Phase II trials do look at efficacy in a limited number of patients. No such trial has vindicated “antineoplastons” as effective cancer therapy. Studies in general are not convincing.
“These studies reported mixed results, including some cancer remissions (signs and symptoms of cancer decreased or went away). Other investigators have not been able to obtain the same results reported by Dr. Burzynski and his team. Some of the patients in the reported studies received standard treatments in addition to the antineoplastons. In those cases, it is not known if responses and side effects were caused by antineoplaston therapy, the other treatments, or both. One additional independent report (a study from Japan) was completed but does not have the same findings as the Burzynski report.”
Yes, because as everyone knows, CEOs and directors of pharmaceutical companies never get cancer, or any incurable chronic illness currently managed with drugs. Nor do members of their families, friends, or other people they care about. They’re all immune to such diseases, or privy to Secret Cures that They Don’t Want You To Know About.
I have one question about this. How come he able to offer his treatment to real paid patients even though the research on his treatments appears to be, at best, incomplete. I’m assuming a traditional drug co. would never be able to this, right ? Isn’t the point of the FDA to stop this happening ?
Is this some kind of loop hole where he’s doing “research”, in the same way Japanese Whalers say they “researching” whale populations. And if so, do other drug companies do this ?
Of course they don’t really want to “put themselves out of business,” but it’s hard to imagine anybody in a closed room saying, “well, we could easily cure cancer, establish our company as the most effective medical research group of the past fifty years at least, and wind up with the patents for what will become the most-sought treatment for years to come. But instead, I think we should maintain status quo, and just hope no other company releases the ‘cure’ that renders our maintanance drugs purposeless.'”
The treatment is being offered as part of clinical trials. As such, it’s only available when standard treatments aren’t effective or the patient’s individual case appears unlikely to respond to existing treatments.
It’s not the same as the whaling loophole, since there are trials going on, but I think the criticism is that the trial methodology here is poor and that Burzynski appears to be ignoring evidence and following a bad lead.
Thanks for starting this thread. In ten days, when my imbecilic Uncle John sends me stuff about how Big Pharma is suppressing this, I’ll know what he’s talking about.
FYI: I’m a researcher at a public institution not private, so I don’t have any connections to big Pharma. My point was that it if there was a cure I and my colleagues would have no incentive not to tout it in spite of the wishes of big pharma.
If the profit level of the cure is 1/100 the level of the maintenance, those bottom-line watchers are going to go maintenance every time. Leads one to believe that medical research ought not be done by any for profit organization.
Not all cancer research is done by for-profit organizations. Why would a non-profit organization collaborate in suppressing a cure for cancer?
Besides, think of the kind of publicity that Drug Company A could get if they could prove that their competitor, Drug Company B, had suppressed a cure for cancer because it wouldn’t be profitable enough. Then, of course, Company A sells the cure for cancer, and makes lots of money. People who heard about Company B’s suppression of the cure for cancer switch from B’s drugs to A’s for other conditions, and A makes even more money. They make more money, and cripple a competitor. It sounds like that is very much in Company A’s interests to do.
Because the leaders of such organizations are just like the top executives of Big Pharma - they’re sociopaths, and suicidal sociopaths to boot, since they also are denying themselves, their friends and loved ones the kazillion cheap, safe cures for cancer and other chronic disease we could already have if it wasn’t for their suicidal sociopathy.
Those guys have ‘smart rich guy connections’.
And they’re already rich.
If that boat sank, they’d be CEOs somewhere else before the unemployment checks stopped coming.
Seriously? If any of them knew about a real, no-fooling, wipes-it-out permanent cure for a type of cancer (or even a decent-enough cure), they’d get it into production so fast it’d make your head spin. Why? That would bring them huge profits and attention through investors. Their stock prices would soar. The best researchers would want to work at that company. The most renowned hospitals would want to do research with them. Meanwhile there would still be hundreds, thousands of other forms of cancer out there - not to mention lupus, HIV, diabetes, and a crapload of other stubborn diseases that we control with varying degrees of success or not - for the pharma companies to work on and make maintenance meds for until there are cures.
There is no such thing as cancer as a single entity. Similar mechanism, wildly varying effects and causes and treatments.
Why is it always cancer, anyway? We’ve only fully wiped out smallpox from the planet - er, barring that store of the virus - and yet I never hear anyone gripe about how pharma companies are suppressing the cure for the common cold to keep us buying their meds.
Meanwhile, I’ll point out the Nobel Prize-winning geneticist Howard Temin, who worked at my alma mater until his death from (not-smoking-related) lung cancer in 1994. He received his Nobel Prize for his work in discovering reverse transcriptase when studying how tumor viruses affect cells. I’m pretty goddamned sure that no sane medical researcher would suppress a conspiracy to cover up cancer treatments when they, their spouse, their kids, their parents, are dying of cancer. That requires hundreds of thousands of people to stay quiet and blithely watch loved ones die, or die themselves, all for money.
Full disclosure: I work in medical research (but ophthalmic, not oncological) at a medical center, at the point where treatments are being tested or compared on patients. I work for the medical center, not a pharma company. I have worked on research from pharma companies, the federal government, and grants. The vast majority of pharmaceutical research is also overseen by independent monitoring companies who regularly visit sites to monitor the data, and if I’m not mistaken, a lot of research hides even from the companies which patient is getting placebo vs. the study drug until after data analysis. This helps avoid the chance of “cooking” the data in either direction.
You people have run wild with this - I was attempting to speak for the conspiracy theorists, sort of supposing what I thought was their mindset. I am not one.
I highly doubt there are behind closed door meetings about suppressing cures or anything along those lines. What I do think happens is that the underlying purpose of any company is to increase profits. Over a large number of small decisions on avenues of research, funding, investigation, etc. by executives, researches, and administrators the trend will be to choose more economically favorable and/or traditional treatment research over research that is ‘outside the box’. The more economically tenuous research has a much lower chance to get all the rubber stamps it needs to move forward at a for-profit company.
Furthermore, for both profit and non-profits there is a bias, no matter how well intentioned, to stay on the traditional line of research. For the most part there is good reason to follow tried and tested processes. However, it’s those who test the boundaries of convention who usually make the major breakthroughs and paradigm shifts. If there is truly systems that basically don’t allow small companies or individuals to follow these avenues of research without plugging into the BigPharma juggernaught to get FDA approval for clinical trials this is a bad thing in my opinion. That the leadership of the FDA is populated by a large majority of BigPharma executives is a problem. Shouldn’t it be run by less biased scientists dedicated to holding the scientific method above corporate interests? It also goes against what has made America a leader in innovation. Is the Wild Wild West moving to China and India? A stretch right now maybe but it’s that calcification of Science and Research ideology in Europe in the last 2 centuries that allowed the US to race ahead. MIT and it’s sister institutions in the US took chances the Royal Society became unable to based on it’s established preconceptions.
Except that as previously pointed out, Burzynski has gotten a ton of research money from “plugging into” the conventional research system ($1 million from the National Cancer Institute) to try to prove his theories, only to see that effort crash when he pulled out of the study. He’s also run numerous (flawed) clinical trials which were permissible under the current system and which allowed him to prescribe his “antineoplastons”. And he got “orphan drug” research status from the FDA. So how again is it that the Man is holding poor Stan Burzynski down?
Cite? Here’s a list of present and past FDA commissioners. A random sampling of people on that list shows individuals with distinguished careers in academic medicine and public health, not people named because of executive status at Big Pharma firms.
Good question. Is the Chinese medical system, with its dubious safety record owing to drug adulteration, reliance on “traditional” unproven remedies etc. a model for what you’d like to see in the U.S.?
Novel concepts can and do attract interest and research efforts (just Google “novel cancer therapy” for a host of other projects). Many great-sounding ideas and therapy strategies have not panned out, after considerable effort and expense was poured into them. In Burzynski’s case, you’d think that after 20 years or so of messing around and no good evidence that his treatment is effective against cancer, it’d be time to pull the plug in favor of more promising avenues of research.
Thanks for those Citings. Burzynski does seem like a loose cannon and at least his personality quarks don’t led him a lot of credibility. This discussion raises bigger issues though.
As far as China, my thoughts were more in line with China and India pouring disproportionately large resources into funding innovative research and the trend of young university graduates and even established scientists who came to the US to study and work to return to their native countries because of the opportunities there. Maybe that means Burzynski will move back to his native land himself ;).
Seriously though I can’t speak on the specific health care differences but as a small manufacturer, the Chines are starting to pull ahead not only on manufacturing ability but quality and technology. We produce most of our products locally and try to source as much as we can here but there simply isn’t some of the tools in the US that the Chinese are rapidly exploiting. My concern is this will be the case with medical research soon and how do we maintain our edge while balancing protection against irresponsible research with, in my opinion, a calcified regulatory body?
While the Chinese medical system is struggling with severe problems related to access and tainted drugs, I have doubts about the legitimacy and significance of Chinese medical research.
Plagiarism, bribery and falsification of data are reported rampant in China. In the area of “non-mainstream” medical research (i.e. herbalism and traditional Chinese medicine treatments), it has been noted that an extremely high percentage of research published in China finds such modalities effective, compared to Western studies where a far lower percentage validate them. Overemphasis on publishing positive results plagues a number of medical journals, but Chinese journals seem especially susceptible to this problem.
We are not immune to these difficulties in the U.S. either. The FDA is placed in the position of balancing the need for caution about highly touted new treatments as opposed to being too slow to approve potentially life-saving drugs and treatemnts. As an example, the agency has gotten criticism over the use of Avastin for breast cancer, previously approved by the agency on the basis of preliminary research; approval was rescinded after later studies found no significant benefits and serious side effect risks. On the one hand critics say the agency is “calcified” and overcautious; and on the other hand that they’re in the pocket of Big Pharma and too quick to approve drugs.
Not an enviable job.
Since the Chinese in your view are poised to outdo us in medical research, maybe Burzynski could appeal to them for research funding or a license to sell his “antineoplastons” over there (assuming his income opportunities are insufficient in America :dubious:).
:eek::dubious: