My cousin is a patient of Burzynski, she has been for 2 years now. diagnosed with an inoperable brain stem tumor grade 3, it was the size of an egg apparently. She was given 3-6 months to live. She was 12.
I mean, I have read about Burzynski and have seen both sides of the stories, and I still couldn't make up my mind. I can see very clearly how both sides can justify why or why not his methods work.
What made up my mind is my cousin. Today she is 14 and has only a pea sized piece of tumor left on her brain stem.
It's hard for me to be skeptical of BUrzynski when I talk to her on the phone and hear about how well she is doing.
All I know is that she used antineoplastons, she had not had any prior treatments as no realistic ones were given "we can try radiation which might give her a month or possibly two"
Sure, it could have been one of those freaky spontaneous remmisions or her immune system kicked in and killed the tumor, but honestly how many stories do we hear about peoples brain tumors just dying? Almost never.
She has made friends through the clinic, some of who she still talks to today, and some which she, sadly, doesn't. Burzynski never claimed he could cure everyone, it's even on his website somewhere, it shits me when I hear people using that line to beat the crap out of the clinic, they obviously never did their research.
Everyone has the right to their opinion, I am a beleiver now, only because of my cousin, who i beleive would not be here today if it werent for the treatment she is on.
But I dunno, things are confusing enough for cancer patients and their families, the last thing they need when surfing the web is to see people either beating the shit out of a treatment or treating it as a miracle cure. I even had to think very hard about posting on here in case someone saw this and thought it was the answer to their prayers.
Anyway,
peace people.

people here who are against antineoplastons are connexted to big pharmas or to the FDA fuck you're own shit people and hope you will cancers or tumors and seek Dr. Burzynski for cure . You Moron!

Oh! This is the second time recently I've been told I'm connected to Big Pharma (whatever the fuck that is supposed to be...). So...when do i get my check for relentlessly suppressing the truth and martying poor innocent frauds?  I mean, they're gonna pay me right?

No dude. This is bullshit.

I'm gonna OD on homeopathy and totes grab some of those antieoplastons and get to work building my own empire!

John,

I am very experienced with cancer therapeutics having worked with them, worked on clinical trials, and having received them as a patient myself.  I am not jumping to conclusions with ignorance, I am skeptical of Antineoplaston therapy based upon the fact that the science is shaky at best, multiple organizations and companies were unable to recreate the results, and no real evidence other than anecdotal stories.  I'm not some paid shill for industry and I am quite receptive to alternative therapies as long as there is proper science and evidence that lend credence to their efficacy.  One thing that smells funny to me is that all of these trials take place only in Burzynski's clinic, in an environment controlled by him, and he oversees the data.  Multisite trials are becoming de rigueur and it seems a little funny that the guy with the biggest financial stake is keeping it all under his thumb?  That sounds almost as sinister as what Big Pharma does, at least according to alternative therapy proponents.  Hmm, maybe he is no better than they are?

Once again John you try to tug at heartstrings, which while quite compelling cannot stand up to the light of fact and reason.

Effective treatments don't survive, they flourish.  Antineoplastons clinical trials have never made it past Phase II to the best of my knowledge, which means they haven't survived the holy grail of testing, Phase III.  And from my understanding these trials have dragged on because they can't fill the study cohorts.  How do we really know that only 10% of these patients respond to this treatment.  Has it been independently reviewed outside of Burzynsky's purview?

And as far as refining the cure (your words not mine), if Burzynski want's to do that, he needs to go back to the drawing board.  The basic science of antineoplastons is seriously flawed.  As far as if this treatment ever becomes valid and useful to cancer patients and I doubt it would.  I would publish a retraction and if someone saw this post hopefully they would approach it with skepticism too and do their own due diligence and do a little further research.

Burzynski doesn't need to use his "precious resources" to get recognition from Big Pharma, but rather the FDA and the medical community and so far that's lacking.  I would believe more if his studies were multisite or he had a presence of independent oversight during these "trials."

I'm confused, Tom. The NCI site doesn't show any Phase III trials. And the FDA site lists a warning, from 2009. But, I can't find anything about a Phase 3 trial? And hey, I'll admit I'm not a cancer researcher. I'm more an infectious diseases kinda guy. But, did I miss something here?

It is sad that a seemingly inteligent person like yourself would condem a man like Dr Burzynski before you even examine all the facts. I don't care if he is or was a sanitary engineer, if he found or claimed to find a cure for cancer he should be listened to. Doctors have been put on too high a shelf. As soon as their mainline of thinking is challenged they go on the defencive not willing to put their ego aside and take the chance of being proved wrong.

I hope that you never face a diagnoses of cancer, but if you do wouldn't you want to be able to examine all your options and choose which is best for you.

As a trained Microbiologist/Virologist, it would seem that 'Sam' has an infection of his hands that leads to poor coordination and recognition of misspelled words.Clearly something must be wrong with his eyes too, as he couldn't see the spell check button on the "Add Comment?" field.

I need to start posting on controversial topics!

I type too fast to be bothered with spell checkers and hey do I detect a note of nervousness in some of the reaction to my post? As for you Tideliar I don’t fuck anybody without a photo first. Since I don’t have any pics of myself I guess that’s out of the question. I’m pleased to see you have managed to advance 'one small step' up the ladder of hip hop dung.

As for all those trapped in the narrow band of the self righteous smugness of ‘we know it all’ I caution you to reflect once again on history and project yourselves forward in time so that you may objectively look back at your axioms. Maybe you will find the flaw of pride and haughty pomposity clouding the lens of your antiquated microscopes.

Tommy boy, if you look at my post I did not deny the existence of a Phase III clinical trial, I merely said that it had yet to survive it and come out the other side.  You could take a dog terd (which probably has a greater efficacy than antineoplastons) to Phase III, that doesn't mean it is going to be better than the standard of care treatment.  Hell the dog terd's mechanism of action is probably more solid than that of antineoplastons.  Besides other groups have tried and failed to replicate Burzynski's claims.  And if they could of they would have made a boatload of money, but it could never be replicated.  So they left that shit to die by the side of the road while moving on to therapies that you know are based on sound science and help people out in the future.

Phillie-my-boy, I did just have my own bout with cancer and you know what homeboy?  I chose to have a real, FDA-approved, clinically effective treatment that was based on sound science and not some bullshit like antineoplastons.  And I can report, I'm feeling great.

Sam-I-am, I really don't know where to begin with you my dear chap I dare you to come up with enough creativity to string together a poetically beautiful and profane stream of consciousness like Tideliar does.  And as far as comparing modern medicine to leeching you must be some kind of goddamn Mongoloid dumpsterbaby.  Are you one of those quack chiropractics or energy healers?  Seriously, if it weren't for modern medicine you would probably be dead from some infection or other malady.  Despite your fucking rambling and waste of bandwith, I still see this is a positive and gives us the opportunity to FWDAOTI.  So in Tideliaresque fashion, I bid you good day motherfucker for you are a loathsome swine, too fucking ignorant to poor piss from a boot, your tender whimpering does nothing but offendeth me, so be gone you ghastly motherfucker.  Good riddince and may the local authorities not find you during your ritualistic comingling with livestock on the eves of full moons.

Genomic-Comic:

In an odd twist of nature and freak alchemy of fusion between genetic low self esteem and delusions of grandeur, the new species of brat was spawned, the web brat, presenting such a vivid, colourful, finely rendered image of quality America and its sophisticated people. Fortunately the majority of Americans are not like you but unfortunately it is not their image that is being saturated across the ether but yours.

Be proud and revel therein, passing yourself off as some kind of erudite engineer of scientific procedure and method when in fact all you are doing is manifesting an inability to express yourself coherently in true academic fashion, which you fraudulently attempt to claim by misleading the uninitiated via your cheap low class hip hop grunting, tantamount to a savage mish mash of barbaric expletives.

As for modern medicine, and again I remind you, it will recant the majority of its foundations, which you so wildly proclaim, within the next 15-25 years. Here is an example of your ‘modern medicine’ as practised over the last 50 years:                                                                                           ‘Say Aaahhh! Good now get this antibiotic prescription filled. Take one after meals and pay the receptionist as you leave, thank you. NEXT!!!  

As for my demise being averted by the hocus pocus you advocate let me remind you also that the greatest advance in medical practice…. EVER… was the commencement of the washing of hands.

I bid you bon voyage as you wallow in your arrogance. Everything that is an unshakeable truth today is eroded by time and ingress into the future and deteriorates into a silly untruth tomorrow. This the consequence of the failure of the bombastic like you, to learn, by prematurely jumping to conclusions and shouting these false facts from the roof tops only to face the recanting thereof shortly after. This pattern has occurred and repeated for millenniums and only the real strugglers are incapable of spotting it.

Comic I am absolutely thrilled that you are reverting to proper discourse. I could actually end up having some respect for you...if you drop the hip hop. You are bright ..you dont need the hip hop verneer to validate you. Lose it and I will concede some points which you now make more eloquently and maybe we can explore some of these issues further because they are more important than the sum of our collective ego's? Your very last comment suggests that we may have a common agenda. Salaam-Alaikum.

Wow!  Is it possible to tone this down?  Neither "side" here is advancing anything that a reader can appreciate as even interesting because of all the static.  I could elaborate, but I'll leave it there. OK?  Now before I proceed, have a bit of fun and guess where I stand on this subject.  

Before I make my main point I'll tell you about a discovery made on the island of Sardinia post WWII by a professor of hygiene.  This man took lessons from the discovery of penicillin, which led him to culture sewage. He isolated an antibiotic-producing fungus, Cephalosporium acremonium.  Many steps and several years later, the first antibiotic of the cephalosporin class was introduced.   Compare that to this.

Anyone guessed yet? (i.e., have I taken a side?)

Now I can tell you that before any antibiotic of the cephalosporin class was made available for general clinical use (hospitals, office prescriptions, etc), rigorous testing was conducted.  Is this testing, this process, "perfect"?  Well, folks, nothing is.  People apply pressure, money is involved, people are swayed by various influences. No human endeavor escapes these side issues.  If you think the vitamin and food supplement industry (it is an industry) is beyond these issues of human interaction, may I respectfully suggest you think again.

My question in reading about anti-neoplastons is, where is the rigorous testing?  Where is the data on people treated?  One success, as wonderful as that is for one patient and her family, doesn't make the grade for promoting a treatment.   I can't because of space/time issues go into the details here, but there are many hurdles before any drug is approved.  It takes some minimal science background at the least to have a clue as to what these hurdles are and why they are there.  Can I just say that the endeavor of science must make a virtue of scepticism.  So if you aren't sceptical and don't come into this discussion with some basic science/biology background then you are engaging in a popularity contest, which is a poor way to make decisions on important matters like cancer treatments.  So which boogeyman is worse, the greedy pharmaceutical CEO or the medical quack?  Relating back to any discussion of drugs, testing, effects, toxicities, etc, sometimes one needs to say : "I don't know enough about this subject to have a valid opinion."  A famous American once said "A man's gotta know his limitations."  

Ask yourselves, are there experts in this field? Have they looked at this question and expressed opinions?  What did they look at to reach conclusions? I provide you below with a source, but there are others.   A pissing contest, which many of you obviously enjoy getting into, is not going to get to the truth of ther matter. 

I haven't looked exhaustively at this subject, I don't have the time.  I believe however that I have done due diligence in looking for evaluations and data.  What I have found  points to there being a class of chemicals which can be hypothesized to have an impact on cancer cells.  Carried through on humans there does not seem to be any evidence beyond the anecdotal of any benefit.  Additionally, there have been major toxicity effects involved in administration.  In an interview I viewed today by a Dr. Mercola (see his website) of the discoverer of antineoplastons and his son, I found no more evidence of efficacy but did come away with the feeling that toxicity was being skirted as an issue.

For more details, I refer you to The Cancer Letter, vol 24 No.36 Sept 25, 1998.   A bit outdated, but start there.  Education is a powerful tool.

I'll end with a quote from another famous American:

"It aint what you don't know that gets you in trouble, but what you know for sure that just ain't so."

Aspirin has been around for centuries .

The pharma industry are responsible for horrible crimes against humanity which started with the nazis.Modern cancer treatment is a pile of shit , pump you full of drugs that destroy your body.What the fuck is happening over there 2 year olds with brain tumours.big question mark there ?.

I think you have your logic backwards there.  Science is all about finding concrete evidence to support claims.  If Dr. Burzynski can't provide evidence in the form of a well controlled study then he should not be allowed to tout his snake oil as a treatment.

Comic welcome back. Apologies I was not aware of your situation. Perhaps consider a falsis principiis proficisci- Otta Warburg for re evaluation?

Ok, so I've watched the movie and read up on this case. I also have a Ph.D. and work at a major research university. First of all, it seems that the Antineoplastons have had lots of success, but haven't undergone a real clinical trial. The movie gives reasons why it hasn't undergone a real clinical trial: 1) patent issues, 2) money / conspiracy theory, 3) Egos of major players in the system 4) regulation. According to the movie - and to the best of my knowledge, this is all accurate - in order for the FDA to do a clinical trial, one has to supply significant amounts of cash. In order to get this cash, one needs either a corporate partner, or to raise it through venture capital. Bruzynski has failed to get these, in part, because of his poor relationship with the FDA... so we start to have some circular logic issues going. But even with his phase III trials approved, he is required to give patients radiation therapy as well. So this is a) not a double blind trial, b) not isolating the antineoplastons as a treatment. If you treat people with both radiation and anti-neoplastons, you won't be able to determine which worked. You need some people treated who get nothing, and some with anti-neoplastons. The problem, of course, is that this is unethical. If anti-neoplastons work, then it would be unethical to withhold them from the control group.

I have, however, seen research where the treatment is so effective, that the FDA discontinues the trial and recommends everyone take the treatment. In addition, this relates well to the type I vs type II error debate in statistics. Generally, we base all of our efforts to avoiding a type I error and towards making a type II error. A type I error would be concluding that a treatment is effective when it actually is not, and a type II error is concluding that a treatment is ineffective when it actually is. Low sample sizes lead us to make type II errors more frequently. But really, we ought to consider the consequences of a type I vs type II error. IN this case, a type II error is that people die, and a type I error is that they receive a harmless ineffective treatment (and waste some cash).

It seems to me that this treatment, if the data in the movie is to believed - ought to get a double blind test for multiple types of cancer. Further, it also seems to me that if he really has given some several hundred people treatments - for inoperable terminal cancers - and they have survived - that that is enough evidence to approve the use of the drug for that type of cancer already.

You have to be kidding me, "Dr. Dan M., PhD."  I like how you try to credential yourself without actually providing information on who you are.  It's a great way to fake authority.  If you truly were a scientist, you'd be just as outraged as we are about the use of anecdotal evidence to prove a disease therapy.  No scientist would ever say, "Well, there's 20 people in some super biased video that SAY they were cured.  That's proof enough for me that this is an effective treatment!!"  Does this mean that in your top research lab you do single replicate experiments and don't run controls?  There's no conspiracy here, its just not an effective treatment.  Follow up by other labs, as stated above, cannot find an association with this treatment and a benefit to cancer patients.

Please Watch The Whole Movie at burzynski.com thenmake an educated coment.

Its worth your time.

escharff3

Your an ass hole.

Ladies and gentlemen, its black helicopters and tin-foil hat time!

Damnit Brian you aren't supposed to give up the secrets to our New World Order, now we'll have to use the fluoride in the water to do some mind control.

Did you just slag off a film that you admit you haven't seen?

You know, I understand that it must be hard for people to go to work on a Monday knowing that they've wasted the last 5 years or whatever of their careers on what amounts to 'the lesser of 2 evils' (ie chemo, RT, etc) when someone comes along with something that actually works but for crying out loud, unclench a bit and LISTEN.  The guy has documented cases of cures that the medical establishment could only counter with a prognosis of 'a few months at best' or similar.  Hell, even the FDA agree with that.  The FDA, that disgrace of an institution, that whore for Big Pharma, bought and paid for, has dogged this man for DECADES with frivolous accusations and school yard hand wringing to NO AVAIL.  Don't blame him for the lack of decent clinical trials, blame the FDA.  Bottom line is that he can FIX PEOPLE where standard practise can't.  WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU SO AFRAID OF???

Somewhere above, there's this: "... But what pisses me off, is he is playing with patients emotions and lives. I know all experimental medicines are experimental, but most of them have some decent science behind them and have credentialed and competent clinicians running these trials."

Talk about jaw-droppingly stupid.  Playing with patients emotions and lives?  Are you the full quid?  And the FDA are what, acting in patients' best interests?  I think no.  And how about this little gem: "...I know all experimental medicines are experimental, but most of them have some decent science behind them..."  MOST of them?  And the others, pray tell?  And you'll need to define exactly what "decent science" is supposed to represent here too because it seems to me that unbiased science is the last thing the FDA is interested in.

The next time you want to defame someone who doesn't happen to agree with your world view of things, at least do them the simple courtesy of walking a mile or 2 in their shoes first.

After watching the movie, which I agree is very one-sided, I came looking for some intelligent debate and discussion refuting the movie and it's assertions.  The link to this page was 3rd on the google search (which will no doubt give you some undeserved feelings of self-importance).  Thanks for not helping your argument one iota.

I finally found a use for google's page ranking system and wouldn't you know it, they've removed it.  Bugger.

Wow....  Seems to be a lot of naysayers in this thread...  Well that is your decision.  I believe the reason for not having a lot of clinical trials is the the FDA LIMITED HIM TO HIS OWN FACILITY!  He WANTED to do this from the beginning, but the FDA SAID NO.

Like it or hate it, there does seem to be some legitimacy in his treatments.  Why did Johns Hopkins (HUGE cancer clinic) try to patent it and push it out?  Why did one of his own research assistants put HER name on the patents that were later applied for with the company that attempted to do business with Burzynski?

Sounds fishy to me folks.

Traditional chemo and radiation is still in 'test' phase.  Chemo opens up the body to so much other stuff that you simply CANNOT survive.  My Dad had cancer and he refused chemo.  Once he didn't follow their chain of command, the system shut him out.  Their prognosis was he had less than three months to live.  My Mom researched a pile of NATURAL alternative medications, and he survived almost a year in GREAT shape (considering he was dieing of cancer).

Put that in your pipe and smoke it kids:-).

I'm siding with Dr. B:-).

Again, those results from the 'clinical' trials were they not proven that the people in charge did NOT know what they were doing and ruined these so called trials?

Again, sounds pretty darn fishy to me...

So, it has gone to Phase III, so we shall see how this goes:-).

The proof shall come out in the pudding so there is no real point in debating what is pure speculation at this point in time.

Did you also know that high doses of Vitamin C proved to cure some types of cancer and that the government wanted to change a vitamin to a medicine (therefore only a doctor could prescribe and the pharmaceuticals profit)?

Again, there is a 'fifedom' in the oncology world, and BILLIONS to be made...  Once you drive the profit out of healthcare will the true answers come out:-).

I still stick with Doc B.:-).

SCHLOCK wtf is SCHLOCK. I thought this was a debate in English not Yiddish? No one here speaks Yiddish JaySeeDub so what is the schlock about?

Oh and Sharonak, you're an anti-semite bitch. Way to Godwin your point, you ill-bred prick.

Dr. Krueger,

Sorry, I'm just going to have to disagree with you.

Tell you what, perhaps you should discuss the results of these clinical trials and whether the treatments work in humans with some of the people who's names appear down the right side of this page: http://www.burzynskipatientgroup.org.  Go on, pick a few and read their stories.  I'm sure they'd love to hear from you.

Speaking of these negative clinical trials, where are they?  You refer me to a couple of papers that review the results of, frankly, a study [1] that was designed to fail by blatantly altering the agreed upon protocol and effectively diluting the treatment doses to the point where they were completely ineffective.  Or perhaps the NCI were more interested in trying to determine the efficacy of the homeopathic application of antineoplastons?  If instead you are referring to the work of Dr. Dvorit Samid, you'll have problems there too.

In the interests of full disclosure and for the record, I'm in no way associated with Dr. Burzynski or any associates of his, nor am I in need of his treatments, though my mum died of cancer 4 years ago.  I came across Dr. Bruzynski and his work via a recent article on Mercola.com.

And here's something else I'll tell you.  If I knew then what I know now, besides force feeding my mum copious quantities of Vitamin D3, I'd have arranged to secure a supply of these antineoplastons.  My guess is that I'd still have my mother.  And you know what else?  Neither of those 2 treatments would have done her a zot of harm.

As for your links, unfortunately, I don't have full access to the first document.  But from what I can gather from the abstact, this 'review' is based around the trial [1] where Dr. Burzynski explains quite clearly in the movie (you HAVE seen it, haven't you?) that the treatment doses used in trial were far too weak to have had any effect.  This is after the protocol used in the trials that had been finally agreed to by both parties was altered by the NCI with Dr. Burzynski's explicit disapproval and explanation of why he disapproved.  Talk about designed to fail.  Be that as it may, your reference to this paper in no way helps your argument because, as stated in the SECOND SENTENCE of the abstract, "Four years and more than a million dollars later, these studies were stopped before it was possible to determine the effectiveness of antineoplastons."  Scratch that from this list of clinical trials you mysteriously refer to.

As for the second paper, I'd like say straight up that I can't remember a more blatant case of 'failure by association'.  Kind of like an 'ad hominem' for clinical trials.  And yet, I read on.  This paper again refers to the disputed, and aborted, 1999 trial [1].  The other study referred to [2] seems to indicate a positive outcome, though again, I only have access to the abstract.  Moreover, as you well know, a Phase I trial is designed to determine toxicity levels, so the inclusion of this study to show negative response to treatment is somewhat dubious.  I still haven't seen a clear example of a clinical trial that proves that Dr. Bruzynski's therapy "doesn't work in humans", as you put it.

One last point I'd like to make is that for a treatment that has supposedly been proven to be ineffective, in 1987 I might add, I find it kind of strange that Phase III trials are about to commence: http://www.burzynskiresearch.com/pipeline.html.

I'll leave it at that.

PS. Tideliar, give yourself an uppercut and snap the fuck out of it, you muppet.

[1] Jan C. Buckner, M.D., et al; "Phase II Study of Antineoplastons A10 (NSC 648539) and AS2-1 (NSC 620261) in Patients With Recurrent Glioma", Mayo Clin Proc 1999;74:137-145; http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/content/74/2/137.full.pdf, Accessed 23-Jun-2011.

[2] Burzynski SR, Kubove E, Burzynski B. Phase I clinical studies of antineoplaston A5 injections. Drugs Exp Clin Res 1987;13(Suppl 1):37–43.; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3569014, accessed 23-Jun-2011.

Methinks Tideliar needs help. He thinks he is the only Ph.D here. Or is he? Or maybe he thinks he doesnt think or doesnt think that he doesnt think or thinks that he does think that he doesnt think. I have a good friend in another dicipline. Psychiatry. Tide I shall give you his number with pleasure. I also have a colleague in drug habilitation and alcohol dependency support services. My friend, we love you and are concerned. Help is only a friendly blog/chat/sms/twit away. 

Ah Comic but scientific result is anachronous and hence by implication anecdotal. This is the great scientific dilemma. There is no fixed reference frame. That's what makes it so diffculti. This is the trpa I have consistently alluded to. And I am dyslexic. 

Coherent arguments make for good debate Sam, whitless babbling however doesn't.  But good luck with the dyslexic thing.

Sharonak:  keep chucking rocks buddy but make sure to take off running before an IDF tank rolls over your dumbass.

WTF is a wiki?  I'm still pimping Alta-Vista baby to get my info on coffee enemas curing leprosy?

As a poor old English working man with no qualifications or education , I would like to say that this subject , although posted to by obviously intelligent and well read people , was thoroughly ruined by the totally needless invective and personal comments punctuated by deliberate use of foul language . Ordinary people find it easier to follow a reasoned debate that uses polite , factual , incisive argument .

The bad language used by some posters only serves to belittle those who insist on thinking it adds to their image .

I am not religious , politically correct or free from bad language myself . I am an ex soldier , truck driver and warehouse manager who could hold my own with the most foul mouthed in society , but , I have respect for my fellow humans and do not subject them to the lowest form of debating language just because I can . Respect yourselves Tideliar et al , drop the posing language , present the facts in a form of language that you would like others to use in front of your children , you will be rewarded with the respect of others for your obvious intelligence in it`s own right and your debates will carry far more weight .

Regards ,

Alan .

The anti-goverment / anti-pharma conspiracy theory line is getting really old now.

There is ample evidence these trials work There are in fact trials ongoing on 72 different types of cancer. They are currently conducting 3 phase III trials and six more are planned.  These are all FDA approved and over 2000 patients are enrolled in the clinical trial programme. The first approved treatment for antineoplastins for the market is expected at the end of 2011.

Try

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15563234

for an example of an FDA-approved success.

The NCI study from the 90s that failed used dosages far too low (130th of the correct dosages), so no wonder it didnt work!

I really dont see what all the fuss is about. Antineoplastins are not some "magic pill" that will suddenly cure all cancers, they are just another weapon in the arsenal against cancer and have shown improved efficacy and safety as against chemotherapy/radiotherapy in certain types of brain cancer so far. This is positive but by no means "the answer." I think the controversy is because the treatment has been developed by an individual rather than a pharmaceutical company, which is certainly unusual.

Probably because he's a snake oil salesman and you're just one of his sheep.  The government and pharma aren't out to get you.  You're worth MUCH more to them alive than you are dead.

Let the haters hate.  One day they will wake up to the fact that the drug companies and the government and thebig banks and the oil companies are all one and the same.  They are anti-truth, anti-human, and so far there are a lot of people still buying their bullshit.  That is changing.  The tide is turning.

Those criticizing Dr. Burzinski have obviously never met the man, tried the treatment, or even poured over his research.  They very likely are not even oncologists.  Let them say what they will.  I feel a little sorry for people who refuse to open their eyes.  The world is beautiful once you see clearly.

lol

it's your death, GR.  Meet it as unawakened as you like.

LMFAO

Those criticizing Dr. Burzinski have obviously never met the man,

So? Why would I need to meet him? I never met Fleming, but that doesnt mean that penicillin doesn't work

tried the treatment,

not being a loony with cancer, no, obviously not

or even poured over his research.

Read the thread. Yes, we have look at the research and it is found wanting.

They very likely are not even oncologists.

One doesn't need to be an oncologist to study the science

Let them say what they will.  I feel a little sorry for people who refuse to open their eyes.  The world is beautiful once you see clearly.

Or, obviously, if you're clincially insane like you. What meds are you on by the way? Bet they came fromone of those evil 'Pharma' companies you fear so much.

Sounds like you are being critical of something you know little about, if you've not even seen the movie (which is free to view on the web)  The movie, while admittedly one-sided, but it did present some of the conflicting opinions.

The web page that you cite does NOT contain a statement by him that A10 is not effective as a cancer treatment.

He does NOT claim that all peptides will cure cancer, so why are you so down on his having a name for his combinations?  To understand his name, you'd need to understand the theory behind his work with these specific peptides.

According to the movie, he is getting a 30% success rate in treatment of cancers that are considered incureable  The best that the treatment of radiation and chemotherapy could get was an expected 6 month extension of life.

According to the movie, he actually won most of the court cases against him.  In the case that he lost, the effectiveness of his treatment was not admitted as a topic, so using his conviction in any way to condemn his treatment isn't appropriate.

Next time you are paying your health insurance bill, think about this:  would you rather pay the high price of chemo and radiation to give a person 6 months of life, or a much smaller bill for antineoplastins for those cases that they can help?  If you were to get cancer, would you rather spend 6 months with the side effects of radiation and chemo, or extend your life for several years with a treatment having few side effects?

To Genomic Repairman

You are a complete idiot, as you have obviously not watched the movie. If you had, you would know

that Dr. Burzinski so called snake oil treatments, have PASSED the FDA's Phase ! and Phase !! clinical trials and has been accepted to go ahead with the third and final trial.Once that happens Big Pharma will be totally out the the cancer drugs business. You think they are not aware?

To all the other idiots who have not watched the movie.

Why would the FDA, The National Cancer Society and the American Gov't take Dr. Burzinski to court no less than 5 times and lose everytime? Talk about wasting taxpayers money.

Everybody - Watch the movie before making your idiot comments.

Rene

Guest Comment

I agree with the last guy that commented.  I think Pharma and the FDA are all about the money here.  you said Dr. Bruzinski provided no evidence that his treatments work.  Apparently we didnt' watch the same movie, because in the film, the first 30 minutes is all about presenting concrete evidence that the treatments DO work.  Also, in the later part of the movie, memos, letters and evidence from the study that the NCI published that actually shows that the NCI diluted the antineoplastons given to patients in their trial so that the treatment woudn't work.

I think the FDA and Texas medical board repeatedly took him to court not because of any criminal wrongdoing but because they are desperate to somehow keep the truth from getting out.  Once it does, Dr. Bruzinski's research really will be on the cutting edge of cancer treatment, and a lot of these other guys won't be getting as big a piece of the pie.

I dont' know if I would go as far as using the word "conspiracy", but If you don't believe that America's medical establishment and big pharmaceutical companies aren't in the business of keeping themselves in power and keeping the money rolling in, well then you are pretty naive.

Try doing a bit more research..

Genomic Repairman.. if you think the FDA is out to save lives and help you, you are very very wrong. Radiation kills healthy and bad cells. It's like having weeds in your garden and killing EVERYTHING, in hopes that NO weeds will return and all the flowers will grow back. Chemotherapy TEMPORARILY shrinks the tumor, and once the tumor gets oxygen it explodes and the cancer speads throughout the entire body. If radiation and chemotherapy worked so fucking well, people wouldnt be DYING. There are MANY cures for cancer that are not exposed because the FDA wants to make money off of radiation/chemotherapy. FDA approves things that only harm you... Ever heard of High Fructose Corn Syrup?

I feel really bad for people like you that support such evil corporations. Good luck in life.

Stupid mistake, um if you scroll up, there are links to journal articles that are debunking this shitty thing that is being paraded around as a therapy.  Oh and I don't eat crow, I feed off the hate of trolls.  Bring me my dinner!

As a RN, who administers chemotherpy to patients five days a week, I am appalled at some of the closed minded comments made on this site by supposed intelligent people. A few commenters simply lack maturity as documented by their responses. Either that or they have been spending too many hours closed up in labs and have lost their real compassion for others. How sad. I happened on this site after viewing "the movie." For years I thought I was giving patients, who wanted to live a little longer, a weapon to fight cancer. I am with them every day when they can't eat, they can't feel their fingers or feet, have severe burns from radiation etc. Chemotherapy is poison! I have to wear special gloves and "suit up" to mix or administer these concoctions to my patients. After watching "the movie" I was enraged that our government and NCI would spend many years and millions of dollars attempting to discredit this Doctor rather than actually trying to work with him and find out how and why so many were leaving his clinic alive and well. This is especially true for gliomas. The fact that he has quite a few who are still alive 1-20 years out is absolutely amazing. I have participated in trials and know the ends and outs of pharm. corps. and all of their near hits and misses. Most drugs we now give are OLD discoveries. If you continue your closed minded ways and think you are the only ones with any intelligence, you are not only full of yourself, you will set us back years in research. Everyone wants to be the first to make a disovery but that just can't be. You have to share and try to improve upon the discovery. Unlike all of the pharmaceutical companies, I would gladly give up my career as an Oncology nurse for a cure for cancer. I will support Dr. Burzynski any way I can.

I have come to the point where I am legally allowed to call myself "master of science", however, my fate in science has never been at an all time low since I graduated. Many of my dilligent fellow students who passed summa cum laude and went on for PhD. positions often seemed to lack critical thought. Sure they could memorize all they needed to know to pass the exams, but when I try to explain to them why it is not wise to in an object recognition task to change the groundplate from a white to a black color in a whitin subject trail in rats (because they were simultaneously testing an computerized scoring system) I get strange looks.

Besides that I have spoken to numerous researchers that would immedeately fit into the "conspiracy corner" as some here propose. Of course it isn't a conspiracy, as their stories make abundantly clear, but a simple matter of incentive. First of all there is an enormous problem with ego in today's research field, where people try to demonize other research (not unlike in a Brian Krueger way). Then there are People that know each other in the business and are happy to return a certain paper in a peer review process to a researcher, so that their buddy has enough time to has his paper (with the same subject) approved by these peer reviewers. It's a money thing and it DOES affect science in a big way.

Now we have a thing like cancer, which is one of the, if not the biggest industry in the world where a lot of people benefit from. I find it absolutely foolish to assume that this industry truly has people's best interests at heart. I'm not saying that people in this industry WANT to "murder" people, not at all. I am saying that if they can create a cure, or a fantastic side effect free treatment that would have people swallowing pills untill the day they die they WILL choose the latter option. If you think otherwise you are quite frankly very naive and probably have zero experience in the field (PhD. or not).

All in all I'm absolutely for clinical testing as I feel it is the BEST way to objectively determine wether something works or not. Then again, I'm not ignorant enough to not know that only big pharmaceutical companies can offord said clinical trials. Also I'm aware of cases where clinical trials have been influenced by subtle and less subtle means to settle for some abstracts and no word of the defendant (which would be Mr. Burzynski in this case). Besides, the fact that his treatment went to phase III is enough for me to refrain myself from calling him a fraud... There is simply no basis for that. On the other hand, there is no scientific proof that says it does work (although I admit that there is enough anecdotal evidence that speaks for him and would have many pharmaceutical companies persue it. Granted they calculated they'd make enough money off of it to at least pay for the clinical trials).

Also Brian, for the love of god do something about your face... Or at least change your profile picture... You look like one of the cum laude guys at my uni who forgot to take into account the freezing point of the substances he was testing and injected rats in so many trials with water instead of the compound (yeah, he was able to remember ice crystals in the test tube but didn't think too much of it). Anyways, that guy was ugly as shit... therefore, change it please.

Thanks for the link Scott, I've already seen the movie.

Oh and here is a link for everyone on antineoplastons from the world renowned Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, you know people who study cancer...

http://www.mskcc.org/mskcc/html/69121.cfm

"There is no conclusive evidence to support the antineoplaston theory. Cancer patients should be cautious when seeking unproven treatments as they delay conventional therapies and can be detrimental."

N3M37H, when you copy and paste bullshit non-science out of a canned e-mail, be sure to remove the carriage returns.

Why is chemo so bad?  Because its not a targeted therapy.  It essentially kills any actively dividing cell.  So it kills both good and bad cells.  However, the treatment is better than dying, and certainly better than injecting yourself with non-sense like antineoplastons.  Cancer is a tough business and patients should seek out the best therapies science has to offer.  Antineoplastons are not the answer.

I just sat and watched the full movie that's available to view for free at www.burzynskimovie.com

And this shows the very real dangers of accepting third hand the opinions of lunatics on the internet.

IF antineoplastons were in fact as ineffective as the blogowner and many of his sidekicks claim, then why would the US Government have stolen his work and illegally patented his products?

Take a look at the movie and decide for yourself.

Won't make time to do that - well fast forward 1hr 40m 25 seconds and spend one minute.

The US Govt not only make claims for their use as a treatment, they also point to it's use as a preventative treatemnt and be amazed to hear the truth about chemo in that patent too

QUOTE: Current approaches to combat cancer rely upon the use of chemicals and radiation that are themselves carcinogenic and may promote recurrences and metatastic disease.

Saul, you are a fucking idiot and don't know shit about shit

You pro drug and surgery guys are historically illiterate and retarded. Open a fucking book and get your head out of the sand. PERIOD!

Fuck Face

Smoking gun?  1:39 minutes into the video, the patent discussion, having Samid as the inventor, raises eyebrows.  The claim by Burzynski that various agencies sought to put him away, while his patents were infringed upon, are interesting points.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=15&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=5605930&OS=5605930&RS=5605930

We've come to the conclusion that this comment thread has become very circular.  This thread will be closed shortly.