Burzynski Antineoplaston Therapy/ Relation

Discussion in 'Health' started by jaguar43, May 21, 2013.

Tags:
  1. jaguar43

    jaguar43 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2012
    Messages:
    1,310
    Anyone know about this type of therapy and if ray peat has comment on it. I don't know anything technically but it seems a bit odd. Any comments would be great thank you.
     
  2. burtlancast

    burtlancast Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,601
    It's completely legit.
    So much the pharma industry has been trying hard for the past 30 years to jail him while attempting to steal his patents in his back.

    He's specializing in brain tumors. I believe he has around 40% cure rate.
    Theoretically, it works for all cancers, but i don't know much about that.

    To get his treatment officially you need first to have undergone conventional therapy and failed it.

    -Burzynski the movie- is free on youtube.

    You need to repost in the right forum section.
     
  3. OP
    jaguar43

    jaguar43 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2012
    Messages:
    1,310
    To say that people who get cancer have missing peptides and people who don't get cancer who have the peptides is obscure. I don't think cancer therapy is that simple. While watching the documentary, a women who's son got brain cancer had the tumor removed but it can back shortly even with the antineoplaston therapy. I think its just a scape goat for the fda to have someone antagonizing them, while the more in depth understanding of cancer is being outcasted.

    Besides why would burynski himself want people to go through chemo first than try his therapy. It makes no sense how laid back he is about the whole idea.

    I don't think this is directly related to ray peat, how is it in the wrong forum section.
     
  4. burtlancast

    burtlancast Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,601
    If after watching the movie you concluded it makes no sense, then i have nothing more to add...
     
  5. jyb

    jyb Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2012
    Messages:
    2,767
    Location:
    UK
    @burtlancast: I'll watch the video to know more about it. What initial cue led you to think he might be legit? When I google him, the first stories I find just reminds me of Hulda Clark and don't make me want to find out more.
     
  6. 4peatssake

    4peatssake Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2013
    Messages:
    2,055
    Hi jag2594,

    I moved the post to this section of the forum for discussions not related to Ray Peat. It was initially posted in under Ray Peat Discussion so I moved it to the appropriate section.

    No problem. When I first joined, I think Charlie had to move half my posts because I kept posting them in the wrong section of the forum. :lol:

    Welcome!
     
  7. OP
    jaguar43

    jaguar43 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2012
    Messages:
    1,310
    thanks for the heads up
     
  8. OP
    jaguar43

    jaguar43 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2012
    Messages:
    1,310
    All I'm doing is questioning the validity of the treatment itself. Ray Peats view on cancer is analogous to warburg, szent gyorgyi, and koch in that there is an ineffective oxidative metabolsim, which can lead to a less structure cell resulting in metastasis. Do you know someone who has had the therapy? I don't understand the attachment to the particular subject at hand.
     
  9. 4peatssake

    4peatssake Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2013
    Messages:
    2,055
    [​IMG]
     
  10. burtlancast

    burtlancast Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,601
    The current medical dogma of one unique illness-one unique solution has sent everyday people and many medical students the wrong path.

    When investigating alternative medecine, one discovers many different treatments claiming to cure the same illness and gets confused because the above cited mindset into believing only one of them can be right and all the others wrong.

    Some will say cancer is caused by viruses, other it's microbes, others it's chemicals, or a missing vitamin, or a mineral imbalance, an immune system deficiency, etc...

    Cancer is obviously a complex processus and certainly one can intervene at different stages of this processus to reverse it, even if he doesn't understand yet the full picture.

    That's what these different alternative researchers are doing. In order to find out which of them are legit, the only clue we have is how they go about presenting their therapy and what results they can show.

    Burzynsky has a rock solid track record in his results and medical credentials. His scientific hypotheses are sound and rational; he explained clearly how he stumbled by chance on his therapy and what hapened afterwards when he tried to bring it to the market. You don't go through a dozen grand jury indictments if you can't show results and don't have patient support.
    He has battled the medical monopoly for the past 40 years.

    Is his therapy a cure all ? Not yet...

    But it's one of the pieces in the great puzzle.
     
  11. burtlancast

    burtlancast Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,601
    Firstly, you are assuming Ray doesn't support Burzynski.

    Wrong.

    Secondly, in the doc there's dozens of cured patients offering their full support and testimonies, one after the other, toegether with their official medical history.
    You think they all lie through their teeths ?

    Sometimes, the truth is so simple and blattant, people can't recognise it when it stares at them directly in the face.
     
  12. 4peatssake

    4peatssake Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2013
    Messages:
    2,055
    It's apparently not Burzynski but the FDA that is forcing him to treat patients to whom "conventional" (read, life destroying) treatment failed.

    That in itself gives his method legitimacy in my view.

    From http://butterbeliever.com/what-would-you-do-if-you-got-cancer/

     
  13. burtlancast

    burtlancast Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,601
    Burzynski has become even a bigger target for destruction now that his doc has been out.
    It's quite an extraordinary piece of work if one has still any illusions about the lack of any morality in the cancer establishment.

    Worth it's time too is an awesome interview by Mercola of Jim Navarro, the father of the little child Burzynski tried to help.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ezc61Lt4kmw
     
  14. OP
    jaguar43

    jaguar43 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2012
    Messages:
    1,310
    Do you have the email that you sent Peat, I would like to see what he says.

    I never said he was a liar or his treatment did not work, all I said was I would like more information on his treatment. I think I heard one lady who said that when she was diagnosis with cancer she research for alternative views, and she never did chemo or radiation. Who knows how some people pay for the treatment because I assume that any healthcare would not pay for it and heard it was expensive.

    He seem promote a genetic theory of cancer which ray peat is against, his son says in the interview that depending on the genes it would result on the treatment. He also recommends chemo for some cancer. Here is the link

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXf7r4VB ... DD7D15EFA5
     
  15. OP
    jaguar43

    jaguar43 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2012
    Messages:
    1,310
    In the documentary burzynski advise cancer patients to keep going with the chemo and to be patient. I am not sure why he would say that, because getting chemo would probably lower your chances of surviving burzynski therapy. take a look at the interview, it basically standard. They use both aspirin and/or chemo depend on your genes.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXf7r4VB ... DD7D15EFA5
     
  16. rjblaskiewicz

    rjblaskiewicz New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2013
    Messages:
    1
    Howdy.

    I have "antineoplastons" as one of my automated google search terms, and I saw a discussion going on here over the last few days. I thought I would jump in and let you know what I know.

    What Burzynski has given the trade name antineoplastons are metabolic byproducts of an orphaned prodrug called sodium phenylbutyrate (PB), which is sold by a Swedish outfit under the name "Buphenyl." An orphan drug is one that is generally not economically viable for companies to produce, so there may be government incentives to produce it. A prodrug is one that needs to be metabolized before the drug becomes active, so PB breaks down in the liver into phenylacetate and phenylacylglutamine. It was a drug developed in the 1950s to treat urea cycle disorders.

    Burzynski sells PB in pill form and what it breaks down into in IV form as chemotherapy (antineoplastons are chemotherapy by any reasonable definition). Some undisputed facts:
    1) while many causes of cancers have been discovered, including various chemicals, ionizing radiation (not non-ionizing radiation like cell phones, radio, and microwaves--the wavelengths of those aren't the right ones to knock out electrons and cause bad chemistry to happen in your DNA), and genetics, a lack of antineoplastons (ANP) has never been identified by anyone as a cause of cancer. It simply hasn't. Why "replacing" "missing" ones should have anything to do with cancer is not established. So the theory behind the treatment is already shaky.
    2) Burzynski has over 60 trials of ANP registered at clinicaltrials.gov, all but one phase II. If his trial completion rate were a batting average, he'd be batting .015. Most medical labs bat around .800 (sometimes you can't get enough patients to fill a study). His publication record for studies is .000.
    3) Why so many studies? Well, according to a plea deal in the 1990s, he can only sell ANP in a clinical trial.

    Suddenly, it really looks like he has no incentive to finish these studies and is not interested in bringing it to market especially as it costs $30,000 to start up one of his trials. Charging people to enter clinical trials is actually rather rare. There are a few cases where it's generally permissible that a drug developer might charge, but Burzynski's case not one of them.

    The patient survivors. The last time I checked the Burzynski Patient Group, it had about 60 people in it. Last year it had 120 or so, but half of them have been removed. Someone with a growing numbers of grateful survivors should not have a shrinking survivors' group. Many of the current survivors are from the original version of the group. You can verify that using the wayback machine, which I love. :) So, in all the years that group has been up, it's grown by a couple dozen in total. When you consider the 1000s of patients that Burzynski has treated--I'd say around 10,000 based on what patients have been told, his survival rate is far beneath the average 2% spontaneous remission rate that we expect from cancers.

    Well, what about the movie? Well, I'm glad you asked. :) Simply put, the filmmaker is scientifically illiterate. The impression I have is that he was handed a bunch of patient files and didn't know how to read them. Some interesting things pop out if you slow the movie down and look at the patient records. 1) Most if not all of the patients have had some prior treatment--chemo and radiation may have a biological effect (for good or ill) for months after the last dose. How do we know that it wasn't prior treatment and scar tissue misidentified as tumor relapse being mistaken for cures? Or that remission rate? Or the guided meditation? Or the homeopathy? Or the any number of other treatments that patients have tried? Well, you do the controlled trials to separate the background noise from the real signal....that Burzynski has never done, even though small startups that don't charge patients have brought their cancer drugs to market in far less time and under patent. That's worrisome. 2) The tumor responses do not seem to track with dosage or time on therapy, which is what you would expect in a drug response. Something else seems to be working, but the filmmaker doesn't even know he should be looking at this stuff.

    The problem with looking at survivors' stories is that they don't mean anything outside of the context of the people who did not make it. And if you focus on the 60 people who lived, you don't see the 9,940 who died, who paid to be in trials that were never finished. I would call that a massive betrayal of patient trust, maybe unprecedented.

    So, we have off-label toxic orphaned drugs being repackaged to treating an unproved cause of cancer at high cost in apparently unpublishable studies with few stories of survivors that could just be part of the background noise. This is the Burzynski Clinic.

    Oh, also a year ago they threatened a dissatisfied pancreatic cancer patient at home with phone calls and legal threats. His name's Wayne Merritt. Good doctors don't threaten cancer patients.

    Do I trust the FDA? No. Do I trust pharmaceutical companies? No. Do I trust the science? You betcha. If you are interested in how the place works, I (and a friend or two) have been collecting the stories that don't get told at theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com. We have about 50 stories up. We tell the stories in the patients' own words (with links so you can double check us) and what they reveal when put together....it's a horror show. An absolute abomination. We've been running since the beginning of the year and have accumulated over 550 stories that we are putting up one at a time. (Hey, we have day jobs too!) Their shady business practices can be seen most clearly in the stories of Denise D, Wayne M, and Kathy B.

    I hope this clarifies things.

    Bob
     
  17. burtlancast

    burtlancast Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,601
    :lol: :lol: :lol:

    It does indeed clarify things...
    but probably not in the way you intended.
     
  18. OP
    jaguar43

    jaguar43 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2012
    Messages:
    1,310

    Hey bob, I am really impressed about the research you have done, you did an excellent job on your website .I always knew that there was something fishy about his clinic and how the movie provide a wrong perspective on the truth. I always believed that the FDA would never always a true cure for cancer on the big screen. But in fairness we still must respect burzynski, he has help patients though the truth was far more embellished.

    I am not sure if you think that alternative methods do not have a place in the health ( which is my we are here). But it sounds like you approve of the mainstream treatment for cancer. Ray Peat forum is based on his research and his references, I think you may appreciate some of his articles.
     
  19. burtlancast

    burtlancast Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,601
    Here's a terrific interview lasting 2 hours with the main protagonists of the 2 Burzynski movies, including the realisator, Eric Merola.

    It's clearly shown the best results are obtained when the patients have not used chemo or radiation before taking the antineoplastons.

    There's too some excellent segments where Merola settles the score with the "Skeptics Group" that has been harrassing him since he made his movies.

    Merola is a New Yorker who knew about Burzynski more than 10 years ago: when he recently came down with cancer himself, he was cured with antineoplastons. Working in the movie business, but not a rich man by any means, he has invested his last penny to produce these documentaries.

    There's too the male model Fabio, former spokesman for the cancer society during the nineties, who made a 180 degrees turn after seeing his 44 years old sister being nearly killed by doctors treating her ovarian cancer ( he took her from her death bed and brought her to the Burzynski clinic, where she was cured).

    First hour:
    [BBvideo 560,340:3tx1vu2d]http://youtu.be/zfZW8YVya0c[/BBvideo]

    Second hour:
    [BBvideo 560,340:3tx1vu2d]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuNr06BuXkk[/BBvideo]
     
  20. Ella

    Ella Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2012
    Messages:
    646
    It would be interesting to get Peat's opinion on phenylbutyrate since it conjugates amino acids possessing two nitrogens. Peat favours keto-acids from potato juice and fruits in mopping up and recycling ammonia. I remember someone asked him about sodium benzoate which is touted by most alt health practitioners as being problematic. Peat did not think that is was. Phenylbutyrate reacts with glutamine more effective than sodium benzoate which conjugate single nitrogen amino acids.

    Many people underestimate the benefits of the potato juice and we tend to get side-tracked (I know I do) with the starch particles and their potential to presorb into the fine capillaries.

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/12/12/what-dr-stanislaw-burzynski-doesnt-want/

    I'll continue drinking my daily potato juice with gusto.

    Phenylbutyrate, Sodium Benzoate

    Phenylacetylglutamine | C13H16N2O4 - PubChem

    Specific rotation of phenylacetylglutamine excreted by cancer patients and normal subjects. - PubMed - NCBI

    Phenylacetylglutamine | C13H16N2O4 - PubChem

    I think it is time to revisit the Urea Cycle to understand how it relates to a Peat perspective.

    UREA CYCLE