PDA

View Full Version : Breaking: Burzynski Cancer Cure Finally Released By The Feds


Sdiver
03-28-2015, 01:23
Thoughts ??? :munchin

Houston doctor, Stanislaw Burzynski has won yet another huge victory against the medical establishment. But, instead of the win being reported from every television and radio in the United States, it barely squeaked into existence. Why? Because Dr. Burzynski can cure cancer without the traditional western medical treatments and this doesn’t make Western medicine supporters happy.

Antineoplastons, combined with the remarkable new gene-targeted therapy, threaten to destroy the economy created on the traditional treatment of Cancer and the care of Cancer patients in Western Medicine. By curing the cancers, there no longer needs to be excessively costly treatments and support given the patient. Patients don’t need additional medicine to treat the symptoms created from the traditional treatments. By curing the cancer, the money dries up.

Just recently, the Burzynski Research Institute, Inc (BRI) sent a press release to the media alerting them to the lifting of a two-year partial clinical hold on an investigational new drug that had been submitted for Antineoplastons A10/AS2-1 Injections. These allows for Phase 3 trials to begin for patients who have just learned they have cancer. For now, the Phase 3 trial will be dealing with Diffuse Instrinsic Brainstem Glioma.

There are four phases of clinical trials in cancer treatment. Each of the phases focuses on a different purpose. The data gathered provides the FDA with scientific data they claim will prove the worth and potential success of the treatment:
•Phase One: Safety determination of new treatment
•Phase Two: Response determination of a certain cancer to new treatment
•Phase Three: Verify that standard treatment is less effective than new treatment
•Phase Four: Find more specific information about the new treatment after it has been approved for human use

In addition to prescribing Antineoplastons, Dr. Burzynski’s clinic analyzes 24,000 different genes and then prescribe petro-chemical based medications and diet changes based on their individual needs. This is in direct contrast to the traditional treatment a Western Oncologist would prescribe. These and other doctors are trained to prescribe medicines which are the most likely to work for most people. The individual treatment Burzynski gives his patients have become much easier now through advancements in study of the human genome.

Recently US Government agents, members of the big pharmaceutical companies and other individuals worked with one of Burzynski’s own research scientists to file eleven patents on the very research of Antineoplaston medical technology. One must wonder if Dr. Burzynski’s practice is such quackery, as the mainstream would have us believe, why would these individuals seek to patent the integral part of the treatment? The patents were not awarded to the individuals attempting to hijack them, but only after a Grand Jury found no reason to bring criminal proceedings against Burzynski. This was the establishment’s fourth witch hunt. They’d tried to incarcerate him three other times for using the same technology they were quickly trying to patent.



With any luck, Phase Three will proceed quickly and effectively. Lives will be saved. Less money will be spent and cancer can finally be beaten. After all, getting rid of such a killer is Dr. Burzynski’s lifetime focus.


http://naturalcuresnotmedicine.com/breaking-burzynski-cancer-cure-finally-released-by-the-feds/

Stephens
04-15-2015, 20:40
My problem with "cures for cancer" is that cancer is not one disease.

Multiple Myeloma is cancer.
Melanoma is skin cancer.
Both very different animals. Hard for me to believe that one treatment would cure them both.
keep in mind, I am not a doctor and certainly not a cancer expert.

Good post though. Interesting.

PedOncoDoc
04-15-2015, 22:02
Burzynski is largely seen as a snake oil salesman in the oncology world.

Sdiver
04-15-2015, 22:36
Burzynski is largely seen as a snake oil salesman in the oncology world.

Doc,
I've heard that about him, but I've also heard that what he's proposed and has done, works. That's why I'm not opinionated on him one way or the other.

We ALL know that Cancer is a muti-billion dollar a year business and that if they (the pharm companies) were really serious about finding a cure, they would ... if they haven't already.

That's why when this guys name pops up, he is quickly blasted down and ridiculed as a "snake oil salesman." Now don't get me wrong, he may very well be, but I'm going to hold out judgment until I've (We've) seen a little bit more on him.

alelks
04-15-2015, 22:51
I'm a firm believer that there is no cure for cancer now because there is no long term money in a cure. I believe there are viable cures out there, but they get suppressed. I know if I get cancer I'm going to Canada and trying the oil that is extracted from the Marijuana plant. It has all the THC removed so there is no high (DAMN, going to miss out on that one I guess). :)

A little about Rick:

http://wakeup-world.com/2014/04/01/rick-simpsons-cancer-cures-cannabis-oil-movement/

There is an hour long video at the bottom of the page.

Keep in mind there are snake oil salesmen out there. You can purchase Hemp Oil in the US but it's not the same as the oil from the Marijuana plant and it's not potent at all.

Like the article says, do your own research.

PedOncoDoc
04-16-2015, 08:19
I'm a firm believer that there is no cure for cancer now because there is no long term money in a cure. I believe there are viable cures out there, but they get suppressed. I know if I get cancer I'm going to Canada and trying the oil that is extracted from the Marijuana plant. It has all the THC removed so there is no high (DAMN, going to miss out on that one I guess). :)

A little about Rick:

http://wakeup-world.com/2014/04/01/rick-simpsons-cancer-cures-cannabis-oil-movement/

There is an hour long video at the bottom of the page.

Keep in mind there are snake oil salesmen out there. You can purchase Hemp Oil in the US but it's not the same as the oil from the Marijuana plant and it's not potent at all.

Like the article says, do your own research.

I've had several patients opt to not pursue standard chemotherapy in lieu of cannabis oil. We live close to Canada, and medical marijuana use is legal in the state of Michigan. Of the 15 or so patients I've had pursue this route, only one has shown any evidence of anti-tumor effect. One of them (who was taking 4 grams rectally each day :eek:) showed up back in my office 4 months later with widespread, progressive metastatic disease and the others died at home from progressive cancer, or got extremely sick and came to the hospital for palliative/hospice style care before passing.

A great summary of the "antineoplaston" research done independently of Bruzynski can be found here (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/12/12/what-dr-stanislaw-burzynski-doesnt-want/), along with criticisms on his methodology - the author of the commentary at the link appropriately does not completely dismiss Burzynski's therapy but calls it to the table for closer scrutiny and ridicules the concept of a "magic bullet" for all cancers given how diverse cancer biology is between different tumor types (not to mention the high biologic diversity seen between patients with the same cancer).

Those who think we docs that are performing research are not working tirelessly for a cure likely have not talked to a physician scientist and must be extremely jaded. As a cancer survivor and cancer physician scientist I am insulted by what is implied by those statements. A vast majority of the treatment breakthroughs come from the academic institutions (research hospitals) and, if shown to be successful, rapidly get bought up by the pharmaceutical industry for mass production so they can be put through large-scale trials for FDA approval. Here is one of the more recent examples. (http://www.novartis.com/newsroom/media-releases/en/2014/1863311.shtml)

Cancer is a billion dollar industry, but the pharmaceutical company that holds the rights to a cure corners the market.

PedOncoDoc
04-16-2015, 09:00
Dr. Bruzynski's facility seems to be good not at developing therapies which are genuinely more promising than others in early stage research, but gaining mainstream publicity, thus perceived credibility, for the work they are doing.

What possible reason does he have for lack of peer review, threatening libel suits against his detractors, or advertising marginally successful therapies as breakthroughs?

As always, follow the money...

Cancer patients are desperate for a cure, and if it can come with minimal side effects they will move across country (or around the world) and pay exorbitant costs if they think it may save their lives. I've had patients taken to mexico to have prismatic light therapy and other such stuff because it was touted as a holistic cure.

The lack of peer review is always a major red flag - if you don't think your science can hold up to external scrutiny, you don't expose it to external scrutiny, especially if it's making you a boat load of cash...

Additionally, in the link I provided above, they showed his treatment is basically a low-potency histone deacteylase inhibitor (HDACi), which is a "shotgun-approach" to genetic control, not "personalized gene-based therapy". More potent and savvy HDACi's have been made developed both by research clinicians and by big pharma - these compounds are showing promise in some cancers when combined with traditional chemotherapies. Our group has published our experience with Vorinostat, one of the newer drugs in this class, when used to help prevent post-bone marrow transplant complications, and found an unexpected result that it may reduce the risk for AML relapse for which we are performing a follow-up study to investigate it's efficacy as post-transplant cancer maintenance therapy.

Trapper John
04-16-2015, 12:22
I have to side with the Docs on this one! Burzynski is following the path of the cold-fusion fiasco IMO. There is a reason the path to new drug approval is so arduous and it is to prevent just this sort of predatory behavior. If a new idea or technology or therapeutic cannot stand the scrutiny of peer review and the rigors of the scientific method then it just isn't viable.

I know something about skepticism from peers and I can tell you that if the science is solid the skeptics will be won over. I can't tell you how many times I have been dinged, criticized, and even ridiculed over the years. But each time I would think about the criticism and design experiments to overcome the criticism/objections. The net result ends up being a clearer picture and movement forward.

It is not easy, it is difficult, it is risky, it is expensive, and there are no shortcuts! I've seen it before and Burzynski is taking short cuts. The net result will be failure. Unfortunately, some patients will be taken in by his hyperbole. I say - SHAME on him!

Oh, PedOnc Doc, I have not forgotten. We are focusing on the low-hanging fruit at the moment and our IND. Once we are there GVHD and a comparative oncology study will be qued up. The mechanism says so :D

I will send you some more info via email soon.

sinjefe
04-16-2015, 12:29
As always, follow the money...

Cancer patients are desperate for a cure, and if it can come with minimal side effects they will move across country (or around the world) and pay exorbitant costs if they think it may save their lives. I've had patients taken to mexico to have prismatic light therapy and other such stuff because it was touted as a holistic cure.

The lack of peer review is always a major red flag - if you don't think your science can hold up to external scrutiny, you don't expose it to external scrutiny, especially if it's making you a boat load of cash...

Additionally, in the link I provided above, they showed his treatment is basically a low-potency histone deacteylase inhibitor (HDACi), which is a "shotgun-approach" to genetic control, not "personalized gene-based therapy". More potent and savvy HDACi's have been made developed both by research clinicians and by big pharma - these compounds are showing promise in some cancers when combined with traditional chemotherapies. Our group has published our experience with Vorinostat, one of the newer drugs in this class, when used to help prevent post-bone marrow transplant complications, and found an unexpected result that it may reduce the risk for AML relapse for which we are performing a follow-up study to investigate it's efficacy as post-transplant cancer maintenance therapy.

And just what makes you an expert Ped "Onco" Doc. :D

cold1
04-16-2015, 17:30
I have worked in the research field for over 20 years. I repair their equipment. I have met 1000s of researchers over these past years. One thing that I can tell you is that if they had a cure for anything, they let it be known.

Even if Big Pharma was trying to suppress a cure for anything, the researchers would not let them get away with it. There are very few discovery researchers that are in it "for the money". Especially when it comes to cancer research. Cancer touches everyone.

Stobey
04-16-2015, 18:06
PedOncoDoc, Trapper... Whatever happened to laetrille? I know that it has been used in some countries around the world, supposedly with favorable results. Why was it never approved for use in the U.S.?

PedOncoDoc
04-16-2015, 18:16
PedOncoDoc, Trapper... Whatever happened to laetrille? I know that it has been used in some countries around the world, supposedly with favorable results. Why was it never approved for use in the U.S.?

I suggest you check out quackwatch.com - I know they have narratives on most of these "too good to be true" therapies.

From the section on Laetrile with why it didn't get approved in the US:

NCI Studies

In response to political pressure, the National Cancer Institute did two studies involving Laetrile. The first was a retrospective analysis of patients treated with Laetrile. Letters were written to 385,000 physicians in the United States as well as 70,000 other health professionals requesting case reports of cancer patients who were thought to have benefited from using Laetrile. In addition, the various pro-Laetrile groups were asked to provide information concerning any such patients.

Although it had been estimated that at least 70,000 Americans had used Laetrile—only 93 cases were submitted for evaluation. Twenty-six of these reports lacked adequate documentation to permit evaluation. The remaining 68 cases were "blinded" and submitted to an expert panel for review, along with data from 68 similar patients who had received chemotherapy. That way the panel did not know what treatment patients had received. The panel felt that two of the Laetrile-treated cases demonstrated complete remission of disease, four displayed partial remission, and the remaining 62 cases had exhibited no measurable response. No attempt was made to verify that any of the patients who might have benefited from Laetrile actually existed. The reviewers concluded that "the results allow no definite conclusions supporting the anti-cancer activity of Laetrile."

Although the NCI mailing had not been designed to uncover negative case reports, 220 physicians submitted data on more than 1,000 patients who had received Laetrile without any beneficial response.

In July 1980, the NCI undertook clinical trials of 178 cancer patients who received Laetrile, vitamins and enzymes at the Mayo Clinic and three other prominent cancer centers. The study included patients for whom no other treatment had been effective or for whom no proven treatment was known. All patients had tumor masses that could easily be measured, but most of the patients were in good physical condition. Since Laetrile proponents were unable to agree on the formula or testing protocol for Laetrile, NCI decided to use a preparation that corresponded to the substance distributed by the major Mexican supplier, American Biologics. The preparation was supplied by the NCI Pharmaceutical Resources Branch and verified by a variety of tests. The dosage of Laetrile was based on the published recommendations of Krebs, Jr., and the Bradford Foundation.

The results of the trial were clear-cut. Not one patient was cured or even stabilized. The median survival rate was 4.8 months from the start of therapy, and in those still alive after seven months, tumor size had increased. This was the expected result for patients receiving no treatment at all. In addition, several patients experienced symptoms of cyanide toxicity or had blood levels of cyanide approaching the lethal range [8]. An accompanying editorial concluded:

Laetrile has had its day in court. The evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, is that it doesn't benefit patients with advanced cancer, and there is no reason to believe that it would be any more effective in the earlier stages of the disease . . . The time has come to close the books [9].

Bradford and American Biologics responded to the study with three different lawsuits against the National Cancer Institute, alleging that as a result of the study, they had sustained serious financial damage from a drastic drop in demand for Laetrile. All three suits were thrown out of court. Today few sources of laetrile are available within the United States, but it still is utilized at Mexican clinics and marketed as amygdalin or "vitamin B17" through the Internet.

I hope this helps answer your question.

Stobey
04-16-2015, 18:41
Thank you PedOncoDoc. It does.