I am really just asking this to get an idea of what people think of him. I will not bother telling you all what I believe. Mainly I want to know if you think he is legitimate and why or why not? And where do you get your information from.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
What Is Your Opinion Of Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski And Antineoplastons?
I am really just asking this to get an idea of what people think of him. I will not bother telling you all what I believe. Mainly I want to know if you think he is legitimate and why or why not? And where do you get your information from.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Moderate Somber - Unless it ends up being a franchise and keeps itself from becoming just another clinic, it has potential. His antineoplastons approach still has a long way to go in matters of research before it can obtain the acceptance of the medical community. However, it has crossed some initial barriers and as I recall reading it has entered phase III of FDA (HHS) clinical trials.
ReplyDeleteapril - The only thing he'll cure you of is your money.
ReplyDeleteYou really should read this: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/burzynski.htm
Real clinical trials are not charged to the patient, however in his "trial" you pay out your butt. They aren't real trials, but since he calls them that, he can get away with it. Treated 8000 people; how many are successes???
In 1993, the National Cancer Institute sponsored clinical trials to investigate the antitumor potential of antineoplastons in patients with brain tumors (4). The trials were closed two years later as poor patient accrual precluded conclusions about the efficacy of the treatment. A Mayo clinic study found no benefit (1). Presently, clinical trials using antineoplastons as an investigational drug for various cancers are underway at the Burzynski Research Institute in Houston, Texas
http://www.mskcc.org/mskcc/html/69121.cfm
Tarkarri - At this stage there is nothing to indicate his treatment is successful. It is just his theory.
ReplyDeleteThey are undergoing trials - I believe they have passed the trial that shows it does no harm so are now able to test it on willing human subjects.
Personally I would not take part in such a trial unless I had been unable to find an approved treatment for my condition. I do not believe that there should be any charge for experimental procedures and I understand there are substantial costs to take part in his trials. This gives me a low opinion of the man.
thinkingtime - It's a scam.
ReplyDeleteJLI - Stanislaw Burzynski treats patients at a private clinic using what he terms antineoplastons, mixtures of peptides, amino acids, and other simple organic substances that are said to promote the body’s natural defenses against cancer. Although he has published several studies of his own, these are of a rather unclear design.
ReplyDeleteAnd it isn’t cheap either. Generally, Burzynski's patients pay a $6,000 deposit before beginning treatment. Technically, the drug itself is free because it's only used under Phase II trials, but patients pay for incidentals, including consultations, supplies and classes on how to administer the drug. This runs about $7,500-$9,000 a month — out of pocket.
In 1998, Paul Goldberg, editor of The Cancer Letter, a D.C.-based newsletter covering cancer research and drug approval, investigated Burzynski's claims up to that point. He asked three renowned and independent researchers to examine Burzynski's scientific protocols — all three said they could not make sense of the data, saying it did not resemble any commonly accepted models. The article is shown unedited here: http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski2.html It is not enough to be persecuted to be a genius. You also have to be right.
A Phase II trial in glioma conducted under the auspices of the National Cancer Institute http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/content/74/2/137.abstract?keytype2=tf_ipsecsha&ijkey=eaf21226703b21cd709dbd7acd5a8e48c199f2aa was halted due to poor accrual, after Burzynski failed to agree with the investigators on possible expansion of the eligibility criteria. Nine patients were accrued, six of whom were able to be evaluated for response. There were no objective responses, and all six showed evidence of tumor progression after treatment durations of between 16 to 66 days. The mean time to treatment failure (progression or discontinuation due to toxicity) was 29 days. All nine patients died before the study closed, all but one death being due to tumor progression. Although the authors of the article claimed that the small sample size precluded "definitive conclusions," the results of the patients in the trial are clearly extremely disappointing.