Burzynski, A supressed cure for Cancer?

chalkitdown

ed2hands wrote: »

A good article. Quite balanced actually. He certainly has plenty of support.
The FDA has strict guidelines for very good reasons abviously, but is it a wholly uncorrupt organisation in your opinion?

That article was published in 1996, it would be better if people watch the referenced material in the actual film and comment on that.

beeno67

chalkitdown wrote: »

I'm amazed that nobody has taken the time to watch this film.
The amount of uninformed kneejerker responses is probably my own fault for originally posting this in AH. At the time I was unsure whether to believe the medical claims. I did make a mistake using the phrase 'big pharma' it is an actual organisation called PhRMA.

After watching the film a second time I am now onside with Dr. Burzynski and feel that his treatment by the FDA and vested interests in the medical fraternity was definitely criminal and directly led to the deaths of many.

The time restriction on the film has been removed and it is still available to watch online. Every claim made is referenced.

I watched as much of this film as I could bear. It is rubbish of the highest order. First the idea that it is free for a short time only was of course bull to get you to watch it. It is a very old marketing trick. Create the impression of a shotage. It was never going to be charged for. For crying out loud it's an ad or infomercial as the Americans prefer to say). That alone for me is enough to say this is rubbish. Serious medics do not operate in this way. However I tried watching it.

The overly dramatic music was awful. It is designed to give you a dramatic feeling to what you were watching. This has scam written all over it. It is such a shameful thing that many of these "practitioners" do, which is leech off the most vulnerable people, those dying of cancer desperate for any hope.

The reality is Burysinsky is making massive money out of this. He charges up to 20,000 a month for his unproven treatments. He has offered no compelling evidence that his treatments work.

There are thousands of cancer sufferers who will tell you of the problems with Burzynski but here is just one. http://www.burzynskiscam.com/
Maybe you should read it first.

SlanGoFoil2011

ITS an INFOMERCIAL, not a documentary or a film.

Has the world gone mad??

chalkitdown

Thank you for the link, a sad story. However, they did not complete the treatment so an example of lack of efficacy it is not.
As for the cost, it's America. For me it's another example of the negative effect of the medical insurance system.
If the treatment was approved the cost after seven years would drop dramatically for everyone. This would already have happened if trials hadn't been faked by doctors and clinicians, evidence of which is provided.

I agree that the the style of the 'infomercial' as you put it is a bit turgid, especially the first half hour or so. If you stick with it you'll notice that all the relevant points are accompanied with references.

According to the American Cancer society the cost of treatment ranges from $30,000 to $60,000 for full term treatment of between six to twelve months.

beeno67

chalkitdown wrote: »

Thank you for the link, a sad story. However, they did not complete the treatment so an example of lack of efficacy it is not.
As for the cost, it's America. For me it's another example of the negative effect of the medical insurance system.
If the treatment was approved the cost after seven years would drop dramatically for everyone. This would already have happened if trials hadn't been faked by doctors and clinicians, evidence of which is provided

That is just nonsense about people faking trials. Burynski was ordered to do the trials. He is charging people to enter the trials

I agree that the the style of the 'infomercial' as you put it is a bit turgid, especially the first half hour or so. If you stick with it you'll notice that all the relevant points are accompanied with references

According to the American Cancer society the cost of treatment ranges from $30,000 to $60,000 for full term treatment of between six to twelve months.[/QUOTE]
It has nothing to do with cost of meds in USA. From the article I quoted

"Burzynski gave my husband standard chemotherapy medications along with the long list of other meds that were supposed to work in conjunction with each other. We were never told that two of the medications were conventional chemo medications. AND one medication that they charged us over $2300 for,...we found out from our local pharmacy that we could have purchased it for around $170 from them"

You are blinded by this ad so good luck with it. Just remember it is an ad for an unproven treatment by a doctor who is either unwilling/unable to prove its efficacy. The sad part is there are many unscrupulous medics out there who prey on people like you.

chalkitdown

The clinical trails were faked. Fact. Burzynski has been denied the chance to prove the treatment for over thirty years.

beeno67

chalkitdown wrote: »

The clinical trails were faked. Fact. Burzynski has been denied the chance to prove the treatment for over thirty years.

Link? (that isn't part of an ad).

chalkitdown

beeno67 wrote: »

Link? (that isn't part of an ad).

I'm trying to find it, hang on.

This is what Dr. Burzynski has to say on the drug trials which were used to try to discredit him;

"We compared this to the data which we have in our studies. We found that they were severely diluting the medicine, and this is why the patients had fluid overload".

"Antineoplaston AS2-1 consists of two ingredients: called Phenylacetate, and Phenylacetlglutamine. And about 2.7 times lower level of Phenylacetate was found in the patient’s blood compared to what we see in our patients who receive successful treatment".

"Phenylacetlglutamine, there was about a 36 times lower level in patient’s blood compared to what we see in our patients who receive the right dosage of Antineoplastons".

"The concentrations of Phenylacetylisoglutamine, one of the main ingredients of Antineoplaston A10, were close to one hundred and seventy times lower than what we see in the treatment of patients with Antineoplastons".


This is the link to the official results of FDA sponsored trials which show the levels of Antineoplastons used;

http://www.burzynskimovie.com/images/stories/transcript/Documents/Feb99MayoClinicPubANP.pdf

This is the link to a pdf on the difference in the level of Antineoplastons actually given;

http://www.burzynskimovie.com/images/stories/transcript/Documents/1998_FDA_ANP_Report.pdf


Why is this happening? Well here is an extract from a letter from concerned scientists within the FDA;

It appears that this shift of FDA power handed to the pharmaceutical industry has also prevented competing cancer therapies like antineoplastons from being allowed to fairly go through the FDA-approval process—as giving antineoplastons a fair review process would directly compete with the current $90 billion annual consumer billing (in America alone) PhRMA now has a monopolistic share in.

You can find links to all of this information here;

http://www.burzynskimovie.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=96&Itemid=77


If you actually take the time to watch the 'add' and read the provided information you'll find it's nothing of the sort.

sam34

hi op

I appreciate that you originally posted this in a different forum. however it is here now... in this forum- a science forum - we have a high standard and people need to be able to back up claims with reliable, sound, evidence... that means scientifically sound evidence. quotes from the man himself , or pro dr b websites, do not cut it.

now, as I said I know you didn't originally post here. but you're gonna have to come up with the evidence or this is going to be moved to CT.

beeno67

chalkitdown wrote: »

I'm trying to find it, hang on.

This is what Dr. Burzynski has to say on the drug trials which were used to try to discredit him;


If you actually take the time to watch the 'add' and read the provided information you'll find it's nothing of the sort.

That is the point. Do you have independant proof of your "fact". The answer is no.
You said: "The clinical trails were faked. Fact." Now the answer is that is not a fact but the opinion/publicity of Burzynski. Indeeed the idea that the trials could be faked is silly anyway. Here is the actual link you tried to link to via the burzynski site so othes can look at it. I am not sure if you were claiming this one was faked or not.
http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/content/74/2/137.full.pdf
Sounds like crap to me.
When you posted http://www.burzynskimovie.com/images...ANP_Report.pdf
I presume that was in response to the Mayo Clinic article, however this was written in Jan 1998 while the Mayo Clinic article was in 1999.

Buyzynski has claimed to be doing 70 different trials. Perhaps you could link some of these trials. Before you go looking perhaps I should tell you some things about these trials. To get on the "trial" you had to pay. This is unusual as usually if someone is trialing a new medication they don't charge patients for it. In fact it is not really ethical. However calling it a trial makes it easier to circumvent the law.

CiaranMT

SlanGoFoil2011 wrote: »

ITS an INFOMERCIAL, not a documentary or a film.

Has the world gone mad??

Have yet to finish the film, but the Whitaker chap seems to be scripted, at least in parts. He's a proponent of natural health.

chalkitdown

beeno67 wrote: »

That is the point. Do you have independant proof of your "fact". The answer is no.
You said: "The clinical trails were faked. Fact." Now the answer is that is not a fact but the opinion/publicity of Burzynski. Indeeed the idea that the trials could be faked is silly anyway. Here is the actual link you tried to link to via the burzynski site so othes can look at it. I am not sure if you were claiming this one was faked or not.
http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/content/74/2/137.full.pdf
Sounds like crap to me.
When you posted http://www.burzynskimovie.com/images...ANP_Report.pdf
I presume that was in response to the Mayo Clinic article, however this was written in Jan 1998 while the Mayo Clinic article was in 1999.

Buyzynski has claimed to be doing 70 different trials. Perhaps you could link some of these trials. Before you go looking perhaps I should tell you some things about these trials. To get on the "trial" you had to pay. This is unusual as usually if someone is trialing a new medication they don't charge patients for it. In fact it is not really ethical. However calling it a trial makes it easier to circumvent the law.

I appreciate what you are saying, I was looking for a grab of the actual documents which I found somewhere when I was digging into this but can't now. But the truth is that it's all linked from the website anyway.

There are links to ten peer reviewed Japanese trials towards the bottom of this page;
http://www.burzynskimovie.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=75&Itemid=55

The full transcript of the film with references is available if you don't want to watch the film.

chalkitdown

sam34 wrote: »

hi op

I appreciate that you originally posted this in a different forum. however it is here now... in this forum- a science forum - we have a high standard and people need to be able to back up claims with reliable, sound, evidence... that means scientifically sound evidence. quotes from the man himself , or pro dr b websites, do not cut it.

now, as I said I know you didn't originally post here. but you're gonna have to come up with the evidence or this is going to be moved to CT.

All the information pertaining to this and all the trials, both legal and medical are posted on the 'Burzynski, the movie' site.

I have already PM'd Dr Galen for his opinion without reply. The silence of the medical community is deafening.

Sure, shunt it off if you wish, it appears much the same thing has been happening with this for years.

Before you do though, you should have a look at the wealth of detail and actual scientific information available from the aforementioned site. It may save future embarrassment.

Peer reviewed papers are available from here;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=burzynski%20antineoplaston

Dr Galen

We'd be looking for independent pieces. Not something from his own site tbh. If this was an established pharma company and all they had was fluff pieces on their own site I think you'd see the same level of scepticism.

As for me not responding, well I've been busy. Ya know, with real life stuff and that. When my new dog stops crying all night and I stop having to run like a loon to the garden everytime he wants to pee I might take a wee look, but as I say I'd be sceptical of this no matter what the source

sam34

OK, this is going over to CT.

humanji

Threads merged