Has anyone heard "Burzynski" and his cure for cancer?

[XIronicAtheistX]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S81PXHwjMAQ

Seriously, why the ******** aren't they using this O.O
Like seriously it seems choosing chemo over this, is as absurd as saying HIV doesn't cause aids -_-

[DXnobodyX]

Do they actually tell you what the polypeptides used are?
Do they actually know its biokinetics?
Do they know its toxic and therapeutic levels?
Has it successfully gone through drug trials?


There is a system in place for moderating and controlling drug production and distribution without knowing the answers to these questions you could be just injecting snake oil and calling it antineoplastons. I like how they use emotional play to avoid describing any of the science, yeah yeah yeah we all know about oncogenes and suppressor genes but how do polypeptides in urine and blood effect just about every form of neoplasm when some dont even resemble any sort of a cell anyway.

Although I like the conspiracy theory comments on the video XD

[XIronicAtheistX]

DXnobodyX

Do they actually tell you what the polypeptides used are?
Do they actually know its biokinetics?
Do they know its toxic and therapeutic levels?
Has it successfully gone through drug trials?


There is a system in place for moderating and controlling drug production and distribution without knowing the answers to these questions you could be just injecting snake oil and calling it antineoplastons. I like how they use emotional play to avoid describing any of the science, yeah yeah yeah we all know about oncogenes and suppressor genes but how do polypeptides in urine and blood effect just about every form of neoplasm when some dont even resemble any sort of a cell anyway.

Although I like the conspiracy theory comments on the video XD

Well i get it, it isn't "trustworthy" if they are lieing about what they are injecting you with, but couldn't you do that with alot of medicines that do exist?

"Has it successfully gone through drug trials?" actually yes the video showed the testimonies, AND the related medical documents that both people:
The ones who tried chemo
and the ones who didn't
BOTH had great results from trying this method...
What more evidence do you want then:
1.a person tries chemo, no success...
2.that person tried the other method, success
3.the person goes through tests to see if they still have the cancer, no they do not....

1.a person didn't try chemo...
2.that person tried the other method, success...
3.the person goes through tests to see if they still have the cancer, no they do not....

The people even checked VERY long term to see if it redeveloped...

"Do they actually tell you what the polypeptides used are?
Do they actually know its biokinetics?
Do they know its toxic and therapeutic levels?" while yes, if they do not know those factors for certainty, it could lead to unforeseen side affects, but that happened with ALOT of medicines, just look at medicines that cure one thing and cause another, or treat one thing and cause another, hell even being misdiagnosed causes horrible life wrecking side effects...

[DXnobodyX]

XIronicAtheistX

DXnobodyX

Do they actually tell you what the polypeptides used are?
Do they actually know its biokinetics?
Do they know its toxic and therapeutic levels?
Has it successfully gone through drug trials?


There is a system in place for moderating and controlling drug production and distribution without knowing the answers to these questions you could be just injecting snake oil and calling it antineoplastons. I like how they use emotional play to avoid describing any of the science, yeah yeah yeah we all know about oncogenes and suppressor genes but how do polypeptides in urine and blood effect just about every form of neoplasm when some dont even resemble any sort of a cell anyway.

Although I like the conspiracy theory comments on the video XD

Well i get it, it isn't "trustworthy" if they are lieing about what they are injecting you with, but couldn't you do that with alot of medicines that do exist?

"Has it successfully gone through drug trials?" actually yes the video showed the testimonies, AND the related medical documents that both people:
The ones who tried chemo
and the ones who didn't
BOTH had great results from trying this method...
What more evidence do you want then:
1.a person tries chemo, no success...
2.that person tried the other method, success
3.the person goes through tests to see if they still have the cancer, no they do not....

1.a person didn't try chemo...
2.that person tried the other method, success...
3.the person goes through tests to see if they still have the cancer, no they do not....

The people even checked VERY long term to see if it redeveloped...

"Do they actually tell you what the polypeptides used are?
Do they actually know its biokinetics?
Do they know its toxic and therapeutic levels?" while yes, if they do not know those factors for certainty, it could lead to unforeseen side affects, but that happened with ALOT of medicines, just look at medicines that cure one thing and cause another, or treat one thing and cause another, hell even being misdiagnosed causes horrible life wrecking side effects...

Come back when you know what your talking about. [EDIT] sorry that didn't help educate you sigh.

Um basically proving that something reduces cancer doesn't mean it cures cancer, ionising radiation can kill cancer but it also causes it. The same goes for drugs, the have extensive trials to weed out side effects that are only seen in large populations and studies to map any long term effects. Its takes forever just to get an imaging agent through drug approval let alone gene specific therapeutics.

It may yet come to fluition just as the many other anticancer drugs did on the market, but until he puts in the proper research, development and study it can be more dangerous then useful. In the mean time putting it through clinical trials helps those in the worse case scenerios.

Not all medical discoveries are like that associated with Helicobacter pylori where its an "in your face discover". You should read up on penecillin and various vaccination history and you'll get the some idea of what it takes to produce these drugs and why the questions I asked earlier are important.

[0Katiepie0]

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski1.html

The FDA may be a stifling quagmire of failure, but that doesn't mean that everybody who opposes them has a legitimate reason for doing so.

[GenOberst]

Oh joy. Burzynski. Wasn't it only a few months ago I addressed DCA? Now it's this guy. A cancer researcher who has never once done either residency or post-doctoral training in Oncology. And I'm pretty sure he hasn't even done CMEs in Oncology.

Let's start with the easy one. Antineoplastons? Bruzynski's fancy name for polypeptides, aka proteins. We know all about those proteins. He clings to them like a life preserver and then sells them to the desperate.

As for testing. What testing? Show me one peer reviewed journal publication or independently published paper that come up with the same results as he gets. He's the inventor, manufacturer, and principal investigator of these things. No one else is actively studying them, except to go, "Burzynski is off his rocker. Still." If you are the only PI studying a given phenomenon chances are you're crazy. There's no alternative.

He's been conducting the same Phase 2 trials since 1991. The exact same. Right down to filing the exact same statements of intent with the FDA. And his "Phase 3" trials have yet to be registered. Why? Because he submitted the exact same Phase 2 proposal. And his Phase 2 trials were held up because he skipped Phase 1 (in vitro) testing to start testing on humans. This means at some point he went from going, "Hey, has anyone tested this on cancer cells?" to "Let's just start injecting this stuff into carcinoma/neoplasm." Who does that? Even the crazy doctors in charge of the Tuskegee experiment went, "Y'know what? We've seen what syphilis does in vitro, now let's see what it does in vivo."

[YourBrainlessBuddy]

Yeah, well, I'm not really a science nerd or whatever, so I'm not even gonna touch on the subject of Antineoplastons, but anyone can see this guy has terrible credentials. All the research he has done has no real backing in the scientific world. Nobody can reproduce his results except himself. He's been found guilty of fraud and Dan Morales, the Texas Attorney General in 1993, ordered him to "cease and desist" the use of these products.

What I'm trying to say is, check your facts before you talk.

[Slutty_Eddie]

XIronicAtheistX

Seriously, why the ******** aren't they using this O.O

How science works:

1. Hypothesis based on observations.
2. Figure out a way to test your hypothesis.
3. Test
4. Did you do something wrong? Restart from #2 pretty much endlessly, because you almost always do something wrong.
5. Did you confirm your hypothesis?
NO -> Start at #1
YES -> Show other scientists
6. Did the other scientists confirm your hypothesis?
NO -> Go back to #2
YES -> Good science.


See. The reason we aren't using this is because your doctor isn't using these steps.

[DXnobodyX]

Slutty_Eddie

XIronicAtheistX

Seriously, why the ******** aren't they using this O.O

How science works:

1. Hypothesis based on observations.
2. Figure out a way to test your hypothesis.
3. Test
4. Did you do something wrong? Restart from #2 pretty much endlessly, because you almost always do something wrong.
5. Did you confirm your hypothesis?
NO -> Start at #1
YES -> Show other scientists
6. Did the other scientists confirm your hypothesis?
NO -> Go back to #2
YES -> Good science. cake


See. The reason we aren't using this is because your doctor isn't using these steps.

Dont worry I fixed it for you.

[Scarlet Flandre]

You can cure cancer with a well-executed placebo i'm sure.

There's evidence to back up that claim, but I won't even bother with it.

[Shokushu]

It would be really fantastic if this really worked but this guy triggers nearly every red flag I know of for quack medicine.

I've got to say that if these people really thought it worked they'd go through the proper procedures for testing this so that other clinics all around the world could do it, both so that more people could be helped and so that they could get money from those other sources.


You do rarely get people that say "that takes too long, ******** all of those delays, I'm just going to start doing this NOW" who are actually right.

Generally people in medicine know about a case or two of that though, so it's implausible that people with that level of training wouldn't know better than to do this- except if they know it's a lie.

[Mahrahia]

It sounds too good to be true. If he really did make the medicine and FDA just doesn't want him to be the only one to profit, then that sucks.