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 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. email@example.com
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 –