Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: thesearethetimes...
My mom has glioblastoma multiforme and we looked into Dr. Burzynski. I did a lot of research. There is no way I would let my mom or any other love one get treated by him.

There are many many people out there willing to fleece cancer patients. Dr. Burzynski isn't a complete quack (he not only treats his patients with his miracle “cure” but he also uses cutting edge chemotherapy). Maybe he even believes his own hype. However, there are HUGE ethical problems with how he operates. You don't here about the many people he has taken for everything they are worth before they died because, well, they aren't around to complain.

If you are a cancer patient you should go look at one of the big research centers like MD Anderson or Duke. Not some guy operating out of a strip mall in Katy, TX. 1. He doesn't tell patients that if he treats them that makes them ineligible for other major medical research studies. He doesn't explain their other options, and by his actions removes these options for them. For instance, there are some very promising cancer vaccines but you can't take them if you have been treated by Dr. Burzynski. Depending on your cancer you will want to get into a phase II study with Avastin (Bevacizumab), XL184, BSI-201, dasatanib, dasatanib/erlotinib combo, tandutinib, vaccine therapy, etc. Dr. Burzynski knowingly removes these options for people.

2. He talks as if all these other cancer researchers want patients to die. “They” want to have to radiate little kids. “They” want them to have to take harmful chemo pills. I know MANY people in the field personally and professionally and they have dedicated their lives to helping people.

3. There are NO randomized studies that show his methods are effective. The patients that he has that recover are *also treated with a standard regimen*. He cherry picks the good cases to report as anecdotal evidence. He has had 30+ years to show success with randomized, research studies. I think the problem is he can't because it doesn't really work better than placebo. He has treated thousands of patients. With glioblastoma some small percentage (50 a year?) are cured. We don't know why or how. But I can make any treatment look good by random chance because of that fact.

4. His “antineoplastons” are distillates of human urine. They are just short protein / amino acid chain. He decided this was the “cure” to cancer 30 years ago and hasn't really changed his approach since then as far as I can tell. Nothing he is doing is a big secret. This conspiracy crap is absurd, there is HUGE money to be made in curing cancer and this research has been public knowledge for 30 years. If it worked we would know about it.

5. His PhD is very questionable... first of all, it really is a “D.Msc” - as far as I can tell is short for “Doctorate of Metaphysics”. I originally assumed it was “Doctorate of Medical Science”, BUT, I have found no one using “D.Msc” for that and people using it for Metaphysics. Maybe he wants us to assume that? I have no idea what school it is from. At any rate, his M.D. was in 1967. His “PhD” is from 1968 - and by his own admission he did no independent research while in Medical School. I know some M.D. / PhDs. They did 6-7 years of research *independently* from their M.D. for their PhD. I think his claiming a PdH is baloney. He claims he is singled out for persecution and that these other doctors are all in bed with the big pharmaceuticals, blah blah blah. Well, maybe if you stopped lying about your education...

6. There are some scary stuff in the published results of his patients. His treatment itself can be harmful. In one study I looked at 1.5% of patients died from elevated levels of blood sodium!?! (They “didn't follow his recommended fluid intake instructions”?)

-paridel

20 posted on 06/12/2011 1:32:49 PM PDT by Paridel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Paridel
With glioblastoma some small percentage (50 a year?) are cured.

I just want to point out that I don't mean 50 a year are cured by him, but overall in the US.

-paridel
21 posted on 06/12/2011 1:36:06 PM PDT by Paridel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: Paridel

Paridel,
Thank you very much for your extensive reply. That is what I was looking for here, and happily, almost always find - another point of view, and usually it is well supported.

I do wonder about why it is that being treated by Dr. Burzynski disallows a patient from being treated by any one else? It is unconscionable that the medical establishment would in any sense , punish a patient for trying something in such a life ending scenario. It would seem that, in my view, that some one is may still be trying to put this doctor out of business. Interesting too, since they have patented his procedures? (Question mark since all I know is what I learned in the documentary).

Again, thank you for your response, and I pray that you and your mom can find an effective treatment that will help her, and soon.

May God bless.
Tatt


24 posted on 06/12/2011 1:52:07 PM PDT by thesearethetimes... ("Courage, is fear that has said its prayers." DorothyBernard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: Paridel

Thank you for your detailed “rebuttal” to the film. It always helps to hear both sides of an issue.

When trying to evaluate a technical issue like this, we laymen need to fall back on the style of the arguments being made as much as the technical details that we have a limited capability to understand.

Why attack Dr. Burzynski instead of his research? If he was indeed fleecing his patients, or lacked proper credentials to practice medicine, he would have been striped of his license long ago, given the harassment he has received from the FDA and the Texas medical Board. Why on earth does it matter if a doctor practices out of a strip mall instead of a posh building subsidized by the taxpayer? Bringing up these things dilutes your message.

What I find most compelling about the film is that the FDA agreed to go ahead with trials only after the U.S. Government had obtained patents on the treatment. It certainly smells of a conflict of interest.

Best wishes to your Mom. I hope her treatment is successful.


27 posted on 06/12/2011 2:24:39 PM PDT by BigBobber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: Paridel

You saved me the time to type up a reply. When my son was battling medulloblastoma a few years ago, I researched Burzynski’s methods extensively, and concluded it was quackery. Dangerous quackery. And believe me, we were willing to try almost anything. (In fact, we did try some things that may have been a little wacky.)

I will say a prayer for your mom - terrible disease.


32 posted on 06/12/2011 3:12:42 PM PDT by PhatHead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: Paridel
From Quackwatch: Stanislaw Burzynski and "Antineoplastons"
34 posted on 06/12/2011 3:19:34 PM PDT by Zakeet (The difference between the Wee Wee and a battery ... the battery has a positive side)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: Paridel

Burzynski’s claim to a Ph.D. is questionable. When investigated:

* An official from the Ministry of Health in Warsaw informed me that
when Burzynski was in school, medical schools did not give a Ph.D.
[1].
* Faculty members from at the Medical Academy at Lubin informed me
that Burzynski received his D.Msc. in 1968 after completing a
one-year laboratory project and passing an exam [2] and that he
had done no independent research while in medical school [3].
* In 1973, when Burzinski applied for a federal grant to study
“antineoplaston peptides from urine,” he identified himself as
“Stanislaw Burzynski, M.D, D.Msc.” [4]

http://www.health-forums.com/alt-support-cancer-prostate/stanislaw-r-burzynski-2-a-53760.html


52 posted on 06/14/2011 12:18:42 PM PDT by wolfdogged
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson