Dr. Burzynski's relatively natural treatment for cancer!

DennisTate

Newbie
Supporter
Mar 31, 2012
10,742
1,664
Nova Scotia, Canada
Visit site
✟379,864.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
And more irrelevancies.

Why are you not disgusted with Burzynski's unethical behavior?

Basically because at this time I am convinced that he is not the one being unethical. I believe that too many people have believed the well crafted....but false.....attacks against him!

I could be wrong....I often am....but that is where I am at so far after viewing the film three times and doing at least some background research. I am not a doctor though....I am only a janitor.....so what I can do about this is limited!
 
Upvote 0

DennisTate

Newbie
Supporter
Mar 31, 2012
10,742
1,664
Nova Scotia, Canada
Visit site
✟379,864.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Nope,that's not it. I have absolutely no fear of reading in a peer-reviewed paper that Burzinsky's treatment works. In fact, if his treatment works, I am really looking forward to that paper.


That the government can be corrupt does not negate the unethical behavior of Burzinsky.


Yes, I would laught at that. But it is completely irrelevant to Burzinsky's scam practices.



Also completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.


Back to the topic:
Burzinsky is asking money for a treatment of which we don't know yet whether it has a beneficial effect. What is worse, he is asking money from patients whom he enrolls in a medical trial, something that is completely unethical. Does that really not worry and disgust you?

So are you saying that these statistics are incorrect?

Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business from BurzynskiMovie on Vimeo.

Radiation or Chemotherapy Only
5 of 54 patients (9 percent)
were cancer free at the end of treatment
Toxic side effects

Antineoplastons Only
5 of 20 (25 percent)
were cancer free at the end of treatment
No toxic side effects
....
When comparing FDA-supervised studies of treatments for lethal childhood brainstem gliomas, antineoplastons again comes out as a clear winner:

Chemotherapy Only
1 of 107 patients (0.9 percent)
were cancer free at the end of treatment

0 of 107 patients (0 percent) survived past five years


Antineoplastons Only
11 of 40 patients (27.5 percent)
were cancer free at the end of treatment

11 of 40 patients (27.5 percent)
survived past five years
 
Upvote 0

Paulos23

Never tell me the odds!
Mar 23, 2005
8,168
4,434
Washington State
✟309,277.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I sent the video last week to a friend of mine who was diagnosed three years ago. In spite of the fact that she is on chemotherapy she continues to work.....although she would make considerably more money on medical benefits.

You are correct......that I am EXTREMELY hopeful that the film was done in an intellectually honest manner. Have you noticed the two sets of statistics on this page:

Burzynski the Movie

Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business from BurzynskiMovie on Vimeo.

....

To small of samlpe size, plus if he is getting these results where are his published results?

The fact he had to do a movie to get his "results" out is telling in of itself.

Don't pin your hope on one data point and ignore all the others.
 
Upvote 0

[serious]

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA
Supporter
Aug 29, 2006
15,100
1,716
✟72,846.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
So are you saying that these statistics are incorrect?

We can't know unless he releases the details of those trials. My understanding is he has yet to publish full results for his trials. There are any number of ways you can cook a study to present a desired result. This could be anything from improper control of extraneous variables, improper selection of control and experimental groups, failing to report negative results, etc.

After this long, I can't think of any legitimate reason not to publish full details of his trials.
 
Upvote 0

DennisTate

Newbie
Supporter
Mar 31, 2012
10,742
1,664
Nova Scotia, Canada
Visit site
✟379,864.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
I am saying that those statistics alone do not allow me to make any assessment on whether those statistics are correct or not.

Ok, what do you think of the right of my wife and I for example to deliberately choose that we would prefer to take our risks with Dr. Burzynski and his anti-neoplaston therapy rather than chemotherapy and surgery (conventional treatment at this time)?

Do you believe that patients and potential patients should have the legal right to decide to trust Dr. Burzynski even against the advice of our supposedly much more well informed local physician who may advise us otherwise?

Obviously the lack of negative side effects of his therapy is a major factor in why we both felt that we would go in that direction if either of us, or our daughter, was in the future diagnosed with cancer!
 
Upvote 0

DennisTate

Newbie
Supporter
Mar 31, 2012
10,742
1,664
Nova Scotia, Canada
Visit site
✟379,864.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
To small of samlpe size, plus if he is getting these results where are his published results?

The fact he had to do a movie to get his "results" out is telling in of itself.

Don't pin your hope on one data point and ignore all the others.

Good points Paulos23.....but.....can you understand why both my wife and I decided that we would prefer to take our chances with Dr. Burzynski's treatments if we were in the future diagnosed with cancer?

All of us die sooner or later and we were powerfully affected by the testimony of Sargeant Rick Schiff that his daughter died.....CANCER FREE.......as shown in the autopsy......because apparently Dr. Burzynski's anti-neoplastons had gotten rid of her cancer....but ....the chemotherapy and radiation treatments had already done so much damage that his daughter died.....but NOT FROM CANCER....but instead from the side effects of radiation and chemo!!!???

If you are a doctor, as I suspect you might be and if YOU had a patient who decided to go with Dr. Burzynski rather than radiation and chemo....would YOU support them in this decision?
 
Upvote 0

DennisTate

Newbie
Supporter
Mar 31, 2012
10,742
1,664
Nova Scotia, Canada
Visit site
✟379,864.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
[serious];62881635 said:
We can't know unless he releases the details of those trials. My understanding is he has yet to publish full results for his trials. There are any number of ways you can cook a study to present a desired result. This could be anything from improper control of extraneous variables, improper selection of control and experimental groups, failing to report negative results, etc.

After this long, I can't think of any legitimate reason not to publish full details of his trials.

In the film a powerful case was presented that some people in places of influence seemed to not want patients to be permitted to participate in Dr. Burzynski's studies until after they had already been blasted with so much radiation and chemo that their chances of surviving were already greatly decreased.

I can think of some reasons as to why perhaps these people may have had good intentions to not allow patients to freely choose to go to the Burzynski clinic first....but on another level...it is obvious that the billions and billions of dollars in value of radiation and chemotherapy equipment and training in so many hospitals also causes some medical bureaucrats to lose some of their objectivity and intellectual honesty??!!

I strongly suspect that within three decades medical professionals will regard that training in some types of 2013 therapy would be much like a neanderthal having extensive experience in using campfires to make spears??!!

Just as a difficult hazing ritual can seem to increase the level of affection that a member of a fraternity has for their society....so also all that effort in what may be an obsolete technology....is not an easy thing for any of us to admit!!??

Man did I ever feel like an idiot after I found out that Garner Ted Armstrong and Herbert W. Armstrong were almost certainly incorrect in all that they taught me regarding "soul sleep."

We must keep our objectivity level high though because millions of lives, not to mention a great deal of pain and suffering for all those future cancer patients, is at stake!

I feel that Cancer sufferers should be free to go to Dr. Burzynski first....and not even bother with radiation or chemo!!!!
 
Upvote 0

DennisTate

Newbie
Supporter
Mar 31, 2012
10,742
1,664
Nova Scotia, Canada
Visit site
✟379,864.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
I am saying that those statistics alone do not allow me to make any assessment on whether those statistics are correct or not.

Did you notice the tone of these statements by Orac, who is skeptical but not completely skeptical?


My point is that the Burzynski saga is more complicated than the simple narrative that a lot of skeptics, even skeptics I admire greatly, have imposed on it, which appears to be that Burzynski is a quack; antineoplastons are “toxic byproducts” and don’t work; and that’s that. Quack Dr. Burzynski might be, but unfortunately his possible quackery has intersected and contaminated real science. So let’s put sodium phenylbutyrate and antineoplastons in context. While it is true that, thus far, there is little evidence that sodium phenylbutyrate is effective in most cancers (some brain tumors like gliomas might be an exception), it’s also not correct from a scientific and skeptical standpoint to dismiss it, and thus antineoplastons, out of hand. There is enough evidence out there (the complete response in a glioma patient, for instance) to suggest that there might–just might–be something to this approach. However, is it a magic bullet?
(What Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski doesn’t want you to know about antineoplastons
Posted by Orac on December 12, 2011)
What Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski doesn’t want you to know about antineoplastons – Respectful Insolence
 
Upvote 0

[serious]

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA
Supporter
Aug 29, 2006
15,100
1,716
✟72,846.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
In the film a powerful case was presented that some people in places of influence seemed to not want patients to be permitted to participate in Dr. Burzynski's studies until after they had already been blasted with so much radiation and chemo that their chances of surviving were already greatly decreased.

I can think of some reasons as to why perhaps these people may have had good intentions to not allow patients to freely choose to go to the Burzynski clinic first....but on another level...it is obvious that the billions and billions of dollars in value of radiation and chemotherapy equipment and training in so many hospitals also causes some medical bureaucrats to lose some of their objectivity and intellectual honesty??!!

I strongly suspect that within three decades medical professionals will regard that training in some types of 2013 therapy would be much like a neanderthal having extensive experience in using campfires to make spears??!!

Just as a difficult hazing ritual can seem to increase the level of affection that a member of a fraternity has for their society....so also all that effort in what may be an obsolete technology....is not an easy thing for any of us to admit!!??

Man did I ever feel like an idiot after I found out that Garner Ted Armstrong and Herbert W. Armstrong were almost certainly incorrect in all that they taught me regarding "soul sleep."

We must keep our objectivity level high though because millions of lives, not to mention a great deal of pain and suffering for all those future cancer patients, is at stake!

I feel that Cancer sufferers should be free to go to Dr. Burzynski first....and not even bother with radiation or chemo!!!!
People can do whatever they want. However, at a certain point, I'd like to see some results.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,822
36,126
Los Angeles Area
✟820,755.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Ok, what do you think of the right of my wife and I for example to deliberately choose that we would prefer to take our risks with Dr. Burzynski and his anti-neoplaston therapy rather than chemotherapy and surgery (conventional treatment at this time)?

Do you believe that patients and potential patients should have the legal right to decide to trust Dr. Burzynski even against the advice of our supposedly much more well informed local physician who may advise us otherwise?

Yes (barring certain extraordinary circumstances like legal commitment for insanity) you always have the legal right to refuse any medical treatment.

Yes, you have the right to undergo any other legal treatment you like, from psychic surgery to homeopathy. But hopefully, you will go into those alternative treatments knowing that, at the very least, they have not been verified to work. In many cases, they are known to not work.
 
Upvote 0

DennisTate

Newbie
Supporter
Mar 31, 2012
10,742
1,664
Nova Scotia, Canada
Visit site
✟379,864.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Yes (barring certain extraordinary circumstances like legal commitment for insanity) you always have the legal right to refuse any medical treatment.

Yes, you have the right to undergo any other legal treatment you like, from psychic surgery to homeopathy. But hopefully, you will go into those alternative treatments knowing that, at the very least, they have not been verified to work. In many cases, they are known to not work.

Excellent!

I am glad that you personally support the right of patients to choose because a couple of decades ago no cancer patient could go to Dr. Burzynski first until after they had gone through many course of radiation or chemo!
 
Upvote 0

DennisTate

Newbie
Supporter
Mar 31, 2012
10,742
1,664
Nova Scotia, Canada
Visit site
✟379,864.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
[serious];62886875 said:
People can do whatever they want. However, at a certain point, I'd like to see some results.

Actually no, Dr. Burzynski was not permitted to treat anybody unless they obtained permission to get into one of his tests.....which was not always easy to get.....because they had to try chemo and radiation first!

I assume that now that level III tests have been approved it will be easier for cancer sufferers to choose to go to him and hopefully several hospitals here in Canada will expand the tests into our nation as well.
 
Upvote 0

Tomk80

Titleless
Apr 27, 2004
11,570
429
43
Maastricht
Visit site
✟21,582.00
Faith
Agnostic
Ok, what do you think of the right of my wife and I for example to deliberately choose that we would prefer to take our risks with Dr. Burzynski and his anti-neoplaston therapy rather than chemotherapy and surgery (conventional treatment at this time)?

Do you believe that patients and potential patients should have the legal right to decide to trust Dr. Burzynski even against the advice of our supposedly much more well informed local physician who may advise us otherwise?

Obviously the lack of negative side effects of his therapy is a major factor in why we both felt that we would go in that direction if either of us, or our daughter, was in the future diagnosed with cancer!

You have the right to choose whatever you want. Burzynski does not however, have the right to make the claims that he does. He is making claims about his treatment that he cannot support. Furthermore, he is enrolling people in his trials without full consent and letting them pay for participant in his trials (of which they know nothing). This is all highly behavior that he should be reprimanded for.

If Burzynski would tell you honestly that so far he has no evidence whatsoever that his drugs work, if he would either let you pay treatment or enroll you for free in his trial and if he would fully register his trials and fully report the results of his trials in the peer-reviewed literature, you know, if he adhered to all the restrictions and regulations that we apply to other doctors and pharmaceutical companies (he is in a way both), I would have less of a problem with it. Although his days of practicing would finally soon be over, since he wouldn't be able to make the claims he does now.

If he actually stopped treating people, and first run full phase II and phase III clinical trials, adhering in full to the relevant ethical guidelines, I would have no problem with him at all.

Ethical being the operative word here.
 
Upvote 0

Tomk80

Titleless
Apr 27, 2004
11,570
429
43
Maastricht
Visit site
✟21,582.00
Faith
Agnostic
Did you notice the tone of these statements by Orac, who is skeptical but not completely skeptical?

What Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski doesn’t want you to know about antineoplastons – Respectful Insolence

Nothing in that statement disagrees with what I said. Do you even read my posts?

There are some indications that anti-neoplastins might have some effect, although the chances that they have the large impact that Burzynski claims. Some indications that they might have an effect is not equal to shown to be effective. Some indications is grounds for further research, in the form of phase II and phase III clinical trials. The statistics you showed are not enough to show effectiveness. For one, the groups of patients are too small, and would need to be replicated. But worse, just on the basis of those numbers, we have no insight in recruitment procedures, initial conditions of the patients, precise methodology, that would allow us to make a conclusion on whether the numbers you showed are valid. We need to be able to make that assessment to conclude whether we are seeing the effect of the treatement or something else. Do you understand this?

To conclude whether it anti-neoplastins are effective, you need proper reporting of proper phase II and phase III clinical trials. To make sure the patients aren't abused, these trials need to adhere to strict ethical guidelines. Burzynski so far fails on all of these counts, and that worries me. And it should worry you.

Not only because Burzynski is offering a certain treatment to cancer patients that has not been shown to be effective. While the best outcome of this is indeed that it might be effective and patients might have a greater chance of recovery, the worst outcome is that patients might choose a worthless treatement over standard treatement that has shown to be effective. This worries me. It should worry you. Adding to this, anti-neoplastins might be good for certain types of cancer, but not for others. Again, the fact that Burzynski has not done proper phase II and phase III trials prevents us from making a good assessment on whether a specific patient with a specific type of cancer has a better chance with Burzynski or not. This lowers standard of care for all patients. This worries me. It should worry you.

But also, because there is a reason we demand of pharmaceutical companies to hold to strict ethical guidelines when performing clinical trials. The FDA has cited Burzynski multiple times now for not adhering to those ethical standards, but has not taken action on this. If the FDA is lax with Burzynski, it may mean they are lax with other drug trials from other pharmaceutical companies as well. This doesn't just worry me, this worries me big time. And it really should worry you too.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tomk80

Titleless
Apr 27, 2004
11,570
429
43
Maastricht
Visit site
✟21,582.00
Faith
Agnostic
[serious];62886875 said:
People can do whatever they want. However, at a certain point, I'd like to see some results.

Doctors, however, can not do whatever they want. Pharmaceutical companies running clinical trials can also not do whatever they want. They should uphold the highest possible standard of care through the strictest possible ethical standards. Treating patients and testing drugs on patients is not some kind of inabiliable right that we all have. It is something we allow certain people to do conditionally.
 
Upvote 0

DennisTate

Newbie
Supporter
Mar 31, 2012
10,742
1,664
Nova Scotia, Canada
Visit site
✟379,864.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Doctors, however, can not do whatever they want. Pharmaceutical companies running clinical trials can also not do whatever they want. They should uphold the highest possible standard of care through the strictest possible ethical standards. Treating patients and testing drugs on patients is not some kind of inabiliable right that we all have. It is something we allow certain people to do conditionally.

Did you view the film Tomk80?

If so, and assuming that the information given regarding the test that were conducted.....that Dr. Burzynski was NOT even given updates on......do you think that the FDA doctors who conducted that trial behaved in an ethical manner toward the cancer patients who volunteered for the trial....that Dr. Burzynski had no control over at all????????


Burzynski the Movie
Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business from BurzynskiMovie on Vimeo.

The test that was done in a manner that Dr. Burzynski did not approve of was referred to well after the one hour mark in this film!

I am referring to the one where Dr. Burzynski asserts very logically that these patients were deliberately given only 30% or less of the level of anti-neoplastons necessary to actually reverse cancer in patients who are at that state in the disease!
 
Upvote 0

DennisTate

Newbie
Supporter
Mar 31, 2012
10,742
1,664
Nova Scotia, Canada
Visit site
✟379,864.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
You have the right to choose whatever you want. Burzynski does not however, have the right to make the claims that he does. He is making claims about his treatment that he cannot support. Furthermore, he is enrolling people in his trials without full consent and letting them pay for participant in his trials (of which they know nothing). This is all highly behavior that he should be reprimanded for.

If Burzynski would tell you honestly that so far he has no evidence whatsoever that his drugs work, if he would either let you pay treatment or enroll you for free in his trial and if he would fully register his trials and fully report the results of his trials in the peer-reviewed literature, you know, if he adhered to all the restrictions and regulations that we apply to other doctors and pharmaceutical companies (he is in a way both), I would have less of a problem with it. Although his days of practicing would finally soon be over, since he wouldn't be able to make the claims he does now.

If he actually stopped treating people, and first run full phase II and phase III clinical trials, adhering in full to the relevant ethical guidelines, I would have no problem with him at all.

Ethical being the operative word here.


An update to the first film is now out. Perhaps some of our questions will be answered in it?

I haven't had a chance to view it yet but will probably try to do so right now!


https://www.burzynskimovie.com

Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business Film Series Part II
 
Upvote 0

DennisTate

Newbie
Supporter
Mar 31, 2012
10,742
1,664
Nova Scotia, Canada
Visit site
✟379,864.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
I am watching the question and answer session right now....and a witness who got into the tests back in the 70's was allowed to take anti-neoplastons before....having to endure radiation and chemo. She and all other patients who she spoke to who were allowed to take Dr. Burzynski's without having to endure conventional treatment FIRST......did very well!!!!!!

Hey...Sgt Rick Schiff is here as well.....good to see and hear his update!

WATCH THE Q&A FROM THE WORLD PREMIERE ON MARCH 10, 2013:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DennisTate

Newbie
Supporter
Mar 31, 2012
10,742
1,664
Nova Scotia, Canada
Visit site
✟379,864.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Now I have an answer as to why more of his studies have not been published. It seems that as soon as the name Dr. Burzynski is on a paper....it is almost immediately rejected by the big publications of medical studies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It has been said that
Money talks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Upvote 0