Dr Burzynski, perhaps the most promising cancer cure yet: Antineoplastons

[Windpower]

http://www.burzynskimovie.com/

I remember seeing Dr Burzynski on 60 Minutes some years ago, he continues to cure people of cancer.

I have worked with the pharmaceutical industry for over 30 years installing and repairing laboratory instruments used in research and development and QA.

Based on my experience with the companies (most of the largest pharma companies in the world) over the years I am not surprised at what is presented in this video.

watch here

http://vimeo.com/24821365

[dug]

Great post, even though it was heartbreaking and infuriating to watch. Makes one wonder what might be possible if the gene responsible for greed could be removed from human beings.

[Sassy]

Thanks so much for posting this, Windpower...  it is infuriating & heartbreaking!  I'm amazed that Dr. Burzynski has continued to stand up to Big Pharm & the FDA.  It is criminal what they have done to prevent people from obtaining a non-lethal cure & it is criminal what they have done to Dr. Burznski. 

And our tax dollars helped those criminals 

[Texas Tornado]

I loved it! The cure is here, just have to remove big brother off the backs of the people but I am sure someone will say it is fake and not a conspiracy 

[Native_NM]

I'll play devil's advocate:  what incentive would the government have to keep this off the market? 

[rwanders]

Good question.

Whatever the answer to that question is, this same story (just change the wonder treatment) has been a staple of most of the history of; "Doctor XYZ has discovered the cure for cancer and the govt and/or drug companies have prevented it being approved."

Can't remember how many times that has been the mainstay of their devotees---Laetrile (peach pits) comes to mind-----that provided a very nice income for the offshore clinic that peddled the "cures" to desperate people. There are always anecdotal accounts of the cures----spontaneous remissions and even seemingly cures are  reoccurring incidents in cancer. The discoverers always have elaborate stories why they do not provide the double blind clinical trials and the peer reviewed papers required to support their claims.

Instead, they always cite the usual conspiracies based on; "They won't approve my cure because the drug companies won't make enough money on it"----Really? The "discoverers" always seem to make plenty of money. At least until the story gets too old to sell anymore----a new discovery of a 'miracle cure' then appears and the band plays on.

Press them for clinical proof and all you get is more anecdotes, more testimonials and NO accounting of their patients who are not cured----those folks remain silent--no need to suppress them since they are dead.

Lots of these clinics can be found just across the border in Mexico and many more in India--Germany has quite a few-----gene therapy and stem cell treatments are in vogue recently and sound exotic enough to support a good story.

i do not doubt the doctors stories of miracle cures but would need to compare them to the untold numbers who were not lucky enough to be "cured" before i could take them seriously. having said that, desperation may lead me to believe if I or a loved one faced a bad prognosis.

If their cures were repeatable, there would be no shortage of supporters in and out of the industry and medical researchers who would trumpet the good news and profit by it greatly. Read any history of medical frauds or even just misguided doctors with miracle cures through the last few decades-----you will find amazing similarities to their stories-----one of the oldest and most cruel frauds ran.

Happens over and over--desperate people will grasp at anything that provides a ray of hope----perhaps that is really what they are selling---can't blame the buyers.

RW

[Windpower]

I'll play devil's advocate:  what incentive would the government have to keep this off the market? 

Basically, you need to watch the movie to the end, NM and you will get your answer

It is not 'the government' trying to keep this off the market. It is the greed of people with great power over the system and multi billion dollar R&D grants at stake.

I will relate just one 'big pharma' story I saw happen about 15 years ago at a company I'll call company A 

Company A was gearing up to produce a new antibiotic. The construction for the factory was going at a 7 day a week pace to get the facilities ready. This was to be a $5 Billion a year product, and as soon as the final clinical trial was complete they wanted to be ready for production.

At the completion of the trial, it was approved by the FDA but the statistics made the profitability of the drug look worse than they wanted.

the drug worked well -- it even knocked out drug resistant TB (among other cures) but the side effects were such that the drug would have a more limited market than planned.

They stopped  construction and the drug has never been produced or sold. Not because it doesn't work but because the statistics said they would not make enough money. The actuaries have final say.

I knew one of the top researchers of the project and he told me this, it was a matter of not making 22% but closer to 11% gross profit.

So here is one example of a company making a decision about an antibiotic that could have helped many people because of "not meeting profitability goals"


rw

Ignaz Semmelweis --- do some reading

sadly, human nature has not changed much

[peternap]

You protest too much rwanders.

Miracle cures have been found through history.

Take Rabies. It is 100% fatal unless treated in time by a miracle cure.

The problem is todays miracle is tomorrows old news.

Cancer shouldn't need a major miracle, just a push. We all have cancer cells from time to time, our bodies just do the curing for us.

[dug]

what incentive would the government have to keep this off the market?

Going once... going twice.... sold!   - to Pfizer for an absurd sum. I don't know what's so hard to believe about that given their track record.

Rwanders- snake oil has enjoyed brisk sales throughout history but that doesn't seem to be what this is about. I really think Dr. Burzynski's story deserves an objective view.

Press them for clinical proof and all you get is more anecdotes, more testimonials and NO accounting of their patients who are not cured----those folks remain silent--no need to suppress them since they are dead.

Did we watch the same documentary? 

[Native_NM]

I did watch the entire movie.  I've watched several of this genre.  My question was really not specific to this instance, though applicable. 

Think:  Why would the  same government who is responsible for the payment of a large percentage of total health care costs (via Medicare, Medicaid, indigent care, illegal care, Obamacare et al) want to prevent the introduction of a a cure that would save billions in dollars and millions of lives?  It wouldn't.  You assert that is not the government, but the R&D industry.  Who controls that?  The government plays a large role in it.  The pharma company that would make billions curing cancer has control over it.  Pfizer is paying off the government?  I don't buy that.

As for the new antibiotic, we would have to know the name of the company and the drug in question.  I'd have to review the results of the clinical trials, and understand the size of the market.  The side effects you spoke of may have represented more in future liability than any current profits, which could have resulted in the company going broke.   The actuaries and accountants that make the decisions at Pfizer are no different than the CEO and CFO of Dug, Inc., Windpower, Inc, or NativeNM, Inc.  I'd bet a lot of money that you have made decisions about your family finances that are identical in principle to Pfizer or 'Company A'.  Economic theory involves the allocation of scarce resources, finance is calculating the dollar-value impact of certain decisions, and accountants keep track of the score. Most family CFO's are staunch Republicans.   

Certainly you have had to decide at some point in your life to repair or buy a new car.  Think: with enough money, everyone could buy a car at age 18 and drive it their whole life.  Rebuild the engine, machine the head, new pistons, new suspension, new seats, tires, or whatever was needed.  The technology is there.  It is not economically feasible.  Companies make the same types of decisions every day. 

Some companies, like big pharma, are in the business of saving lives - lots of lives - while making a profit.  The generation of profits allows them capital to develop the next generation of drugs.  The decision to bypass a certain product line for economic reasons makes good sense if they could save MORE lives by allocating those scarce resources someplace else.  Profit is a motive for any company.  Just like it is for your household.  A pharma company that spends all its time settling lawsuits is NOT spending time or money on R&D for the next product that best benefits the majority of the people.  That should appeal to anyone with socialist or liberal thinking.   

If this represented a true cure for cancer as asserted, big pharma would have snapped it up.  Every clinical trial or study has proven otherwise.  When there is real science to support him, he will win the Noble Prize and be a billionaire.  I'm sure he is sincere, intelligent, and passionate about his work. That doesn't mean its a cure. 

Fusion in a bottle, x-ray glasses, 200 mpg cars, miracle heavy water, magic fat pills, and the Sham-Wow..............   

[Windpower]

I did watch the entire movie.  ....

.......  Pfizer is paying off the government?  I don't buy that.

As for the new antibiotic, we would have to know the name of the company and the drug in question....... 


If this represented a true cure for cancer as asserted, big pharma would have snapped it up.......


Every clinical trial or study has proven otherwise. 

If you watched the complete movie you must have dozed off a couple times

You missed the part where the clinical trial by NCI did not follow the protocols the Burzynski agreed to

you missed the part where they finally published the results of the NCI trial documenting that sub-clinical amounts of the antineoplastons were administered
 
you missed the part where the FDA admitted that the antineoplastons were not dangerous and finally allowed a trial

you missed the part where conventional treatment of glioma brain cancers in children were less than 1% cured by conventional means and 25% cured by Dr Burzynski's treatment

Next point

Why would the government want to surpress this treatment ?

start here

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=H04

Hmm I guess Pfizer is paying off the government

The point is that 'big pharma' is already making billions of dollars 'treating' cancer. So are many other manufacturers of radiation treatments, diagnostics equipment, surgeons  etc etc

They get paid the same amount if the patient gets cured or not,
arguably they make more if they can keep bringing the patient back for more treatment every few months or years.

cured -not so much

To be clear I cannot divulge the name of Company A (but you could probably figure it out if you wanted too) because I have signed confidentiality agreements.

The story is acurate however -- it was not a matter of no profits or too much liability -- it was a matter of not enough profit.

The drug is effective and needed -- it most certainly would have helped save many lives -- but my point was that profits trump saving lives and helping people in this industry in my considerable experience of over 30 years across dozens of companies.

"If this represented a true cure for cancer as asserted, big pharma would have snapped it up."


You must have dozed on this one too

'elan tried to steal it but failed

"Every clinical trial or study has proven otherwise. "

This statement not accurate, watch the movie with a little more caffeine. 

[Native_NM]

Wow, Pfizer was able to buy the federal government for $1.7 million in contributions and $10 million lobbying, split evenly between democrats and republicans.  I bet a few of us here could pool our savings and come up with that. What should our agenda be once we own the politicians?   If I knew it was that cheap I'd have bought them a long time ago.   

[Native_NM]

"Every clinical trial or study has proven otherwise. "

Please cite a peer-reviewed trial that backs his claims.  I've googled and couldnt find one. I did find:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski1.html



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antineoplaston

[rwanders]

 

Thank You, NM

I say again, the history of these kind of "cures" and their sponsors are quite consistent with the chronology you have provided. Some are just plain old snake oil salesmen and some are semi-qualified researchers with good intentions who will not or cannot comply with clinical test protocols.
Clinical test trials have rigorous methods to reveal hidden toxicities, to provide valid, repeatable results and effective, safe treatment (dosage) regimens. A common thread in these histories are claims of successful trials designed and analyzed by the promoters which can never be repeated by independent researchers. Usually the promoters trials are found to be designed and conducted to produce the data as desired----the scientific communities version of the magician pulling a rabbit out of the hat--both illusions.

Wind----slog through NM's attachment. There are enough co-conspirators in it to support a really big conspiracy theory around a thesis that Dr. Burzynski is a victim of a coordinated plot to deny him his triumph over cancer.  You can do it-----we have great faith in your tenacity.

RW

[Windpower]

I don't have to 'slog through' the junk NM quoted (wikipedia ?! --give me a break) As a chemist I can read and understand technical articles.

The 'quackwatch' article is very questionable and in places just downright incorrect and misleading. It has all the characteristics of a ad hominem hit piece. It certainly did not read as though a chemist wrote it.
If 'Dr' Green really was a biochemist then he knew what was in the quackwatch article was a misrepresentation of facts at the worst or misleading and obfuscating at the best.  Dr. Saul Green tries to take a couple cheap shots at Dr. Burzynski's degrees while admitting that he has an M.D. 'Dr' Saul Geen has a Doctor of Philosophy degree not a medical doctor. Green was working with Aetna at the time. Aetna was in a suit against Burzynski because Aetna refused payment for a patient that was cured at Buzynski's clinic. BTW the JAMA article Green wrote was not even peer reviewed. And JAMA refused to publish Burzynski's rebuttal. You can read about it here

http://www.cancerinform.org/aburzinterview2.html

Here you go NM 

This is just one  abstract from a Japanese study (a Phase II trial)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12579278


The preventive effect of antineoplaston AS2-1 on HCC recurrence.
Tsuda H, Sata M, Kumabe T, Uchida M, Hara H.
SourceDepartment of Anesthesiology, Kurume Daiichi Social Insurance Hospital, Kushihara Kurumeshi, Fukuoka 830-0013, Japan.

Abstract
Once hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) develops, it repeats intrahepatic metastasis and has multicentric occurrence, which requires frequent treatment. We designed a phase II clinical trail to clarify whether antineoplaston AS2-1, a mixture of sodium salts of phenylacetylglutamine and phenylacetic acid at a ratio of 1:4, prolongs the recurrence-free interval of HCC patients who undergo frequent treatments for recurrence. Ten patients were enrolled in this trial, 2 in stage I, 6 in stage II, 1 in stage III, 1 in stage IV-B at initial diagnosis. Ten patients experienced 35 recurrence-free intervals. Recurrence-free intervals during antineoplaston AS2-1 administration were significantly longer than those without antineoplaston AS2-1 (16.19+/-15.916 versus 5.05+/-2.897 months: p<0.01). Patients who experienced recurrence-free intervals with and without antineoplaston AS2-1 showed longer intervals during antineoplaston AS2-1 administration than those before and after antineoplaston AS2-1 administration (14.47+/-13.821 versus 5.07+/-2.989 versus 5.02+/-3.009 months: p<0.05). Two patients in stage I showed longer recurrence-free intervals than those in more advanced stages. In conclusion, antineoplaston AS2-1 could not prevent recurrence of HCC but prolonged the recurrence-free interval between regional treatments and improved survival rate of these patients.


But go ahead and rely on your Wikipedia article.

BTW, google will find articles based on your previous searches   

[Native_NM]

Ten patients agree to take snake oil in conjunction with frequent traditional treatment in 2003. Wow!  Certainly with their stunning success they have something more substantive and timely to report.  I'll start the auto-Google and get back with you.  

http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/Pub_Indep_2002_Preventive_effect_of_ANP_Oncology_Reports.pdf

The entire report.

[Native_NM]

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/patient/page2




Randomized controlled trials give the highest level of evidence. In these trials, volunteers are put randomly (by chance) into one of 2 or more groups that compare different treatments. One group (called the control group) does not receive the new treatment being studied. The control group is compared to the groups that receive the new treatment, to see if the new treatment works. No randomized, controlled trials showing the effectiveness of antineoplastons have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

[Native_NM]

 Have any clinical trials (research studies with people) of antineoplastons been conducted?
To date, no phase III randomized, controlled trials of antineoplastons as a treatment for cancer have been conducted.

Many cancer patients have been treated with antineoplastons at Dr. Burzynski's clinic and studied there. A few trials and case studies have been done outside of the clinic. Some of the cancers studied include breast, bladder, cervical, prostate, liver, and lung cancers, leukemia, lymphoma, and brain tumors.

Published information includes results from phase I clinical trials, phase II clinical trials, and case reports. The following antineoplastons were studied in clinical trials:

Antineoplaston A
Antineoplaston A10
Antineoplaston AS2-1
Antineoplaston AS2-5
Antineoplaston A2
Antineoplaston A3
Antineoplaston A5
Safety of Antineoplastons

Phase I trials are the first step in testing a new treatment in people. In these studies, researchers test to see what dose is safe, how the treatment should be given (such as by mouth or by injection), and how often it should be given.


The most severe harmful side effects occurred in a phase II trial. Phase II cancer trials study how a treatment works against certain types of cancer and how it affects the body. A phase II trial of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 in brain tumor patients reported severe nervous system side effects including sleepiness, confusion, seizures, and swelling near the brain.

[Native_NM]

http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/TreatmentsandSideEffects/ComplementaryandAlternativeMedicine/PharmacologicalandBiologicalTreatment/antineoplaston-therapy

[Windpower]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5IABJqfnd8&feature=player_embedded


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inchAk4b9fo&feature=player_embedded


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwTonGa0kCg&feature=player_embedded#at=81


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tai7oMXw-nY&feature=player_embedded



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tai7oMXw-nY&feature=player_embedded

[Native_NM]

You keep posting advertisements.  I was looking for some real science.    

Posting a video produced by the subject in question is not the same as posting a link to a peer-reviewed clinical trial. 

[dug]

Wow, Pfizer was able to buy the federal government for $1.7 million in contributions and $10 million lobbying, split evenly between democrats and republicans.  I bet a few of us here could pool our savings and come up with that. What should our agenda be once we own the politicians?   If I knew it was that cheap I'd have bought them a long time ago.   

Well now it makes sense. If you have that kind of spare change to throw around annually then you are in the 1% club and life couldn't be better. Bully for you! 

Some companies, like big pharma, are in the business of saving lives - lots of lives - while making a profit.

They may have initially started with that philosophy but I believe at some point the order was reversed- Some companies like big pharma, are in the business of making a profit- lots of profit- while saving lives.

Can anyone believe that a corporation would accept a lower profit in order to benefit humanity? Ridiculous or course, helping humanity is not in their job description. So... whose job is it these days?

[Native_NM]

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

[Windpower]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tai7oMXw-nY&feature=player_embedded

Sorry, I forgot I have to spoon feed you.

Starting at 6 minutes

FDA Study of Glioblastoma Multiform brain cancer patients

798 patients with traditional chemo and radiation treatment
Results 38% live 1 years
             12% live 2 years
              Zero lived 5 years

671 Patients treated with gene-targeted drugs

results    2 people were deemed cancer free at the end of the treatment
              7 people lived 2 years
              0 people lived 5 years


368 Patients treated with only Antineoplastons

Results    20 were deemed cancer free after treatment
               208 live 1 year
               77   lived 2 years
               19   alive 5 years

[Native_NM]

Post a link to the FDA study that you cited.  I'll read it.