4 of 4
4
Finding the way
Posted: 31 December 2005 01:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  635
Joined  2005-02-06

Thomas,

Stanislaw Burzynski and “Antineoplastons”
By Saul Green, Ph.D.
Unlike most “alternative medicine” practitioners, Stanislaw R. Burzynski has published profusely. The sheer volume of his publications impresses patients, but unless they understand what they are reading, they cannot judge its validity. To a scientist, Burzynski’s literature contains clear evidence that his data do not support his claims.

Burzynski’s Background and Credentials
Burzynski attended the Medical Academy in Lubin, Poland, where he received an M.D. degree in 1967 and an D.Msc. degree in 1968. He did not undergo specialty training in cancer or complete any other residency program. His bibliography does not mention clinical cancer research, urine, or antineoplastons during this period.

In 1970, Burzynski came to the United States and worked in the department of anesthesiology at Baylor University, Houston, for three years, isolating peptides from rat brains. (Peptides are low-molecular-weight compounds composed of amino acids bonded in a certain way.) He got a license to practice medicine in 1973 and, with others, received a three-year grant to study the effect of urinary peptides on the growth of cancer cells in tissue culture. The grant was not renewed.

In 1976, with no preclinical or clinical cancer research experience, Burzynski announced a theory for the cure of cancer based on his assumption that spontaneous regression occurs because natural anticancer peptides, which he named antineoplastons, “normalize” cancer cells. Since urine contains lots of peptides, he concluded that there he would find antineoplastons. Less than one year later and based only on these assumptions, Burzynski used an extract from human urine (“antineoplaston A”) to treat 21 cancer patients at a clinic he opened. His shingle read, “Stanislaw R. Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D.”

Burzynski’s claim to a Ph.D. is questionable. When I investigated, I found:

An official from the Ministry of Health in Warsaw informed me that when Burzynski was in school, medical schools did not give a Ph.D. [1].
Faculty members from at the Medical Academy at Lubin informed me that Burzynski received his D.Msc. in 1968 after completing a one-year laboratory project and passing an exam [2] and that he had done no independent research while in medical school [3].
In 1973, when Burzinski applied for a federal grant to study “antineoplaston peptides from urine,” he identified himself as “Stanislaw Burzynski, M.D, D.Msc.” [4]
Analysis of Antineoplaston Biochemistry
Tracing the biochemistry involved in Burzynski’s synthesis of antineoplastons shows that the substances are without value for cancer treatment.

By 1985, Burzynski said he was using eight antineoplastons to treat cancer patients. The first five, which were fractions from human urine, he called A-1 through A-5. From A-2 he made A-10, which was insoluble 3-N-phenylacetylamino piperidine 2,6-dione. He said A-10 was the anticancer peptide common to all his urine fractions. He then treated A-10 with alkali, which yielded a soluble product he named AS-2.5. Further treatment of AS-2.5 with alkali yielded a product he called AS-2.1. Burzynski is currently treating patients with what he calls “AS-2.1” and “A-10.”

In reality, AS-2.1 is phenylacetic acid (PA), a potentially toxic substance produced during normal metabolism. PA is detoxified in the liver to phenylacetyl glutamine (PAG), which is excreted in the urine. When urine is heated after adding acid, the PAG loses water and becomes 3-N-phenylacetylamino piperidine 2,6-dione (PAPD), which is insoluble. Normally there is no PAPD in human urine.

What Burzynski calls “A-10” is really PAPD treated with alkali to make it soluble. But doing this does not create a soluble form of A-10. It simply reinserts water into the molecule and regenerates the PAG (Burzynski’s AS-2.5). Further treatment of this with alkali breaks it down into a mixture of PA and PAG. Thus Burzynski’s “AS-2.1” is nothing but a mixture of the naturally occurring substances PA and PAG.

Burzyski claims that A-10 acts by fitting into indentations in DNA. But PAG is too big a molecule to do this, and Burzynski himself has reported that PAG is ineffective against cancer [5,6].

PA may not be safe. In 1919, it was shown that PA can be toxic when ingested by normal individuals. It can also reach toxic levels in patients with phenylketonuria (PKU); and in a pregnant woman, it can cause the child in utero to suffer brain damage.

Burzynski has never demonstrated that A-2.1 (PA) or “soluble A-10” (PA and PAG) are effective against cancer or that tumor cells from patients treated with these antineoplastons have been “normalized.” Tests of antineoplastons at the National Cancer Institute have never been positive. The drug company Sigma-Tau Pharmaceuticals could not duplicate Burzynski’s claims for AS-2.1 and A-10. The Japanese National Cancer Institute has reported that antineoplastons did not work in their studies. No Burzynski coauthors have endorsed his use of antineoplastons in cancer patients.

These facts indicate to me that Burzynski’s claims that his “antineoplastons” are effective against cancer are not credible.

About the Author
Dr. Green is a biochemist who did cancer research at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center for 23 years. He consults on scientific methodology and has a special interest in unproven methods. He can be reached at (212) 957-8029. This article is adapted from his presentation at the American Association for Clinical Chemistry Symposium in Atlanta in July 1997.

References
Nizanskowski R. Personal communication to Saul Green, Ph.D., Jan 15, 1992.
Kleinrock Z. Personal communication to Saul Green, Ph.D., Nov 22 1993.
Bielinski S. Personal communication to Saul Green, Ph.D., Nov 22, 1987.
Burzynski S. HEW grant application 1973, item 20 (credentials).
Burzynski SR. Purified antineoplaston fractions and methods of treating neoplastic diseases. U.S. Patent No. 4,558,057, 1985.
Burzynski SR. Preclinical studies on antineoplastons AS-2.1 and AS-2.5. Drugs Exptl Clin Res Suppl 1, XII, 11-16, 1986.


We can discuss this after the parties tonight!!!! :D

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 December 2005 09:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  985
Joined  2005-12-16

Rod,

Quick search on dr. Green reveals, as I suspected, the following.

Dr. Green, like Stephen Barrett, is a retired doctor. Only one publication of Dr. Green is to be found (not including what he “published” on quackwatch and similar websites). It is hard to believe looking at the topic of the publication (extracting something from rats brains) that this one publication could make dr. Green an expert on anything relevant. Praises of Dr. Green on the internet come from quackwatch and dr. Green himself, bizarre to say the least.

In short, Dr. Green’s report doesn’t look trusthworthy and reveals the same methods of character assasinations practiced by Stephen Barrett. Those guys studied in the same school and it wasn’t medical school.

On the other hand the website of the patient who was actually healed by Dr. Burzynski’s therapy is both hopeful and sad. Sad, because even patients of Dr. Burzynski become victims of henchmen like Stephen Barren and his pal Dr. Green. I am thinking on doing research on Dr. Green’s credentials as he claimed he did on Dr. Burzynski.
http://www.dontevergiveup.com/story.htm

Finally, I have to say that you are avoiding my challenge, Rod. You didn’t explain to me what is behind the persecution of Dr. Burzynski.

The piece of garbage produced by Dr. Green calls for an interesting question. If FDA is so stupid as to approve clinical trials of an ignorant whose therapy is both unscientific and worthless how can we trust FDA when it approves drugs made by Pfeizer, Bayer, and other drug companies?

Regards,

Thomas Orr

P.S.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 January 2006 05:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  985
Joined  2005-12-16

Rod,

How was your party? My wife and myself had a great time although we left the party before midnight - you know, it was the first time we left our son with the babysitter.

Regarding Burzynski trial, I think that one juror who voted for conviction expressed it the best. Here is the quote.

[quote author=“juror”]
But another juror, a 40-year-old engineer named Anthony Batiste, said he favored a guilty verdict “I couldn’t go into my kitchen and make things. Why should somebody else be above the law?”

If you substitute the kitchen from the above quote with the word alternative you essentially describe correctly what is going on here. To Stephen Barrett and guys like him law=big pharma. It is creepy, spoocy, frightening - much worse than my website and my “interpretation” of the Bible.

Forgive me if I don’t include more links and quotes, all faces of the Burzynski story are readily available on the internet. You don’t need my help to find them.

I am curious. Did you visit the Burzynski patients support group website? Did you think about the meaning of all those people (children) being cured? Do you know that to get to Burzynski’s clinic you practicly need to get hopleless case verdict? Do you know that going through the chemo or radiation therapy first is required and you get (reluctant) permission from FDA only if those faile (which happens all the time anyway)?

Three people I know personally died of cancer. They all went through conventional treatments and died anyway. I don’t have any cancer survivor among my friends. The doctor and family friend (he is a real doctor, don’t worry, professor of medicine at the university in Washington DC at one time, very successful financially) told me some 30 years ago that there was no progress in cancer treatment in the past 20 years. Some forms of cancer are treatable and have a good prognosis. Most of the dreaded cancers do not prognose well.

You informed me sarcastically that Gonzales’s enzymes cure ALL cancers. Can you mention please once conventional cancer therapy, which is not chemo or radiation?

The medical police requires that any form of cancer MUST be treated with either chemo or radiation, even if everybody knows that it is essentially a “prayer” form of treatment (and nothing fails like a prayer). Even if it means a great pain and discomfort to the patient. But, of course, when Linus Pauling suggested that megadoses of Vitamin C be used Stephen Barrett declared him a quack. Do some little search and find out for yourself that megadoses of vitamin C even if they don’t cure cancer can significantly prolong the life of a patient and make it tollerable, greately reducing the level of pain and discomfort.

Another question for you. If, according to Dr. Green, everything that Burzynski published (and he published “profusely” according to Green) is garbage what happened to the peer review system and how can we trust science you hold in such a high esteem. Don’t get me wrong. Occasionally things get published that shouldn’t be published. And things get straightened. They got straightened not because some genius like Dr. Green discoveres that peers who were reviewing the work were asleep but because somebody gets down to work and tries to duplicate the experiment. This is how the cold fusion was debunked without help of geniuses of Dr. Green caliber. Now the question is, did Green tried to verify the Burzynski method experimentally? Did anybody else do it?

Regards,

Thomas Orr

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 January 2006 12:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  635
Joined  2005-02-06

You say,

Occasionally things get published that shouldn’t be published. And things get straightened. They got straightened not because some genius like Dr. Green discoveres that peers who were reviewing the work were asleep but because somebody gets down to work and tries to duplicate the experiment.

Which is apparently what happened in this case, as noted below:

Tests of antineoplastons at the National Cancer Institute have never been positive. The drug company Sigma-Tau Pharmaceuticals could not duplicate Burzynski’s claims for AS-2.1 and A-10. The Japanese National Cancer Institute has reported that antineoplastons did not work in their studies. No Burzynski coauthors have endorsed his use of antineoplastons in cancer patients.

Another cold fusion case? I agree with another concern of your’s:

If FDA is so stupid as to approve clinical trials of an ignorant whose therapy is both unscientific and worthless how can we trust FDA when it approves drugs made by Pfeizer, Bayer, and other drug companies?

Notably, it was a panel put together by the Clinton administration, comprised of alternative advocates and practitioners, who encouraged the study of Burzynski’s “work”, in spite of the National Cancer Institutes findings. Luckily this panel had no other mandate. Two physicians on the panel wrote a dissenting opinion that was the only voice of reason. They didn’t want to see boiled urine and ozone clinics popping up on every corner.  So don’t worry, Pfizer and Bayer are still held to SCIENTIFIC standards.

Praises of Dr. Green on the internet come from quackwatch and dr. Green himself, bizarre to say the least.

Here’s a few of the sites that seem to appreciate the work of Quackwatch.
Honors and Awards (70+) Given to Quackwatch

On the other hand the website of the patient who was actually healed by Dr. Burzynski’s therapy is both hopeful and sad.

True, it’s sad that it appears that after his radiation treatments and debulking surgery, he saw improvement and now after a couple of years he’s on disability for what looks like a cancer recurrance…..and still thinks Burzynski might “cure” him again.

The reason we are on the opposite side of the barricade, Rod, is that conventional medicine and pharma lost their credibility with American public. You said 20 “scientists” cannot be wrong. I say millions of people cannot be wrong either.

No, I said 16 studies disagree with Pauling’s claims. However unlikely, they may be proven wrong. I definitely say that millions of people can be wrong and frequently are…..What was your stance on evolution again? How many millions think rhino horn will help their sexlife?

1. If Stephen Barrett who is not even a doctor pretends to be an authority on all the subjects raised by people from the alternative camp, some of those subjects being rather controversial and complicated, he is automatically a suspect.

He is a psychiatrist. You are a math guy. Let’s all agree we can review any evidence with a critical eye.

2. To know Stephen Barrett opinion on any subject he gets involved into you only need to ask yourself the following question: what is the answer that pleases the big pharma the most?

Yeh, big pharma would have to worry if ozone or magnets could cure disease…..granted.

3. I actually followed some links included in the quackwatch site and was very amused to find out that although they were listed as references supporting Stephen Barretts claims they were providing evidence to the contrary.

Which ones? I’ll check them out.

4. Stephen Barrett is cursing on his site some laws and decisions passed by the Congress or the courts. On the other hand his favorite way of discrediting people is to quote all the court verdicts where they lost and all the instances their offices were raided by FDA. Luckily, we now have a long list of court cases where Stephen Barrett not only lost but disgusted the judge in the process.

Again, where?

5. I am not surprise at all with your being familiar with Stephen Barrett. My friend chemist who teaches chemistry in college mentioned that she had to give students a lecture on the quackwatch website. In response to my ironic coments she said, oh, it is just a community college. So, don’t tell me that the big pharma is not meddling with the college curricula.

I have to admit, I thought it was the CIA.

6. I actually once sent a letter to Stepehen Barrett. He wasn’t even half of a gentleman you are, he didn’t reply.

Go to his Cheers and Jeers link. Does your letter sound like one of the jeers?

Stephen Barrett and FDA innocent? doing a socially responsible work? Huh? I am curious how you choose to explain the disgraceful persecution of Dr. Burzynski?

You haven’t read a thing here if you are still confused.

And you didn’t let me know if you now understand the placebo effect or the uselessness of anecdote as proof. I put a little effort into that for you.

Last I saw, the Burzynski group was complaining they couldn’t do proper research because they didn’t have the millions that big pharma has to have to get anything on the market…..could it be that they can’t find a fool with enough money to bankroll them. If their bull works, wouldn’t you want to get in on it? Since it’s not a CURE but a treatment, with your reasoning, wouldn’t big pharma buy him out and keep all the wonderful profits to themselves? This conspircy theory seems to work both ways…..

Rod

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 January 2006 12:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  985
Joined  2005-12-16

Hi Rod,

How was your New Year party? My wife was very pleased so that makes me automatically happy.

Do you know that Burzynski was facing life time imprisonment in the trial we discussed? He wasn’t accused of anything Dr. Green was ranting about. Just some technicalities without merit. On the other hand cancer doctor can treat patients with poisons knowing perfectly well that the end result will be death aggrevated by sufferings, in fact this is what they are REQUIRED to do.

I don’t like your God, Rod. Your God scares me.

I suggest that we finish the discussion at this point. The topic doesn’t really interest me that much (I just reacted to your bizarre attack on Ginkgo Biloba) and we are not likely to bring anything knew to the debate. Lets part like gentlemen and friends. You are welcome to debate with me on other topics.

Warmest Regards,

Przemek Nowicki

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 January 2006 12:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  635
Joined  2005-02-06

You informed me sarcastically that Gonzales’s enzymes cure ALL cancers. Can you mention please once conventional cancer therapy, which is not chemo or radiation?

Uhh….surgery.  That about rounds out the big three. What would be your choice for prostate cancer?

Some forms of cancer are treatable and have a good prognosis. Most of the dreaded cancers do not prognose well.

Yeh, they are dreaded for that reason.

I don’t reject the medicine and will even take a chemical drug if I believed it would help. Here is the key word, believe.

Believe what you want, Thomas….. antibiotics work whether you believe or not…..we can’t say the same thing about pancreatic enzyme cancer treatments.

You automatically assumed that Stephen Barrett is an honest doctor and scientist who does a good job of defending the public. Stephen Barrett doesn’t defend the public. He is a looser who failed in his profession, a low life who doesn’t hesitate to do the most dirty job to please his bosses from the big pharma. All his awards and honorary memberships are very suspicious. I would think that membership in scientific this and scientific that would require a degree, expertise and serious publications. Stephen Barrett doesn’t have any of that but apperently it is not a problem if you have a well connected bosses.

A lot of people who have been taken by quacks disagree with you.

Rod

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 January 2006 01:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  635
Joined  2005-02-06

Thomas,

I agree we’ve been butting heads here, but it was as much for others in this forum, as us, I hope.

Would appreciate a link to any trial info, though.


Thomas, and Noggin if your out there, all the best. I’m still trying to recover from last night. A little too much alternative partying. :D

Rod

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 January 2006 01:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  985
Joined  2005-12-16

[quote author=“Rod] A lot of people who have been taken by quacks disagree with you.

Rod, I am with you regarding this statement. There are a lot of quacks and unscrupulous charlatans in the alternative camp. The fault is the bad laws we have. If you search the internet you will find how many in the alternative camp beg the government for rational regulations. This, however, is not the goal of Barrett and big pharma. They don’t want to regulate the alternative health industry. They want to shut it down, good and bad apples. Especially the good ones and those therapies that do indded work better than drug treatment.


Regards,

Thomas Orr

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 January 2006 01:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  985
Joined  2005-12-16

Rod and All who were following this debate,

thanks for the good time I had. In my closing statement I want to say that I respect science and medical profession even as I was pointing to the unfair treatment the alternative camp receives from the all powerful phrma. In fact, I postulate nothing more than just some balance and separation of powers. Big pharma should not have the rights to control the alternative treatments and the patients AND DOCTORS alike should be given freedom to choose.

Happy New year to everybody and thanks,

Thomas Orr

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 4
4
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed