go to the 6 minute mark and read the fine print at the bottom

   I'm not going to try and add anymore to the fog of these arguments but, I do have a general question.

Wind----If you or a family member were diagnosed with, god forbid, cancer would you choose his clinic and treatments in place of conventional methods?

I don't intend this as a gotcha question but, debating things like Burzynski's claims can make us lose sight of the real patients and families, often in desperate straits, who must make critical choices. It is not an intellectual exercise for them.

RW

Not a wrong or right answer here----sometimes we end up in a place without any good answer

Quote from: Windpower on June 18, 2011, 01:30:20 PM
go to the 6 minute mark and read the fine print at the bottom

The "studies" referenced were completed by Burzynski or his associates himself.  Post a reference to a peer-reviewed, human clinical trial that supports his assertions.  Phase III. 

RW

I will not accept chemotherapy under any circumstances just like most MD's

Radiation is very dangerous as well.   

If I were to get a brain tumor I would not hesitate to contact Dr Burzynski

There are some cancers that are not treated well by antineoplastons
and I would trust his judgement on those circumstances

*grabs spoon yet again*

the first  studies cited are from The New England Journal of Medicine, March 10, 2005  vol 352  R. Strupp MD et al

The comaparison of antineoplastons is from Burzynski's medical records ( of course since his clinic is the only place these can be tested)

The first studies cited do not deal with Burzynski's treatments.

http://www.citeulike.org/user/cornellneurology/article/400151

They dealt with Temozolomide in conjunction with standard chemotherapy treatment.  Are you suggesting that Burzynski's antioneoplastons are chemically similar to TMZ?

Quote from: rwanders on June 18, 2011, 02:50:18 PM
  conventional methods?

I don't intend this as a gotcha question but, debating things like Burzynski's claims can make us lose sight of the real patients and families, often in desperate straits, who must make critical choices. It is not an intellectual exercise for them.

RW

Not a wrong or right answer here----sometimes we end up in a place without any good answer

I'll answer that one. It depends on the prediction for successful treatment.
Pfizer came up with a serum to cure Melanoma a few years ago. In the tests, it killed as many as it cured but sure enough, it did cure.
It was judged too risky for humans (which I don't understand since they were terminal anyway) but one of the Veterinary teaching hospitals in NY decided to try it on dogs.

Our Airdale was diagnosed with Melanoma, operated on, it came back in the lymphatic system and he was given weeks to live.
I read about the tests, signed him up and spent the next 6 months driving him 6 hours one way, to NY for treatment.

He lived another 2 years...so yes, if there was nothing else to lose, I'd choose an unproven treatment.

Anecdotes, especially medical with humans, runs the gamut. With a relative, he tried an experimental drug and it seemed like the cancer turned on. Another friend rejected treatment and lasted 3 years. I've said goodbye to a dear friend twice in the last 9 years, she's been through round after round of conventional treatments, we had dinner the other night. Another rejected treatment, changed his lifestyle and diet and lasted 10 years. I can't draw any meaningful conclusions but would like any option I choose to be available as long as I'm fully informed. Who pays, there's the devil.

Most of these Burzynski links remind me of an old joke:

The President was onboard Marine 1 heading back to SeaTac late at night.  There was a dense fog, and worse, they had lost all radio and navigation systems.  As they fly in circles in zero visibility, they see the top of a skyscraper.  The pilot carefully  hovers toward the building.  The fog clears for a moment and they see a man sitting at his desk on a high floor.  He hovers right next to the building, rolls down his window and shouts out "Where am I?".  The man in the building shouts back "You appear to be in the left front seat of a VH-3 helicopter."  The pilot banks sharply, makes several quick turns, and lands perfectly at SeaTac.  As they step off the helicopter, the President shakes the pilot's hand, and asks him how he did it.  "Simple", he says.  "Everything the guy in the building told me was technically correct, but totally useless.  I knew it must be the Microsoft Help Center.  I've flown over that building a hundred times and knew exactly which way to go from there."

that's a funny joke.

QuoteInsert Quote
I'm hardly in the 1% club.  But if ten people each worth $200,000 pooled their cash they could buy the government?

When corporations make a campaign contribution they must be getting a solid return on their investment or they wouldn't do it.

It's hard for me to understand why those here who oppose Burzynski are so adamant about it. Dangerous side effects were cited as a reason to dismiss this treatment even though Viagra and many other drugs available for non life threatening diseases have potential side effects that are much more severe. Radiation treatment has a very long list of serious side effects, including death by cancer.

I think this topic brings up more important questions than whether or not this treatment is effective, for instance-

Why did the FDA go after Burynski a half dozen times after the courts and juries found him innocent time after time?
Why did Elan try to steal his patents if they were bogus?

Something smells funky.

What really smells funky is that Dr. B.  hasn't been able to raise any capital to run the necessary double blind studies to prove his point.

With all the venture capital that has been floating around the last few decades,  why can't he raise the money for trials?

If he had truly found a cure for cancer,  at some point in the last few decades,  certainly at least one venture capitalist would have seen an opportunity to make a fortune here.

I have neither the time or interest to wade through Dr. B's promotional videos (I got about 40 minutes into the first one)  but if he had really found a cure for cancer the world would be beating a path to his door.

Well archimedes you're probably right. Most likely.

But all the unusual circumstances involved in this case arouses suspicion in a conspiracy theory prone person such as myself.

In addition to my other unanswered questions there is the shady involvement of top dogs in pharmaceutical companies with the FDA. This seems to be a growing trend in many branches of business.
Why spend upwards of 100 million taxpayer dollars to fight something they they themselves (FDA) deemed safe? Thousands of practitioners offer alternatives to traditional medicine which may be hocus pocus, snake oil, or maybe even real science but none that I know of have been attacked with vehemence. As long as it's relatively safe people should have free choice- let the free market shake out what's real and what's not.

QuoteIf he had truly found a cure for cancer,  at some point in the last few decades,  certainly at least one venture capitalist would have seen an opportunity to make a fortune here.

Maybe not. The only patents granted for new drugs have gone to big pharm lately. Maybe there is actually much more profit gained using the current treatments than would be possible with Burzynski method. I'm not saying I believe this, but when a situation like this presents itself you have to ask what the motives may be.

I believe the crux of many social issues lies in the fact that money shapes policy. It has been thoroughly demonstrated that what may be the most profitable is not necessarily what is in the best interest of the general public. In fact it usually isn't. Free market, capitalism, profit- I'm all for it but keep it separate from the government. They are supposed to work for me.

more nonsense- http://www.preventcancer.com/losing/acs/wealthiest_links.htm

People do have a choice to visit his clinic.  They have to pay for it, but they have the choice.

He had to fight like hell and spend a lot of dough for that right.

Quote from: dug on June 19, 2011, 02:11:54 PM

I believe the crux of many social issues lies in the fact that money shapes policy. It has been thoroughly demonstrated that what may be the most profitable is not necessarily what is in the best interest of the general public. In fact it usually isn't. Free market, capitalism, profit- I'm all for it but keep it separate from the government. They are supposed to work for me.

I agree.  And it only seems to be getting worse.

$100 million?  I have serious doubts about that figure.

   I am grateful to Dr Burzynski for a lively and wide ranging discussion. These topics sometimes frustrate me, even down right angry but, never have they not held my interest, never boring.

RW

Quote$100 million?  I have serious doubts about that figure

O.K. you got me, I guess I did exaggerate some. I believe the number was 70 million, I'm not sure of the date of information though so it might be up to 100 by now. A lot of cash none the less.

Even $70 million.    At $100,000 per year, per government employee, that equates to 700 man years.  Over the last 10 years, they would have to have 70 people working full-time against one guy?  Not likely.  I'm sure they have spent a few dollars.  I did a search of the government archives and the FDA site, and found a total of 53 documents related to Burzynski dating back about 15 years.  Most are notations.  There are only about five real letters to his clinic.  I'm sure there has been some testimony, etc., but $70 million does not pass the reasonableness test.

Let's play advocate again:  assume that company x rushes a new treatment with FDA approval and a few years later people start having deadly side affects.  How many of them or their familes would rush to sue to the companies and blame the FDA for not protecting the public?

"assume that company x rushes a new treatment with FDA approval and a few years later people start having deadly side affects"

NM are you even remotely payng attention

this happens all the time

here are a few

Accutane, Advair, Ambien, Aranasp, Aredia, Avandia,
Baycol, Bextra, Botox, Byetta,
Carbamazepine, Cefepime, Celebrex, Cialis, Cipro, Crestor, Cytotec,
Depakote, Digitek, Duract, Duragesic Fentanyl,
Ephedra, Epogen,
Femara, Fen-Phen, Fluorquinolone, Fosamax,
Gardasil, Gadolinium, Gleevec
Hismanal, Heparin, Hydroxycut,
Ketek,
Lamisil, Leukine, Levitra, Levaquin, Lotronex,
Meridia, Mifeprex, Mirapex, Mobic,
Ortho Evra,
Paxil, Permax, Phenergan, Pondimin, Posicor, Prempro, Prilosec, Procrit, Propulsid, Provigil, Prozac,
Quinine
Raplon, Raptiva, Raxar, Redux, Reglan, Rezulin, Risperdal, Ritalin, Rituxan,
Seldane, Seroquel,
Tequin, Trasylol, Tysabri,
Viagra, Vioxx, Vytorin,
Xolair,
Yaz/ Yasmin/ Ocella
Zelnorm, Zencore Tabs, Zicam, Zoloft, Zometa, Zyprexa

I find it curious that some here that promote individualism, responsibility for one's actions, capitalism, and the nobility of corporations, vilify and castigate an individual with that has steadfastly worked  to build a corporation that is dedicated to helping people that have no choice of treatment while not breaking any laws and in fact passing intense FDA, and Medical Board scrutiny without violations or wrong doing.   

The New England Journal of Medicine statistics proves that these patients have no choice -- out of over 1400 people that were diagnosed with brain cancer none, zero, nada, not one person survived more than 5 years after the best treatments modern medicine could provide.

Contrast this with at least 19 people out of over 350  with the same brain cancer--  treated by this man that are alive and well.

*shaking head in bewilderment*

Now why would the same IRS that will audit joe six pack for every dime that he owes, allow regulations that permit drug companies to take the tax deduction for a drug's R&D and then allow them to do a 'paper transaction' to transfer the drug patent to a 'tax haven' so that all that drug's profits are not taxable int he US.


http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7360934n&tag=contentBody;storyMediaBox

I find it interesting that we still haven't seen a single, credible citation of a peer-reviewed clinical trial on humans.  I find it interesting that educated scientists will argue for a position on an emotional basis when the science does not support their position.  I find it interesting that when pressed to support a position they can't, so many resort to subterfuge rather than argue fact. 

You referenced a trial that didn't even deal with his drug earlier.  Let's discuss that topic further before discussing the shortcomings of the IRS.

I explained that

The New England Journal of Medicine was indeed about conventional brain cancer treatment and their dismal outcomes.

Burzynski compared the results of his patients with antineoplastons.
At least 19 of whom survived over 5 years.

Is that so tough to understand ?

If he is in fact fabricating these results there would be at least two problems.

One: he would be in jail for fraud. He is not despite the best effeorts of the Texas Medical Board and the  FDA

Two: There are many people that have come forward to testfy before congress about their experiences. Have they all perjured themselves ?

If you had watched the complete vid you would understand that a full Phase III trial has a price tag of about $300 million (I can verify that as a fairly accurate figure from my contacts in the pharmaceutical industry over the last 30 years)

That is a considerable sum of money for a small company.

Chump change if you are Merck or Pfizer or Bayer or Eli Lilly or GlaxoSmithKline or Novartis or Abbott or Johnson & Johnson -- but I am just listing the companies I have worked for.....

Because you brought it up -- about the FDA approving drugs without adequate review

KETEK

approved after the FDA knew the major clinical trail was a fraud (for which a Physician later did jail time)

"Sanofi-Aventis' optimistic conclusion was thrown into doubt when a routine review of Study 3014 revealed that the doctor who enrolled the most patients—who were paid $400 a head by Sanofi-Aventis—had fabricated some patients entirely and submitted fraudulent data for others. (The physician was later sentenced to a five-year jail term for fraud.) Eventually, FDA investigators recommended that four of the ten clinical trial sites that were inspected be referred for criminal investigation.3  Evidence was also uncovered that Sanofi-Aventis was aware of the fraud when it presented Study 3014 to the FDA.4 "

well referenced article here

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/ketek.html

This also proves that physicians that commit medical fraud can and do go to jail.

Again Burzynski has never even been indicted despite repeated efforts to do just that.


Then there is Vioxx (a drug that has caused me no small amount of stomach pain since I took it 10 years ago)

Estimates of deaths from cardiac arrest caused by Vioxx range from 27,000 to 60,000

by comparison the vietnam war killed about 50,000 Americans