, since 1971, a very long period
of time to see that the current methods of

doing things are not working.

Chemotherapy has long ago reached its
limits, surgery and radiation,

although they become technically more
refined.

They only really work when you can get the
tumor early and remove it, but the ancient

Egyptians knew that.

So you need something more effective.

The therapies which are addressing what is
causing cancer, especially the changes in

genetic makeup in the cancer, are now
taken over.

We are striving toward the
individualization of cancer treatment,

where you would take a tumor, take an
individual, characterize them molecularly,

and tailor your therapy accordingly.

That's not what the FDA system is built to
look at.

So we're going to have to step back and
look at it all over again.

How are we really going
to characterize patients'

diseases and the response
to the treatments we have?

That's a big issue now.

I personally think that the war on cancer
would move a lot faster, and would have

moved a lot faster if the
FDA was moving along with

it instead of looking at
as sort of an adversary.

The laws aren't being made by the elected
representatives.

They're being made by the bureaucrats.

They're insulated by law.

We have to force Congress to change.

Our desire now that we've had this time
since our son's passing, and we're not

whole yet, we'll never be whole,
but now that we've healed to the point

where we can take the hits, we want to
reintroduce his bill and this time drive

it through to law so that people have the
right to choose their doctors.

There isn't a doctor, for example,
in Italy, who claims that cancer is caused

by a fungus, and if you eliminate the
fungus you eliminate the problem.

I don't know if he's right or wrong,
and I don't pretend to know.

But it seems to me, for God's sakes,
we ought to find out.

Because it seems to me it's significantly
important for us to find out what is the

real problem here
that we should not close

the door to looking
at those sorts of things.

How should we meet this challenge?

How can we truly open the doors and set
free the full genius of our people?

One has to assume given the state of
science and the tools we have at our

disposal, there isn't anything we can't
do.

Patients should have a right to choose,
doctors should be free to innovate.

That's the way Madison moves forward.

If you could detach research from the
financial agenda, then scientists could do

their work without
consideration of where this

is going to lead in
terms of profitability.

And then I think you'd see the brilliance
come out.

People said we went to the moon.

Why can't we do that with cancer?

And the answer is, when we went to the
moon, we pretty much understood the

physics and the aviation, the avionics of
what it took.

It was a question of whether we had to
where with all to spend the money and put

in the technology to get the man to the
moon and back, which we were willing to do.

We are now very early in the same process
with cancer, but we're way early.

We're still defining the rules of the
game.

Our recovery plan will invest in
electronic health records, a new

technology that will reduce errors, bring
down costs, ensure privacy and save lives.

It will launch a new effort to conquer a
disease that has touched the life of

nearly every American, including me,
by seeking a cure for cancer in our time.