I'm going to guess his "clinic" is taking losses, but part of those losses is from his salary.
Not really, people are just crazy sometimes. See homeopathy, etc.
if it works why isn't it being used elsewhere?
oh, because it doesn't work.
You still don't understand that any patent application will (or should) include citations of any earlier work that might be related.
This can be used to narrow a patent or to deny it based on prior art, but citations appearing do not mean the new patent is "stealing" or "infringing" anything from the existing patents.
An application for mousetrap 20 might list citations for mousetraps 1-19 from 19 other inventors, then (to be granted) the new application must explain why it is new and different -- but then only the new and different parts will be protected by the patent.
Patents 1-19 keep all of their existing strength.
It's pretty clear you have no idea how the patent system works, how the new drug application process works, or why the FDA has the power to tell someone that they cannot commercially advertise a particular treatment for a particular disease without proven efficacy, or having gone through the approval process.
You haven't shown anything that that actually hints the FDA is trying to sabotage his work or reputation. Instead you've shown that they, and the state's medical board, have sanctioned him for not following the fucking rules, by commercially advertising, and billing insurance, for his unproven treatment....which is fraud.
If you reference a researcher on your patent app, how come you are also trying to discredit him and put him to jail?
It does not make any sense...
Do you know how does the patent application work?
If you are quoting someone in your patent app, you base your patent claims partially on the quoted person's work...
Right?
Again, stop and see the movie
THX
You know that quackwatch.org is not a helpful citation for your argument?
You reference an existing patent on a new patent app because they have published something that makes a claim on some related subject. It may be directly related (maybe your patent improves on their idea) or it could be something that claims to be another method to do the same thing you're trying to do. Notice the word "claims" in that last sentence. To get a patent you don't have to provide a single shred of proof that your idea actually works, you just need to show that it's sufficiently different from things other people have claimed to invent in the past.
There's thousands and thousands of absolute junk patents that don't work. Yet people still legally have to cite them in new patent applications to show that they've looked at them and found that their new idea does not infringe. You can't just ignore the related patents that you don't think work, you need to present them all and make it clear that your idea is different.
...do you have any idea how much that cure would be worth? Pharmaceutical companies would be FIGHTING over purchasing that patent from me. It would be worth hundreds of billions of dollars (lol at him being a mere billionaire) if not trillions...
Plus you could sell cigarettes on the side for even more profit, considering you can cure lung cancer.
adlep, perhaps I can attempt to explain this part of the patent process to you. What if we were back in the horse riding days and someone patented a particular 4 wheel vehicle that was powered by a motor that it turns out, ended up exploding within 2 to 3 weeks, killing all passengers in the vehicle? If someone else came up with a 4 wheeled vehicle with its own power source, they WOULD list that prior patent within their own. There are plenty of things that have been patented which turned out to be ineffective; but improvements on those inventions HAVE been fruitful.
Now, on to a bit of logic:
He claims that the FDA is stopping him? The F in FDA stands for "within the United States." He's free to go to Europe, or anywhere else on this planet to promote his drugs. And, like many others, you claim that big pharmaceutical companies are all out to stop him. That defies all logic and common sense. Imagine if I found a 100% certain cure for all types of cancer, or hell, even just for a handful of common cancers - do you have any idea how much that cure would be worth? Pharmaceutical companies would be FIGHTING over purchasing that patent from me. It would be worth hundreds of billions of dollars (lol at him being a mere billionaire) if not trillions. The annual global cost of lung cancer alone is 188 billion dollars (just google for economic cost of lung cancer.) If it cured more than one type of cancer, do you have any idea how much that would be worth?!
However, you claim that it's an effective cancer CURE, but seem to have completely sidestepped the fact that in the only real clinical test that's been done, ALL of the patients died. Could you please address that issue, please??
Yes it is, because it shows that Dr B's opponents are desperate...
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski1.html
the "quackwatch" is desperate enough to questions Dr. B's PHD's credentials...
Then he performs the "Analysis of Antineoplaston Biochemistry" yet fails to mention that a government sponsored bitch got like a bunch of patents (see my links above) approved in the identical field dealing with the identical subject and citing/referring to Dr. Burzynski's research...
So there...
The Winkovi tools provided Zuck with a concept and preliminary site and he took the idea, run with it, made it work, and then paid the Winkovi off for cheap...
How many of them are sponsored by the gov (not many)...?
Also, the bio-chem patents are not "junk" patents...Typically there is a multimillion dollar research grant involved either by a gov or a big pharma company...
Read these, especially the first one...Over 100 pages of hard-core bio-chemistry. Serious research, lab, lab animals, equipment, staff, computers, payroll, time spent, statistical analysis, typically an institution is involved too. No one would throw these kind of resources on ideas that do not show a great promise...In the field of research pioneered by Dr. Burzynski btw...
For example, I actually have filed a few patents for high speed seals (my name is on the patent, my company holds the rights). The design of the seals that I work with is completely different from competing seal technologies that are used for similar applications. That means I can patent my design without infringing on the patents of people that make competing seal designs. While my patent in no way infringes on theirs I still cited their patents. I did it because my invention is a seal and their invention is a seal. Citing their patent is a way of saying that I am aware of their patent and mine does not infringe on it.
Y'all been trolled
But I came in here for an argument . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
I have no doubt that your seal is better that your competition's seal, and I could even accept the fact that the patented new cancer treatment option is a better that the new cancer treatment option patented by Dr. Burzynski. That is called a scientific progress. Still, it proves my point. There is a theoretical and experimental basis for Dr. Budzinski claim because it has now been explored and improved upon by other research team that is sponsored by the government. Yet one party is receiving grants and patents while the other party is receiving threats and constant legal actions...
Edit: If I am a troll, I wish for these forums to have more "trolls" like me...