If myself or someone in my family were ever to receive the much-dreaded cancer diagnosis, who should get to decide our treatment plan? After hours of research we may very well choose the traditional cancer protocol: surgery, chemo, or radiation, but what if we don't? What if we decide an alternative option is best, but our choice is taken away? What if either the FDA has shut all the alternative options down, or pressure from big pharma has kept insurance companies from paying for it?
The FDA continues to screw with our right to choose our own health care just as they screw with our right to choose our food!
As always, I like to hear every side of an issue, so I'm actually glad that USA Today published this latest article slamming Dr. Burzynski's alternative cancer therapy. First go read the USA Today article.
Now I'll share parts of Dr. Burzynski's response:
Wow, the medical establishment and the status quo cheerleaders have pulled out all the stops in their latest propaganda hit piece published in USA TODAY on November 15, 2013.
It's enough to make one want to give up hope for any goodness in the human condition.
Trying to “debunk” USA TODAY's diatribe on Nov. 15, 2013 would be like someone living in Nazi Germany trying to debunk the writings of Joseph Goebbels, or an African American trying to explain to his slave master that he too is also a human being with rights and emotions, or the parents of an American soldier trying to explain to members of the Westboro Church how disrespectful it is to hold up signs that read “God Hates Fags” during their child's funeral.
This type of unbridled hate and bigotry goes far too deep for any rational human discourse.
When one applies that hate and bigotry to one's freedom to choose his own cancer therapy, along with an innovative scientist's supposed right to develop a new technology to fight a disease like cancer within a so called “free society”—it is a recipe for disaster.
In case we haven't noticed, we all live in a totalitarian capitalist society—from the USA to China (Take it from me, I was in Ghangzhou for 7 days last week myself). The very idea of a “free market” is not one that exists in our society. If the market were free, then Antineoplastons would freely be on the market, instead of being resisted by the state. If the market were free, the banks would have freely failed back in 2008, instead of being protected by the state.
More:
It's very clever indeed.
It's like the FDA saying, with the Children's Oncology Group standing behind them:
“Where are the randomized clinical trials for those childhood tumors we gave you permission for?”Burzynski responds:
“No children's hospital will allow me to do them.”FDA replies:
“I guess we have to shut you down if you refuse to conduct those randomized clinical trials in children we gave you permission for!”Resulting in technically being “out of the FDA's hands”—they turn over the dirty work to a system it regulates—to halt the process.
Rinse and repeat.
Antineoplaston Therapy Costs too Much?
Recent examples: Avastin costs over $100,000 per year, and in clinical trials has shown an extension of life by barely over a month. Temodar costs about the same, and has shown an extension of life by a couple of months. Provenge costs over $130,000 for only 3 injections and has shown mild benefit to the patient… none of these drugs have cured a single human being in clinical trials. These costs don't include the anti-depressants, anti-inflammatory, anti-nausea, and countless other drugs shoved down the throats of the patients during these highly toxic and ineffective therapies. The list goes on and on. If the establishment cancer therapies worked—600,000 people a year in the USA wouldn't die from cancer—and countless people wouldn't be going bankrupt due to therapy. If cancer therapies worked, Burzynski wouldn't have anyone seeking his therapy. In the end, as has been proven time and again, Burzynski's therapy is far less in cost than anything the mainstream offers. The only difference being insurance refuses to pay for it, as the insurance companies would have their heads handed to them if they did. Gag orders have been placed on the few families where insurance did pay for this therapy. The “money” issue is yet another proven tool in the propaganda tool box to emotionally sway the reader—giving the reader the illusion that people are being “ripped off”.
Read the entire Dr. Burzynski response to the USA Today article.
Again, I don't know what we'd choose if faced with these decisions, but I want options and I want the right to choose what is best for us!
More information and movie trailers:
- Will the Real Quack Please Stand Up?? My post from April when I was all worked up.
- You MUST send this to that person you know who has cancer! (Another previous post on Dr. Burzynski.)
- Buy Burzynski, the Movie on DVD
- The Grim Truth About America’s So-called War on Cancer
- Don't miss the FAQ page at the Burzynski Movie website for clarification on many things.
1st trailer from the first movie:
2nd trailer from the first movie:
Movie trailer from the 2nd movie:
Commenter via Facebook says
If you do a search on his name, he appears to enjoy making the rounds and commenting on health/wellness issues.
Danette Rieckhoff says
Again, Mr. Grashow? Oh I read. A lot. It’s a blog! It’s for reading. I also read books, medical journals newspaper and magazine articles. I read stories on OTHER blogs of recovery and loss and victory over illness. I also talk with physicians and our friends, our nurses and our neighbors, our co-workers and our parents and our grandparents! I talk to people with sick children and to the sick friends that are getting well from illness without intervention. No shortage of information besides the narrow view you’re handing out here. Isn’t there a medical conference you can sign up for? I’m sure someone will listen to you there.
Commenter via Facebook says
He looks legitimate, if annoying, to me.
Commenter via Facebook says
Why aren’t they writing an article about the dangers and side effects and mortality rates from chemo therapy treatments… Oh, maybe because when patients do die, they say cause of death was cancer!! But when Dr B’s patients die of cancer, he is blamed? Maybe also because if someone named the drug companies as liable, the article could never be allowed to be printed???
Of course there are details not brought to light for all to read.. But this is medicine. It’s never cut and dried. Humans aren’t a cookie cutter race. One size doesn’t fit all.
So is the article saying Dr B should not have tried to help them? Is it saying his treatments are too expensive? Are they aware how much chemotherapy costs when they say that his treatment was $100,000? Is the writer living in a bubble? Or is someone paying him to write this drivel.
When hospitals and des. Keep applying ineffective treatments, they’re applauded for it. They get approval from the FDA and insurance combated to apply these treatments. And if you don’t, the medical folks at the hospital will try to get your child taken from you.
America has become a sad little place, hasn’t it.
Troll Watch says
Charles, or Orac, or Gorski, or Bob Blaskiewicz or whoever you are, give up. You blew your cover with the “skeptical Humanities” and “Science-Based Medicine” articles. You REALLY blew your cover when you claimed that tradiational medthods have cured childhood brainstem glioma – nice try though! Not clever enough 😉
Commenter via Facebook says
Alternative treatment aside, I have seen people die on both sides. Of the people who passed without treatment. they were up and about 24 hours before passing, happy, chipper, with no complaints of pain. Of those I have seen pass having used chemo and radiation, they were given hope, had a reprieve, then the cancer came back with a vengeance, and they really, really suffered. People die of cancer. A certain number of them will die no matter what treatment they receive. Others will be pro-active and try alternative treatments like Essiac, DCA. Some will last longer than others. About this Doc, too bad he charges so much for his treatment, there are MUCH less expensive options alternatively. About the guy posting about the child, he has a right to his opinion, as hard as it is to take. There will always be someone on the other side ready in opposition, as hard as it is to take.
Commenter via Facebook says
My mother is in cancer remission and she used alternative therapies only! She changed her diet and used a combination of Chinese medicine, acupuncture, massage therapy, chiropractic care, and homeopathy. The key is to find a provider that knows what they are doing. Guess, what..it didn’t break the bank either…
Commenter via Facebook says
Only the FDA can decide who makes money off of your disease.
Commenter via Facebook says
Definitely a troll. He’s drunk on the Koolaid and wants the rest of us to join him. No thanks.
charles grashow says
When people run out of facts they resort to name calling.
Question – If the good doctor has treated over 8,000 patients whey doesn’t he produce a report showing the 1, 2, and 5 year survivor rates? Should be quite easy to do don’t you think?
Anita says
Charles, People should always have a choice. That is what this is really about. You can say all you want to discredit Dr. Burzynski, but the truth is what it is. The FDA and numerous other illness based organizations dont want a cure for disease ,they work for the drug companies under the guise of protecting the public. That is why the whole medical system is set up to “manage” illness with drugs rather than curing anything. Drug trials are a joke. I’ve read enough to know that the data from the majority of drug trials are manipulated or repeated over and over in new studies until the required data is achieved…even though the fraudulent process leaves it entirely meaningless, yet misleading to doctors who may be reading it with a true desire to help their patients. Rather than being a cheerleader for chemo and radiation, why not support new innovation and therapies less harmful? Illness can’t be healed with drugs. And I think in most cases, maybe all, drugs just lead to more serious illness.
My grandma was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer at the age of 94. Because of her age, the dr gave her six month to live and sent her home. He didn’t recommend any treatment for her since the treatment would just make her miserable and not prolong her life or heal the cancer. She was scared. She had heard that this type of cancer was very painful. So she chose to go to a naturpath. The naturpath gave her a protocol that she followed exactly. She had completely recovered in less than one year. She lived a healthy life to the age of 102 And passed quietly in her sleep. So if treatment without harmful drugs can heal a 94 year old woman with pancreatic cancer, I’m sure it would have better results than the current accepted treatment of chemo and radiation.
Now I know everyone is different, and what works for one may not work for another. But if doctors and scientists were encouraged and supported in this country to find solutions to illness in healthcare, Im pretty sure we would have cures for everything that ails us in this country AND it would be affordable to all. Instead we live in a fascist medial society where drs and scientist are well aware that if they even take one tiny step outside the designated circle of treatment “drugs and surgery”. They risk loss of license, discrediting, total financial ruin, etc. etc. and name calling.
I think it’s amazing that so many people are willing to line up and take all these drugs without asking questions. I’ve had a few prescribed to myself over the years, and I am so glad I didn’t start taking them or I may be heading down the path of chronic illness as well.
charles grashow says
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/chemotherapy-doesnt-work-not-so-fast-a-lesson-from-history/?utm_source=rss&utm_campaign=chemotherapy-doesnt-work-not-so-fast-a-lesson-from-history&utm_content=buffer47195&utm_medium=twitter
The bottom line is that, contrary to what you will hear from cranks and alt-med supporters who believe in “alternative” cancer cures, in the case of early stage breast cancer, chemotherapy saves lives. In women with breast cancer, it decreases the risk of their dying from breast cancer by approximately one-third. This is nothing to sneeze at, as it means thousands upon thousands of women who would have died but did not, thanks to chemotherapy. This study simply represents yet another in a long line of studies, another strand in the web of evidence that support the efficacy of chemotherapy in prolonging the lives of women with breast cancer. It’s not perfect, and it has a lot of potential complications, but it works. This is but one example.
Indeed, as DeVita points out, besides its well-demonstrated role in treating hematological malignancies, chemotherapy now has a role in the primary treatment of advanced malignancies such as bladder cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer, colorectal cancer, esophageal cancer, gastric cancer, head and neck cancer, nasopharyngeal cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, ovarian cancer, pancreatic cancer, and prostate cancer. It’s also used to prolong survival in the adjuvant setting for breast cancer, colorectal cancer, cervical cancer, gastric cancer, head and neck cancer, pancreas cancer, melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, osteogenic sarcoma, and ovarian cancer. I must admit, though, I’m a bit surprised that other soft tissue sarcomas weren’t included on the list.
Tigrablack says
As a person who is right now actively undergoing chemo for stage 4 breast cancer at 36, some of you such as Denise seriously need to get a clue. The survival rate for even MY advanced cancer is better than 2%, so stop lying!
I love how we totally disregard the fact that Burzinsky is now prescribing chemo? Or did we just miss that fact cause it didn’t fit in to the agenda?
I am in no way a fan of big pharma, and yes, chemo is difficult… but I have seen a 77 % and now 83 % drop in tumor life over the last two months alone… without this treatment they would have progressed! Also the poster who said chemo doesn’t KILL tumor cells, is very VERY mistaken. There are other therapies out there that do inhibit growth.. chemo is NOT one of them, chemo is specifically used to actively kill cancerous cells.
I am integrating WAPF and other holistic therapies with my chemo, and that is likely why I am holding up well. I am 100% for alternate therapies and patient choice, the righteous ignorance I am seeing is disgusting. There are PLENTY of unsavory characters out there that will prey on a person with my diagnosis, I ran into them almost instantly, and this Dr might very well be one of them. Should you be able to determine that for yourself? Yes, to a point, but there is also a point where scams are just abusive and predatory. And for those I am glad we have regulations. There needs to be a lot less screaming and alot more balance. Hopefully for you Denise you never do end up in my shoes and actually have to make these determinations.
Sarah says
I am sorry that you are going through this. I pray that you have a complete recovery. I cannot imagine being in your shoes and do pray that I never have to make a decision on treatment.
Didymus Judas Thomas says
Tigrablack, here is the response I posted on my blog:
I have a suggestion for Ms. Visco
Take your hypocrisy and ask the American Cancer Society if they are still engaged in this kind of activity:
1. AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY: More Interested In Accumulating Wealth Than Saving Lives [15]
2. National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society: Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest [16]
——————————————————————
Then, ask the American Cancer Society, why is it that 10 years ago, estimated breast cancer deaths were expected to be 39,800 (15%), and this year it was 39,620 (14%), which is ONLY 180 LESS than 10 years ago ?
——————————————————————
Estimated Breast Cancer Deaths (Women)-USA
——————————————————————
2013☝39,620 (14%)
2012
Didymus Judas Thomas says
——————————————————————
Estimated Breast Cancer Deaths (Women)-USA
——————————————————————
2013☝39,620 (14%)
2012
Didymus Judas Thomas says
Then, ask the American Cancer Society, why is it that 10 years ago, estimated breast cancer deaths were expected to be 39,800 (15%), and this year it was 39,620 (14%), which is ONLY 180 LESS than 10 years ago ?
Estimated Breast Cancer Deaths (Women)-USA
2013 – 39,620 (14%)
2012 – 39,510 (14%)
2011 – 39,520 (15%)
2010 – 39,840 (15%)
2009 – 40,170 (15%)
2008 – 40,480 (15%)
2007 – 40,460 (15%)
2006 – 40,970 (15%)
2005 – 40,410 (15%)
2004 – 40,110 (15%)
2003 – 39,800 (15%)
2002 – 39,600 (15%)
American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures (2002-2013)
charkles grashow says
Why has he never published studies on the thousands of people he’s treated??
Didymus Judas Thomas says
Mr. Grashow, Burzynski has made it clear in his scientific publications that he is following Flemings phase II (2) clinical trial guidelines which calls for 20 patients in each trial
If certain criteria are met, then an additional 20 are added
The NCI only obtained 9 patients in their 1999 published study of antineoplastons, which was about 4 years long
It takes time to enroll 40 patients. Also, Burzynski has reported that 14 trials reached milestones, and 12 trials reached milestones in his Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings
Also, he has made it clear that he wanted to be able to show 10 year survival statistics, hence the length of the trials
In an interview with Pete Cohen; available on YouTube, and which I transcribed and posted on my blog, he discussed that it takes time to compile all the data in the format the publications prefer, and how publications have returned manuscripts submitted, with no reason provided
Evelyn aka CarbSane says
Why has he never filed a new drug application?
Didymus Judas Thomas says
Evelyn, since phase III (3) clinical trials cost millions of dollars, and the trials have been put on hold, this question is moot
Danette says
Thank you Kelly. You give people that are confused and misled by the ‘medical establishment’ a trail to follow. The desperate idiot in this thread is Mr. Grashow.
charles grashow says
https://theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com/advice-for-burzynski-patients/
1) If you are a cancer patient but do not have a brain tumor, YOU ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR ANTINEOPLASTON TRIALS. Patients like Kathy B. (breast cancer) get to the clinic, go through consultation with physicians believing that they will be put on antineoplastons, and as soon as they pay that massive deposit, they learn that they will be on chemotherapy. Don’t be fooled. Almost all of Burzynski’s patients are on conventional chemotherapy (though they are given it off label). Watch as Burzynski’s son and heir apparent does not tell Kathy that she is not eligible for the treatment she thinks she is paying for. Further, the antineoplaston treatments are on hold and unlikely to be restarted. According to an SEC filing, the drug may have killed a child.
2) If you end up on the “gene-targeted therapy,” you will be receiving cocktails of various chemotherapies that have not been tested with one another for safety and which in all probability have not been demonstrated to be effective on your type of cancer. This is why so many doctors refuse to participate. They consider these weird, untested combinations to be unethical and expose their patients to an unacceptable risk.
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-burzynski-empire-strikes-back/
Denise says
Because the FDA WILL NOT allow any but those with brain tumours to be treated except in rare exceptions.
The patients being treated with some chemo drugs, are tested and the drugs are fitted to each patient based on gene targeting. Some die, some do not. It is the most sensible way to use the chemo if the FDA will not allow a patient to choose antineoplaston therapy. Dr, Burzinsky’s success with these drugs far exceeds the mainstream “success”.
So whose fault is this? Certainly not the clinic’s. The FDA CAUSES this situation by denying the treatment the patients choose. Burzinsky gives them the best alternative he can in light of the circumstances. And those drugs are STINKIN expensive!
charles grashow says
Do you even bother to read!!
If you end up on the “gene-targeted therapy,” you will be receiving cocktails of various chemotherapies that have not been tested with one another for safety and which in all probability have not been demonstrated to be effective on your type of cancer.
https://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/12/05/personalized-gene-targeted-cancer-therapy/
It turns out that perhaps the best description of what “personalized” treatment means in Dr. Burzynski’s hands comes from the Texas Medical Board’s complaint against him, which can be found in over at the Ministry of Truth or at Casewatch. This complaint is based on the cases of two patients. First, here’s Patient A, who is described in the complaint thusly:
1. Patient A:
a. In approximately May of 2008, Patient A presented to Respondent with breast cancer that had metastasized to her brain, lung, and liver.
b. Respondent prescribed a combination of five immunotherapy agents – phenylbutyrate, erlotinib, dasatinib, vorinostat, and sorafenib-which are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) for the treatment of breast cancer, and which do not meet the FDA’s regulations for the use of off-label drugs in breast cancer therapy.
c. In combination with the five immunotherapy agents, Patient A was prescribed capecitabine, a chemotherapy agent. The concurrent prescription of five immunotherapy agents in combination with a chemotherapy agent resulted in Patient A suffering unwarranted side effects.
d. Respondent owned the clinic pharmacy from which the multiple drugs were ordered. Respondent failed to affirmatively disclose to Patient A his ownership interest in the pharmacy.
This is what’s known as “throwing everything but the kitchen sink” at the tumor without any thought of interactions, as most of these agents have no proven role in the treatment of breast cancer. For example, erlotinib (brand name: Tarceva) is used to treat pancreatic cancer and non-small cell lung cancer. It works by inhibiting the tyrosine kinase of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and is not FDA-approved for breast cancer. However, it’s not unreasonable to think that it could work in breast cancer, as EGFR is believed to be important in some breast cancers, which is why this is an area of active research. Dasatinib (trade name: Sprycel) is also a kinase inhibitor. It inhibits the Src family tyrosine kinase. Vorinostat is a histone deacetylase inhibitor approved for use against cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. Finally, Sorafenib is another tyrosine kinase inhibitor that inhibits the tyrosine kinases of different receptors, as well as raf kinases. The big problem with this sort of approach is that the more drugs you add, no matter how “targeted” they are, the more chance for interactions that increase toxicity, and throwing all these kinase inhibitors together in a cocktail with chemotherapy is a recipe for disaster, particularly because such cocktails haven’t been tested in proper phase I clinical trials to evaluate toxicity. They’re also all incredibly expensive as well, and Dr. Burzynski sells them through his own pharmacy.
Patient B appears to be the patient with esthesioneuroblastoma whose case report I described above. This is the relevant passage from the complaint:
Follow-up magnetic resonance imaging (“MRI”) scans were conducted in approximately August and December of 2003, and March of 2004, which showed progressive disease. Patient B was continued on phenylbutyrate during this 11 -month time period, and was not sufficiently informed about the drug’s lack of efficacy on her disease.
Which sounds rather unlike the glowing case report above, now, doesn’t it?
This is how Dr. Burzysnki does “personalized, gene-targeted therapy.”
For example, rather than summarizing sound papers describing well-designed clinical trials, Dr. Burzynski only lists “response rates.” Looking at the table included in the literature, I noticed immediately that Dr. Burzynski says nothing about survival rates, only what he calls “objective response rates,” which are not defined in a meaningful way. The pamphlet defines them as as anything from an “improvement” (defined as “decrease in size of the tumors, not confirmed yet by the second follow-up radiological measurement”) to “complete disappearance of all signs of cancer,” which is utter bollocks. There are standardized ways of measuring tumor response agreed upon by radiologists and oncologists, such as the RECIST criteria. Burzynski lumps all responses together in an oncologically meaningless way. Also remember, Burzynski often uses standard-of-care chemotherapy along with his antineoplastons; so we would expect some responses. The chart above, however, is virtually meaningless, if only for the simple reason that initial tumor response often doesn’t correlate to overall survival, and overall survival is what we care about. As Xeno also notes, the out-of-pocket costs are staggering. Contrast this to the clinical trials I mentioned above, where patients do not pay for the genomic profiling or chemotherapy.
As bad, Dr. Burzynski massively oversells what he is doing to desperate patients, and, if what he tells patients is the same as what he told Suzanne Somers in her book, appears to be misrepresenting what he does:
SS: When you talk about gene-targeted therapy, is that chemotherapy?
SB: No, this is not chemotherapy. Most of my patients have already had chemotherapy and it has not been effective for them. The beauty of antineoplastons is that they are natural compounds. They exist in our blood and form a protective system against cancer. You don’t expect to have toxic side effects from chemicals which are normal in your blood. And they cover a broad spectrum of genes, which means from the very beginning we have a much better chance to help this patient.
Cytotoxic chemotherapy “covers” an even broader spectrum of genes; so by Dr. Burzynski’s criteria, cytotoxic chemotherapy ought to be the best therapy of all! In any case, as we have seen, Dr. Burzynski does give chemotherapy. Lots of chemotherapy. 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.
One has only to compare what Dr. Burzynski does to what the group the University of Michigan, among other large research institutions, are doing to see that. 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 unneeded 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.
Didymus Judas Thomas says
Mr. Grashow, I commend you on your cut and paste job from David H. Gorski, M. D., Ph.D., FACS, who as I pointed out to you previously, above, is a known liar, has an agenda where he only includes what fits his “narrative”
I’ve done a critique of his “claims” and what he left out, previously, on my blog
Didymus Judas Thomas says
Mr. Grashow, Professor Bob Blaskiewicz runs The Other Burzynski Patient Group (TOBPG)
As I pointed out to you in my previous post, above, he is a known liar, he is also NOT a doctor, he is a visiting professor of writing
False: In an interview Burzynski stated the medical literature; which includes phase II (2) and III (3) studies are reviewed re drugs
If you don’t know already, many drugs are tested in combinations in clinical trials, where one can read about how they do or do not work together and possible adverse effects
[email protected] says
My father had a brain tumor and they gave him THREE brain surgeries and turned him into a vegetable. Then he died. We knew he was going to die from this but he could have died with dignity — not as a vegetable. Even though my parents were open to alternative therapies, there were too many obstacles for them to deal with trying to get it — and the expense. That is just where Big Pharma want you — helpless, hopeless and broke.
Great post, Kelly!
Jamie says
Just one question… does anyone know why he would take urine from places like bars and penitentiary’s etc.? I realize these drugs are made in a lab now, but it seems strange that this is what he used to develop these drugs. I am honestly interested if anyone knows. Thank you.
Didymus Judas Thomas says
Jamie, he originally obtained from blood
I’m sure you can understand that the cost to get people to donate as much blood as would be needed to produce the drug would be ridiculous ?
He needed a large supply and since he only had 3 choices; tissue, blood, urine, he used what he could get, knowing during the manufacturing process, anything harmful would be removed
Obviously, ease of obtaining from those sources was the main factor
In 12/2002 interview he acknowledged that it would be ridiculed, but there was no other option available at the time
charles grashow says
Dr Stanislaw R. Burzynski, Robert I. Lewy, Robert A. Weaver, Maxwell L. Axler, Tomasz J. Janicki,
Gabor F. Jurida, Jaroslaw K. Paszkowiak, Barbara G. Szymkowski, Mohammad I. Khan, Mark Bestak
Abstract
Objective: A phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 was conducted to evaluate the antineoplastic activity in patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma.
Patients and methods: This report describes the results of treatment of the first 12 patients admitted to the study. Patients received escalating doses of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 by intravenous bolus injections. The median duration of treatment was 6 months and the average dosage of antineoplaston A10 was 11.3 g/kg/day and of antineoplaston AS2-1 0.4 g/kg/day. Responses were assessed by gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the head.
Results: Of ten evaluable patients, complete response was determined in two cases (20%), partial response in three (30%), stable disease in three (30%) and progressive disease in two (20%). Survival at 2 years was 33.3%. Currently, of all 12 patients, two (17%) were alive and tumour free for over 5 years since initial diagnosis; one was alive for more than 5 years, and another for more than 4 years from the start of treatment. Only mild and moderate toxicities were observed, which included three cases of skin allergy, two cases of anaemia, fever and hypernatraemia, and single cases of agranulocytosis, hypoglycaemia, numbness, tiredness, myalgia and vomiting.
Conclusion: The results of this study compared favourably with the responses of patients treated with radiation therapy and chemotherapy. The study continues with accrual of additional patients.
SO – it’s no better than traditional methods!!
Denise says
Charles, you are completely forgetting that all of the patients allowed into this study have already had chemo and radiation. This dramatically reduces the efficacy of Burzinsky’s treatment because it destroys the immune system and the liver and kidney function which are vital in healing from cancer.
Fact is, chemo and radiation compare VERY unfavourably with alternative modalities. The success rate to five year survival for chemo is 2.3% for all cancers! About 97% of all patients treated with chemo are dead in 18 months.
This is understandable given the fact that the most common side affect of chemo is – CANCER! They are cancer causing drugs! I would take 33% over 2.3% in a heart beat. In addition, the percent for Burzinsky’s treatment dramatically skyrockets when a patient takes the treatment without having undergone chemo or radiation first. (The FDA allows this on some occasions)
So a few of your facts presented are not being interpreted by you in light of other known data.
charles grashow says
This is how much the crook charges
https://www.zenosblog.com/2011/11/big-business-in-texas/
We are designing personalized treatment plan for every patient because everybody is different. In order to get the most beneficial, most effective treatment, we need genomic testing through the entire genome of 24,000 genes. It is done not by us, but by Caris Life Sciences lab in Phoenix, Arizona. The laboratory will conduct, across the entire cancerous genome, microarray testing for gene expression followed by mutational analysis, FISH, and IHC for selected genes. The testing will provide a selection of targeted agents, which are associated with clinical benefit as well as agents associated with lack of clinical benefit. Based on these results, we can prepare a treatment plan.
They charge around 6,000.00 US dollars and the results are ready in 2 weeks.
That’s $6,000 before they even start the treatment.
There is more, of course. A lot more. They tell prospective customers:
Cost and fees structure:
1. Physician review of all medical records before your consultation appointment:
– $500 non-refundable payment to cover the cost of the physicians’ and clinic’s evaluation services.
2. Amount due at the time of consultation is as follows:
– $1,000.00 – which covers the initial consultation appointment
– $4,000.00 – required for lab work.
3. After Dr Burzynski reviews results and determines your course of treatment a $10,000.00 deposit will be due to start basic treatment.
4. Additional deposits for prescribed medications will be required due to the FDA just recently approving some of them. Their cost can be very high. That’s why we do not know the exact cost for treatment until these medications have been prescribed. (Estimated deposit for these medications can range between $7,000.00 – $15,000.00).
5. When you are discharged to go home the monthly deposit for basic treatment will range from $4,500 – $6,000, in addition to medications. From our experience, the treatment regimen may last between 4 to 12 months on average for the majority of our patients.
https://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/pharmacologicalandbiologicaltreatment/antineoplaston-therapy
In 1985, the Canadian Bureau of Prescription Drugs examined the records of Canadian doctors who had treated patients at Dr. Burzynski’s clinic in Houston. Of 36 patients, 32 had died without showing signs of improvement. Of the remaining 4, 1 patient died after slight improvement, while 1 patient died after stabilizing for a year. The 2 remaining patients had widespread cancer.
Skeptical Humanities has been tallying publicly available cases of patients who went to Burzynski and did not survive. It’s a depressing read, and these are stories we don’t see, even from much of the mainstream press. In the process, the harm he is doing is incalculable as he tarnishes the reputation of a perfectly fine experimental anticancer drug (phenylbutyrate) and the very concept of “personalized cancer therapy” with the stench of quackery.
https://skepticalhumanities.com/2011/11/26/stanislaw-burzynskis-public-record/
https://skepticalhumanities.com/2011/11/30/letter-to-the-fda-about-dr-burzynksi/
https://skepticalhumanities.com/2011/12/05/more-patients-whose-deaths-burzynski-has-presided-over/
https://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/12/12/what-dr-stanislaw-burzynski-doesnt-want/
Denise says
As opposed to the over one million dollars many end up with on chemo? If insurance would allow these treatments to be covered as they do chemo, this would be a moot point.
I suppose you would ask that they be treated for free? No payment for the equipment, hours of research, scientists under his employ? It’s not as though he is lining his pockets with this money.
Have you even watched the videos? I have watched and read as much as I can that opposes this therapy. Bet you have watched and read little about the positive this therapy has produced.
Didymus Judas Thomas says
Mr. Grashow, in case you didn’t know it, Professor Bob Blaskiewicz is a liar, as I have proved on my blog
He is on skepticalhumanities
He said he would debate me. He asked questions for 2 hours and 15 minutes and said he would reply to mine during 9/28/2013 “Burzynski Discussion” Google+ Hangout
The video is on YouTube
He never responded on my blog as he said he would
hospital wanted $30,000 deposit
https://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-16/politics/health.care.hearing_1_health-insurance-post-claims-underwriting-individual-health?_s=PM:POLITICS
2008 – Avastin – advanced lung, colon or breast cancer can reach $100,000 year
$50,000 year – adds 4 months of life
“There is a shocking disparity between value and price,” he said, “and it’s not sustainable.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/health/06avastin.html?_r=0
Cost cancer chemo up-front: $45,000 to Come In
https://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120934207044648511.html?mod=2_1566_topbox#articleTabs%3Darticle
3/2012 – Total Cost of Cancer Care by Site of Service: Physician Office vs Outpatient Hospital (22 pages)
https://www.avalerehealth.net/news/2012-04-03_COA/Cost_of_Care.pdf
CHEMOTHERAPY: 9/24/2012 – hospitals routinely marking up prices on cancer drugs 2 to 10 times over cost
Some markups far higher
nearly $4,500 for 240-milligram dose of drug to treat colon or rectal cancer
average sales price: less than $60
about $19,000 1-gram dose of drug to treat lymphoma and leukemia
roughly 3 times average sales price
about $680 50 milligrams of drug
markup: more than 50 times average sales price
Avastin, about $90,000 a year
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/09/24/3549634/prices-soar-as-hospitals-dominate.html
5/14/2012 – Oral anti-cancer medications generally considered pharmacy benefit
Instead of co-payment plan members often pay % of cost — up to 50% in some cases — with no annual out-of-pocket limit
drugs expensive often costing 10s of 1,000s of $s a year
https://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-05-14/national/35457286_1_lung-cancer-drug-drugs-work-multiple-myeloma-patients
RADIATION: 1/4/2013 – new study most comprehensive cost analysis ever, compared costs and outcomes associated with various types of treatment for all forms of disease, ranged from $19,901 for robot-assisted prostatectomy to treat low-risk disease, $50,276 for combined radiation therapy for high-risk disease
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2013/01/13370/how-prostate-cancer-therapies-compare-cost-and-effectiveness
3/15/2012 – Using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data, 26,163 women with localized breast cancer had undergone surgery and radiation 2001 to 2005
found Medicare billing for IMRT increased 0.9% diagnosed 2001 to 11.2% diagnosed 2005
average cost radiation treatment during 1st year $7,179 for non-IMRT
$15,230 with IMRT
billing for IMRT more than 5 times higher in regions across nation where local Medicare coverage determinations favorable to IMRT compared to regions where unfavorable
NICE evaluated sorafenib (Nexavar) for kidney cancer, determined had value, but not $80,000 per year’s worth
agency said would reimburse 1/3rd total cost, and if co wants to market product to 60 million British citizens, need to be price flexible,”
https://www.ascopost.com/issues/march-15-2012/rising-costs-in-radiation-oncology-linked-to-medicare-coverage.aspx
charles grashow says
The success rate to five year survival for chemo is 2.3% for all cancers!
Based on 1 study in 2004
https://www.liberationchiropractic.com/wp-content/uploads/documents/2004%20Morgan%20-%20Chemotherapy.pdf
RESULTS:
The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.
charles grashow says
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/usa-today-versus-stanislaw-burzynski/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/15/stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-controversy/2994561/
On the last day of his life, Josia Cotto’s parents gave him a choice.
The 6-year-old boy had been fighting an inoperable brain tumor for 10 months. When his mother, Niasia Cotto, found him in his bed, unresponsive and unable to open his eyes, “we knew there was nothing else that we could do,” she said.
An ambulance took Josia to a hospice room at a local hospital. His parents covered him in a soft, blue-and-white blanket, hugged him and held his small hand for the last time.
“We told him the choice was his, whether to keep fighting or be in peace with God,” said his mother. “He chose.”
Josia’s parents would have paid any price to save him.
A Texas doctor, two months, earlier, had given them one: $25,000 upfront, by cash or check.
It turns out that Josia Cotto was the child who died of complications from Burzynski’s treatment:
The FDA’s patience with Burzynski apparently wore out after Josia died.
In a report sent to the FDA after the boy’s death, Burzynski’s staff acknowledged that his last blood sample, taken the day he passed away,showed a blood sodium level of 205 millimoles per liter, a level that is typically fatal. Burzynski’s staff blamed that reading on a “false laboratory report based on a contaminated sample.”
Yet hypernatremia is one of antineoplastons’ most common side effects, known to doctors for two decades.
One of Burzynski’s own informed consent documents — the form that patients sign before they begin treatment — put the risk at 21%.
On July 30, 2012 — six weeks after Josia’s death — the FDA forbade Burzynski from giving antineoplastons to any new children.
I was astounded to see that number. I’ve never, ever seen a sodium level that high. Typically, normal is typically between 135 and 145 mEq/L, with slight variations of that range depending on the lab. Burzynski’s excuse, which I’ve heard at various times as being due to an “improper blood draw” or as described above, is purest nonsense. A bad blood draw typically produces falsely elevated potassium levels, not sodium levels. Unless the technician spiked Josia’s sample with 3% saline or something like that, there’s no way to get the leve that high. Josia almost certainly died because of hypernatremia from antineoplaston therapy.
To me, this is the biggest revelation of the story: The story and identity of the child who was killed by Burzynski’s treatments. We also learn that—surprise! surprise!—Stanislaw Burzynski is an enormous tool. Look at him dismiss his critics, particularly former patients, many of whom, let’s recall, have terminal cancer, many of whom are dead:
Burzynski dismisses criticism of his work, referring to his detractors as “hooligans” and “hired assassins.”
As for criticism from former patients, Burzynski says, “We see patients from various walks of life. We see great people. We see crooks. We have prostitutes. We have thieves. We have mafia bosses. We have Secret Service agents. Many people are coming to us, OK? Not all of them are the greatest people in the world. And many of them would like to get money from us. They pretend they got sick and they would like to extort money from us.”
History will vindicate him, Burzynski says, just as it has vindicated other persecuted medical “pioneers,” such as Louis Pasteur. In the future, Burzynski says, everyone will use his therapies, and the cancer treatments used today — such as surgery, chemotherapy and radiation — will be regarded as barbaric. “There will be a time when people will see the light,” he says, “and our treatments will be used by everyone.”
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/revealed-by-the-fda-the-results-of-the-most-recent-inspection-of-the-burzynski-clinic/
Before I take a look at the FDA warning letter and its accompanying notes, let’s go on a stroll down memory lane and recap some of the violations that the FDA has found in the past, gleaned from a a letter to the Burzynski Clinic Institutional Review Board from 2001; a report of a site visit to the Burzynski Clinic by the FDA Southwest Regional/District Office, Dallas District; and a warning letter from the FDA’s Human Subjects Protection Team, Division of Scientific Investigations, Office of Compliance, dated 2009:
Enrollment of subjects into antineoplaston study protocols prior to the protocol-specified interval following prior chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy.
Failure to report all serious adverse events (SAEs) and adverse events (AEs) to the agency and/or IRB.
Failure to follow proper informed consent procedures.
Failure to maintain adequate drug accountability records.
Discrepancies between case report forms and source documents.
Failure to keep a copy of the study protocol and informed consent form.
Failure to receive and/or require progress reports from the principal investigator for the study.
Failure to receive and/or require a final report from the principal investigator for the study prior to removal from the IRB’s active list of studies.
Failure to assure that FDA approval was obtained by the principal investigator for the study prior to the treatment of a patient under a special exception.
Approval of special exceptions via expedited review.
The IRB approved research without determining that the following criteria were met: That risks to subjects were minimized and that risks to subjects were reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits, if any, to subjects, and the importance of the knowledge that may be expected to result.
The IRB failed to prepare, maintain, and follow written procedures for conducting its initial and continuing review of research.
The IRB failed to ensure that informed consent would be sought from each prospective subject or the subject’s legally authorized representative.
The IRB failed to ensure that no member participated in the initial or continuing review of a project in which the member had a conflicting interest.
The IRB failed to conduct continuing reviews.
The latest round of findings from the FDA’s most recent investigation eight months ago reads like an acid flashback of investigations past. According to the FDA warning letter based on this FDA Form 483, covering the inspection dates from January 22 to February 7, 2013, here’s what the FDA dinged Burzynski for this time. The CliffsNotes version is this:
The IRB failed to follow FDA regulations regarding expedited review procedures [21 CFR 56.110(b)].
The IRB approved research without determining that the following criteria were met: risks to subjects were minimized [21 CFR 56.111(a)(1)]; risks to subjects were reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits, if any, to subjects, and the importance of the knowledge that may be expected to result [21 CFR 56.111(a)(2)].
The IRB failed to determine at the time of initial review that studies involving children are in compliance with 21 CFR part 50, subpart D, Additional Safeguards for Children in Clinical Investigations [21 CFR 56.109(h)]. This is a repeat violation from our 2010 inspection.
The IRB failed to prepare, maintain, and follow written procedures and maintain adequate documentation governing the functions and operations of the IRB [21 CFR 56.108(a), 21 CFR 56.108(b), and 21 CFR 56.115(a)(6)].
https://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofGlobalRegulatoryOperationsandPolicy/ORA/ORAElectronicReadingRoom/UCM373967.pdf
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/stanislaw-burzynski-the-early-years-part-1/
This man is a DANGEROUS QUACK who belongs in jail and anyone who believes in his methods is a desperate idiot
Denise says
This is all inaccurate. But, if you prefer a 2.3% to over 33% – much higher if no chemo and radiation first – then go ahead. It is almost laughable – but no death is laughable – that someone would even bring up the patients who die while under Burzinsky’s treatment when 97% of patients who choose chemo die. To each his own.
Given the fact that they are poisoned before being allowed to choose antineoplastons, one must expect some deaths. There is no 100% claim out there. Far from a quack, Dr. Burzinsky is brilliant.
Didymus Judas Thomas says
Mr. Grashow, are you aware that “Orac” a/k/a Dr. David H. Gorski is a liar; as I have proven on my blog, as well as a coward; he refuses to debate, on-line or in person
Everything he posts on ScienceBasedMedicine . org and scienceblogs . com/Insolence, should be “fact-checked” for veracity
I realize all the claims (allegations) seem serious, but the allegations seemed serious in 1997 when he was charged with 75 counts by the U.S. Gubment, and the Gubment lost
Do not believe everything you read
Dr. Gorski is a “HACK”
MomWithAChoice&AVoice says
Even if what you are saying is true, let me tell you one of many hundreds (if not thousands) of stories of how the FDA and the pharmaceutical industries have done far worse. The FDA deliberately & unashamedly ignores court orders and breaks the law on a daily basis. I encourage you to read the book “Global Censorship of Health Information”. If the FDA wants to truly be a genuinely protective regulating agency that looks after the good of the public, then it needs to get out of the beds of the pharmaceutical companies and other crony capitalist interests. (I believe in capitalism, but not this kind of “capitalism”.)
What you are accusing Dr. Burzynski of pales in comparison to the crimes and the tyranny of the FDA and many other government bureaucracies whose only goal is to take away our choice & our freedoms. Perhaps you are right and antineoplastins have a risk of dangerous side effects. I can believe that is true. However, some of us would take those risks over the guaranteed side effects & dangerous risks of chemo and radiation. The risk of leukemia from just one chemo drug is at least 25%- that is 4% greater than the risk of hypernatremia from the antineoplastins you noted.
The saddest part about your comments is that you fail to recognize that the requirements that the FDA is putting on Dr. Burzynski in order to approve antineoplastins is far more stringent than they have ever required for ANY chemo drug or radiation therapy. People assume that these drugs have gone through appropriate and high quality scientific study and trial, but, in fact, they have not. I have requested proof of these studies from many sources, including my daughter’s oncologist and no one can produce them for me. I have searched high and low on my own and I’m telling you that if they exist, they must be hidden in the deepest trenches of the earth.
The whole point of this article is that we should have a right to choose our own treatment and treatment for our children. Anything else is tyranny and abuse. Even if I was absolutely convinced that antineoplastins were the only way to cure cancer, I would never want to force them on someone because that is just wrong. If someone believes that eating 4 jars of peanut butter every day will cure their cancer, then they should have the freedom to choose that therapy.
You want to know who the quacks are? They are the ones that get really mean and snappy with me when I ask for scientific proof that the treatment they are trying to shove down our throats for our little baby girl give her a fighting chance. In fact, they can’t even provide me numbers at all. Wouldn’t you be suspicious of an establishment that did things this way? I know I am.
Kimberly says
I lost my dad a few years ago to lung cancer. While in the hospital, his doctor had told us that there was nothing more we could do except take him home and call in hospice. The very day he was coming home, a nurse came to get him for another radiation treatment. I’ll never opt for traditional cancer treatment. It is all about the money.
If we don’t stand up to the government trying to run EVERYTHING in our lives, it will be very soon that we don’t have a choice.
Peggy says
Honey, if you can’t even be trusted to choose your own insurance plan, why would the government trust you with a decision like this?
mrl says
Nothing makes me angrier than what they have done and are doing to Dr. Burzynski. If his antineoplastons do not work, why did our government patent them illegally? If the government would get out of his way the cost would come down and people would be cured. I had a friend who had breast cancer last year. She went to the Cleveland Clinic but she also went to MD Anderson for a second opinion. She saw on CNN where they were close to curing several cancers and breast cancer was one of them. She flew all the way there and saw one of their doctors. She then asked him about what she saw on CNN, he just laughed at her and said that was for fundraising only!!! There is your answer when it comes to curing cancer. The money of all these so called “charities” and these big cancer hospitals would dry up so fast. How many thousands of people need to die because of the greed of these people? The only way to go see Dr. Burzynski is to go through chemo and it has to fail, what kind of medicine is that? I keep praying that they will leave him alone and let him cure people.
Connie Lemmink says
Having gone down the traditional road with the end result being DEATH, I would never go down that road again. The pharmaceutical industry sees us as cash cows. It has to end somewhere, and that end is with me.
KitchenKop says
Hi Connie,
I just read a few pages of your blog posts about David’s illness and my heart breaks for you. I’ve got a huge lump in my throat and I’m trying not to start bawling because we’re leaving for Mass in a few minutes and I just did my make-up!
I pray you are healing well and that your heart isn’t hurting as much these days. Hopefully it really does get easier as they say?
Big hugs to you,
Kel