PLEASE WATCH THIS--A cure for cancer!

[MagnusEunson]

Big Pharma's day is coming... Big Government's day is coming. They both have opened up the door to all manner of nonsense because of their tampering in every aspect of our lives. They brought this on themselves and onto us. By their bizarre practices and cronyism they have caused the field to be flooded with as much bad as good. In this case I'm highly concerned they've given a great platform to a charlatan. I hope I'm wrong and I hope Dr. Burzynski lowers his guard and allows appropriate independent control trials after his 2011 trails close. -Magnus

 

[simba]

I've followed Dr. Burzynski's work since 1980. He is a true genius. Fantastic thread!

 

[mcrt]

I've stated in the OUTSIDE! and elsewhere my distaste for the FDA and protectionism across all industries. Big Pharma is a huge enemy to food supplies, supplements, e-cigs, etc. No question about it. It's not unknown that they interfere and tamper with many life-changing and indeed life-saving options that would otherwise be available to patients.

However, nothing is stopping peer-review of Dr. Burzynski's work. Nothing except Dr. Burzynski himself it would seem. The FDA can't stop that. And it just hasn't happened in any reputable peer-reviewed journal. And those journals frequently buck the FDA and the larger Government. Setting all the other questionable activities and accusations against Dr. Burzynski aside, ~that~ should be one of the most glaring alarms that this work might just not be truly miraculous.

Charlatans frequently use other flaws in the system as evidence to promote themselves.

Now I'm perfectly willing to concede that not only has Dr. Burzynski been the victim of spectacularly unfair treatment by the FDA but that he also has reason to be paranoid about being so controlling over any trials and tests run ~anywhere~ using his techniques. However, if he is ever going to get approvals anywhere in the world he is going to have to let loose at sometime. Lets assume the trials he has ending tentatively in December 2011 are wildly successful. Somebody is going to have to replicate that other than himself. That's simply good science.

There is also some question as to whether he misrepresents the Japanese and Italian optimism in the documentary.

It would be the sincere hope of any human being that there is a miracle cure being withheld here. I'm confident many miracles and solutions are withheld for political grounds. However, ..

Stanislaw Burzynski and "Antineoplastons"

Antineoplaston Therapy

QUACK-QUACK Goes Burzynski - Page 1 - Movies - New York - Village Voice

I hope the Gods have actually smiled on us with a better treatment for Cancer. I'm just not holding my breath. -Magnus

I'm not holding my breath either...the guy does not win my trust,true science is validated by independent tests and not by one-sided films.If his cure works the FDA will not be able to stop it being tested/approved in any other country,how will they look then?.I have lost two family members to cancer and i hope the guy has found the cure but i would be cautious about defending his cause forcefully.He has to let other qualified people test his methods.

 

[Thulium]

Magnus & mcrt, have you actually watched the documentary yet? Dr. Burzynski *did* have his work peer reviewed--only to have his "peers" turn around and submit patent applications for antineoplastons while Dr. Burzinski was fighting baseless allegations
.

 

[rothenbj]

Big Pharma's day is coming... Big Government's day is coming. They both have opened up the door to all manner of nonsense because of their tampering in every aspect of our lives. They brought this on themselves and onto us. By their bizarre practices and cronyism they have caused the field to be flooded with as much bad as good. In this case I'm highly concerned they've given a great platform to a charlatan. I hope I'm wrong and I hope Dr. Burzynski lowers his guard and allows appropriate independent control trials after his 2011 trails close. -Magnus

He's been dealing with the FDA for years. He's cleared Phase 2 trials meaning that a certain kind of cancer responds to his treatment. He has patents on his Antineoplastons. He's starting/started Phase 3 trials. All these data have been reviewed and approved by the same organization that tried for decades to close him down.

The documentary really was covering the actions of the FDA and other agencies and corporations to shut him down, steal his discoveries and gain financial control of his product. I think it might be a bit strong to label him as a "charlatan".

Some people apparently have benefited by his treatments or that is how it would appear. Perhaps it was luck or chance that those people had cancer and suddenly didn't after he treated them. How many children have survived Brainstem glioma using traditional therapies?

His theory is significant if it can be proven and thus far he has proven it to the satisfaction of the FDA. That is saying a lot considering the history. His Phase three trials could be completed fairly quickly as the Orphan Drug Act makes it possible to reduce the number of trial subjects to complete the work required. His theories have the potential of changing the direction of cancer research in the future. Of course, finding a cure is detrimental to the overall industry. Treatment, after all, is the name of the game. Look at NRT and the "tobacco epidemic".

 

[MagnusEunson]

Magnus & mcrt, have you actually watched the documentary yet? Dr. Burzynski *did* have his work peer reviewed--only to have his "peers" turn around and submit patent applications for antineoplastons while Dr. Burzinski was fighting baseless allegations.

Yes, and I've followed his work in the search for my own families miracle for seven years. Including providing professional input as to how egregious the court cases against him were in some regards. He was getting slammed for, at best, questionable science and self promotion. With maybe a sideline in insurance fraud. Far more aggressive behavior than he deserved.

However, the documentary violates the most basic precept of a ~documentary~.. perspective. It only presents the work he controlled, including the peer groups he controlled, and his existing supporters. On top of that slamming the existing methods while not revealing the side-effects he has encountered and indeed testified to himself.

The documentary cherry-picks the results co-sponsored by the Japanese NCI as another example. That's just advertisement as opposed to a search for truth.

He's been dealing with the FDA for years. He's cleared Phase 2 trials meaning that a certain kind of cancer responds to his treatment. He has patents on his Antineoplastons. He's starting/started Phase 3 trials. All these data have been reviewed and approved by the same organization that tried for decades to close him down.

The documentary really was covering the actions of the FDA and other agencies and corporations to shut him down, steal his discoveries and gain financial control of his product. I think it might be a bit strong to label him as a "charlatan".

Some people apparently have benefited by his treatments or that is how it would appear. Perhaps it was luck or chance that those people had cancer and suddenly didn't after he treated them. How many children have survived Brainstem glioma using traditional therapies?

Again, I repeat that in a vacuum he was mistreated instead of scientifically challenged. I agree there absolutely.

Regarding the FDA proces.. consider Big Pharma's own record of there own internal clinical trials approved by the FDA until and beyond approval. Say drugs like Paxil or Vioxx. What I've suggested here and in the OUTSIDE! is that the FDA allows both bad and good alike through the same misguided policies. It wasn't until ~after~ all the self-managed trials were done and independent got a look at things that a more fair assessment was done and indeed data on dangers and ineffectiveness of various therapies were discovered.

What I said was "Charlatans frequently use other flaws in the system as evidence to promote themselves.".... that's a general statement and I mean it. I mean it exactly as my posts describes how much of this the flaws in the FDA and greater Government bring upon the very people they're supposed to be helping. If they were more trustworthy, better at being arbitrators instead of politicians, then we'd have a much more sound scientific environment. Whether it's Global Warming or Cancer treatment.

Right now many frauds and conspiracies only exist because of bad behavior by the Government.

It's my opinion this guy as having done some things that make me very skeptical he is as altruistic and humble as the self-serving advertisement (or call it a documentary) make it sound. So I don't think he has demonstrated himself a charlatan but I don't think has won my trust as a scientist either.

Again, I hope that he does open up to letting other people control the experiments. At this point he has beyond strong intellectual property protections in place. WAY BEYOND. Years of prior work and fraud cases. So there is no reason for him to continue to hold things this close to his chest.

You won against the FDA a few years ago now man... so if you're going to continue to say you have a cure for cancer, then get back to the proving it part.

-Magnus

 

[rothenbj]

I was referring to your statement in post 41- "In this case I'm highly concerned they've given a great platform to a charlatan. I hope I'm wrong and I hope Dr. Burzynski lowers his guard and allows appropriate independent control trials after his 2011 trails close. -Magnus"

 

[MagnusEunson]

I was referring to your statement in post 41- "In this case I'm highly concerned they've given a great platform to a charlatan. I hope I'm wrong and I hope Dr. Burzynski lowers his guard and allows appropriate independent control trials after his 2011 trails close. -Magnus"

Yes, I am afraid. And my hope is that he is not. I don't know if he actually is because the lack of available good science instead of the surplus of theatre.

Fair?

I'm not willing to even consider the Government isn't a fraud though. ;-)

-Magnus

 

[lelly]

5 billion dollars/year given to BP for cancer research, and they are still giving people the same concoctions that they were 25 years ago?????

 

[Thulium]

Yes, I am afraid. And my hope is that he is not. I don't know if he actually is because the lack of available good science instead of the surplus of theatre.

Fair?

I'm not willing to even consider the Government isn't a fraud though. ;-)

-Magnus

The problem is you are wrongfully implying that Burzynski was the one who was interfering with the independent clinical trials in Phase II. Perhaps you missed this detail, but it jumped out at me because the FDA is trying similarly sneaky tactics in their attempts to block the e-cigarette. The original plan for the Phase 2 had very strict requirements to participate and the prescribed doses were set accordingly, but the FDA then claimed that they needed to remove the restrictions and they ignored Dr. Burzinski's objections that the doses were not correct...which proved true once the results were published indicating that the level levels of antineoplastons were DRASTICALLY below those found in patients treated by Dr. Burzynski and when it was revealed that some of the patients had been forced to end treatment because they were retaining too much water, even though Dr. Burzinski indicated that dehydration (fluid loss) was the expected side effect of antineoplaston therapy.

 

[Vocalek]

If Dr. B's chemicals don't work, why did the FDA go to the trouble and expense of filing 9 patent applications on those chemicals? There has to be something there worth pursuing, wouldn't you say?

As to why he doesn't just "get on with it", the video revealed that he needs about $300 million to conduct all of the Phase III clinical trials on various types of cancers in various stages. Remember that the drug approval process is now fee-based. That means that the company that wants the approval has to pony up rather large fees to the FDA, in addition to the expenses of actually conduting the trials themselves. He is looking for donations to defray the expenses.

Clinicaltrials.gov lists 61 studies that involve "antineoplaston". Only 11 trials have a status of "Recruiting" or "Not Yet Recruiting."

 

[MagnusEunson]

The problem is you are wrongfully implying that Burzynski was the one who was interfering with the independent clinical trials in Phase II. Perhaps you missed this detail, but it jumped out at me because the FDA is trying similarly sneaky tactics in their attempts to block the e-cigarette.

The original plan for the Phase 2 had very strict requirements to participate and the prescribed doses were set accordingly, but the FDA then claimed that they needed to remove the restrictions and they ignored Dr. Burzinski's objections that the doses were not correct...which proved true once the results were published indicating that the level levels of antineoplastons were DRASTICALLY below those found in patients treated by Dr. Burzynski and when it was revealed that some of the patients had been forced to end treatment because they were retaining too much water, even though Dr. Burzinski indicated that dehydration (fluid loss) was the expected side effect of antineoplaston therapy.

That argument is straight out of the documentary. Again, and once again, and once more.... how can we consider this the whole picture? These episodes they present are cherry-picked to support his case. So he has a two-pronged attack of bad villain-like vendetta behavior from the FDA. And now any sole-author and positive findings can be presented at little resistance because all the negative energy is sucked into the FDA black hole.

Set aside the FDA for a moment... we all agree they're a villainous Government misguided mongrel wasting money organization who went completely bat-.... crazy here. Yes?

Start looking closer at Burzinski's work, how he represents other people's findings, the people he collaborates with, etc. I'm just saying a lot of it is suspect. I've mentioned Japan a few times now.. he misrepresents a much wider range of success than was actually found there. He also misrepresents a much wider range of interest than what was found there. And he dismisses this all as politics of influence by the FDA. You can go over to PubMed and read the Japanese results yourself and then take into account their statistical variance and comments. There are some successes but they're not resounding. And there are failures. Further all but one study is tied to Burzinski's friend and anesthesiologist (not oncologist) Dr. Tsuda. On top of that when Dr. Tsuda has been written by other doctors they get significantly different responses than how Dr. Burzinski represents it. Then on top of that the Japanese NCI's review of the work concluded that in human subjects it didn't work. (This was all through the nineties and Burzinski suggested protocol changes to administration and much higher doses that seemed to start yielding results but the promised peer review hasn't happened yet. Just conference presentations that were paid admission. And then the story changed from "non-toxic" to "generally non-toxic" because at the higher doses there was organ damage and IIRC renal failure.)

I'm going to stop here because this is taking away from what I was trying to express..... I can start citing the long laundry list of suspect things Dr. Burzinski has done but that doesn't even convince me there is ~nothing~ to his work. All it convinces me of is that he oversteps his bounds and can be mixing good scientific practices with bad. I keep repeating I want him to more honestly subject his work to peer review without direct collaboration and controls.

The FDA being villains does not provide his science. A Documentary presenting his side of the story does not prove his science. "Peers" that he controlled or amounted to one or two people actually doing the work and others anecdotal commenting on it as fact does not constitute good science. (That last one is interesting because he uses the same anecdotal commenting argument to discredit Dateline and Dr. Weil.)

Gods willing he will actually publish already reviewed, and not reviewed by the same supporting Doctors, the Phase III results. Further Gods willing he'll allow the protocol to be independently used and implemented by people he did not used to work with, offer stock options to, commit questionable insurance practices with, etc. that all might prove troublesome to some of us.

I'd like to just sum up his questionable behavior and omissions and exaggerated presentation of data as an excessive level of distrust due to abuse. Heck, that'd actually be fantastic because that gets fixed when he is forced to release the control over the protocol to continue with further work.

I think I've commented enough and if you indeed want the long laundry list or other references perhaps it's a matter to be moved to the OUTSIDE! for over the weekend. It's been a few years since I wrote on this professionally but I can unpack my materials and dig stuff up. And back then I had the same viewpoint... I'm hopeful but not optimistic. And my optimism might be stymied by the incredibly questionable standard of scientific practice here and lack of transparency compounded with the theatrical environment nurtured by the FDA's idiotic dishonest actions.

-Magnus

 

[MagnusEunson]

If Dr. B's chemicals don't work, why did the FDA go to the trouble and expense of filing 9 patent applications on those chemicals? There has to be something there worth pursuing, wouldn't you say?

That's a red herring.

Patents are filed constantly based on speculation. Whole companies make their living by buying up speculative patents on nonsense, looking for applications that they might be able to relate it to, and bringing lawsuits to collect money based on innuendo alone.

Further that's also not ~science~... we're talking politics which we all agree already were hugely abused by the FDA.

As to why he doesn't just "get on with it", the video revealed that he needs about $300 million to conduct all of the Phase III clinical trials on various types of cancers in various stages. Remember that the drug approval process is now fee-based. That means that the company that wants the approval has to pony up rather large fees to the FDA, in addition to the expenses of actually conduting the trials themselves. He is looking for donations to defray the expenses.

He is refusing to partner with Big Pharma for understandable historical reasons. But "get on with it" could also as easily be him starting to open up more of his existing body of work to scrutiny. Records and such. He has actually offered but never delivered on that.

You're both taking my skepticism as an absolute that he is wrong. I'm by no means there. I'm trying to avoid the same mistake that's being made in propping up or pushing down other technologies.

The CASAA / FDA / Big Pharma / Big Tobacco theatre is actually a good example each of you cite. And I'd be equally as critical of CASAA if they responded to the FDA purely on theatrical grounds and did not submit themselves to rigorous scientific standards. Right now we're just not there yet but that battle may come. However, I have complete faith based on the CASAA people I have read and interacted with here at ECF that we won't lack of transparency the way Dr. Burzinski has. -Magnus


p.s. OK, that's it. I didn't see your reply before my last one. And this is really really it.

 

[Thulium]

That's a red herring.

Patents are filed constantly based on speculation. Whole companies make their living by buying up speculative patents on nonsense, looking for applications that they might be able to relate it to, and bringing lawsuits to collect money based on innuendo alone.

Further that's also not ~science~... we're talking politics which we all agree already were hugely abused by the FDA.

Patent infringement and bringing lawsuits had f'ing better be about science not politics!

He is refusing to partner with Big Pharma for understandable historical reasons. But "get on with it" could also as easily be him starting to open up more of his existing body of work to scrutiny. Records and such. He has actually offered but never delivered on that.

As the inventor, patent holder, and primary researcher of antineonplastons, why should Dr. Burzynski be forced to partner with a major Pharmaceutical company? All of the charges filed against him have been left "unspecified" and five grand juries returned not a single indictment

Records and such?!? Dr. Burzysnki was unable to properly treat many of his patients (which may have been fatal in some cases) because the FDA had raided and SEIZED his "records and such"

You're both taking my skepticism as an absolute that he is wrong. I'm by no means there. I'm trying to avoid the same mistake that's being made in propping up or pushing down other technologies.

I don't even see what difference it makes if he is wrong. Everything I've seen so far says his theory about antineoplastons is sound, non-toxic, and is probably somewhere between "promising" and "holy grail of anticancer research"; but even if the therapy isn't nearly as effective as the documentary portrays it, the fact remains that the FDA was convinced enough to bully the inventor and steal the patent--would it matter if proved to be somewhat toxic and only partially effective...at completely curing people with inoperable terminal illnesses?? Seriously, how much does it matter what the exact success rate of the therapy is when compared to the approximately ZERO percent of these patients who would survive without it.

The CASAA / FDA / Big Pharma / Big Tobacco theatre is actually a good example each of you cite. And I'd be equally as critical of CASAA if they responded to the FDA purely on theatrical grounds and did not submit themselves to rigorous scientific standards. Right now we're just not there yet but that battle may come. However, I have complete faith based on the CASAA people I have read and interacted with here at ECF that we won't lack of transparency the way Dr. Burzinski has. -Magnus

CASAA can be transparent because we aren't beholden to any particular brand or product or dealing with private medical records, but an individual seeking clinical approval for an experimental drug therapy is working with a great deal of information that legally and ethically must remain confidential. I'm afraid you are confusing Dr. Burzynski's efforts to navigate the red tape and lawsuits that pharma-influenced government agencies keep throwing at him for missteps on Burzynski's part. The doctor is an immigrant and idealist, so I'm sure he has made some mistakes along the way, but until someone actually specifies something that he's actually done WRONG, I'm having a hard idea understanding your point of view. ...You say you have records of past dealings with Dr. Burzynski--I would love to see anything you have.

I have some skepticism and reservations about this whole thing too...I haven't dismissed the possibility that this whole thing could be a hoax, but the problem is it is so consistent with what I already knew to be true about corruption in government agencies, and the part of me that wants to believe its is all just crazy conspiracy theories is desperately trying to find something to debunk this and I haven't found much.

 

[MagnusEunson]

...You say you have records of past dealings with Dr. Burzynski--I would love to see anything you have.

I have some skepticism and reservations about this whole thing too...I haven't dismissed the possibility that this whole thing could be a hoax, but the problem is it is so consistent with what I already knew to be true about corruption in government agencies, and the part of me that wants to believe its is all just crazy conspiracy theories is desperately trying to find something to debunk this and I haven't found much.

I decided my point responses above this was just turning into each of us characterizing what the other is saying in a way that our responses would fit. I'm not sure we're understanding each other.

Up until right ~here~...

I'm not at all challenging a huge majority of what he has said happened with the FDA. And I've said very specifically that the climate of distrust and conspiracy has been nurtured by the Government. However, while I was professionally fully able to find all those wrongs. I also started understanding why other detractors weren't convinced of his work either. And I keep trying to emphasize all of that actual science has been lost in this growing theatre and I do believe Burzynski himself is quite responsible along w/ the FDA for that ~scientific~ aspect alone.

If you'd like more information per my offer, please PM me and we can arrange a phone call or one-on-one discussion. I'm still thinking this should be moved to the OUTSIDE! but our portion of the discussion couldn't happen there anyway. If you want to bump this over and just keep it online, however... I'm just offering the one-on-one as a way to streamline certain histories. Being what the OUTSIDE! is. ;-)

Right now I'm getting ready to take my little girl to Disney for the day. Priorities. -Magnus

 

[tank2328]

thanks 4 the link

 

[quovadis]

Great documentary.
If it's not true...it's very well made up.

 

[CJsKee]

Today is the last day to view the documentary for free...

 

[MagnusEunson]

(Separate of me feelings noted above, if you'd like to read the Transcript or can't see the movie, miss it, etc.)

Transcript - Chapter 1 of 10 - Introduction

-Magnus

 

[Jerk]

Very sceptical. I think he and the documentary are levering off of people's disdain of the pharmaceutical industry (which seems to have worked).