The title says it all - there is a video circulating about FarceBook, claiming that Burzynski has the cure for cancer and Big Pharma has been stubbornly fighting him all the way.
Any reliable links that help refute this exaggerated claim would be greatly appreciated. QuackWatch has this link, to start us all off.
This will take two parts, because of the current time. First, some general observations and tomorrow I will post some analysis of the data and studies concerning Burzynski’s protocols.
Burzynski’s claims are in come ways very familiar, but there are some unique areas that need to be addressed. That article you linked is a good overview of the doubts that Burzynski’s lack of qualifications raise, and of the difficulties in the biochemistry.
To address the standard conspiracy type claims first: no, there is no single “cure for cancer” and even if there were Big Pharma does not suppress cancer cures. As has been mentioned in GQ many times, cancer is not a single disease, and we should not expect a single cure for it. Cancer is problem in the way cells grow, multiply and die. Cancer can arise from errors at any of those phases and arises from multiple reasons and from many different types of errors.
To make an (imperfect) analogy, expecting one single cure for cancer is like one single cure for wounds. An abrasion is different from a laceration or incision which are different from avulsions or amputations. Although healing from these different wounds usually involves the clotting process, the treatment for each wound type is different.
As for the standard Big Pharma conspiracy, a few moment’s thought shows how illogical this is. At any given time, there are 11.7 million Americans living with various cancers. That’s an enormous market. The average brand-name (i.e., non-generic) prescription cost $71.69 in 2008 (and is higher today), and the pharma companies receive 78% of that. If there was a “cure for cancer” it would be worth at least $650million a year, just for the United States. Add in global sales and it would assuredly be in the realm of the “blockbuster” drugs of over a billion in revenue a year. What pharmaceutical company wouldn’t be fighting tooth and nail to be the ones that could bring that to market? Even paying off Burzynski to buy his patent rights would be worth it at those figures.
This article in the Houston Press seems fairly comprehensive.
*"Henry Friedman, a neuro-oncologist at the Duke University Medical Center, was one of the independent doctors who reviewed (Burzynski’s) data…“Despite thousands of patients treated with the antineoplastons, no one has yet shown in a convincing fashion, [through] the rigorous requirements for peer review, that the therapy works,” he says, adding later, “You have to understand how incredible that is. Because normally, you can do a cancer study of as few as 30 [or] 40 patients…and begin to get an idea of whether there is activity or not. And then you can do larger studies, and you can really prove the merits or the lack of merit of the therapeutic strategy.”…
Moreover, he says, Burzynski “has been making a fortune…on patients he’s treated with antineoplastons. I find that of questionable ethics.”*
Reported cost to patients undergoing Burzynski’s “antineoplaston” therapy - in the range of $7500-9000 a month. Good evidence that his therapy is effective - zero.
The article also describes how Burzynski is big into anti-aging creams, which is an unusual activity for a cancer researcher.
To supplement what paperbackwriter said: Finding an effective and relatively safe cure for any one of the many cancers for which treatment options are currently limited, would be the source of enormous prestige and financial remuneration for a qualified person in the field of cancer research, as well as the drug company that backed them. The conspiracy angle makes no sense, but that’s the case for virtually all conspiracy theories.
I don’t think Burzynski is claiming to cure everybody’s cancer. Yes, he is making sweeping claims about a number of different cancers his medicine can treat, but he is not promising each and every patient a magic bullet.
As for your take on the conspiracy angle, how about an analogy to the promotion of green energy –
The energy sector of the national economy might benefit from the promotion of green energy sources (or at least see no significant difference in its overall growth trends), but various less-than-green industries (coal, oil, nuclear, etc.) in that sector might feel threatened by that change in the energy platform and fight changes tooth and nail and never sniff twice at their kill.
In the health industry, for companies invested in TAU (treatment as usual), there is no chance of sharing in the immediate wealth generated by Dr. Burzynski’s medicines since he alone holds the patents. Sure, if his medicines were released for national distribution and stole market share from the companies selling TAU, the health sector as a whole (or at least the FDA) might that regime change as a blip in its overall trends and bottom line. But the individual companies guarding the turf those medications encroached upon would fight that switch tooth and nail. And do not forget, those companies are the ones lined up to pay the FDA’s user fees.
But let’s say Dr. Burzynski decided to sell his patent to a large pharmaceutical company. Those companies would never sniff twice at the offer if they felt the new medications/ technologies couldn’t generate revenues comparable to those generated by their pre-existing portfolio. My reading of the literature suggests that neoplaston treatment is significantly less costly than TAU.
If it is true that the US government has patented similar chemicals and procedures that Burzynski, that may promote him out of a quack. The burzynskimovie.com has a lot of sources and documents if anyone really has that much time.
You can judge for yourselves the 100 minute video (documentary format), it is free to watch as of now: Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business (Part I) on Vimeo
That corruption is flagrant in the corporate infested government agencies, I wouldn’t be a surprised at all.
“If it is true” then you’d be able to provide evidence to that effect.
Now I’m confused. According to you the U.S. government went after Burzynski so it could promote its own antineoplaston cancer therapy (in an alternate universe apparently, since there’s no indication it ever did any such thing) but the government is simultaneously attacking the concept because it’s corrupt?
These are indeed deep waters. :dubious:
It’s deep all right, but I don’t think it’s water.
FDA has quite a long history with Burzynski. In addition to approving cancer drugs, FDA also has a mandate to ensure that patients, who receive experimental treatments (like Burzynski’s antineoplastons), are protected from exposure to agents that may be harmful.
Just go to FDA’s site and use their crappy search tool to see a sampling of the Burzynski Research Institute’s research and ethics deficiencies. Among them:
[ul]
[li]Inadequate informed consent form (violations of 21 CFR 50.25)[/li][li]Inadequate drug accountability (21 CFR 312.60, 312.62)[/li][li]Failure to follow investigational plan (21 CFR 312.60)[/li][li]Inadequate and inaccurate records (21 CFR 312.62)[/li][li]Unapproved use of drug before IND submission (21 CFR 312.40(d)), which means that he used his drug on people before he filed a plan to monitor safety and make sure that his drug is not, you know, poisonous.[/li][li]Failure to report adverse drug reactions (21 CFR 312.64, 312.66), which means that, while people are getting his therapy, he doesn’t record whether there are immediate toxic side effects or long-term consequences of taking the drug.[/li][/ul]
This is dense but Burzynski’s institute was inspected for ethics violations from his IRB. It basically says that Burzynski’s studies play fast and loose about not informing patients of the risks of their (experimental) treatment. Patients are not told of the risks, Burzynski doesn’t take any steps to minimize the risks to patients on treatment, Burzynski’s investigators have conflicts of interest, and many other violations. He thumbs his nose at the ethical standards that one can find in any other legitimate cancer clinic.
This is not even an argument about the effectiveness of antineoplastons. Burzynski and his investigators disregard ethical standards in drug development. Everyone else (who is legitimate) that does clinical therapeutics research in the USA adheres to these standards because it’s federal law.
[ul]
[li]Would you, as a cancer patient, like to know how sick you’re going to get and what else is going to happen when you take an experimental drug?[/li][li]Would you like to know what might happen to your physical health after you’ve been taking the drug for a while?[/li][li]Would you like to know whether you’re at increased risk for stroke or heart disease or other cancers after you’ve taken an experimental treatment?[/li][/ul]
Well at The Burzynski Research Institute, they don’t feel that it’s necessary to help you with those questions.
That would be helpful if it was more effective.
If neoplaston treatment was shown to be both effective and less costly than the current treatment standards, health insurance companies would save millions to billions of dollars per year by insisting that customers first attempt neoplaston treatment before moving on to more expensive drug / radiation / surgical methods. The fact that they do not in such a profit-driven industry is a strong indication that the safety and effectiveness such treatment has insufficient supporting evidence.
Can anyone comment on why the FDA would grant orphan status to Burzynski’s glioma treatments if they were really totally bunk?
I’m assuming this guy is a quack, but the granting of orphan status seems bizarre to me in the context of the FDA’s unfavorable relationship with Burzynski.
I do in fact have a family member with a glioma, and I’m trying to do some due diligence here – a family friend is really pushing this Burzynski stuff. I’m skeptical, but having a difficult time finding reliable sources (is ‘quackwatch’ really all there is?).
And try to find a way to believe it’s flat?
Have you seen this free film about Burzynski yet? As well as its huge website with a fully interactive transcript to go along with the film with all documents and sources you could ever dream of related to Burzynski?
LINK TO SEE IT FREE: Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business (Part I) on Vimeo
Quackwatch is all you got - because Quackwatch is illegitimate, with almost no sources for anything that “say” about Burzynski - there is a reason there is no sources, they, or no one—has anything on him that isn’t “rumor”.
Burzynski’s Antineoplastons have been approved for Phase 3 clinical trials, that will be conducted worldwide for: pediatric brainstem glioma (which showed a 30% cure for—5 year survival from the Phase 2 trials, Glioblastoma, Astrocytoma, Pontine Glioma, and Adrenal Cancer.
The FDA doesn’t grant “quacks” Phase 3 clinical trials for a cancer treatment. Nor is Burzynski exactly “in bed” with the FDA. They tried to place him in prison for the rest of his life in the 1990s while simultaneously trying to steal the patents for AS2-1 using the National Cancer Institute, Elan Pharmaceutical, and one of Burzynski’s own scientists together to so it.
The film has it all, with documents, NCI witnesses, the works.
This treatment is the most incredible gene-targeted therapy the world has ever seen.
I know absolutely nothing about this topic, but everyone in this thread who supports this “Doctor” joined the site this month. Interesting.
Well I just joined it about 10 minutes ago but I don’t see how that’s relevant. I don’t know if this doctor’s claims are valid or not as I’ve only been investigating him for about 30 minutes.
I will comment on my experiences and some of the points raised here.
My sister has a GBM and is being treated by some of the best doctors and facilities in the world. Those familiar with GBM research and surgery will probably be familiar with Dr. Black and Cedar’s Sinai hospital. She has undergone Phase II trial for Medi575 which was inneffective and is currently on Avastin.
Burzynski charging 7,000 to 9,000 a month is a drop in the bucket to what other treatments cost. I don’t see how he’s ‘gouging’ patients compared the big pharma. My sister’s Avastin treatments are 50,000 a treatment, twice a month. Her insurance only covers 80% so that would be 20,000 a month for a treatment. This 100,000 a month treatment has an only 29 % chance of reducing GBM tumor size and 47% of no progression. Considering the survival rate (from THE most successful treatment available) only went up from 6-7 month to 9 months this drug is pretty expensive to live an extra 2-3 months. Considering that Drug companies are some of the most profitable companies in human history, I fail to see how it is necessary to charge almost 1 million dollars to extend someones life by 2-3 months, maybe. Drug companies have a HUGE financial incentive to protect their turf. While the majority individuals in a company are rarely evil or greedy, the purpose of large corporations is to increase shareholder value. Their decisions largely reflect this as I’m sure the whole world now feels thanks to our financial institutions. I trust pharmaceutical companies with my health and well being about as much as I’d trust a hungry grizzly not to eat me if we met in the woods one day.
As far as the argument that Burzynski must be a quack since he hasn’t complied with all of the FDA procedures is a stretch considering the political pressure and red tape in a governmental agency like the FDA. None of those citations seemed all that serious especially considering the FDA chased after Burzynski in a big way for 20 years. If they were, they would have shut him down. In no way is the FDA a pillar of impartiality. Anecdotal y My father, who was an attorney in the Department of the Interior his whole career was not surprised at all that the FDA might be, well, highly pressured to go with the establishment. That’s not even considering a ‘conspiracy of Big Pharma control’ or what not.
There does seem to be some success with his phase 2 trials of the antineopastons here: Targeted therapy with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 of high-grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem glioma - PubMed It’s not as effective as Avastin but these are only phase 2 trials and there may be combined treatments that can increase those numbers.
I don’t endorse Burzynski’s treatments but so far I haven’t heard any convincing arguments against it so I will pursue my own individual investigation of the truth.
It’s relevant because those of us who frequent this site are familiar with cases where people with a dog in a race will join the site (sometimes under multiple names) and post defenses as a way of doing damage control.
And every single ‘person’ who’s supporting this guy has only posted once. In this thread. Nooo, not suspicion at all. Bah screw it, I’m reporting the lot of them for puppetry.
Well, I’m all confused again.
The FDA is a tool of the pharmaceutical industry and untrustworthy, except that they granted Burzynski orphan drug status, which confers legitimacy on him? Can’t have it both ways, folks. (“orphan drug” status or not, there still remains a dire lack of evidence that “antineoplastons” are effective cancer therapy. Getting an “orphan drug” designation is intended to aid research, and does not constitute evidence that research to date has proven anything).
Odd how nobody but Burzynski and his cohorts seem able to show that his therapy works.
Burzynski supporters have been suggesting for many years that the mere existence of “clinical trials” signifies that there is something to his “antineoplaston” claims.
*"The Burzynski trials are often offered by supporters of “alternative medicine” as examples of the imminent acceptance of the theories underlying the trials. That is, the fact that trials are being done is offered as some form of proof that the medical establishment accepts the principles on which the trials are based. This is nonsense. The FDA really doesn’t care about clinical trials as long as certain ethical and legal requirements are met - you can’t purposely harm people and there has to be a degree of informed consent. Those hated pharmaceutical companies are conducting thousands of clinical trials at any one time, but the proponents of quackery rarely suggest that this confirms the validity of science-based medicine.
A brief examination of the 72 trials suggests that there is really one trial, repeated 71 times for different cancer locations. (I did not say “types of cancer” because it seems to me that Dr Burzynski believes that there is only one form of cancer but it shows up in different places.) The method of creating a new trial is to pull the documentation for one into a word processor and change every occurrence of, e.g., “breast” to “adenoid” or “epiglottis”."*
Burzynski supporters here are either unaware of or declining to mention that his therapy was funded to the tune of about $1 million in the early to mid '90s by the National Cancer Institute for phase II (clinical) trials, which derailed after some patients experienced major side effects, drug dosage had to be lowered and Burzynski pulled out of the trials. So how is it that the Establishment is conspiring against this wonderful man but has given him gobs of money to try and prove himself? I’m confused all over again.
It’s a lot of money in either case. If the decision is made by the patient that it’s worthwhile to try to extend life for a short period, it makes more sense to me that the money is spent on something that has the ability to do that, rather than throwing it away entirely on a decades-old theory that has failed to hold water.
No, there doesn’t seem to be any success. Other than Burzynski himself, no one is finding any success whatsoever. I’m pretty sure the main requirement for phase II trials is that the remedy not kill people. In other words, you could do phase II trials of homeopathic medicine, which is also bunk.
If Burzynski’s method actually worked, he would indeed have something to fear from Big Pharma. Someone would be far more likely to kill his ass and steal his ideas for profit than to suppress them. The amount of potential money involved in selling an actual cure for all cancer is enormous. “Bill Gates + Warren Buffett” enormous.
Discalimer: all views presented here are my own and in no way reflect any edorsement by organizations that I may be a member of.
A pretty good unbiased overview of the current state of affairs regarding antineoplastons can be found on the NCI website.
From looking at this it appears that this treatment is probably more legit than most alternative medicine treatments, but it hasn’t been fully tested and may not have a useful effect. Further there are significant side effects that may mean you may be worse off after treatment than before. So I would approach this vary warily even outside of the cost involved
In order to really test the drug for effectiveness a randomized phase 3 trial would need to be preformed. (ie a trial in which some patients are treated with antineoplastons while other are treated with standard care). An attempt was made to do this in 1991 but the trial was closed due to lack of enrollment (this is very common and doesn’t really mean anything one way or another). There are a number of non-randomized trials that Burzynski himself performed and continues to perform but these can’t be used to judge the effectiveness of the drug, since there are so many other variables in patient selection and standards of care that can’t be taken into account without a randomized trial. For example patients treated by Burzynski, may be monitored more closely than other patients, or be wealthier than the average and so might perform better.
As for there being a conspiracy among the pharmaceutical companies and cancer researchers to suppress a true cure. This is ludicrous and frankly insulting. While big pharma may conceivably have an financial interest in cancer promoting cancer maintenance drugs, academic and government research organizations do not have such an incentive and are working their buts off to try to find a cure. If one were already available I’m sure we could all find more productive uses for our time. As one of my colleagues said, our goal is to put ourselves out of business.
Commendable coming from researchers at big pharma, but I doubt that sentiment is shared by the CEOs and Boards of Directors.
And that’s why the suspicion of conspiracy goes on.