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
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.
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 >:(
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 8)
I'll play devil's advocate: what incentive would the government have to keep this off the market?
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
Quote from: Native_NM on June 16, 2011, 11:24:40 PM
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
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.
Quotewhat 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.
QuotePress 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? ???
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..............
Quote from: Native_NM on June 17, 2011, 01:01:07 PM
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.
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. d* d*
"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
[cool]
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
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
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.
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.
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.
http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/TreatmentsandSideEffects/ComplementaryandAlternativeMedicine/PharmacologicalandBiologicalTreatment/antineoplaston-therapy
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
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.
QuoteWow, 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! ;)
QuoteSome 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?
I'm hardly in the 1% club. But if ten people each worth $200,000 pooled their cash they could buy the government?
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
Post a link to the FDA study that you cited. I'll read it.
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.
:D 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
From the Ketek link/article you posted:
Dr David Ross stated that the "FDA has developed a "culture of approval" , and pressure on managers to quickly approve drugs gets "transmitted down to the reviewers", even when there are unresolved questions about safety or efficacy. Such charges have been made by other FDA scientists as well."
Antineoplastons must really be junk science if Burzynski can't get approval from the FDA, who apparently approves just about anything. d* d*
The FDA, who apparently approves just about anything that is submitted by a $40 Billion a year company.
now that is a statement I can agree with....
What you can agree with is not what he stated...
I have a nurse friend who owned a research business - said she ran approx 300 research studies & is still doing research for a hospital, although no longer owns that business - overhead was too much & the headaches not worth it although she enjoyed it.
She thought the pharmaceutical companies she dealt with were very diligent, the office was audited every month to make sure consents/protocols were being followed correctly. There was a clause that stated if the drug produced adverse effects on a subject, the pharmaceutical company was responsible for any monetary costs.
$100 million per study expenses for pharm companies she considered to be a conservative figure per drug before possibly making it to market. Then, oftentimes, once it did make it to market, new adverse effects might come up, causing the drug to be pulled off the market.
One thing she did say was that she was surprised that some of the drugs made it to market as they didn't work :-\ She cited the nicotine patches as one of them.
Forgot to ask her what she thinks of aspartame... told her about the antineoplastons, Dr. Burzynski etc but she hadn't heard of him. She pretty much follows the status quo - works in a GI lab & told me I should get my colonoscopy d*
Seeing what my brother went through when he had neck cancer, I would not do chemo or radiation & will never take any statins (cholesterol lowering meds). I do take ibuprofen every morning, tylenol at night & a couple tramadols in am for all the arthritic pain I still have in my hips. My lower back is doing better since surgery in April & quite a coincidence - she has the same problem as I had w/a herniated disc at her L5 S1 level of the spine which is compressing her sciatic nerve & she is seeing the same neurosurgeon as I had do my surgery so she was glad to hear how things went for me. I did tell her I tried to do too much afterwards because I felt so good & to just follow doctor's orders d*
I'm not anti-doctors/medications but I have seen a lot of over medication of patients, especially the elderly & try to stay away from them unless I have no alternative. Two surgeries in 2 yrs is plenty to last me for a lifetime :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrD6DXrB6rw&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
Thanks TT
I love your posts Sassy! [cool]
Since YouTube is now a credible source:
http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=rANbED9izwU
The whole saga might have been more spectacular if there were any compelling evidence that antineoplastons actually worked.
The only person who seems able to publish studies showing the treatment's positive results is Burzynski, the only person with a financial interest in the drug. The one time Burzynski agreed to an independent study under the auspices of the National Cancer Institute, it ended in acrimony. Between 1991 and 1995, the NCI spent nearly $1 million funding Phase II trials of patients treated by doctors at the Mayo Clinic and Memorial Sloan- Kettering. Because of slow patient accrual, the doctors decided to expand the agreed-upon parameters of the protocol, ultimately allowing two patients with brain tumors larger than originally called for. Then, after several of the patients experienced side effects, including seizures, edema, confusion and drowsiness, the doctors responded by lowering the patients' dosages. Convinced the doctors were deliberately sabotaging the trials, Burzynski pulled the plug.
A 1995 Phase I trial by Japanese researchers showed promise, but Phase II trials were never initiated.
None of this lack of outside support has prevented Burzynski from publishing studies (mostly in obscure journals) and presenting abstracts at medical conferences worldwide. Yet after all these presentations, and after decades of research, Burzynski seems to have amassed exactly zero outspoken allies in conventional medicine. (While outspoken critics aren't hard to find, some oncologists don't seem interested in discussing him at all. The Houston Press's request to speak with experts at M.D. Anderson fell on deaf ears.)
[cool] NM,
Impressed by your persistence at trying to inject actual fact-based evidence into this thread. Stay strong---there will still be plenty of those who never let it outweigh their faith in any internet silliness that scratches their itches.