Dr. Burzynski has developed a cure for Cancer!

1. 75

   Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years ago

   Are Antineoplastons the cure to cancer?
   
   From Wiki:
   Antineoplaston (ANP), a word derived from neoplasm, is a name coined by Stanislaw Burzynski for a group of peptides, derivatives, and mixtures that he uses as an alternative cancer treatment. These compounds are not licensed as drugs but are instead sold and administered by Burzynski as part of clinical trials that he runs at his own establishments, the Burzynski Clinic and the Burzynski Research Institute in Houston, Texas. The clinical efficacy of antineoplastons combinations for various diseases have been the subject of many such trials by Burzynski and his associates, but these have not produced any clear evidence of efficacy. Oncologists have described these studies as flawed, with one doctor stating that they are "scientific nonsense". In particular, independent scientists have been unable to reproduce the positive results reported in Burzynski's studies.
   
   There is no convincing evidence from randomized controlled trials in the scientific literature that antineoplastons are useful treatments of cancer and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved these products for the treatment of any disease. The American Cancer Society has stated that there is no evidence that these products have any beneficial effects in cancer and have recommended that people do not buy these products. A 2004 medical review described this treatment as a "disproven therapy".
   
   The 2010 film Burzynski directed by Eric Merola, documents Burzynski's efforts to gain FDA approval for the therapy.
   
   ***This film is a bit dry, but fascinating. I highly recomend it. In the film the FDA and PhRMA are depicted as saboteurs to Dr. Burzynski's research and the cure for Cancer.
   
   The motive behind the sabotage? Money. The trillions of dollars that keeping cancer uncurable creates. The thousands of oncology jobs, studies, machinery...Talk about your 1%ers.
   
   
   http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/
   
   http://www.houstonpress.com/2009-01-01/ … t-a-quack/
   
   http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/what-are … stons.html
   
   http://www.labspaces.net/view_blog.php?blogID=304
   
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antineoplaston
   
   
   
   Thoughts?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      He'd be a quadrillionairre if he really found a cure.
      
      either way, here's hoping!

      replyreport
2. 75

   Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years ago

   ***The movie is on Netflix if you're a subscriber.

   replyreport
3. 76

   psycheskinnerposted 13 years ago

   There is not going to be one cure for cancer.  The treatments go through trials, we find out what cancers they help with and toxic effects.  Cancer patients are targets of quacks and scams and we need a method to identify what treatments actually extend, rather than shorten, life.  The process is slow and bureaucratic. But there is no great conspiracy to not cure cancer.  Indeed many kinds of cancer are already basically curable.
   
   Do I personally think this treatment will prove effective in scientific trials?  No, I don't. But the proof is in the data.

   replyreport
4. 75

   Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years ago

   All of Bursynski's data has shown his treatment methods are effective.
   
   They include testimonials of patients that are still living and cancer free years after they were told they would not be by other Doctors.
   
   The FDA indicted Dr. B 5+ times attempting to get rid of him, and failed in each attempt. They filed illegal patents, siezed his research and patient records all in the attempt to gain the money potential the cure represents.
   
   The types of cancer Dr.B is curing are the ones deemed uncurable by modern 'approved' medicine.
   
   He (Dr. B) has been trying to bring his cure to the people for over 20 years. The FDA can't find anything wrong with them, and have tried to steal the cures since Dr. B won't just give up and go away.
   
   None of that seems 'fishy' to you?

   replyreport
   1. 81

      SimeyCposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      If I came up with a product that said I could cure AIDS and then said that my own research proved it would you believe me?
      
      Any statistics proving that a cure is effective has to be independent otherwise it is in not worth the paper its written on.
      
      I could make my claims, make millions off my drugs and not one person be cured by the drugs I create....
      
      A lot of people are scamming desperate people - even Steve Jobs went for alternative mediceine - and making millions of dollars doing it - so even if this happens to be a 'true' case, I'm not going to see it until it's in a professional journal with proper proof and backing!

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         After you walked a patient that had been cured in the room. I probably would. Would I want independent research and evaluation before it was placed on the market. Yes. Dr B has been trying to get that done for years almost 40 I believe, but the corrupt agencies in charge of certifying it are the ones trying to steal it, they even attempted to get 15 illegal patents issued. Guess what, they were successful, but they later were revoked. When they had the patents they were singing the praises of the cure, when the patents were revoked...suddenly it wasn't a cure anymore.
         
         You mean like Chemo?
         
         
         So how do we get that done when it is the corrupt certifiers stopping it?

         replyreport
         1. 81

            SimeyCposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I won't answer all your questions because I do not know the 'truth' and you probably wouldn't believe me anyways!
            
            What I will say is that with statistics and/or circumstances you can prove anything.
            
            15 years ago my Father-in-law had cancer - he had a lump removed but was told it would probably return unless he had treatement - he didn't have treatment.
            I've been feeding him Irish Stew every month for the last 10-15 years - so did the Irish Stew cure him? I highly doubt it - but I could make that claim - and bring in my cured father-in-law as proof.
            
            That's why I won't beleive anything ANYONE says their product does if they are the ones providing the proof.....

            replyreport
            1. 75

               Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Good rule of thumb.
               
               
               Proof that someone is actively sabotaging the independent results, and proof of thier motives, doesn't influence you in your decision at all?

               replyreport
               1. 81

                  SimeyCposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Everyone has motives - and most of it involves money. Even your Dr Burzynski....
                  
                  I can't change the way of the world, I just don't trust people who say 'try my product it works honest!'...
                  
                  
                  I just hope I never have a problem where I have to choose...

                  replyreport
                  1. 75

                     Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     I hear you. Me too.
                     
                     I think you're correct about it all being about the money. Dr B and the FDA have both decided the money is more important than the people. Both sides are allowing people to die, so they don't lose the money.
                     
                     A truly sad state of affairs.

                     replyreport
   2. 81

      WriteAngledposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      20 years is a long time. If there was anything of real promise here, this guy would have been bought out by one of the major pharma companies long, long ago.
      
      Unfortunately, this is one of the main areas in which some people feed on the desperation of others.

      replyreport
   3. 72

      Quilligrapherposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Dr. Bursynski has been in the research field for many years.  He knows how to design a double blind study that would be accepted by the rest of the medical profession. The fact that he hasn’t done so speaks volumes about his claims of success.
      
      Other independent medical professionals disagree with Dr. Bursynski’s claims: “Over the years, Dr. Burzynski claims to have treated more than 8,000 patients, but his success rates are unknown. His Web site states only that he has helped "many" people. If antineoplaston therapy works, we should have scientific studies showing what percentage of patients treated have survived and for how long, as well as evidence showing how Dr. Burzynski's method stacks up against conventional cancer treatment. The only study I know that documents how Dr. Burzynski's patients have fared was done in Canada in 1985. It found that of 36 patients treated, 32 died without showing signs of improvements. One patient died after slight improvement, another died after being stable for a year and, at the time of the study, the other two had widespread cancer.
      The cost of antineoplaston therapy at Dr. Burzynski's clinic reportedly ranges from $30,000 to $60,000 per year. After initial treatment there, patients may be able to continue therapy at home with follow up clinic visits every two months.
      While antineoplastons are said to be nontoxic, reported side effects can be unpleasant and include stomach gas, slight rashes, chills, fever, changes in blood pressure and unpleasant body odor during treatment.
      Until we have credible scientific evidence showing what antineoplastons are, how they act in the body, and what realistic expectations of treatment with them might be, I see no reason for any cancer patient to take this route”.
      http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/id/QAA400003

      replyreport
5. 76

   psycheskinnerposted 13 years ago

   Multiple third party trials fails to find any benefit. A review by the Cancer Society (hardly a corrupt sinister disorganization) summarized these as convincing negative results and moved on to more promising therapies.
   
   The only person who can get data supporting the theory is the guy who invented it and makes money off it from desperate cancer patients.  Yes, that is fishy.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I believe the American Cancer Society is corrupted.  In the original mandate of this organization, it states that (paraphrased) upon a discovery of a cure for cancer, the organization is to be disbanded.  With the billions of dollars that they receive yearly, they are not about to disband any time soon.  Cancer cures have been around for many years, not approved of course.
      
      The American Government mandates doctors to use chemo and radiation on all cancer patients.  If the patient refuses treatment, the doctor is obligated under federal law to drop any and all treatment.  The doctor is not allowed to administer homeopathec, natural, or any other treatment without being in conjunction with chemo and radiation.
      
      If I choose to use the time proven whole food remedy on my child who may have cancer, my child will be taken away from me and I will be charged with some criminal intent.

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Nice. (and documented cases of just this scenario exist)

         replyreport
   2. 75

      Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The American Cancer Society recieves trillions of dollars so long as cancer exists.
      Hardley a good reason to block a cure there.

      replyreport
6. 76

   psycheskinnerposted 13 years ago

   The FDA doesn't make money from people being sick.  If you believe someone is against this guy... that isn't the reason. 
   
   I think his method tanks in trials because it doesn't work.  It's the simplest explanation.
   
   Research is international and open and a lot of people lost people to cancer. If this method worked someone somewhere in the world would be able to demonstrate it.
   
   Otherwise it is yet another method that seemed promising but didn't pan out. I see similar paranoid theories about the failure of Vit C.  It seemed to work for some people but failed in trials, so maybe it was just a coincidence in those early small number trials. Now they are hoping megadose vit C might still have some effect but regular dose is a proven dud.
   
   But the idea that you could suppress a cancer cure... I don't see it. Most people get into this area because they buried a good friend.  They don't want to suppress a cure.
   
   The big threat to cancer research is the flat funding which with inflation means essentially less funding every year.

   replyreport
   1. 75

      Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Sure they do. They are funded by the pharmacutical companies. I believe it is 1 or 2 thirds of thier annual income. The pharmacutical companies are in charge, legally.
      
      
      (they have stacks of people that have gone to court to prove it works, all of them cancer survivors) You should watch the movie. A lot of the movie is actual court testimony and news reports. (actual videos of the people when they were in court.)

      replyreport
7. 68

   MikeNVposted 13 years ago

   Cancer is a catch all term for a variety of disease where the cells break down and can not be repaired.
   
   To say "cure" for Cancer would be to imply that cancer was consistently one thing.  One singular disease.

   replyreport
8. 48

   judith1310posted 13 years ago

   Another movie that may be informative in this discussion is, "Cut Poison Burn", it is a documentary that exposes medical monopoly.  I totally agree about the antineoplastons being a curative.  I just wish it was more accessible to cancer patients.  Big pharma is trying hard to put out disinformation to make Dr. Burzynski look like a quack.  I rather try a therapy that has no ill side effects then do something like chemo and radiation that is way to invasive for me. The cancer will only come back more aggressive because of it being mutated by the conventional therapy that you had prior.  Conventional therapy,in my opinion,is archaic and there needs to be real change in the medical establishment concerning cancer modalities.

   replyreport
   1. 75

      Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I agree.
      
      The vast amounts of money involved means they won't willingly let it go. We will have to find a way to force them.

      replyreport
9. 60

   Evan G Rogersposted 13 years ago

   I haven't bothered going through the journals (that would be a waste of time as I can't understand what they're saying), but it seems that this claim would have to stand up to peer review.
   
   If he found a cure, he'll soon be rich.

   replyreport