I had to figure out a Low Dose Naltrexone dose for a dog not too long ago.
A quick look at the doses people said their Vets were prescribing was a bit confusing, as the doses being prescribed were equal to – or bigger than – what is recommended for people. But… people were reporting succcesses with those doses.
After checking out the data that I could find in the literature for the blood levels and metabolism of naltrexone in dogs and people, I think I understand why those doses work.
Dogs’ livers break down naltrexone MUCH faster than peoples’ livers. So, it takes a bigger dose than you would think necessary to get blood levels that are equivalent to what you have when people take the doses that are recommended for them.
In fact, dogs’ livers chew up naltrexone so fast that it probably becomes impossible to maintain adequate blood level profiles in dogs much bigger than a cocker spaniel with a single dose.
The theoretically based graph pasted below illustrates this effect.
The Series 1 line is the blood concentration for a ‘normal’ sized person plotted against hours on the x-axis…
The lines for Series 2, 3, and 4 are blood concentration levels for increasing doses of naltrexone in a cocker spaniel sized dog.
Notice that the blood concentration level curves fall below the human profile curve for all doses somewhere between 3 and 4 hours after administration.
Basically, what this graph shows is that dogs’ livers deactivate naltrexone so quickly that you just can’t get a reasonable Low Dose Naltrexone dose that will give a human-like plasma level curve in dogs larger than a cocker spaniel.
So, what can we do?
If I had a large dog I would dose them with a normal ’human’ dose two times every evening, with the second dose being given around two and a half hours after the first. If possible, dose titration to effect would be desirable. (in other words, you might have to increase your doses in some predictable manner if the original doses don’t work)
But, you often don’t have time to do this kind of work. In those cases you’ll just have to dose as described and hope the dose is ok.
Too big a dose and it won’t work. Too small and it won’t work either. Keep this concept in mind. If you increase your doses and don’t see an effect think about your doses for a second. They might be too big.
Print this posting out and take it to your Vet. He will understand what I am talking about.
Hope this helps.
Again, remember… I am not a physician. Just a pharmacist telling you what the literature shows. Always seek professional advice from your physician, care giver, or veteranarian… as applicable…
I get a lot of posts from who knows who trying to restate what I’ve said about Dr Burzynski and his antineoplaston treatments.
I have no idea what their agenda is, or for whom they’re posting. But, I leave the posts on the site because this site is dedicated to providing balanced information to people.
From time-to-time I also provide links to people’s work that I feel is relevant.
The Doctor whose blog I provide a link to below is one whose work I frequently read and respect. Even if I don’t agree with his dedication to the ‘goodness’ of our current system.
But I think the post at this web address clearly defines the counterpoint to Dr Burzynski’s claims.
So, I post it here as a counterpoint for those who are considering Dr Burzynski.
My respect for this physician’s works and point of view does not in any way change my position and observations about Burzynski’s treatments.
And I remind you that this site is not dedicated to hyping Dr Burzynski’s treatments, instead having posted upon it many other therapies that I believe have merit.
I receive a lot of e-mail and comments.
I do not delete any of them if they are serious posts… Regardless of whether the author agrees with me or not.
Some are relevent enough to be posted as part of a blog posting of their own.
Some are particularly offensive to me.
This comment from ‘John’ is really offensive. But I think his questions should be answered in public… Just to set the record straight.
‘Steve, is Burzynski paying you? A very detailed anecdote along the Burzynski party line with overt appeals to emotion? Sounds totally legitimate to me (sarcasm). How convenient for the Burzynski clinic that this “woman” shares their opinions AND knows how to express those opinions with all of the polished diction of a Burzynski shill. Oh my, did I just say that? She’s certainly not a shill, no, no, certainly not. Couldn’t be. She’s an anonymous woman who sent you a long, detailed email about her experience with the Burzynski clinic AND who’
1. No, I am not paid by Dr Burzynski. I have no relationship to him or his organization. In fact, my wife died in October without the benefit of his treatments because I could not afford them, and no accommodation could be worked out despite the fact that I had excellent insurance and my wife had been told before we traveled to his clinic that we could work something out.
2. I clearly noted at the top of the posting that you are so upset about that I did not vouch for this person’s authenticity. But her posting did relate the cost and other details that I often get questions about, and I clearly stated this was the case. To refresh your memory, this is what I said:
‘This parent’s post answers many of the questions I see coming in… I do not know her, and do not guarantee what she says is true… but the facts about costs etc.. are true as far as I know. Hope you find this useful…’
Seems pretty straight forward to me.
3. I believe Dr Burzynski’s treatments work for some patients. In fact, I personally observed one who had experienced a remission of stage 4 prostate cancer that simply does not occur naturally.
4. I also believe that there are several treatment options detailed in other postings on this site that are at least as effective for some patients, and I urge patients to seriously consider them.
5. I maintain this website with no financial assistance from anywhere. Readers are welcome to believe in what is detailed or not. I strongly believe they will live longer and better if they integrate some of the treatment options I discuss into their therapy regimens.
6. So, now we get to you… Why the f_ck do you care whether people go to Dr Burzynski or not? Who’s paying you? I think that’s a question readers must ask themselves…
This parent’s post answers many of the questions I see coming in… I do not know her, and do not guarantee what she says is true… but the facts about costs etc.. are true as far as I know. Hope you find this useful…
I have a baby being treated with Antineoplastoms right now. I choose to remain anonymous because I do not want people to bother us or use her as an example. I actually hate seeing threads like this, so i am posting the truth for anyone who cares to read this. The treatments are working for her. Her brain tumor is shrinking and it is stunning. Our options were to do surgery and chemo. Chemo has not proven to work either, surgery would severely limit her. Most chemo doesn’t even penetrate the brain.Then what if the tumor grows back after surgery because they usually do? I have a sick, physically and mentally impaired child with a brain tumor. I had to try this no matter the cost. We only prepared to pay for 2-3 months at first. If the treatment doesn’t work after 2 months then you need to try something else and they will not even let you continue if it’s not working. We are now on 4 months. You can expect 25,000 – 30,000 the first month. This includes MRI and port surgery which you can get done at home and not have to pay. It also includes seeing a doctor everyday, getting nurse training for about 3 hours a day, and all the supplies. You have to pay for IV bags, tubing, saline flushes, dressing change kits etc… These things are not free and seeing a doctor everyday costs money too. People do not realize how much you are trained and you case is reviewed. It would cost more than that anywhere else. Her brain biopsy and week in the hospital was 3x that. Now home, we get charged 7600 a month. They billed our insurance but they do not have electronic billing, so the insurance takes forever to build claims. Our actual bill is more than 7600 but that is what we pay. $395 a day for maintenance – doctors review our case and call us daily, plus all the supplies. Antineoplastoms are not charged and they ship them every two weeks. If insurance does not end up paying, we are not responsible for the additional charges. You have to get MRIs every 6-8 weeks and have a local doctor that agrees to help you. He/she has to give you an evaluation visit and reports to the clinic once a month, you never need to return to the clinic. We have several doctors and nurses helping us. Lots of people are involved in our baby’s care. We have regular blood tests and do our visits to make sure she is healthy and can stay on treatment . When the tumor is gone, complete response, they keep you on a lighter dose that includes the oral PB for 8 months because they say 8 months seems to be the appropriate amount of time for the tumor to not come back. IV Antineoplastons are for brain tumors. Oral PB and sometimes tiny doses of chemo are used for other cancers. Both of these treatments work to make cells and genes do what they are supposed to do without killing good healthy ones. If your gene is covered in the Antineoplastons, you are very fortunate. Sometimes brain stem tumors are too tricky to treat because the ANP makes the tumor swell a little before it starts to shed cells, that’s another reason why not everyone can use it. The brain stem can’t always take anymore swelling. I made a friend while I was at the clinic. We kept in touch after we left. She was put on PB for lymphoma and her cancer was gone in 4 weeks. She had a little bit of diarrhea as her only side effect, but maybe that was all the Mexican food, who knows but it sure beats chemo. IV Antineoplaston side effects are extreme thirst and tiredness. My baby drinks about a liter of water a day. The tiredness adjusted after a day or two and she just takes an extra hour nap. It is not an easy treatment, it is constant and rigorous. We are tired and always wondering what she is feeling. We are so glad she is not suffering the ill effects of chemo and surgery. I wish this treatment could be tried by all these kids with brain tumors. They deserve the chance to at least try what won’t hurt them first before treatments that do hurt them. I’m actually pretty mad it’s not available to everyone. I know it can’t always work because maybe someone needs surgery right away or the genes are not covered by the ANP, but everyone deserves a chance to try it. Some day I will have a louder voice on this, but right now I just want my baby to be cured and that is what I’m focusing on. If you want to write negative posts about how Dr. Burzynski can’t prove anything, show me proof that chemo and radiation work because all I see is proof that they cure nothing and mess people up. It is all a big experiment aka clinical trial. Do not judge someone for thinking outside the box. Until you, or God forbid your child, is suffering from cancer do not make judgements on people looking for alternative treatments. I don’t care how much it costs out of pocket- it’s actually cheaper than modern medicine. It is worth the risk if you have a month or two to try it.
Sorry for all the typos, I’m using a phone to post. Bottom line, my baby is so healthy and happy you would never know she had a tumor if you did not see her hooked up to her pump. She could be partially paralyzed from surgery and deathly sick from chemo if we would not have known about the Burzynski Clinic. I know we are not out of this fight yet, but we are so happy we were able to try Antineoplastons.
One more thing to add… The Burzynski clinic is curing my daughter so you know I am a believer. But, if I’m diagnosed with cancer tomorrow, he will not treat me because of the FDA. I would have to use traditional medicine first, have it fail, then the FDA would allow me to have Dr. Burzynski treat me. This is so wrong!!
Hello, Matt… We simply have to stop meeting like this…
Nothing personal, but I sure wish you’d stop making me do more and more advertising for Burzynski.
For those who haven’t been reading all the Burzynski posts and comments, I’ve posted Matt’s response to a previous post at the end of this article. You should read it. I post it out of respect for his perspective, and as an illustration of the paradigm that we are all educated into. In fairness to him, I will tell you that I had incorporated a previous comment of his into the article he is now commenting on. I couldn’t help it.. he represents the mainstream paradigm so well, and I was in a particularly intolerant mood.
If he’s who I think he is, he appears to be a Post-Doc Fellow who is working on HIV virus research at a university in the western United States.
(Post-Doc is short for Postdoctoral, and it is supposed to translate to non-post-docs as I’m mucho smarto…. Fellow means he’s working almost for free and at the mercy of whomever is funding him for as long as it takes to get smart enough to work on his own. Anyway, that’s the way us Pharmacists translate it. You know how it is – They’re smart, we’re smarter…. typical occupational bias.)
A large percentage of his work appears to be funded in part by the NIH (National Institute of Health). I’ve read a couple of his papers. He and the team he works with are actually pretty sharp.
Anyway, I’ve thought about his posting for a few days, wanting to find a way to make this conversation educational for ‘our’ readers.
So, I will answer your questions, Matt, but I’m sure you and I are simply going to have agree to disagree.
First, though, I’d like to say that I’ve spent a lot of time trying to figure out why in the world a Post-Doc Fellow working on HIV research would have any interest in reading, studying and debating Dr Burzynski’s papers and therapeutic claims. I did not come up with an answer. The Post-Docs I know are way too busy to mess around with anything other than their research. I remain puzzled. Maybe it’s because of the NIH connection, or a personal tragedy during which a friend or family member got taken advantage of by a huckster claiming to have a cure for cancer. If you are who I think you are I suspect the NIH connection is the most likely motivator, or maybe you’re just a really astute and curious person. But it really doesn’t matter.
In your questions to me you repeatedly reference peer reviewed work, as if the world stops working if a gathering of equally indoctrinated individuals having the power to approve or disapprove a work is ordained by God. I understand the importance of good solid peer reviewed works. But, I don’t interpret the lack of it the same way you do.
You see, I’m probably about twice your age – and over this long life I’ve done a lot of things. One of them was to work as the personal product engineer and troubleshooter for the President of a semiconductor company that manufactured many state-of-the-art integrated circuits that were believed to be technically impossible. All the experts said they could not work. But, I assure you, they shipped to the world in great quantity. The applications included cardiac pacemakers, devices sent into space in satellites, devices used to track submarines, devices used in the phased array radars of state of the art warplanes, and numerous other appications.
I never ceased to be amused when the President of the company would quietly slip out of the conference room when the customers’ ‘experts’ would start explaining the technical reasons the parts wouldn’t work or couldn’t be relied upon to perform as specified. I asked him what was going on the first time I saw him do this. His reply still rings in my mind. He told me that they did not want to learn from him, only to lecture, and that his time was too valuable to waste it sitting in a room with a bunch of overpaid people who had advanced degrees and knew nothing about true discovery.
I would also tell you that I was best known for fixing problems others couldn’t fix, and implementing applications that others had failed to get to work repeatedly. The key to my success was very simple. I didn’t listen to the people who had failed when they told me why they had failed. I followed the evidence I gathered myself, and figured out why what I had observed had happened later – and I learned to quietly leave the room when the ‘experts’ and intellectual purists started explaining why things weren’t working. Hell, if they knew what they were talking about I wouldn’t have had a job.
This is the approach I have taken on this website. I am not interested in intellectual debates that consume time and achieve no forward motion. Cancer patients do not have time to screw around. The fact is that few are cured. My objective is to provide them options that I believe have some reasonable probability of extending their lives.
As an engineer I knew that getting 95% of the products I was responsible for to work and ship to the customer was the minimum standard for keeping my job. Lower yields told the world I didn’t know what I was talking about.
Well, if you look at cancer patients as the products we’re supposed to be shipping the fact is that we can’t even claim a 5% long term success rate.
So, I tell you without reservation that we don’t know what the f…k we’re doing when it comes to conventional cancer treatments.
You asked me what the relevence of my reference to the article that showed that chemotherapy only added something like 1.4% to the long term survival of cancer patients. Well, it is – for all practical purposes – illegal to treat cancer using anything but chemotherapy and radiation in all 50 of the states that comprise the United States of America. I repeat, we don’t know what we’re doing.
Matt, I work in a hospital that treats many cancer patients. We only use conventional treatments, but I assure no costs are spared.. our patients get access to the most cutting edge treatment regimens that exist in America. But, unfortunately, no one gets well unless their cancers are discovered when they are small enough to be cut out.
I know you might not believe this. I really don’t care if you do or not. I am the one who watches them die every week, not you, and I don’t know any way to convey what I see happening every day to someone who resides in an academic environment.
You asked me what treatment alternatives patients might consider incorporating into their treatment plans to increase their survival rates. Are you blind? Take a look at the directory for this site. It’s a listing of multiple treatment options that have evidence that supports possible usefulness.
I do not guarantee they will work, and I do not encourage trying them without physician involvement and support. But I guarantee you that I would try them if I had cancer. I strongly believe that for many cancers you have as good a chance with these alternatives as you do with conventional treatments.
So, it really comes down to this… I am busy trying to get info that I have critically evaluated to people who might be able to use it. I do not care why the information about these options has not been checked out and/or formal studies haven’t been performed, and I do not believe people should wait to die without trying something different just because no one has funded a clinical trial that meets the standards we normally expect from approved medications.
People will have to decide for themselves whether I know what I’m talking about or not. If they want to try other options I have provided the detail they and their physicians need. If not, that is their choice.
In the meantime, I’m going to quietly slip out of the room. I have work to do.
“I believe the exchange typifies the difference in perspective between those who are willing to critically analyze and search out data and those who support the mainstream approach.”
Steve, please tell me what I’m failing to analyze critically; what peer-reviewed paper I have failed to read? Aside from Burzynski’s 2006 Pediatric Drugs paper which, I will say again, uses questionable methods and a very small cohort, what evidence of efficacy has he presented? Where is this evidence?
Despite your claim to be “a very skeptical pharmacist”, you seem not to see that data is only as good as the method used to collect and analyze it: If you omit drug failures from a clinical trial, you will always get a positive result. If you use a small patient cohort, even the most impressive rate of improvement may not be statistically significant. If you don’t use a placebo group, you can’t say how many people would have improved without therapy. Method is the most important and persuasive argument for any claim.
“conventional therapies [do not work] if not augmented by non-traditional concepts”
Please provide a reference for this statement and what, exactly you mean by “non-traditional concepts”.
You say that “…the reviewers hid behind the fact that they didn’t like the way Dr Burzynski structured his trials and quantified his data.”
As I understand this, you would propose that the data collection and analysis method has nothing to do with what the outcome. Put another way, the data quality and means of subsequent analysis has no influence on the results of that analysis. Is that correct?
If so, that makes no sense. I know that, in my own work, I could show a false positive, negative or neutral result, depending on how ethically flexible I am in analyzing the data. And, if I am selective about the data I collect, well I could support or refute any hypothesis I want.
Regarding the Barton et al.: I’m not sure why that’s relevant. A lot of Burzynski supporters seem to use a common straw man argument: If you’re don’t support antineoplaston chemotherapy, you must support standard chemotherapy. I find this a bit troubling because I only wish to discuss antineoplastons and evidence of their efficacy. Straw man arguments assume a false pretense – that I must necessarily approve of B simply because I express my disapproval of A.
I’m going to go out on a limb here an say that a big reason you think that Burzynski’s antineoplastons work because you FEEL he is an ethical doctor, but that’s not evidence, that’s a feeling.
I’m willing to accept that you support Burzynski because you felt he gave you good care – I cannot argue with that, and no one should. Cancer is horrible and it ruins lives. Anyone who has gone through the illness and the treatment, win or to lose, is a hero in my book, and should be allowed to pursue whatever treatment they like. But saying that unproven drugs work is a different argument entirely. There just isn’t any evidence.
A reader named Nancy posted her thoughts about my article on Iodine Supplementation.
I thought it was interesting info, so have reposted it here where it is easier to find.
Now, having said that… I would like to make the following points:
1. I take Armour Thyroid. It works well for me. I also take my iodine via 2% Lugol’s Solution, but recently sent Iodoral tablets to my dad and his wife. A fellow pharmacist gets his thyroid from Mexico in a form that combines T4 and T3 but is not derived from animal sources. He tells me he has to use about 40% to 50% bigger doses. I trust his statements without reservation.
2. Nancy is correct, many physicians do not agree with iodine supplementation. In fact, they are violently opposed to it. They are laboring under the burden of what they have been taught, and … they might be right. I do not think they are, or I wouldn’t write about it here. I would suggest they have not read the literature supporting the use of iodine supplementation, and – quite frankly – if the information isn’t supplied to them through one of the pharmaceutical companies information channels they will not listen anyway. But, there are links from my previous post that will take you to info you can provide to your physician (I gave mine a copy of Dr Starr’s book). So, you have no excuse for not working to win your physician over to your point of view.
3. My recommendation remains the same. You must talk to your physician and should never do anything without his or her agreement. They know your physical condition better than you do, and have been trained to keep you out of trouble. And, there are definately cases where iodine supplementation is not appropriate and can harm you. Nancy seems to infer that you should not follow this recommendation. She is wrong. You might have to change physicians, but I do not sanction going against your physician’s recommendations.
Anyway, I post her comment her for your information.
Fantastic article!! Just a couple of comments — Dr Starr talks about using Armour thyroid, but it was reformulated a couple of years ago and no longer works like it used to, for me and many others. What I use now is NatureThroid, which works like Armour used to, along with 25 mg of Iodoral.
I too had been advising people to check with their doc re: iodine supplementation, until I got an email from an upset client saying his doctor became agitated at the mention of the topic and shouted that no one should ever ingest iodine in any form including dietary sources! Another wrote to me that his doctor became furious at being told the patient took Iodoral and got better, instead of following the doc’s instructions!
Many if not most mainstream docs are totally ignorant about iodine. Now I suggest that people read all the stuff you mentioned plus Brownstein (www.drbrownstein.com), to educate themselves, see how they feel, and proceed cautiously.
As regards choosing an iodine supplement, I like Dr Abraham’s suggestion: Ask the supplier to provide scientific studies on their product. As far as I know, only Iodoral and Lugol’s have that available.
Dr Tennant’s book, Healing is Voltage, is one of the most brilliant health books I’ve read. It gave me some new concepts and changed my approach. It’s not easy to blow my mind after 40 years of study, but he’s done it.
Thank you for your meticulous exposure of these ideas.
Note: This post seems to be getting a lot of attention from those who want to debunk Dr Burzynski. that is fine, but it is my belief that you should read all of the posts about him before forming an opinion. so, I’m listing them below. Please read this one, as the information is needed to provide a balanced picture of the situation. But, also read the other posts to round out your perspective.
A Burzynski Patient Tells About Her Experience…..
One Last Burzynski Post
I Visited Burzynski’s Clinic Last Week – And I Do NOT Believe He Is A Quack!
Sigh… Dr Burzynski has become an ongoing topic despite my attempt to stop commenting on his work.
But, I feel an obligation to share with my readers information that might impact their cancer treatments.
So, I thought this Physician’s comments should be shared to provide balance.
I will tell you that I respect her input… she is talking the language Pharmacists are trained to listen to and evaluate.
I will also tell you that it would be easy to pick holes similar to the ones she points in a lot of Dr Burzynski’s data.
BUT, I also remember the one patient I observed and overheard when I was in Burzynski’s clinic – and I believe that was the real deal.
So, I’m sharing this physician’s comments out of respect, but I still think I’d take a hard look at Burzynski’s treatments if money was plentiful and my prognosis was poor.
I am a physician from the West Indies who has recently been researching Burzynski. I truly hope that your wife’s disease remains stable for a long, long time. Cherish and enjoy all your good days as indeed we should all be doing.
Steve, you should not feel any guilt about the fact that you cannot afford Burzynski’s treatment.
The Burzynski’s clinic’s pitch uses the same time honored formulae of all snake oil dealers. More importantly Burzynski’s publications are all in weak journals, in addition the science is week. To follow is my critique of one of his articles on brain stem tumors entitled “Targeted therapy with Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 of High Grade, Recurrent and Progressive Brainstem Glioma”.
1. The paper is published in the journal Integrative Cancer Therapies, the web site of which describes it as a “peer-reviewed quarterly journal focused on the scientific understanding of alternative medicine and traditional medicine therapies, and their responsible integration with conventional health care.”. The editorial board of this journal includes Ralph Moss, PhD who has written about Burzynski in his book The Cancer Industry.
2. In the paper both adults and children are included in the same cohort. However it is well documented that the biology of brain stem tumors is very different between adults and children. As emphasized in a paper published last month in the respected journal Neuro-Oncology entitled “treatment of High Grade glioma in children and adolescents”, by Macdonald et al, 13 (10): 1049-1058, it is stated that “Efforts to develop effective therapies for HGGs in children may not be able to rely on progress made with adult high grade gliomas (HGGS). While the histology of HGGs between adults and children appear identical , the biology of the tumors may vary significantly.”
3. Burzynski also includes different types of brain stem tumors in his paper, although the majority are DIPG, exophytic, cervico-medullary and multifocal tumors are also included. The paper “A Clinico-Pathological Reappraisal of Brain Stem Tumor Classification” by Fisher et al from Johns Hopkins (Cancer, Oct, 2000, Vol 89 (7) ) elegantly explains the difference in prognosis between the various brain stem tumors.
4. If one teases out the children under 10 from Burzynski’s paper the overall survival from diagnosis is 11 months. No different from that obtained with radiation therapy.This is in opposition to the overall 5 year survival of 22% that is stated in the paper.
5. The point is that parents of unfortunate children with diffuse pontine glioma could look at this paper and come away with the conclusion that their child could have a 22% chance of survival with antineoplaston treatment.
6. This is intellectual fraud.
In conclusion, I remain unconvinced about the validity of Burzynski’s work.
Maria Bartholomew, MBBS, FRCP
A comment from ‘Wanda’ on September 6th, 2011 -
I was also a patient at Burzynski Clinic in July this year. I have stage 1v colon or ovarian cancer. Their path lab said the results were inconclusive. Strange two people who were there at the same time I was had inconclusive results also. They were the only other patients I talked to about the results. I spent three weeks in Texas at my own expense of course. Spent 35,000 at Burzynski Clinic and 4,500 more a month for sodium phenylbutyrate. This is the drug they give you to fight your cancer. As far as I can tell this is the drug given to all the patients. As soon as you pay up of course. This is the only drug I recieved from Burzynski as his targeted therapy. As far as gene testing that’s still a mystery to me.I was put on sodium phenylbutrate [working up to 3,000 mg 4 times a day 2 hrs apart with food] and chemo before any testing was done. I could of had chemo here at home and save the trip, time and money. Two other oncologist had already given me that option. One of the chemo drugs I am taking is Zeloda $3,500 at Burzynski for a 2 week supply $1,400 from other pharmacy’s. Spent $400 to talk to their nutritionist got the same info I could have gotten for free on the internet. In short it is to keep the acid level down and the alkaline level up. Their aminocare is something they suggest to all patients also. A list of it’s ingredient are on the aminocare site, or you can buy it on the internet. As far as their success rates who knows when you are on both their methods and chemo which one shrunk the tumor? Wishing both you and your wife well. GOD BLESS
My reply -
what you’re saying matches what i saw and experienced when we went down there. i am not saying nobody gets the antineoplastons. i think it is hard to reach the point where they put you in the trials. i do believe they work. i do believe he’s a genius.
but, when it comes to the money thing and their business practices… well, they’re a little sketchy. hell, they’re really sketchy. they collect your money fast, but stall like crazy when it comes to getting insurance overages back to you. at least, that’s been my experience so far.
guess they figure you’ll die before they have to pay you back…
very unfortunate considering the stature of Dr Burzynski.
An update from ‘Wanda’ on October 19th, 2011 -
Thought I would update you on my progress. My first petscan July 12th showed activity at post op site, one to the left of it and two on the liver. Had my second petscan on Oct 12th. This is the summary of that scan. [Minimal residual activity at the dome of the liver, site of previous demonstrated abscess. This may simply represent a sequelae of the previously demonstrated abscess and not a liver metastasis. No other area of of abnormal activity is seen.]
I am hoping that spot is just scar tissue from the drainage tube used to drain the abscess in my liver. And that all the cancer is gone.
These are the treatments I have done since my diagnosis of cancer.
Surgery for blockage.
Sodium phenylbutyrate from Burzynski clinic. I took this less than 3 months as it caused my blood pressure to go dangerously high, and the price is prohibitively high for me. $4,500 a month for pills. I have good insurance but they won’t pay for this, or anyhing else from Burzynski.
I had two IV chemo treatments and three rounds of chemo pills. Will not do any more chemo treatments. They made me extremely ill, and caused other problems with my health. I was told before these treatments they would not cure me but possibly prolong my life. The only reason I consented to chemo was to possibly give me more time to find a treatment that would work. I would not do it again. I believe I would never have lived through the 13 sessions they suggested.
I did a lot of searching the net for natural cures. Almost all the sites stress a whole food or raw food diet. This go’s back to the acid alkaline diet they stressed at Burzynski. They danced all around the PH balance there without ever mentioning PH. In my search on PH balance I came across the phkillscancer site. A story on how Vernon Johnson killed his stage 1v cancer in days by raising his PH level using baking soda and molasses. I decided to give it a try. BE sure if you do this to monitor your PH level several times a day. I used only half the baking soda he did and got my PH up to 8.50 in a matter of days. I kept it there for 7 days. They say that if you can get your PH up to 8.00 and keep it there 5 days it will kill the cancer. I think the reason I only needed half as much baking soda is because I was already sticking closely to the alkaline diet, and the fact I only weighed 90 lb’s. A lot less than Mr.Johnson I am sure.
Of the three treatment I tried I think the Baking Soda, Molasses cure did it. I could feel my body getting stronger, had a lot more energy and had no desire to nap during the day. A nap everyday was a constant for me before this treatment.
For the info on this go to phkillscancer.com.
Another important thing is to think positive. I have to believe that the cancer is gone not just so small it wouldn’t show up on a scan.
Best wishes and good health to you, Wanda
My thoughts relative to ‘Wanda’s’ posts -
I think that if you can get into an antineoplaston trial and can afford the treatments Dr Burzynski is definately an option you should take a hard look at. If you can’t, then I think you can probably do as well getting treatments at a major cancer center.
As far as the high pH treatment, it might work. I don’t know enough about it. But, I think – based on my readings of the work of Dr Emanuel Revici – that many patients won’t be able to tolerate the high pH. In fact, it might make their tumors worse.
You can read about Dr Revici by getting a copy of ‘The Doctor Who Cures Cancer’. I think you’ll find it an interesting read. You can buy it at Amazon.com. I have no affiliation with the author, and no financial incentive to recommend this book.
You can find a copy of Dr Revici’s text on this website.
Again… as always, I’m not a physician. Only a lowly pharmacist, and a crazy one at that. Talk to your physician before starting any new medication or supplement or stopping a medication regimen.
I do not disagree with the usefulness of influenza vaccination – especially in vulnerable populations and for healthcare providers.
I do disagree with getting ‘flu shots’. Strongly.
Flu shots provide very limited protection when viruses have changed slightly – and that’s basically what the influenza viruses do for a living.
They also give short term protection that blocks the formation of long term immunity to strains that might become much more dangerous with a very slight mutation that your immune system would accomodate if it had been exposed to and reacted to the entire virus.
So, I suggest getting FluMist – the nasal vaccine – instead of the shot.
If I can’t get a dose of FluMist I intend to get the flu instead of getting the shot.. That’s how strongly I feel about the future immunity issue.
And, as you listen to those endless public service announcements about the Flu Season and getting protected with a shot, I would like you to ask yourself if those who are paying for those advertisements really care about you, or making sure the vaccine manufacturers stay in business.
Anyway, that’s my two cents worth.
You can read more about my opinion at – Flu Shots – Set Up For Pandemic Death? Try FluMist™ Instead.
For those who are concerned about the toxicity of the various flu vaccines I’m going to provide a link to this web page.
The only comment I will make, as I really haven’t had a chance to think about the data provided, is that how much of something is the important consideration. Some of the ingredients listed don’t cause me a lot of concern for adults. However, it is my opinion that there are some things that probably should never be given to people – especially children and pregnant women.
Remember, I’m a pharmacist – not a physician – and crazy as a loon. Talk it over with your Doc. Then make an informed decision. Pharmacists Pharmacist and Physicians Physician.
I”m going to post one last article about Burzynski in response to a comment I got and responded to for another Burzynski post.
I want to make it clear that I have NO affiliation with Dr Burzynski, and reason to be angry about not being able to get treatment for my wife at his clinc.
The conversation went like this:
Bottom line from Burzynski critics: the guy has yet to demonstrate that his drugs work. Regardless of FDA conspiracies and the like, no one knows if the drugs he’s selling actually work. The little data he HAS published were obtained using some very questionable (dishonest?) methods. Conspiracy or not, antineoplastons have not been proven to work in any trial. At $20k-30k per month, I feel his patients are owed evidence of efficacy but Burzynski seems to have perfected the art of convincing his patients that they are owed nothing. I wish you the best, and I hope that whatever you’re doing now is working. However, I also hope that, if you do not improve with the Burzynski “therapies”, that you discontinue them quickly and, even if they do work, share your experiences with your readers. If Burzynski is a fraud, he is the worst kind – preying on the desperation of cancer patients. If he is not, then why has he been so reticent to publish his incredible results?
Thank you for your positive wishes and feedback.
I am by nature a very skeptical pharmacist… and before I would post anything on this site you have to know that I have investigated it extensively.
So, let me be quite clear on this topic.
I am not able to get my wife treatment with Dr Burzynski’s antineoplastons – or other medications related to them – because I can’t afford it.
This really pisses me off.
And, I must say that their business practices are probably best described as sketchy.
But I am quite certain Dr Burzynski’s antineoplastons work – at least for some significant number of cancers, and that is something I do not believe I can say for conventional therapies if not augmented by non-traditional concepts.
I can’t help thinking of an article I read that was published by a major Cancer Society.
NOBODY addressed the data that had been presented.
Instead, ALL the reviewers hid behind the fact that they didn’t like the way Dr Burzynski structured his trials and quantified his data.
It was – in my opinion – quite a smear piece with NO redeeming value.
One must ask oneself why this was the case.
I will not tell you why I think it was dealt with in this manner.
I will only say – as a person with extensive engineering, statistical analysis, and process control experience – that the concept of evidence based medicine is one that is situationally invoked to serve the strangest of purposes.
YOU – my readers – should be pissed too!
I believe the exchange typifies the difference in perspective between those who are willing to critically analyze and search out data and those who support the mainstream approach.
You can read what the U.S. Government’s task force wrote about Dr Burzynski here:CongressReport
You can also read the later comments of a consultant to that project here:http://www.commonweal.org/pubs/choices-healing.html Chapter 21
You’ll have to study the data and decide for yourself what you’re going to believe.
I’ve also provided a copy of the abstract and links to a well done study that I think speaks volumes about the effectiveness of chemotherapy here:
The link to PubMed’s abstract -
A copy of the abstract -
The contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adult malignancies.
Department of Radiation Oncology, Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia. firstname.lastname@example.org
The debate on the funding and availability of cytotoxic drugs raises questions about the contribution of curative or adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to survival in adult cancer patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
We undertook a literature search for randomised clinical trials reporting a 5-year survival benefit attributable solely to cytotoxic chemotherapy in adult malignancies. The total number of newly diagnosed cancer patients for 22 major adult malignancies was determined from cancer registry data in Australia and from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results data in the USA for 1998. For each malignancy, the absolute number to benefit was the product of (a) the total number of persons with that malignancy; (b) the proportion or subgroup(s) of that malignancy showing a benefit; and (c) the percentage increase in 5-year survival due solely to cytotoxic chemotherapy. The overall contribution was the sum total of the absolute numbers showing a 5-year survival benefit expressed as a percentage of the total number for the 22 malignancies.
The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.
As the 5-year relative survival rate for cancer in Australia is now over 60%, it is clear that cytotoxic chemotherapy only makes a minor contribution to cancer survival. To justify the continued funding and availability of drugs used in cytotoxic chemotherapy, a rigorous evaluation of the cost-effectiveness and impact on quality of life is urgently required.
A link to a copy of a pdf of the article -