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