Anaximperator blog

Blogging against alternative cancer treatments

Burzynski The Movie: Does It Prove The Efficacy of Antineoplastons Against Cancer?

Stanislaw Burzynski treats cancer patients at a private clinic using what he terms “antineoplastons”: mixtures of peptides, amino acids, and other simple organic substances that are said to promote the body’s natural defenses against cancer. He has published his own studies, but nobody has been able to reproduce the clinical results he claims to have achieved. Recently a movie was released that allegedly shows irrefutable proof that his therapy works as a cure for cancer and that the rest of the medical establishment is conspiring against him.

In this post we will not concern ourselves with conspiracy talk: all we are interested in is to review the evidence presented in the movie (click here).

Right at the opening it says:

“This is the story of a medical doctor and PhD biochemist who has discovered the genetic mechanism that can cure most human cancers. The opening 30 minutes of this film is designed to thoroughly establish this fact — so the viewer can fully appreciate the events that follow it.”

This is followed by an excerpt from a congress hearing; an interview with a practitioner of alternative medicine and a description of the idea of antineoplastons.

The next part of the movie consists of three testimonials, including documentation. It is those testimonials that are intended to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that antineoplastons are effective as cancer treatment. Well – if it works we really want to know about it, so let’s take a look at the “anecdotal evidence”.

TESTIMONIAL 1:

The transcript is here and the “Diagnosis & recovery documents” can be found here.
The first patient whose case is presented as evidence is a female diagnosed with an anaplastic astrocytoma. We are told that a CT-scan revealed a mass in the brain measuring approximately 2 cm. In the movie we are shown a glimpse at the MRI-report and a pathology report telling us that the mass was an anaplastic astrocytoma. It is right here that the documentation shown in the movie becomes problematic. Here is the conclusion of the MRI-report:

The yellow marking is what the people behind the Burzynski movie want you to focus on. But the next sentence is very important too, because it tells us that the lesion could also be a lymphoma or an inflammatory process. This is important because primary treatment of neoplasms like astrocytoma is surgery. Lymphomas are treated with chemotherapy and inflammatory conditions are treated by other means depending on the nature of the inflammation. So in order to know whether such a patient should be treated primarily with surgery, chemotherapy or something else, a biopsy is needed. And a biopsy was taken in this case: it was a core biopsy, measuring 1 cm in length and a diameter of 1-2 mm. The following is not shown in the movie, but it is very important:

It tells us that the diagnosis was given by the pathologist during the operation. A frozen section analysis provides information to be used in deciding whether or not to proceed with surgery. Had the diagnosis been lymphoma, the decision would have been a no. This diagnosis establishes a reason to proceed with the surgical procedure. So we are right in asking ourselves if she did have further tumour tissue removed. At the start of the testimonial we were told that the astrocytoma was inoperable. Well – it was accessible for biopsy, so how then could it have been inaccessible to surgery? And this is what we are shown of Burzynski’s monitoring of the tumour size by MRI, starting before the antineoplaston treatment:

The lesion measured originally about 2 cm, but right before antineoplastons treatment, it appears to have been reduced in size to 0,5 cm. This is highly suggestive of something having happened after the biopsy, and surgery makes sense. An inflammatory reaction is a normal part of the healing process following surgery. It would accordingly be expected to find an inflammatory reaction at the site of surgery. Remember what it said about other possibilities than in the original scan:

So based on what we are told and what we can deduce from the documentation, there are two possibilities:
1) A 2 cm anaplastic astrocytoma was biopsied. Without further intervention it shrunk to 0,5 cm.
Antineoplastons made the rest go away; this is in fact what the movie claims.
2) A 2 cm anaplastic astrocytoma was biopsied and then surgically removed. The subsequent inflammation
resolved on its own.

TESTIMONIAL 2:

Here is the transcript and here are the “Diagnosis & recovery documents”.
The second patient is a female who at age 11 was diagnosed with a brain stem lesion. We are told that the MRI showed a diffuse brain stem glioma. and then we are shown an MRI-scan which shows a relatively small tumor in the brain stem (shown yellow).

None of us on the blog are neuroradiologists, so we have to consult textbooks to figure out what a diffuse brain stem glioma looks like. There’ one here. It has a chapter on brain stem gliomas, and on page 260 section 4.5.2.4 it says the following about the diagnosis of diffuse gliomas:

“….are poorly defined and as a rule occupy more than 50% of the axial brainstem diameter”.

Judge for yourself if you think the yellow marked lesion well defined or poorly defined. But it is not even close to occupying 50% of the diameter, so it is not a typical diffuse brain stem glioma, judging by the MRI. Perhaps we can find the explanation in the MRI-report. We must assume that the MRI-scan was examined by a neuroradiologist, who knows when something that doesn’t look like the textbook description of a diffuse brain stem glioma still is a diffuse brain stem glioma. Here’s what it says in the MRI-report:

No mentioning of a diffuse brain stem glioma here. It is also questionable how reliable the MRI-diagnosis of a brain stem glioma really is. In this study the researchers looked into what was seen in biopsies from 46 lesions diagnosed as gliomas on MRI. Only in 28 of the cases were the glioma diagnosis correct. In 6 of the cases the lesions were benign (non-cancerous).

Another interesting observation can be made in the chart showing changes in the size of the lesion during Burzynski’s treatment:

Between the MRI-diagnosis and the first MRI-scan at Burzynski’s clinic, just before the start of the antineoplaston therapy, the size has diminished from approximately 2 cm to 1 cm. This suggests that either something has happened which we are not told about, or this is something that has decreased to half the size all by itself. This casts serious doubts on whether the subsequent antineoplaston therapy actually did anything in this case.

So, based on what we are told and what we can deduce from the documentation, there are three possibilities:
1) A diffuse brain stem glioma which did not look like a textbook example of a diffuse brain stem glioma on MRI and which was not biopsied, diminished to half its original size on its own and then Antineoplastons made the rest go away.
2) The lesion was a benign non-cancerous condition that resolved by itself.
3) The lesion was treated successfully by conventional treatment.

TESTIMONIAL 3:

The transcript is here, the “Diagnosis & recovery documents” are here and here.
We are told that a 6 months old baby is diagnosed with a base ball sized tumor in her abdomen. “It is in her kidney and everywhere…. in her liver and her lungs…” The next thing that happens is surgery, where the abdominal mass is removed.

We are presented with parts of a pathology report where we can see that “The kidney is not involved” and the final microscpic diagnosis ends with “See comment”. This tells us two things:

1) The parents are wrong when they say that the tumor was in the kidney by the time of diagnosis.
2) The diagnosis wasn’t all that clear cut. “See comment” is something pathologists add to the final microscopic diagnosis, when the mere diagnosis can’t stand on its own. For instance, if not all criteria for making the diagnosis are present, there might be uncertainty as to how the tumour should be classified. Here is what it says in the comment:

Basically, this means that the case has been discussed, and weighing all things, they classified the tumour as an arenocortical carcinoma (a distinct type of adrenal cancer). We are unable to assess the reason for this uncertainty, because we are not shown the relevant part of the pathology report containing the microscopic description. This is typically where criteria present for making the diagnosis are mentioned, and any uncertainty in the interpretation is discussed.

The microscopy slides were also reviewed at another institution (MD Anderson Cancer Center). And again their diagnosis is “Adrenal neoplasm consistent with adrenal cortical carcinoma (See comment).” Here are those comments:

Basically this confirms that there is uncertainty of the cancer diagnosis, and they intend to use immunohistochemistry to help in deciding if this diagnosis is correct. We are not shown the content of the supplemental report, but we are shown an indication that such a report was indeed issued. The above report was signed out 9/26/2005 1:45 PM. Then there is this:

Something was signed out 9/29/2005 which has not been cleared or approved by the FDA. It can only be the immunohistochemistry, because the rest consisted merely of looking at microscopy slides from the original pathology lab.
So what’s the fuss all about? Well, there is one very important differential diagnosis that has to be taken into account: adrenal cortical adenoma, which is the benign non-cancerous counterpart of an adrenal cortical carcinoma. In the WHO publication on classification of tumors in the endocrine organs there are no less than three scoring systems and they mention that there are more such systems. A scoring system typically lists a set of characteristics, and the more of these characteristics are present in the tumour, the higher the score. If the score is high enough, the tumor is classified as a carcinoma (cancer), and if it is lower, the tumor is classified as an adenoma. The snippets of the pathology reports presented do not allow us to assess how this tumor scored in any of the classification systems. But the above certainly does indicate that it is in the grey area.

Then we are shown a preliminary radiology report where it says that there are progressing lung metastases:

A preliminary report is just what it sounds like: a first impression, which may be interpreted in a different way in the final report. We will never know what it says in the final report, because it is not shown to us.

So what happens after the parents decide to go for the antineoplaston therapy? Well – According to the movie:

“By this time, Kelseys cancer had also spread to the liver”.

This means the parents were incorrect when at the beginning of the testimonial they said the cancer was already in the liver by the time of diagnosis. The first CT-scan demonstrating a small liver lesion at Burzynskis dates 22-2-2006, which is almost 6 months after the operation.

The lesion in the liver is regular with “low attenuation”. It is not diagnostic of a liver metastasis (although it is a possibility). According to the movie, no attempts have been made to verify if this is a metastasis or something else.

So what do we have here:
1) The parents’s information on how widespread the tumour was known to be at the beginning, is demonstrably unreliable.
2) There is uncertainty as to whether the tumour really was cancer.
3) The tumour was successfully removed by surgery.
4) Liver and lung lesions of unknown nature decreased in size as time passed.

With the incomplete and insufficient information we have, it is impossible to accept this testimonial as evidence that antineoplastons cured this baby of metastatic adrenal cortical carcinoma. So what are we to think about the opening statement in the movie:

The opening 30 minutes of this film is designed to thoroughly establish this fact—so the viewer can fully appreciate the events that follow it.”

Conclusion

There is no evidence that the cancer of any of the patients presented in the movie was cured or even improved with antineoplaston therapy, and based on Burzynski’s “evidence” it seems only fair that some are trying to put him out of business.

Related posts:
Stanislaw Burzynski: bad medicine, a bad movie and bad PR 
Dr. Burzynski and the cult of personality of the “brave maverick cancer doctor”
What dr. Stanislaw Burzynski doesn’t want you to know about antineoplastons
Hope or False Hope
The Other Burzynski Patient Group

EDIT TO ADD:

The testimonials in the movie are not the only ones that fall apart under scrutiny. See for instance this.

About these ads

92 responses to “Burzynski The Movie: Does It Prove The Efficacy of Antineoplastons Against Cancer?

  1. wilmamazone November 22, 2011 at 12:04 pm

    jli you rock!

  2. jli November 22, 2011 at 5:40 pm

    Thank you Wilma.
    You are cool too :-)

  3. beatis November 22, 2011 at 8:05 pm

    I can’t help thinking this kind of obfuscation is done on purpose and aimed specifically at lay people, to convince them to seek treatment with the quack alternative practitioner. On Andy Lewis’s Quackometer and Twitter you can read that many desperate people fall for this ploy, which will do nothing for them and may cost them in excess of £ 200,000.

  4. Pingback: Burzynski: piss-poor cancer therapy at a hefty price « Short and Spiky

  5. jli November 23, 2011 at 6:13 am

    I agree. It is obvious that important pieces of information have been left out. And it is difficult to imagine that they were left out unintentionally.

  6. Colin McGovern November 23, 2011 at 3:36 pm

    Can somebody please explain to me why he’s allowed to practise? This is the bit I can’t work out.

    Thanks in advance :)

  7. Buffy (@zenbuffy) November 23, 2011 at 3:38 pm

    A really excellent dissection of the “facts” presented in the movie, which just serves to demonstrate the efficacy of cherry-picking and emotional parent testimonials in covering up the actual facts – that this treatment doesn’t work. I’ve often wondered about the various patient anecdotes, and have tried to find some information about them, but hadn’t had much luck. I will be sharing this blog with lots of people.

  8. pv November 23, 2011 at 4:01 pm

    @beatis, this kind of obfuscation and omission is a characteristic of all quackery and imo it is always done on purpose. If it weren’t for this selectivity no-one would buy it, and the purveyors of quackery know this – which is why it is deliberate.

  9. beatis November 23, 2011 at 4:48 pm

    @Colin McGovern,

    Can somebody please explain to me why he’s allowed to practise?

    That’s what I don’t understand either. It seems to have to do with some perverted interpretation of “freedom of choice” or something like that. However, if car repair men would pull tricks like this everyone would be outraged, but apparently cancer patients are simply considered fair game.

  10. Pingback: Controversy surrounding Burzynski’s ‘pioneering’ cancer therapy should be reported in newspapers | Josephine Jones

  11. philip November 24, 2011 at 3:51 pm

    I’ll most likely be censored but here goes…I first mentioned the Doctor months ago, At least he is trying something that doesn’t leave you scarred ,irradiated, or full of toxins. I dont believe its quackery, I believe he is thinking outside the box which of course those who promote the status qua drives crazy. Its peeps like Burzynski who are called Quacks because they know bucking the system will have them drawn and quartered, he like thousands and thousands of others no longer have faith in therapies that do much more harm than good. you peeps make him out to be a monster ,but how many peeps has he killed, compared to how many peeps Chemo therapy, Radical surgery’s and Rad treatments have murdered with the blessing of the FDA, ACS, and WHO and all the other mutual admiration societies. Again Beatis will probably not allow my contribution to this one sided blog, as she believes in the Standard practice of sanctioned murder by Radical surgery, Chemical intoxication, and Radiation.

  12. beatis November 24, 2011 at 4:45 pm

    Again Beatis will probably not allow my contribution to this one sided blog, as she believes in the Standard practice of sanctioned murder by Radical surgery, Chemical intoxication, and Radiation.

    I don’t have to “believe” in any treatments, because I know which treatments have been proven to give me the best chance to survive my cancer, and those are the ones I chose for myself. Dr. B’s antineoplaston therapy is not in that category, as he hasn’t delivered any evidence yet that his therapy is an effective cancer treatment.

  13. philip November 24, 2011 at 6:56 pm

    I understand your approval to the methods mentioned to treat your Cancer and I wish you every success….,but , Then wouldn’t it be prudent to have Dr. B continue his research until he is either proven right or wrong.
    I dont understand why Dr.B would go to all this expense to make this Documentary, if in fact he may well be on to something that is non evasive and non toxic, and does NOT create an environment where with conventional treatments cause much more damage than good.
    Dr. B has in fact openly stated in his documentary what was working and what was not, he has been candid and as far as I can see honest, yet this blog wastes no time in vilifying him.
    I would agree that his methods have NOT been completely proven, yet at the same time our governments allow peeps to be guinea pigs in a system that allows many more deaths than should be accepted by any “moral”standard practice of medicine “Firstly do no harm”
    The Status Qua, is no longer acceptable, the methods of treating cancers are almost barbaric in their destruction of body and mind, yet any time a person may have a better way they are almost put up against the wall and shot for going against a Medical system that will not a allow “out of the Box ” thinkers like Dr. Burzynski, unless it can be patented and a profit made, and there in-lies the problem….A system based on Profit and not Health…..but then you’ve heard this story before…Yes?

  14. beatis November 24, 2011 at 7:32 pm

    I understand your approval to the methods mentioned to treat your Cancer and I wish you every success….,but , Then wouldn’t it be prudent to have Dr. B continue his research until he is either proven right or wrong.

    I don’t mind him continuing his research. What I do mind is that he claims his treatment is effective against cancer when he is still doing research and that patients have to pay such huge amounts of money to take part in a trial. In my country it is considered highly unethical to charge patients money for taking part in medical trials and therefore not allowed.

    I dont understand why Dr.B would go to all this expense to make this Documentary, if in fact he may well be on to something that is non evasive and non toxic, and does NOT create an environment where with conventional treatments cause much more damage than good.

    It is not true that conventional cancer treatments by definition cause more damage than good. Cancer left untreated or treated with ineffective therapies will cause us to die. I wouldn’t call that “good”.

    Dr. B has in fact openly stated in his documentary what was working and what was not, he has been candid and as far as I can see honest, yet this blog wastes no time in vilifying him.

    No, he has not been candid, as jli has clearly demonstrated in his blogpost.

    I would agree that his methods have NOT been completely proven,

    At least we are in some sort of agreement here.

    yet at the same time our governments allow peeps to be guinea pigs in a system that allows many more deaths than should be accepted by any “moral”standard practice of medicine “Firstly do no harm”

    I’m sorry, I have no idea what you mean.

    The Status Qua, is no longer acceptable, the methods of treating cancers are almost barbaric in their destruction of body and mind,

    I don’t feel “deconstructed” at all. Yes, I have only one breast, but I can’t say that it bothers me very much, in fact I hardly think about it, and all in all my treatment was quite doable. I feel I have been very lucky, I am very grateful to be alive and able to enjoy my life the way I do. I’m very fit, am in great shape and as far as I know my mind is still in good working order, just as it used to be. And I am by no means the only cancer patient who feels like this.

    yet any time a person may have a better way they are almost put up against the wall and shot for going against a Medical system that will not a allow “out of the Box ” thinkers like Dr. Burzynski,

    Dr. B. is not lambasted for thinking out of the box, but for being dishonest and for charging patients huge amounts of money for unproven treatments.

    unless it can be patented and a profit made, and there in-lies the problem….A system based on Profit and not Health…..but then you’ve heard this story before…Yes?

    Dr. B. has patented his antineoplastons…

  15. jli November 25, 2011 at 11:30 am

    @ Phillip.
    Try and read the post, instead of guessing what it is about. What you will see is an open minded analysis of the documentation presented as evidence of efficacy. It is an assumption that these cases are the best documented the Burzynski clinic can come up with, but that is not an unfair assumption. If they had better documented cases, those would be the ones that would be presented in the movie.

    As for vilificattion, Burzynski is doing a fine job of that on his own through his PR-manager. See for instance: http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2011/11/the-burzynski-clinic-threatens-my-family.html

    Or this one: http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110319041727AAIL4BL Take a look at the comments section, where you will see him bullying a cancer patient who gave a perfectly reasonable answer to a question about Burzynski (he is identical to the one who calls himself MAS).

    It is a bit ironic that he was the one who inspired me to take a look at the evidence presented in the movie, which ultimately led to this post. That’s what I call PR-management :mrgreen:

  16. Stella November 25, 2011 at 4:40 pm

    Wow, that has got to be the worst documentary I have ever seen.

    @Philip if ur defending him, then you should persuade him as a supporter to publish his findings and open it to scientific scrutiny, it’s the basis of the scientific method. And you say that his cure “in working”, well, he’s been working on it for 30 years and has treated 8000+ patients, wheres the miracle stories

  17. wilmamazone November 25, 2011 at 5:55 pm

    Or this one:
    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/
    A P.R. flack from the Burzynski Clinic threatens a skeptical blogger

  18. philip November 25, 2011 at 5:57 pm

    I was so amazed at your response, It would seem that your angry that Dr. B charges a lot of money for his treatments. Well maybe he wouldn’t have to charge so much if he could get a little help from an institution (FDA) that has spent over 60 million Dollars trying to put him away instead of granting him money(which should be there mandate) at his research, to develop a very promising NON TOXIC method of treating many forms of Cancer!
    I went back and re watched the movie, to see if I had missed anything, or to see if there was true quackery going on , and what I found over all was a documented success rate of up to 25% +. which beats the hell out of any success rate RAD, CHEMO, or Radical surgery’s ever came up with!
    What I found was a non toxic method of treating many types of Cancer that survivors show up in front of no less than 7 Grand Juries and defend Dr. B’s so called snake oil cure!
    What I found was the the Texas Board of examiners ,FDA, and Big Pharma doing there best to discredit Dr. B and his research 7 + times to no avail.
    What I found was one of his own research staffers Dr. Dvorit Samid being bought and sold by Elan Pharmaceuticals and the NCI to rip off a part of Dr. B’s research to try and patent it ,and that failed miserably as Dr. B stated it would.
    What I found was that there has never been a formal complaint by any of his patients suing him for Mal practice because his methods did not work!
    What i found was the FDA is owned lock Stock and barrel by big Pharma ,and that they dictate to the FDA what , will and what will not be approved. so it is no wonder they have spent so much time and tax payers money doing everything they can to slander internationally, raid, indict ,steal, discredit, short of having him vanish which I would not put past these institutions.
    What I found was that the US government thinks that he is so close to a cure that they illegally applied for and obtained 11 plus patents for Phenol acetate which DR. B already held.
    What I found was that the FDA and NCI purposely botched the Phenol acetate trials and then had the balls to say DR.B’s research was flawed
    What I found is that the FDA and NCI actually admitted that Dr. B was on to something that may be a possible regimen in the battle against Cancer.
    What I find is that you nay Sayers will do your very best to make him out to be a quack. You can not, or will not see the big picture. The fact is, is that Antineoplastons may very well be the cure, but much research must be done first to make that claim. but he will receive no help from the very institution that was set up to put health first and NOT PROFIT!!!
    The FDA the NCI and big Pharma are terrified by the likes of Dr. Burzynski and peeps like him because they represent the true nature of medicine and the research that goes along with it . If he eventually does prove that he does indeed have a general cure for Cancer, the money pit known as Big Pharma will be out of business, and the FDA will lose massive revenue to fill their coffers. No wonder they want him gone!
    Through out history is has always been the Dr.Burzynski’s of the world that are ridiculed and Vilified and are drummed out as it were, because institutions like the American Medical Association, FDA,NCI and Big Pharma will lose there strangle hold on us.
    We should applaud peeps like Dr.B for stepping outside the box, we should embrace their efforts in the research they do, until such time as proved other wise. because as it is right now there are more people dying of Radiation ,Chemo therapy and Radical surgery than of Antineoplastides therapy, and we all know or at least those of us who really want the facts know that the standard cancer treatments over all kill many more people than they actually cure…..Cheers! :-)

  19. philip November 26, 2011 at 5:36 am

    I find it so tedious trying to defend a persons right to find a better way, especially when the powers that be will stop at nothing to defend their monopoly on the dispensing of Toxic chemicals, radiation, and radical surgery’s that have been proven time and time again to do much more harm than good..what is it a 3-5% success rate….dismal at best.
    Yet you will sit in front of your PC and berate a man that is trying to find a non toxic non irradiating way to stop Cancer, and has killed no one ,has Not been sued for malpractice of any kind, but has been hauled around the court system in the US judicial system and walked away from these futile attempts to ruin him, more time times than I can keep track of…yet you cant see the big picture.
    Stella! in his Documentary he presented four miracles how many does it take to convince you this Quack may be on to something?
    I support any one who will do there very best to find the “Good Cure” that is truly health motivated not profit motivated like the FDA,NCI, Big Pharma etc.
    Its interesting that you nay Sayer certainly don NOT like talking about The Dismal track record that Big Pharma try to bury as much as possible, as they certainly do not want you finding out how bad they really are.
    I suggest you read my last blog, and try to understand what is really going on, and trust me it has nothing to do with Dr. B, and everything to do with keeping us all as sick as possible for as long as possible. now try and get your head around that :-/

  20. Colin McGovern November 26, 2011 at 7:24 am

    Philip,

    You are either here to spread misinformation or you don’t know what you’re talking about. The American Cancer Institute assessed his treatment and said that it could not be independently confirmed and therefore could not be considered effective.

    There are a lot of people going to his clinic based on the false hope he creates and it is utterly tragic watching them berate people who warn them that he is just after their money.

    You owe it to yourself to take a dispassionate look at the data instead of believing conspiracy theories. Given the amount of scientists and doctors that have sweated blood to find genuine cures for cancer, you spit on their efforts by accusing them of wanting to suppress a genuine cure out of professional jealousy or worse.

    You are also adding grave insult to the serious injury cancer sufferers already experience by defending a doctor who refuses to wait until he has independent verification of his treatment before telling the most vulnerable people in the world that he can cure them.

  21. wilmamazone November 26, 2011 at 1:33 pm

    Or this one:
    Hope or false hope?

    We’ve recently seen an increasing number of stories in the media – such as this heartfelt piece in the Observer – describing how desperate cancer patients and their families are raising tens or even hundreds of thousands of pounds to go for treatment at the Burzynski Clinic in Texas, USA.

    Many of us working here at Cancer Research UK have lost loved ones to this terrible disease (or, indeed, been through it themselves) and it’s what fuels our passion for the work that we do. So we have the very deepest sympathy with these families and understand the need for hope, however faint, in their darkest days

    Across the country, kind-hearted people – from local communities to big name celebrities – are understandably moved to raise money for these patients. But it is also important for them to know that the available scientific evidence does not support the clinic’s claims that their treatment is effective against cancer.

    And although we have no……..

    If any of the so-called ‘miracle’ cures for cancer showed genuine, reproducible benefits for patients, they would be jumped on by doctors and scientists who are desperate to find better ways to treat the hundreds of thousands of people who are diagnosed with cancer every year in the UK. The fact that they are not speaks volumes.

  22. philip November 26, 2011 at 2:03 pm

    Again you both have missed the point here!
    Dr.B is one example of the Clandestine efforts of the the FDA, NCI, and Big Pharma and there affiliates to suppress any and all efforts of independent private facilities or individuals to find a Cure for Cancer. Unless you have signed a Non Disclosure Agreement and signed over any and all possible chemical agents that can be PATENTED by the above mentioned institutions, they will make every effort by legal means or other wise to shut the independent facility or individual down.
    They have never been interested in finding a cure for Cancer, there mandate it to make as much money for there share holders as possible.Rebut that statement I would be interested to read your answer.Oh and please dont tell its because they want to make sure any new discovery will not potentially harm the public, cause they have a well documented track record of death due to the carcinogenic chemicals and radiation poisoning they prescribe!
    What scares me is that you people think these institutions can do no wrong, it is painfully obvious that you peeps have your collective heads in the sand.
    Oh just so you know my mother died of Progressive bone Cancer, but it was not the Cancer the took her life it was the cocktail of chemicals they gave her!

  23. beatis November 26, 2011 at 2:37 pm

    I was so amazed at your response, It would seem that your angry that Dr. B charges a lot of money for his treatments. Well maybe he wouldn’t have to charge so much if he could get a little help from an institution (FDA) that has spent over 60 million Dollars trying to put him away instead of granting him money(which should be there mandate) at his research, to develop a very promising NON TOXIC method of treating many forms of Cancer!

    He charges patients huge amounts of money to be guinea pigs in his medical trials of a substance that has shown next to no capacity to cure or even halt the growth of cancer. That’s what I’m angry about, it’s highly unethical behaviour. Also, antineoplastons are by no means “non toxic”; they can make a person feel very ill.

    I went back and re watched the movie, to see if I had missed anything, or to see if there was true quackery going on , and what I found over all was a documented success rate of up to 25% +. which beats the hell out of any success rate RAD, CHEMO, or Radical surgery’s ever came up with!

    Then watch again and read jli’s post. RAD, CHEMO or Radical surgery, as you call it, has brought about a 60% cancer cure rate.

    We should applaud peeps like Dr.B for stepping outside the box, we should embrace their efforts in the research they do, until such time as proved other wise.

    Why does that have to cost so much money? Dr B must have made tens of millions of dollars the past years. Surely he could afford to use some of it to fund his experiments? Why do his patients have to pay for it??

    because as it is right now there are more people dying of Radiation ,Chemo therapy and Radical surgery than of Antineoplastides therapy, and we all know or at least those of us who really want the facts know that the standard cancer treatments over all kill many more people than they actually cure…

    Er, no. Nearly 60% of all cancer patients are cured with conventional treatments. Just think again, it’s not that difficult, even you should be able to grasp that 60% is more than 40% and also more than 0%.

  24. beatis November 26, 2011 at 2:40 pm

    I find it so tedious trying to defend a persons right to find a better way, especially when the powers that be will stop at nothing to defend their monopoly on the dispensing of Toxic chemicals, radiation, and radical surgery’s that have been proven time and time again to do much more harm than good..what is it a 3-5% success rate….dismal at best.

    No Philip, the number is 60%.

    Ofcourse Big Pharma is profit motivated, since their profits pay for their trials, for unlike Dr B they do not let patients fund their medical trials.

  25. beatis November 26, 2011 at 2:42 pm

    Oh just so you know my mother died of Progressive bone Cancer, but it was not the Cancer the took her life it was the cocktail of chemicals they gave her!

    Ofcourse it was. After all, nobody ever dies of cancer in quack land, do they, they only die of conventional cancer treatments.

  26. Pingback: Hope or false hope? : Cancer Research UK – Cancer Research UK … |

  27. Colin McGovern November 26, 2011 at 5:25 pm

    I think this website is helpful for the Philips of this world to see what they are actually defending…

    http://www.burzynskiscam.com/index.php

  28. Renate November 26, 2011 at 5:51 pm

    Interesting website. Don’t click on the ‘What are we doing now’-button unless you want to read a lot of things about health-food.

  29. Colin McGovern November 26, 2011 at 5:53 pm

    Agreed Renate – however the links page is pretty damning…

  30. Renate November 26, 2011 at 6:03 pm

    The links about Burynski are pretty damning, though at the end there are also some links promoting other quack-theories.

  31. Pingback: Quora

  32. Pingback: Ein Blogger, Krebs und Radiohead « Die Ausrufer

  33. philip November 27, 2011 at 2:16 am

    This piece is taken from the Healing Cancer Naturally web site,
    This may give you some insight as to people looking for the “Good Cure” for Cancer, but some how ive got a feeling whom ever edits this blog will not allow me to present this

    Understanding the Nature of Ill Health and Disease
    The entire approach and foundation of Orthodox Medicine is based on Louis Pasteur’s Germ Theory, a flawed concept. A disease condition is viewed by the orthodoxy as an isolated event, confined to the area in which it manifests itself (e.g. an ear infection, eye infection, gum infection, lung cancer, skin cancer, etc. ). Under this theory, for unknown reasons, microbes or tumors indiscriminately grow in the patient and must be cut (surgery), burned (radiation), or poisoned (drugs) out of the body. In the orthodox model, the solution is sought through mechanical and chemical solutions. Seeking to understand WHY the infection or disease condition appeared in the first place, is not usually seriously explored. The quick fix with a prescription of drugs to smother the symptoms is the typical ‘answer’.
    A contemporary of Pasteur, Antoine Beauchamp, had a different opinion as to why disease conditions ‘took hold’. Beauchamp felt that the ENVIRONMENT, or the ECOLOGY of the blood played the critical role in deciding whether disease conditions would manifest or not.
    Alternative medicine explores the stressors (environmental, biological, chemical, psychological, and emotional) in a patient’s life that cause a weakening of a particular energy field; which in turn allows the manifestation of a disease condition in a weakened area. In order to maintain a state of health, all energy systems within the body need to exist in a state of balance or equilibrium. Imbalance leads to conditions of discomfort (dis-ease) which eventually spirals into ill health if not corrected. The Chinese and Indians (Ayurvedic medicine) had worked all of this out thousands of years ago.
    Orthodox or Allopathic Medicine utilizes poisonous substances (drugs) in non-lethal dosages in order to suppress symptoms in an affected area. This approach neither addresses the cause of the disease condition, nor is it responsible for healing the patient. Rather, the use of drugs often will temporarily mask the outer manifestations of the malady, while at the same time, drive the disease deeper into the body…only to reappear at a later date, as a more serious, and chronic health threat. One of the many flaws of the orthodox approach is that it focuses on the disease condition itself, rather than the patient. The term wholistic (or holistic) sprang up to distinguish those physicians whose diagnostic gestalt considers all of the physical, emotional, and spiritual energies interacting with the patient.

  34. beatis November 27, 2011 at 9:52 am

    @Philip

    Firstly, your comment has nothing to do with the subject matter of the post: it is completely off topic. Secondly, it’s entirely made up of extremely simplistic straw men and obsolete theories that have been effectively debunked ages ago. It’s completely irrelevant what Beauchamp or the Indians or the Chinese thought, because they’ve been proven wrong. End of story.

  35. philip November 27, 2011 at 2:16 pm

    beatis..
    Firstly it has everything to do with the Subject Matter, We are talking about curing Cancer, we are talking about Who’s trying to cure it and in what manner . We are taking about people who are trying methods outside the excepted norms.
    Those supposed obsolete theories you speak of have been purposely suppressed by the Medical Community and labeled as Quackery, performed by Witch doctors, and non licensed Charlatans, that’s what you and them would have us believe so you and yours can promote Therapies that leave peoples immune systems so shattered that its not the cancer that kills them but the total and relentless breaking down of their natural defenses.You and I have been here before…yes?
    I will continue to use Dr. Burzynski as an example, because he, to my knowledge is the only researcher who has spent the time and money to put out a documentary explaining what he was trying to do.Having said this to my mind he still has a lot to prove, but I will watch his progress with an eye brow raised if you know what I mean.
    and for your information there will be no end to this story until such time as the Society brings down those Hypocritical, CEO’s and Doctors ((who haven’t practiced medicine in years!)) that set policy for the masses, and dictate from upon high what new Toxic Cocktail they can will be forced to take, and and what ridiculous price they’ll have to pay, just to have the cancer go away then come back months later even worse than before.(We killed the Cancer…oh but to bad, so sad, call dad, we killed the patient too!!)

  36. JennyJo November 27, 2011 at 3:38 pm

    Philip,

    You don’t appear to know very much about the “orthodox approach”. Seems to me you’ve fallen hook, line and sinker for every quack trick in the book.

  37. wilmamazone November 27, 2011 at 4:25 pm

    JennyJo:

    Seems to me you’ve fallen hook, line and sinker for every quack trick in the book.

    Seems to me too!

  38. philip November 27, 2011 at 4:56 pm

    I’m being censored (second or third time), I tried to post another piece of pertinent info but of course this site is obviously pro Status Qua and most defiantly against any alternative form of treatment, and thought it best to not post what I had to say. A truly biased Blog site!
    So Stella, beatis,Jli,J.Jo,Wilmamazone , and the rest of you. It is plain to see that if I post any stat or article from another website (THEY DELETE IT!!) that calls you on your belief that Chemo,Radiation, or Radical surgery’s is the best way to fight Cancer, then I wish all of you good luck, but remember to wash your hair if you have any left from hiding your collective heads in the sand. You are indeed a mutual admiration society comfortable in your beliefs that poisoning the public is the best way to fight Cancer. These last few days ive been doing a lot of Due Dili and you all are literally a dieing breed, the evidence being stacked against the likes of you is staggering, the Statistics that have been leaked to the public from institutions like the FDA,NCI, WHO etc. are terrifying in their true cure rates. My God its sectioned murder on an international scale!!!
    You people will never believe that there are better ways to fight Cancer than what the Powers that be would have you believe. So good luck.

  39. beatis November 27, 2011 at 5:39 pm

    Philip,

    I censor you because you ramble on incessantly about the same things, causing your comments to be boring in the extreme. You’ve had ample opportunity to make your point, I won’t have you bore us all to sleep with endless repeats thank you.

  40. philip November 28, 2011 at 1:39 am

    beatis,
    So I bore the lot of you do I? I rant and Rave do I?,and Ramble on incessantly do I? Well I would think that at least I give you all a reason to Blog, and have a good giggle since it must so boring listening to yourselves pat your selves on your backs and mutually admire each other for being staunch devotees of a wholly corrupt, Self serving set of institutions that could care less about the health of the nation. So to have some whack job like me show up and challenge your BORG like thinking, the lot of you must have a blast…..a reason to BLOG!! …ILMAO!!
    You and your like,are not the least bit interested in a non toxic, non radiation Cure for cancer, for if you were you would Blogging about all those other guys trying to heal from within NOT without!!
    You only hear what you want to, and if it begins to rub you the wrong way, you Censor it…Hey beatis you and the FDA should get together and blog since you both think alike LOL.
    So to all a Merry Christmas ,and to all a good Night! :-)

    Oh was I Ranting incessantly again?…..opps Sorry, my mistake hehe

  41. Paula G V aka Yukimi November 28, 2011 at 1:52 am

    Also Philip, Cancer treatment is free or almost fre in my country for the patients and the same meds that are used in the US cost a lot of times less in my country (for example a very popular drug (not going to publicise XP) that in the US costs 100 dollars, it’s only 4-5 in Europe witout any private insurance). Still we find the “Dr. B’s” non peer reviewed “findings” at least suspicious, at worst fraudulent. In Spain, what he is doing would have let him in jail.

  42. Pingback: Science-Based Medicine » Stanislaw Burzynski: Bad medicine, a bad movie, and bad P.R.

  43. beatis November 28, 2011 at 7:15 am

    @Philip,

    Firstly it has everything to do with the Subject Matter, We are talking about curing Cancer, we are talking about Who’s trying to cure it and in what manner . We are taking about people who are trying methods outside the excepted norms.

    We are talking about a man who is offering cancer patients a treatment for which there is no credible evidence that it is effective, who does so within the framework of his clinical trials – which are supposed to protect patients and be free of charge – and charges them huge amounts of money for it.

    Those supposed obsolete theories you speak of have been purposely suppressed by the Medical Community and labeled as Quackery, performed by Witch doctors, and non licensed Charlatans, that’s what you and them would have us believe so you and yours can promote Therapies that leave peoples immune systems so shattered that its not the cancer that kills them but the total and relentless breaking down of their natural defenses.You and I have been here before…yes?

    No Philip, Beauchamp’s theories, Aryuvedic medicine and TCM have not been surpressed, they have been proven to be incorrect.

    I will continue to use Dr. Burzynski as an example, because he, to my knowledge is the only researcher who has spent the time and money to put out a documentary explaining what he was trying to do.Having said this to my mind he still has a lot to prove, but I will watch his progress with an eye brow raised if you know what I mean.

    Many altmeds have spent time and money making “documentaries” in order to sell their therapies.

    and for your information there will be no end to this story until such time as the Society brings down those Hypocritical, CEO’s and Doctors ((who haven’t practiced medicine in years!)) that set policy for the masses, and dictate from upon high what new Toxic Cocktail they can will be forced to take, and and what ridiculous price they’ll have to pay, just to have the cancer go away then come back months later even worse than before.

    Antineoplaston therapy is a systemic therapy, consisting of a toxic substance that can have very unpleasant side effects, aimed at destroying cancer cells. To all intents and purposes, it is chemotherapy. Its big drawback however is that there is NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE that it does anything against cancer. Yet he sees no problem in having patients pay ridiculous amounts of money to take part in a medical EXPERIMENT. Can’t you see how wrong this is?

    (We killed the Cancer…oh but to bad, so sad, call dad, we killed the patient too!!)

    As I’ve said before numerous times: close to 60% of cancer patients are cured with conventional treatments. That’s not enough, but it’s by no means as dismal as you would have us believe.

    Of the cancer patients who cannot be cured because their cancer has spread, more and more can live longer and with improving quality of life thanks to conventional therapies.

  44. beatis November 28, 2011 at 7:24 am

    @Philip,

    You and your like,are not the least bit interested in a non toxic, non radiation Cure for cancer, for if you were you would Blogging about all those other guys trying to heal from within NOT without!!

    What an idiot you are to think that we would not be interested. However, antineoplaston therapy is not non-toxic, nor is it free of side effects; on the contrary: it can have a number of nasty side effects and can make you feel quite sick. That’s because it’s toxic you see. Nothing wrong with that though, side effects can be overcome and diminish with time, but then at least it would have to work, and there’s no convincing indication that antineoplastons do. I quote Orac in his latest post:

    The substances that Burzynski claimed to have isolated from urine (his “antineoplastons”) have never been shown to do much against cancer by anyone other than Burzynski. As the article at Quackwatch points out, the NCI could not replicate Burzynski’s early results. Neither could drug company Sigma-Tau Pharmaceuticals. Neither could the Japanese National Cancer Institute. So what we have here is a therapy that, contrary to what some skeptics say, is not without a modicum of biological plausibility. After all, it’s not entirely implausible to think that the body might make substances that arrest the growth of cancer that can be isolated from the urine, and no less a figure than Dr. Judah Folkman himself demonstrated that the body produces endogenous anticancer substances. Indeed, I’ve studied some of these myself, including angiostatin and endostatin, both of which Judah Folkman first isolated from mouse urine.

    However, the fact that the body does produce endogenous inhibitors of tumor growth and progression does not mean that antineoplastons function as endogenous inhibitors of cancer progression, and scientific evidence that they do function that way has been elusive at best, other than from Burzynski’s research institute and groups affiliated with him. If there’s one thing that should raise a red flag for pseudoscience, it’s when only one scientist can produce the reported results and no one else can. Replication is utterly key to the acceptance of science, and if other groups could replicate Burzynski’s work I might scratch my head and say, “You know, Dr. B may be on to something there.” But no one else has yet, and I’m left scratching my head and wondering how so many people can believe in Burzynski’s results given the paucity of science and evidence. And it’s not for lack of opportunity, either. Back in the 1990s, the NCI practically bent over backwards to give Burzynski every chance to prove that his antineoplastons have anticancer activity in humans.

    But perhaps you can explain to us why all these so-called Cures for cancer you have presented here lack even the most basic form of evidence and why so many of them include ripping off desperate people of their last penny.

  45. Pingback: Stanislaw Burzynski: Bad medicine, a bad movie, and bad P.R. | Health Articles

  46. Pingback: The 21st Floor » Blog Archive » Could the Burzynski clinic fall foul of UK law?

  47. Pingback: P.ie Cancer Thread - Page 9

  48. Pingback: The Burzynski Continuation « Cubik's Rube

  49. Pingback: For Burzynski, Cancer Is Big Business « An Evidence Based Blog

  50. Pingback: Antineoplaston therapy: a pseudoskeptic case-study. - Page 11 - Parapsychology and alternative medicine forums of mind-energy.net

  51. beatis November 29, 2011 at 7:37 am

    @Philip,

    Here’s more about how Dr Burzynski treats deceives cancer patients.
    You said of Burzynski: “We are taking about people who are trying methods outside the excepted (sic) norms.” And right you are. But do you really think this kind of callous, deceptive, greed-driven and completely immoral behaviour should be the norm for the standard of care for cancer patients??

  52. philip November 29, 2011 at 4:40 pm

    You said of Burzynski: “We are taking about people who are trying methods outside the excepted (sic) norms.” And right you are. But do you really think this kind of callous, deceptive, greed-driven and completely immoral behaviour should be the norm for the standard of care for cancer patients??

    my god beatis !!!Don’t talk to me about greed and being deceptive…. Big Pharma, and the FDA wrote the rules on being greedy and being deceptive, You have the FDA taking kick backs from Big Pharma to push there poisons on to the public in weeks untested when it used to take years to properly test a new drug.You have Big Pharma lobbying Congress to push through regulations that strangle anyone or any company from doing research that the either the FDA can control or that Big Pharma can get a patent on…sorry Those guys get the prize for most Deceptive, most dishonest, most clandestine,most immoral, those Mother F****rs! play God 24/7, while our Government gives them a pat on the back and says Shake that money maker!!While thousands of people being poisoned all in the name of Cancer! Lets treat the symptoms but not the cause, that way we can keep the money flowing, we’ll kill the cancer and kill the patient too! that’s OK we know Cancers on the rise, we will have no shortage of victims!!
    YES I KNOW I SOUND LIKE A BROKEN RECORD!! but for FFS… you and yours are acting like a bunch of automatons

  53. beatis November 29, 2011 at 4:45 pm

    Sneakily selling his patients conventional chemotherapy at 1200% of the normal price – and still you defend this man??

    And can you explain to us how it is evil when “Big Pharma” patent the drugs they developed, and how it is perfectly ok when Dr B patents his antineoplaston drugs?

    And you not only sound like a broken record, you also sound like someone who needs help.

  54. Renate November 29, 2011 at 6:05 pm

    Philip, did you read this?
    http://www.burzynskiscam.com/index.php
    Someone who doesn’t seem to be very satisfied with mr. Burzynski, to say the least. And mr. Burzynski seems to be prescribing standard chemotherapy as well, but asks far more for it, than it is normally sold for.

  55. beatis November 29, 2011 at 6:46 pm

    @Renate,

    And mr. Burzynski seems to be prescribing standard chemotherapy as well, but asks far more for it, than it is normally sold for.

    Yes, he charged no less than 1200% of the normal price.

    The Houston Press today:

    Burzynski fanatics like Stephens operate under this rubric whereby it’s some vast Big Pharma-doctor conspiracy to keep kids sick and prevent Burzynski from helping people. But we think it’s the exact opposite. In the past, when Burzynski had the opportunity to work with government-sponsored researchers and get on the path to get his treatment FDA-approved and covered by insurance, he aborted the study.

    So instead, he just sits on what he claims is a remarkably effective cancer treatment, charging exorbitant amounts that most people have to mortgage their homes and sell everything they own to afford. In other words, he’s the only guy in the world with the cure, but he doesn’t want to give it away for free or share it with anyone else.

  56. Pingback: Burzynski blogs: My Master List | Josephine Jones

  57. jli November 29, 2011 at 8:24 pm

    Philip, did you read this? http://www.burzynskiscam.com/index.php

    It is also noteworthy that these people are not biased against alternative therapy. You need to go to their alternate website to see, that the patient actually has received chemotherapy.

  58. philip November 30, 2011 at 4:25 pm

    Yes Beatis, Jli, Renate and the rest, I did read the article, and I feel badly for those folks I feel even worse that they have to get CHEMO..[There's a death sentence if I've ever seen one!]and because of those folks I went to the Burzynski home page (did any of you?) I must say for a Quack he sure volunteers a lot of information about what he is trying to accomplish. And yes he does have a whole section explaining conventional therapy ,and admits there are “targeted Chemo therapy’s may be warranted” which by the he does NOT perform in his clinic. As matter of fact he suggests the patient goes else where for conventional treatments. Oh he still is Phase III clinical trials with the FDA looking over his shoulder, and looking forward to Phase IV but the man just has to be a Quack
    Anyways I am fascinated with your collective literal nit picking of Dr. B. I am also fascinated at the way you see a small crack in the wall and the lot you jump all over it doing your best to make him out to be a monster. If he is the Frankenstein you all make him out to be, why is not shut down, why is he not languishing in a federal penitentiary. Why does he employ so many people, Why has he released to the public a wealth of reports that any of you can examine at your leisure. Why did the FDA arrange to have his research plagiarized. the guy has got to be a Quack!!!
    Ladies and Gentlemen I believe that you all are so frustrated with this Battle you are losing,. that going after people like Dr.B , you will use any reason no matter how large or small to make your point.
    I’ll bet the lot of you all agree that both Teenage Girls should all be vaccinated with Gardasil to prevent cervical Cancer and STD’s even though there is over 80.000 reports of life threatening side effects as well as several deaths linked to the drug, but then that’s a whole new debate yes? Merck Pharmaceuticals is making a Killing Literally!
    If you like I would be happy to some research on the REAL Stats on Cancer success and provide the links for your enjoyment. I would be happy to provide websites for such accredited Doctors like Dr. Mercola, or Dr. Gonzalez to name a couple, but why would I do that? you guys would most likely trash them to.

  59. beatis November 30, 2011 at 4:50 pm

    @philip,

    Yes Beatis, Jli, Renate and the rest, I did read the article, and I feel badly for those folks I feel even worse that they have to get CHEMO..[There's a death sentence if I've ever seen one!]and because of those folks I went to the Burzynski home page (did any of you?) I must say for a Quack he sure volunteers a lot of information about what he is trying to accomplish. And yes he does have a whole section explaining conventional therapy ,and admits there are “targeted Chemo therapy’s may be warranted” which by the he does NOT perform in his clinic.

    As a matter of fact, he is offering targeted therapies in his clinic: “Innovative and cutting-edge Personalized Gene Targeted Cancer Therapy”, it says on his web site. He is also giving his patients conventional chemotherapy while making them believe they are treated with something else – his antineoplaston therapy for example, which btw is 100% synthetic chemotherapy.

    Why has he released to the public a wealth of reports that any of you can examine at your leisure.

    I have no idea. If I were him, I would certainly not publish this list, for the very reasons that are given here. But I think the list is aimed at a specific group of laypersons – desperate cancer patients and their relatives to be precise – and not at scientists. And when scientists criticize the quality of his “scientific research”, he’ll just say they they will do anything to put him in a bad light.

    If he is the Frankenstein you all make him out to be, why is not shut down, why is he not languishing in a federal penitentiary.

    The answer is here, in a post by Steven Novella on Skepticblog (my bold):

    “… Burzynski has published studies of his therapy, but they are small uncontrolled case series. He has been promoting his therapy for more than three decades – why is he still doing preliminary research (the last of which was published in 2006)?
    Well, that is how he skirts regulation. He offers his antineoplaston therapy as an experimental protocol.”

    If you like I would be happy to some research on the REAL Stats on Cancer success and provide the links for your enjoyment. I would be happy to provide websites for such accredited Doctors like Dr. Mercola, or Dr. Gonzalez to name a couple, but why would I do that? you guys would most likely trash them to.

    Yes we would, and they’re so very easy to trash too. Oh, and “Dr” Mercola is NOT a medical doctor, let alone a cancer specialist.

  60. philip November 30, 2011 at 7:28 pm

    yes agreed his therapy is synthetic but it does no harm…you conveniently forgot to mention that!
    As a matter of fact your rebuttals are usually forgetful in that you only speak of what you think you have a reasonable chance of winning.
    Your reply is exactly what I expected. The way you spin things in your favor is almost
    magical, Man I wish I had your talent ….are you sure you dont work for the FDA or one of the big Pharmaceutical companies, Come on beatis you can tell me, I wont hold it against you, after all we all have to make a living… yes?
    If you dont…you should. As I’m sure they would pay you big bucks to work with their SPIN DOCTORS in the PR department.
    Didn’t Nazi Germany have a whole division which mandate was to flood the media with half truths, misinformation, propaganda, and then when people began to question it they were either exposed as frauds and smear campaigns were initiated, and then trumped up charges laid down , then they were arrested, imprisoned, and often times shot as traitors ….Sound familiar? sounds kinda like the FDA and their cohorts I guess for the last 40 years they’ve been using Joseph Goebbels play book.

  61. beatis November 30, 2011 at 7:42 pm

    Well, you started out by telling us his therapy was completely natural…

    We know that antineoplaston therapy can have very unpleasant side effects, it is not harmless. We put up with side effects because the benefit outweighs them. But with antineoplaston therapy we don’t know what the benefits are, we don’t even know if there are any at all.

    You keep talking as if the efficacy of antineoplastons as a cancer cure has been established beyond any doubt, but it isn’t. Why else would Dr B still be doing the kind of trials that he’s doing? And why do patients have to pay such ludicrous amounts of money to take part in one of these trials? That a treatment is tested in a trial means it is UNKNOWN if it will work. Yet patients have to pay tens of thousands of dollars or more. Dr B uses desperate, frightened cancer patients as paying guinea pigs in his own private experiments. And you don’t find that even a little bit unethical??

  62. philip December 1, 2011 at 4:48 am

    Ya know what beatis You continue to hold on to this little bit of Drama OK! As far as I’m concerned Its All you have. You can all go ahead and pick apart what Dr. B is doing, but the fact at least he his doing something whether he turns out to be a complete fraud or some day wins the Nobel Frickin prize at least he has the balls to take a chance. Yes maybe he is charging ridiculous amounts of money, but is it any different from from what they charge in the States. If you have no insurance and have catastrophic medical expenses there is no difference, that person will have to take out a second mortgage to pay . the costs are astronomical, so the Charging inflated prices for services and medication holds no water. I dont know where you live but in the US if you have no insurance you can literally owe hundreds of thousands of dollars to the medical system.
    What I find unethical is the Constant introduction of untried drugs on the market, what I find unethical is the the incessant collusion between the FDA, the NCI, and all the other Frikin institutions that force the public into believing that the Standard therapy’s are Good for you when clearly they do more harm than good! What I find unethical is the Gestapo like tactics the FDA use’s on honest researchers trying to find A natural Non toxic way to fight Cancer. What i find Unethical is the Money Big Pharma gives to politicians to push through rules and regulations to there benefit which at the end of the day make it harder and harder for legitimate researchers to get grants let alone have their papers published, which by the way the FDA make a habit of squashing if they do not hold with the status qua. Surely beatis you you must see the big picture. If you say that all that I have just mentioned is Conspiracy theory. Then I truly feel sorry for you.

  63. Colin December 1, 2011 at 6:45 am

    Philip, you really are just trolling, right? The overwhelming evidence patiently delivered to you demonstrates that this fraud is emptying the wallets of the most vulnerable but you’d rather win an argument.

    Real people are dying from ignoring more effective treatments in favour of this…are you really willing to risk that the crap you’re writing reassures somebody who then dies because they ignored a proven alternative?

    Grow up.

  64. beatis December 1, 2011 at 7:41 am

    @Philip,

    You can all go ahead and pick apart what Dr. B is doing, but the fact at least he his doing something whether he turns out to be a complete fraud or some day wins the Nobel Frickin prize at least he has the balls to take a chance.

    That’s just the point, he doesn’t take any chances at all, het lets his patients take all the chances. He’s been doing preliminary trials now for over 30 years, charging exorbitant prices and still has failed to deliver convincing evidence that his antineoplastons perform better than the standard of care. But as long as patients are desperate enough they will pay anyway, so why should he care.

    Yes maybe he is charging ridiculous amounts of money, but is it any different from from what they charge in the States. If you have no insurance and have catastrophic medical expenses there is no difference, that person will have to take out a second mortgage to pay . the costs are astronomical, so the Charging inflated prices for services and medication holds no water.

    Even when you do have health insurance you will have to pay for Dr B out of pocket, because there is no convincing evidence that it does what he claims it does, so health insurence doesn’t pay for it.

    I dont know where you live but in the US if you have no insurance you can literally owe hundreds of thousands of dollars to the medical system.


    Same here. That’s why there’s health insurance, so that people can have treatments that would otherwise be unaffordable. But where I live, the government simply doesn’t allow people to be uninsured, health insurance is mandatory for everyone, old or young, employed or unemployed, and if people can’t afford the premium it will be subsidized by the government. Although we have a partly free-market-driven system, our health care is and will remain strongly regulated by the government and is by no means the commercial commodity it is in the US. Universal health care is something that we value in my country and the vast majority of my countrymen consider it money well spent (though not always as efficiently as it might be) and we are aghast at the American system, as is most of the civilized world.

    We can point out lots of things that aren’t as they should be in health care, and this includes the pharmaceutical industry, particularly in the US, where they allow things that would never be allowed elsewhere. But how does this prove that Dr B’s antineoplastons cure cancer? And how does this make it ethical that patients have to pay enormous amounts of money out of pocket for a treatment that is still in a preliminary trial phase – something that even the most profit-driven pharmaceutical company wouldn’t think of doing? It’s all well and good to perform clinical trials, but you never ever let patients pay for it, let alone the amounts of money that Dr B is charging. Another problem is that his trial designs are so sloppy that I wonder if we will ever get any reliable answers from them at all.

    It looks as though you condone everything this man does merely because he claims to have found a “natural and harmless cure” for cancer, even though he has failed to deliver any convincing evidence. You seem to believe him at face value because you like the story he tells, and because you like it so much, you look no further and vilify everyone who dares to challenge Dr B to present some decent evidence for his claims. And high time it is, after almost 40 years of trying.

  65. Pingback: Burzynski The Movie: Does It Prove The Efficacy of Antineoplastons Against?Cancer? | CAMwatch | Scoop.it

  66. wilmamazone December 5, 2011 at 12:04 pm

    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/stanislaw-burzynskis-personalized-gene-targeted-cancer-therapy/

    Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski’s “personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy”: Can he do what he claims for cancer?

    As we have seen, Dr. Burzynski does indeed give chemotherapy to his patients. He combines that chemotherapy with a gmish of “targeted therapies” based on a commercially available but not FDA-approved gene expression profile test and calls it “personalized gene-targeted therapy.” Unfortunately, in my not-so-humble opinion, he doesn’t have a scientifically supportable rationale for combining his targeted therapies. Instead, skirting the line between science and pseudoscience, Dr. Burzynski gives every appearance of recklessly throwing together untested combinations of targeted agents willy-nilly to see if any of them stick but without having a systematic plan to determine when or if he has successfully matched therapy to genetic abnormality. In this, Dr. Burzynski does indeed resemble alternative medicine practitioners when they claim to “individualize” treatments. The result is that his outcomes are basically uninterpretable, making them useless for determining whether his approach works. At the same time, the cost is personal in terms of giving patients false hope and of unnecessary side effects for little or no benefit and financial in terms of bills that run from tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars charged to patients who are so desperate that they will pay them for even a glimmer of hope.

    There is still one more issue to be explored in the strange case of Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski. My next installment will return to antineoplastons and, hopefully, close the loop on this tale.

  67. Penny Lane December 9, 2011 at 5:18 pm

    A few comments and questions. The Burzynski “documentary” was made by the same lunatics who made the very successful, very slick conspiracy film ZEITGEIST. Look it up. It’s the mother of all conspiracy theory movies, in which literally every scene contains significant lies, distortions or just plain nuttery. Their names are Eric Merola (aka “Eric Clinton”) and Peter or PJ Merola (aka “Peter Joseph”). Yes, they use pseudonyms, because that’s what legitimate documentary filmmakers do (ahem). So my questions are: 1) who do you think PAID FOR this “documentary”? and 2) Why would a real doctor hire (or minimally, cooperate with) known conspiracy theory loonies for this film?

  68. philip December 9, 2011 at 8:11 pm

    Hi Penny,
    I stand corrected on Dr.B the lot of you have made some good points about Dr.B’s Theorems,
    Although I will concede to defeat on defending Dr.B I will NEVER EVER be defeated on the FACT that ,Chemicals, Radiation ,and Radical surgery is the end all and be all of fighting cancer, I know in my heart that there are good honest researchers trying to find the “Good Cure” for all Cancers which I know none of you will EVER, EVER embrace, as you have been brain washed, AND WILL REMAIN SO UNTIL SUCH TIME AS AS YOU ARE ALL BEAT OVER THE HEAD WITH IT!!!.
    As far as Conspiracy?,There is conspiracy all around you, but you people refuse to see the truth, and that will be your down fall.
    So blog away touting the excepted treatments for cancer, and those of you who have had or still have cancer keep doing what your doing, and rest easy in the fact that you give the big Juggernaut that is the FDA and Big Pharma Cart Blanche to continue to poison you all, as they rape you for every insurance dollar you have plus.. and lobby away your rights to choose, whats right for you when it comes to your health….
    What is really frightening here is you people are all so intelligent, yet you question nothing when it comes to your health, if the Oncologist you need Chemo you say OK, if he says you need Radiation treatments you say Oh no problem Doc, If your Dr. says we need to remove both your breasts just to make sure we can get it all just to have it Migrate to another part of your body you say “Lets do it” ! Conspiracy Nah not in the good ol USA, not in this day and age, after all we have our governments to protect us…….

  69. JennyJo December 9, 2011 at 8:23 pm

    Philip seems to think we all like chemo. How weird.

  70. Renate December 10, 2011 at 8:12 am

    Well of course Philip, we need to believe all the quacks, who tell us they can cure cancer, but never have shown any scientific evidence. Or should we only believe mr. Burzynsky? And of course, the whole cancer conspiracy is worldwide. In most countries oncologists use the same methods of curing cancer (in which they don’t always succeed, because cancer is not just one disease, but a whole collection of diseases, and we still don’t know everything about it). The one cure, to cure them all, is an illusion.

  71. philip December 10, 2011 at 3:18 pm

    Manned flight was an illusion, going to the moon was an illusion, discovering the cure for Polio was an illusion… etc. If everyone had that attitude Renate, then we would still be living in the dark ages!You know as well as I do there’s success stories about about curing Cancer without Radiation,Chemo, or Radical surgery…many documented cases, you just refuse to believe them.

    “Philip seems to think we all like chemo. How weird.” JJ you dont read to good…I never said that!

  72. beatis December 10, 2011 at 3:30 pm

    @Philip,

    (…) there’s success stories about about curing Cancer without Radiation,Chemo, or Radical surgery…many documented cases, you just refuse to believe them.

    I would love to believe them, if only I could find some truth in them… :-(

  73. Renate December 10, 2011 at 5:36 pm

    Philip, it’s not about stories, it’s about scientic proof. And I don’t say everything is an illusion. I only want proof. That’s something different.

  74. philip December 11, 2011 at 1:05 am

    According to the Cancer Free, “for more than 70 years, people have cured their cancer with hundreds of successful non toxic treatments. However, most all of the therapies are categorized as the unproven remedies by the American Cancer Society (ACS)”{ and we all know these guys are always right and have your best interest at heart}

    “Sadly, the doctors and researchers who discovered the treatments face lawsuits, license suspension, jail sentences for treating cancer patients successfully. Most have been expelled from the country and or seclusion. These treatments are not approved by the FDA.”
    and will never be approved because natural NON patentable ingredients, as in herbs, Non Chemical supplements, etc. Since they can not be patented they will be deemed illegal by the FDA. but you good people already know all this.
    QUESTION: How many of you that have replied to my blogs (Rants) are in the Medical profession? or have / have had cancer and survived through the excepted albeit toxic treatments?

  75. beatis December 11, 2011 at 10:10 am

    “for more than 70 years, people have cured their cancer with hundreds of successful non toxic treatments.

    I have yet to see the first convincing evidence that proves this claim or the first cancer patient who was cured by an alternative treatment only. Purveyors of quackery face lawsuits because they persist in treating cancer patients with treatments that are ineffective and even dangerous, not because they use non toxic treatments.

    These treatments are not approved by the FDA.”
    and will never be approved because natural NON patentable ingredients, as in herbs, Non Chemical supplements, etc.

    First of all, you don’t seem to have any idea about the amount of knowledge there is on the cancer fighting properties of plants, how many medicines have been derived from plants and how many of the active ingredients of plants and other natural substances have already been patented as a (possible) cancer drug. It’s a big misunderstanding that scientists and pharmaceutical companies are not interested in natural substances because plant ingredients “can’t be patented”. As a matter of fact, they can and have been for many years. Examples of patented plant ingredients that have led to successful cancer drugs are taxol and vincristine.

    I also get the impression that you think natural equals non toxic. This is a misunderstanding; plants and herbs are by no means by definition harmless, while a number of them even are severely carcinogenic, as you can see here.

    QUESTION: How many of you that have replied to my blogs (Rants) are in the Medical profession? or have / have had cancer and survived through the excepted albeit toxic treatments?

    Of the blog members: Jli is a pathologist specializing in cancer. He has done scientific research into cancer as well. WeWee is a gynecologist who also has his own blog.

    I had breast cancer myself and was treated with surgery and chemotherapy. I’m still alive as far as I know.

    Wilma had breast cancer – with mets in a number of lymph nodes; she had surgery, chemotherapy and radiation and is still cancer free today after 7 (Wilma, correct me if I’m wrong) years.

    Renate’s mother had breast cancer for which she had surgery, no chemo, no radiation. She passed away but not because of cancer.

    Anaximperator’s stepbrother’s son had leukemia when he was 9 years old. He had chemotherapy and is alive and well, he is currently in university (med school) and is a successful rower.

    A friend of Anaximperator’s was treated for lymphoma some time ago and is now doing well.

    We are not blind, we are no fools, we have all seen loved ones die of cancer, it is a horrible disease that kills over 40% of people suffering from it, in spite of all that standard medicine has to offer.

    But the question is not whether standard cancer medicine is perfect – we all know it is not – but whether there are treatments proven to do better than the existing standard of care.

  76. Renate December 11, 2011 at 11:56 am

    Well, I only wish my mother was alive today, but she didn’t die of cancer and I think that’s the main thing.

    BeatisEdit: I’m so sorry, I corrected my comment.

  77. wilmamazone December 11, 2011 at 1:24 pm

    Beatis:

    Wilma had breast cancer – with mets in a number of lymph nodes; she had surgery, chemotherapy and radiation and is still cancer free today after 7 (Wilma, correct me if I’m wrong) years.

    And there was 5 years hormone therapy, so I’m not a ghost from heaven either. (I think ;-) )

  78. wilmamazone December 12, 2011 at 9:26 am

    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/stanislaw-burzynski-antineoplastons-and-the-orphan-drug-sodium-phenyl-butyrate/

    Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, antineoplastons, and the selling of an orphan drug as a cancer cure

    quote:

    In this third and final part, I want to come back to antineoplastons, because it has been pointed out to me that there is an aspect of this story that has received little attention. One reader in particular has helped enormously in my education about this aspect of the Burzynski saga. I wish I could credit this person by name, but, for reasons I fully understand, I can’t. However, this person’s input was essential, and I’ve even appropriated (with permission, of course) a little bit of text here and there from our e-mail exchanges to “integrate” into this post. Putting this together with information in my previous posts, I think we can come to some conclusions about what it is that Dr. Burzynski is really doing.

    on the end:

    Which brings me back to the question of whether Dr. Burzynski is a quack. My answer may surprise you: Although I think he probably is, in the end I don’t really care that much if he is or not. Certainly (and not surprisingly), Dr. Burzynski is emphatic that he is not. However, to me the line between being a quack or “merely” a bad doctor and scientist is a blurry one. Quack Dr. Burzynski may be, but to me more important than his being a quack is how he behaves. Even if the science Burzynski were doing were pristine, how he is selling himself and his products to his patients as the one man who has what can cure cancer speaks volumes about his ethics, and what’s in those volumes is not good. The Burzynski Clinic’s motto might be, “First, do no harm.” However, Dr. Burzynski’s actions, coupled with the lack of evidence supporting his methods, make that slogan ring hollow these days. One can only hope that the Texas Medical Board finally puts a stop to his activities.

  79. Wilmamazone December 15, 2011 at 5:14 pm

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/12/burzynski_and_the_cult_of_personality.php#more

    Dr. Burzynski and the cult of personality of the “brave maverick cancer doctor”

    On the end:

    The video concludes by asking, “What are you going to do about it?”

    I know what I’m going to do about it. I’m going to follow the story of Dr. Burzynski as his case finds its way to the Texas Medical Board early next year, and I’m going to blog about it, applying skepticism and science to his claims and those of his followers. As surgical oncologist and cancer researcher, to me the failure to shut Burzynski down decades ago points to the utter inadequacy of some aspects of our drug regulatory process and, of course, our state medical boards. While I sincerely hope that this time it will be different and Burzynski’s clinic will finally be shut down, I fear it won’t.

  80. Renate December 15, 2011 at 7:23 pm

    Even if the clinic would be closed, I’m pretty sure it will be opened again in another country.

  81. Pingback: Antineoplaston Cure for Cancer - Dr. Burzynski - Page 2 - Grasscity.com Forums

  82. wilmamazone January 20, 2012 at 2:45 pm

    More trouble for Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski

    It’s a new year, but some topics remain the same. One of these is the case of the highly dubious cancer doctor named Stanislaw Burzynski who claims to have discovered anticancer compounds in the blood known as antineoplastons, conducts “clinical trials” for which he charges patients and whose results he are largely unpublished, and of late has started marketing a do-it-yourself “personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy” that–surprise! surprise!–almost always involves antineoplastons. More importantly, contrary to Dr. Burzynski’s claim that he doesn’t use chemotherapy and that his therapy is nontoxic, he does, and it isn’t. Perhaps Burzynski’s cleverest stroke of all is to rebrand his antineoplastons as an orphan drug (or is it the other way around?), using it off-label to treat cancer. The Texas Medical Board tried to stop Dr. Burzynski and strip him of his license back in the 1990s but, for reasons that continue to elude me even now, failed. It’s set for another go at Burzynski, and I sincerely hope it succeeds this time. However, even before the Texas Medical Board will be able to convene hearings, I’ve learned through the almighty power of Google Alerts that there’s more trouble coming Burzynski’s way.

    This time, it’s in the form of a lawsuit by one of his patients, which is described in an article entitled…………..

  83. wilmamazone February 17, 2012 at 10:45 am

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/02/a_patient_you_wont_hear_about_from_stani.php#more
    A patient you won’t hear about from Stanislaw Burzynski or his apologists

    Burzynski couldn’t save Brynlin. He offered hope, demanded money, and the end result was the same. Little Brynlin died. Burzynski didn’t kill her, but he didn’t help her either. What he did do was to offer tantalizing hope, hope that Brynlin might survive her terminal disease. It was a false hope that drained the Sanders’ bank accounts and made a mockery of the generosity of so many good people who donated to the Sanders’ medical fund thinking that their money was going to help a little girl with a deadly brain tumor.

    It’s very difficult to write a post like this because, no matter what I say, there will always be someone who will interpret it as attacking the Sanders, as kicking parents who’ve just lost a child while they’re down. That is not my intent. The Sanders did what they thought was right for their child. Unfortunately, they very much made the wrong choice. Their child died anyway because Burzynski can’t offer anything better than what science-based medicine can offer, his claims otherwise notwithstanding. What he can do is to make the remaining time of children like Brynlin worse than it needs to be. What he can do is to take parents who are already under unbelievable, sometimes unbearable, pressure and add the additional pressure to raise huge sums of money to pay his exorbitant charges for his ineffective treatments and incompetent “personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy.” What Burzynski can and does do is to provide false hope that keeps parents chasing money to pay him and keeps them from concentrating on what is needed: Making their child’s last days on earth as happy and bearable as possible. When it’s over, the end result is the same. The child is dead, but the child’s family is worse off, their bank accounts drained and money begged from kind-hearted strangers flushed down the sewer that is the Burzynski Clinic.

    Burzynski touts his seeming successes, the patients whom he treats who survive longer than would normally be expected. Brynlin, alas, followed a more typical course for a children like this, dying only three months after diagnosis. In fact, she did worse than average in Burzynski’s care. You’ll not infrequently hear from apologists of doctors like Burzynski a single question: What’s the harm? Children like Brynlin Sanders are the harm. It’s a harm you won’t hear about from Burzynski or his apologists.

  84. thepeople May 14, 2012 at 10:57 pm

    jlj I don’t like to throw the “C” word around but you are a COCK !!!!!

    Who do you work for?

  85. jli May 15, 2012 at 10:20 am

    I work for a tax payer financed public hospital. So I serve the public. In a system such as the one I work in, drugs put heavy strain on the budgets. At the same time every cured patient is a success. So if an efficient and cheap treatment was available, it would be in use. The conspiracy theory you believe in just doesn’t make any sense.

    You on the other hand apparantly serve someone who is willing to charge huge sums for experimental cancer treatments where documentation of efficacy consists of testimonials of questionable veracity.

    If I had the mindset of a conspiracy theorist, I might speculate how much he is paying you. He certainly charges enough money from his victims to be able to pay you a lot: http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2012/03/the-burzynski-millions.html

  86. Pingback: Disrespectful and dubious Burzynski marketing | Josephine Jones

  87. Pingback: Burzynski: piss-poor cancer therapy at a hefty price » Short & Spiky

  88. Pingback: There is no time to wait for alternative cancer therapy to work err….fail « Anaximperator blog

  89. Pingback: Anticipating the Burzynski sequel | Josephine Jones

  90. Pingback: Science-Based Medicine » Three myths about Stanislaw Burzynski and The Skeptics

  91. Pingback: Science-Based Medicine » Eric Merola’s conspiracy-mongering and Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski’s cancer “success” stories, part 2

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 136 other followers

%d bloggers like this: