antineoplaston therapy... the cure for cancer

As a cancer survivor myself, I hope this turns out to be successful. I really do. But I've seen so many 'breakthroughs' come and go over the years.

And I don't think the 'biggest thing' to take in here is the government's involvement, or lack of it. That's making your post lean towards the political, which isn't allowed here -- and for very good reason.

As to the treatment itself, we'll just have to wait and see.
 
As to the treatment itself, we'll just have to wait and see.
Click to expand...

Dr Burzynski is making medical history by becoming the first 'individual' by having a medicine approved by the system(FDA). It is a process that usually cost around $1 billion per medicine, hence only undertaken by big pharma.
As with all the inventors in history, he went through the stages of 'ridicule, prosecution and approval'(well almost). His treatment has been in use for the last 2 decades and proven to be highly effective for certain types of cancer. What you are waiting is gate keepers' approval.
There are many other breakthroughs out there, unfortunately not getting the attention of the medical establishment.
 
Hmmm... as another cancer survivor, I'd say that whatever you may think of Big Pharma, the individual doctors (the good ones?) are very interested in finding the best cures and tend to be on top of most research activity and promising or alternative therapies. They do not seem to be embracing this.

Just for another point of view, check this out: http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/Tre...Treatment/antineoplaston-therapy?sitearea=ETO

A bit of searching indeed turns up no real evidence that antineoplaston therapy does any good; and certainly there are no quality studies published. What ARE the statistics for the 8,000 patients treated by Burzynski?

Hey I hope he's found something great... but he really needs to provide some evidence that this stuff helps, and doesn't hurt.
 
VGurcu said:
His treatment has been in use for the last 2 decades and proven to be highly effective for certain types of cancer.
Click to expand...

Can you point to some evidence of this? As I said... two decades, thousands of patients... I'd like to see some statistics on what happened to all of them... some of them?
 
Truth or Not

Truth or Not

ullanta said:
Hmmm... as another cancer survivor, I'd say that whatever you may think of Big Pharma, the individual doctors (the good ones?) are very interested in finding the best cures and tend to be on top of most research activity and promising or alternative therapies. They do not seem to be embracing this.

Just for another point of view, check this out: http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/Tre...Treatment/antineoplaston-therapy?sitearea=ETO


A bit of searching indeed turns up no real evidence that antineoplaston therapy does any good; and certainly there are no quality studies published. What ARE the statistics for the 8,000 patients treated by Burzynski?

Hey I hope he's found something great... but he really needs to provide some evidence that this stuff helps, and doesn't hurt.
Click to expand...



Yes but if you watch the movie you'll realise why there's no evidence. Mel Gibson once said with all the money that goes into cancer research there should be a cure by now, and in part his right. When govts are run by corporations through the mighty dollar, truth become the scarce commodity, I'd say that everybody should put this video on their facebook and get the publicity it deserves. To anyone who's touched by cancer, whether themselves or someone they know, which will just about everybody on the planet now, and have seen that chemo usually is what kills the person by destroying what little immune system left to fight the disease, we have to champion those who still fight the good fight.
 
Waste of time when there is money to be made from people's terminal suffering and the pharmacological prolongation of life.
I make no distinction between big pharma and meth dealers... One is a legalized drug pusher, the other a criminal.
 
Though I respect the fact that the subject needs a thorough examination and debate, I don't think this is the place to do that. As I said, this borders on turning into a political discussion (or rant). Such a turn will get this thread closed pretty quickly by the mods. Be aware.
 
doumm said:
Yes but if you watch the movie you'll realise why there's no evidence. Mel Gibson once said with all the money that goes into cancer research there should be a cure by now, and in part his right. When govts are run by corporations through the mighty dollar, truth become the scarce commodity, I'd say that everybody should put this video on their facebook and get the publicity it deserves. To anyone who's touched by cancer, whether themselves or someone they know, which will just about everybody on the planet now, and have seen that chemo usually is what kills the person by destroying what little immune system left to fight the disease, we have to champion those who still fight the good fight.
Click to expand...

Leaving the political aside, chemo isn't what kills the person. Infection is often what kills the person, as a result of their immune system being compromised by the chemo -- which is needed to kill the cancer cells.

My cancer was treated in three phases. First, I had surgery to remove what my ENT doc later referred to as a 'massive' tumor in my neck. (So massive that when my GP doc saw my initial CT scan, he later told me, "I thought you were dead.")

My ET doc felt confident that he had removed all of the tumor. But to make sure, I went through radiation therapy. This was to kill any lingering cancer cells at the site of my tumor.

But the insidious thing about cancer is that if just ONE CELL escapes and survives, it can travel to some other part of the body and start growing a whole new tumor. Since my cancer involved my lymph nodes, that meant a single cell could have broken free and gone almost anywhere. So step 3 was chemo -- the best chance I had to kill any stray cancer cells anywhere in my body.

Without taking all 3 of those steps, I would have run a significant risk of having the cancer return. I didn't want to take that risk.

When you're on chemo, they check your blood often, watching for signs that your immune system is getting low. If it does, they give you shots to boost it. While your immune system is low, they give you a mask to wear whenever you're around people. You're told to wash your hands OFTEN and avoid physical contact or proximity with people. A lot of us don't do what we're told. And we get infections. And it's those infections that can lead to death.

Yes, taking chemo is a risk. So are the other treatments. But the alternative is certain death. It's a risk worth taking, until something better -- something PROVEN better -- comes along.
 
ullanta said:
Can you point to some evidence of this? As I said... two decades, thousands of patients... I'd like to see some statistics on what happened to all of them... some of them?
Click to expand...

Ongoing clinical trials(including Phase 4):
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=burzynski&no_unk=Y

For the statistical information best to get in touch with the clinic:
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/clinical-trials.html


Just for another point of view, check this out: http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/Trea...y?sitearea=ETO

A bit of searching indeed turns up no real evidence that antineoplaston therapy does any good; and certainly there are no quality studies published. What ARE the statistics for the 8,000 patients treated by Burzynski?
Click to expand...

excerp from the link you provided:
"...Published clinical trial results are available for a relatively small number of patients, and the effectiveness of antineoplastons as a cancer therapy remains uncertain. Most cancer specialists believe there is insufficient evidence to recommend use of antineoplastons except perhaps in the context of clinical trials that will provide reliable information on the safety and effectiveness of this treatment."

This is the main problem of medicine: "Sufficient evidence", meaning that unless claimed theory goes through the 'Double blind Randomized Controlled trials' it means nothing to them.
You can heal a dying person in front of this committee and they wont care(Coley). You can show hundreds of pages of patient's record, they ll snob you and confiscate & destroy your papers.(Burzynski)
When Burton destroyed massive tumors in 4 mice with his de-blocking agent in front of prominent scientist , he was accused of switching the mice.

Then there is the parody of 'gold standard proven methods' failed efficiency& safety: Make a research how many PROVEN drugs officially kill thousands of people and taken of the the shelves: Read about Vicodin, Valium,Xanax, Oxycontin.

Read this study from JAMA: (To estimate the incidence of serious and fatal adverse drug reactions (ADR) in hospital patients.)

http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/279/15/1200.full

Excerpt:
".....106000 (76000-137000) had fatal ADRs, making these reactions between the fourth and sixth leading cause of death."

And the irony of it...Spend billions & kill thousands you are ok, because the paper work shines. I guess what i am trying to say is from time to time ask yourself 'what is proven after all'?
 
ullanta said:
Mel Gibson is the most authoritative figure we can find on this subject?
Click to expand...
LOL!

Exactly what I was thinking. :D

Having Cancer MD's in the family and having lost a few family members to cancer.... I think they would have mentioned the secret cure to their loved ones.
They would be more than happy to embrace this sort of thing, if it were proven and tested. Tested properly that is.
 
This is the main problem of medicine: "Sufficient evidence", meaning that unless claimed theory goes through the 'Double blind Randomized Controlled trials' it means nothing to them.
Click to expand...
This is a PROBLEM?

If said cure really is just that, it will have no issues passing these requirements. This "problem" is what keeps the nut jobs at bay with their so called "cures".
 
VGurcu said:
Ongoing clinical trials(including Phase 4):
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=burzynski&no_unk=Y
Click to expand...

Right… 29 trials. Only one completed, with no results published. A good percentage of the others terminated prematurely or withdrawn from consideration. Most of the ongoing trials have been ongoing for over a decade. No publically available results from ANY of this. (all this gleaned from your link above). This is what we call "no evidence."
 
You are quoting evidence from studies of damage done by chemo drugs; isn't it nice to have that sort of information? You know how many people took them in studies, how many were helped, and what the negatives are. It would be great to have similar information with which to compare Burzynski's work, but we don't.

People die from all sorts of medicines, surgeries, alternative therapies, foods, etc. We make decisions about risks by having good information.
 
This is a PROBLEM?

If said cure really is just that, it will have no issues passing these requirements.
Click to expand...

Not really. It is a gene-specific treatment; meaning it is customized after studying patient's entire cancerous genome; analyzing some 24,000 genes in order to identify the abnormal genes. Once abnormal genes are identified, medications and complementary strategies such as diet and supplements are selected to treat these corrupted genes. So it is not one magic pill that fits them all.

This "problem" is what keeps the nut jobs at bay with their so called "cures".
Click to expand...

Nut jobs? On the 'Unproven Methods of Cancer management' list provided by American Cancer Society there are some 60 names of nutjobs.*
Of these, 75 percent of them holds M.D. or Ph.D. Of the 25 percent, 3 holds honorary doctorates of science. Only 2 naturapaths and 3 laymens.

{*Source:Cancer Syndrome by Ralph Moss, 1980}
 
Last edited:
Right… 29 trials. Only one completed, with no results published. A good percentage of the others terminated prematurely or withdrawn from consideration. Most of the ongoing trials have been ongoing for over a decade. No publically available results from ANY of this. (all this gleaned from your link above). This is what we call "no evidence."
Click to expand...

Burzynski has been treating people for the last 30 years. He has extensive collection of actual results, not just paper work. Some of the case studies are published in detail on this support website:
http://burzynskipatientgroup.org/

Ongoing trials (which is normal to take this long) in the last decade allowing him to continue his practise without being hassled by the establishment.

As expected, many of his trials are designed to fail; in his own words:

"...Yes, well, basically they used dosages that were 50 times lower than what we feel are effective dosages. We have some patient’s relatives who were present when the treatment was administered. Formulations of antineoplastons were badly diluted. This means that the patient was receiving very little antineoplastons and some of these patients were removed from the treatment after a short period of time because they were overloaded with fluid..."

"...They sabotaged the trial; they accepted patients who were too advanced. Their main effort was to give a low dose of the medicine for a short period of time and to stop treatment just for some minor problem, like if a patient developed a skin rash. They were trying to give the treatment only for a very short period of time, like for instance a couple of weeks or a month. And then of course the patient was dying after that. It was completely unethical, it was horrible...."

This is not the first time, they did manipulate many unorthodox therapy clinical trials in the past 50 years.

People die from all sorts of medicines, surgeries, alternative therapies, foods, etc. We make decisions about risks by having good information.
Click to expand...

Yes it is a good strategy. Hardest part is to find that good information.
 
Look, VGurcu, I'm trying hard to find anything convincing here. I've looked at all the links you've posted. Nothing has anything mote than a tiny number of anecdotal cases. Nothing even attempts to give a success ratio or ratio of problematic side effects.

Stopping a trial because of a rash is standard procedure, because a rash is often an early sign of a more severe reaction. I've had plenty of drugs pulled from my treatment because of minor reactions. It is strange to hear a researcher complaining about this as if it was something only done in his trials.

Again, 30 years, 8,000 patients… that should provide a lot of data. We're pretty much given nothing. I will be happy if you can show me some statistics… any statistics. Can you even find anything that would back up the claim "fewer than 50% of patients dropped dead immediately after their first treatment?". I can't find even that…
 
Look, VGurcu, I'm trying hard to find anything convincing here. I've looked at all the links you've posted. Nothing has anything mote than a tiny number of anecdotal cases. Nothing even attempts to give a success ratio or ratio of problematic side effects.
Click to expand...

Ullanta,
I am certainly not trying to convince you, and happy for you and for other cancer survivors who choose the orthodox methods(radio, chemo surgery) as treatment. Here is some informal numbers:

Dr. Burzynski currently has statistics for about 40 different types of cancer, covering close to 2,000 patients. Their oncology practice has an average of 50 to 60 percent success rate for either substantial decrease of the tumor sites or complete remission.
"But you have to understand that these are relatively recent medications. Many of these medications were introduced only about a year ago. For this group of patients, it's too premature to have long term survival data because the medications are brand new.
On the other hand, if you are talking about the treatment with antineoplastons, for every clinical trial we have separate statistics. The best results were obtained in the treatment of astrocytoma. In clinical trials for astrocytoma… 67 percent of patients obtained objective response, which means the tumors disappeared completely, which is called complete response. (More than 50 percent decrease of tumor size is a partial response.)​
Click to expand...


Quote is taken from here:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...tanislaw-and-gregory-burzynski-on-cancer.aspx

Stopping a trial because of a rash is standard procedure, because a rash is often an early sign of a more severe reaction. I've had plenty of drugs pulled from my treatment because of minor reactions. It is strange to hear a researcher complaining about this as if it was something only done in his trials
Click to expand...

Not strange if the patient was using Dilantin{a sezizure medication} that he wasnt supposed to be taking during trials.

Again, 30 years, 8,000 patients… that should provide a lot of data. We're pretty much given nothing. I will be happy if you can show me some statistics… any statistics. Can you even find anything that would back up the claim "fewer than 50% of patients dropped dead immediately after their first treatment?". I can't find even that…
Click to expand...

It seems that biggest concern about treatment is toxicity that may be caused by excessive sodium in the formula.To quote:

"...In a document released at recent hearing held by Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN), chairman of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, FDA officials said that according to Burzynski's data, 4% of his patients died while on protocol. According to FDA, hypernatremia-an elevation of serum sodium levels-may have been a factor in the deaths of 1.7% of patients enrolled in the studies in 1997 (The Cancer Letter, April 24)."

Actually here is a good anti-Burzynski article(which doesnt change my opinion about him):
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski2.html

Some accusations are plain idiotic, some has some valid points, but nonetheless he is still the doctor who do care about his patients way more than the establishment does.
​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top