Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OK, I was hoping for a NEUTRAL source of information, not Alt-Med sites. Also, these people had already had chemo or radiation so how much of their brain tumor cures were caused by which treatment can't be known for certain. One child died anyway. Also, no stats on how many he treated that went ahead and died. Or what other cancers he treated. IOW, how many with breast cancer or ovarian cancer or colon cancer or lung cancer? What was his success/failure rate? With which cancers? That's the kind of information I am looking for. Sorry I did not make myself clear. These Alt sites are very one sided and give almost no information that is truly useful. These sites are full of unsubstantiated claims. I am not looking for proof as such, just his success/failure rates on the different cancers. Stats if you will.....
You mention a neutral source of information instead of Alt med, but that should also apply to medical. You seem to suggest the medical and pharma sites are to be believed 100% while the Alt med sites have no credibility. I certainly disagree with you on that. Here is another interesting article that says a bit about his work. https://justice4poland.com/2016/05/0...tient-protest/
The child you mention who died, had toxic substances in her system which according to the autopsy report, was what killed her. She had no cancer in her system, but her body was destroyed from treatment given by the medical community. I’ve questioned for a number of years, why they give kids these toxic doses which must be worse than the disease itself. These poor little kids must suffer horribly and the pain on this dad’s face was hard to look at.
I was not able to find any stats although when patients show up to testify in front of Congress or the Medical Board it’s enough for me, I really don’t think they are making it up. Dr Burzyinski is in Phase III of his clinical trials, Phase I and II were successful and he is going ahead with the FDA sanctioned next phase. The CDC dosen’t keep any records of cancer survivors past five years, so I wonder what the true story is on that? It could be the stats might head in a different direction than what they want the public to see. Just because a pharma company published stats or Pub Med publishes protocols, dosen’t give them any more credibility than the Alt Med sites.
“There are lies, damned lies and statistics” Mark Twain
You mention a neutral source of information instead of Alt med, but that should also apply to medical. You seem to suggest the medical and pharma sites are to be believed 100% while the Alt med sites have no credibility. I certainly disagree with you on that. Here is another interesting article that says a bit about his work. https://justice4poland.com/2016/05/0...tient-protest/
The child you mention who died, had toxic substances in her system which according to the autopsy report, was what killed her. She had no cancer in her system, but her body was destroyed from treatment given by the medical community. I’ve questioned for a number of years, why they give kids these toxic doses which must be worse than the disease itself. These poor little kids must suffer horribly and the pain on this dad’s face was hard to look at.
I was not able to find any stats although when patients show up to testify in front of Congress or the Medical Board it’s enough for me, I really don’t think they are making it up. Dr Burzyinski is in Phase III of his clinical trials, Phase I and II were successful and he is going ahead with the FDA sanctioned next phase. The CDC dosen’t keep any records of cancer survivors past five years, so I wonder what the true story is on that? It could be the stats might head in a different direction than what they want the public to see. Just because a pharma company published stats or Pub Med publishes protocols, dosen’t give them any more credibility than the Alt Med sites.
“There are lies, damned lies and statistics” Mark Twain
I am the mother of a childhood cancer survivor, who was diagnosed with leukemia at age 13 and will have his 43rd birthday on September 3. Yes, the treatment was hard, but it is the reason he is alive today. Without it, the fatality rate is 100%. Kids being treated for the same type of leukemia he had can now expect a 90% five year survival rate, and most who make it to five years will be long term survivors like my son. Ten year survival statistics are kept. For my son's leukemia type:
"Among 12,096 patients from 18 SEER sites diagnosed from 1981 to 2010, survival rates improved each decade from 74.8% to 84.5% to 88.6% at 5 years and from 69.3% to 80.9% to 85.5% at 10 years."
The overall cancer death rate in the US fell by 25% between 1990 and 2014:
"Without a doubt, the most effective part of the story is the segment in which Dr. Jeanine Graf of the Texas Children’s Hospital is introduced. Dr. Graf is the director of the pediatric intensive care unit there and has taken care of lots of Burzynski patients, as her hospital is “just down the road” from the Burzynski Clinic and these unfortunate children are brought to her hospital when they decompensate. ... Perhaps the most devastating part of this segment was seeing Dr. Graf stating, point blank, that she’s never seen a Burzynski patient survive. True, she does point out that patients don’t come to her until they are in extremis, but the fact remains that she’s never seen any of them live."
You mention a neutral source of information instead of Alt med, but that should also apply to medical. You seem to suggest the medical and pharma sites are to be believed 100% while the Alt med sites have no credibility.
What has no credibility are testimonials and anecdotes. If this man is curing cancers the information should be available as to what his cure/failure rates are. They can easily be found for chemo and other methods or treatment.
Sorry but that is not a neutral site nor does it have the information I am asking about and looking for.
Quote:
The child you mention who died, had toxic substances in her system which according to the autopsy report, was what killed her. She had no cancer in her system, but her body was destroyed from treatment given by the medical community. I’ve questioned for a number of years, why they give kids these toxic doses which must be worse than the disease itself. These poor little kids must suffer horribly and the pain on this dad’s face was hard to look at.
Since her autopsy report was not there to see, we can't know why she actually died. It could as well have been his treatments. I'm not trying to argue with you but I know enough about cancer and the human body in general to know without an actual copy of the autopsy report anyone can claim what caused her death.
Quote:
I was not able to find any stats although when patients show up to testify in front of Congress or the Medical Board it’s enough for me, I really don’t think they are making it up. Dr Burzyinski is in Phase III of his clinical trials, Phase I and II were successful and he is going ahead with the FDA sanctioned next phase.
Then perhaps we need to wait until he finishes Phase III. I still can't find which cancers he's treating in these trials other than brain cancer. Can you? There are hundreds of cancers and what kills one does nothing for another. Seriously. Where is that info to be found?
"When I last reported on antineoplastons on this site in 2006, Dr. Burzynski claimed to have treated more than 8,000 patients, but his success rates were unknown. His website stated only that he has helped “many” people. As of this writing, his website makes no claims about success.
If antineoplaston therapy is effective, we should have scientific studies showing what percentage of patients treated have survived and for how long, as well as evidence showing how the therapy compares to conventional cancer treatment."
Quote:
The CDC dosen’t keep any records of cancer survivors past five years, so I wonder what the true story is on that? It could be the stats might head in a different direction than what they want the public to see. Just because a pharma company published stats or Pub Med publishes protocols, dosen’t give them any more credibility than the Alt Med sites.
“There are lies, damned lies and statistics” Mark Twain
Death stats can't be faked. Death certificates must be issued with cause of death when known. Deaths that occur during trials must be recorded. There is no evidence he cured anyone. Take into account these people got prior treatment and there is always spontaneous remissions where people did nothing and their cancers vanished. So no matter what he treated them with some would live and some would die.
Has he helped people - perhaps. There is no way to really know. Has he cured anyone? He never claimed to have cured anyone so we can leave it at that.
The drawback is that grape juice, like most fruit juices, sharply raises your blood sugar and keeps it elevated for a long time. Cancer cells are more sensitive to insulin than regular cells.
Grapes contain fructose which does not require insulin to enter cells.
I am the mother of a childhood cancer survivor, who was diagnosed with leukemia at age 13 and will have his 43rd birthday on September 3. Yes, the treatment was hard, but it is the reason he is alive today. Without it, the fatality rate is 100%. Kids being treated for the same type of leukemia he had can now expect a 90% five year survival rate, and most who make it to five years will be long term survivors like my son. Ten year survival statistics are kept. For my son's leukemia type:
"Among 12,096 patients from 18 SEER sites diagnosed from 1981 to 2010, survival rates improved each decade from 74.8% to 84.5% to 88.6% at 5 years and from 69.3% to 80.9% to 85.5% at 10 years."
The overall cancer death rate in the US fell by 25% between 1990 and 2014:
"Without a doubt, the most effective part of the story is the segment in which Dr. Jeanine Graf of the Texas Children’s Hospital is introduced. Dr. Graf is the director of the pediatric intensive care unit there and has taken care of lots of Burzynski patients, as her hospital is “just down the road” from the Burzynski Clinic and these unfortunate children are brought to her hospital when they decompensate. ... Perhaps the most devastating part of this segment was seeing Dr. Graf stating, point blank, that she’s never seen a Burzynski patient survive. True, she does point out that patients don’t come to her until they are in extremis, but the fact remains that she’s never seen any of them live."
It’s good that your son survived but I can’t help wondering how many would survive if there were more options that were less toxic out there? It seems the government, medical community and big Pharma go after anyone to squash them, if it threatens their interests. I don’t believe for a second that everything they say and offer the public is beyond reproach, anymore than I believe that everything the Alt med sites have to offer is phony.
I was doing some looking around the internet and discovered that they only keep five year stats on surviving cancer patients. So, when a cancer patient develops cancer for the second time, it’s considered new. It would be very interesting to see how many people come down with cancer again in eight or ten years. Now, I know your son’s ten year survival stats are out there, but it’s not common.
Dr Graf is no different than any other Dr’s in Houston, big egos and they detested Dr Burzynski. The question is what about all those people who testified on his behalf? Are you saying they are all liars or don’t have the sense to understand if they were cured or not? There is a lot of information on the net both good and bad about him. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because of all the people who have spoken on his behalf. Some people died, but no cancer treatment is perfect and probably never will be.
I read some articles on the Respectful Insolence site and didn’t like it. I don’t like pointy head elites who seem to think they know so much more than everyone else. It’s these kinds of people who would love to take away our freedom of choice in medicine and have us go in for a prescription for vitamin C because it’s for our own good and we don’t have the sense to see it. There are enough people like that in Washington.
Dr Graf is no different than any other Dr’s in Houston, big egos and they detested Dr Burzynski. The question is what about all those people who testified on his behalf? Are you saying they are all liars or don’t have the sense to understand if they were cured or not? There is a lot of information on the net both good and bad about him. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because of all the people who have spoken on his behalf. Some people died, but no cancer treatment is perfect and probably never will be.
They can't claim they are cured because cancers, the same cancers that were "cured" can come back many years later. This is well known. You must already know this. You can't know if you were cured or not. Many Drs are no longer going by the 5 years so you're cured belief. You go into remission and that can last from weeks to months to years. Being NED on your scans only means if the cancer remains, it is too small for the scan to pick up. It doesn't mean you are cured. And those remaining cells can one day start into growth again.
If you were an oncologist and all Dr Burzynski's patients that came to you were in horrific condition and you never knew any to live, you may develop a dislike for the man also.
It’s good that your son survived but I can’t help wondering how many would survive if there were more options that were less toxic out there? It seems the government, medical community and big Pharma go after anyone to squash them, if it threatens their interests. I don’t believe for a second that everything they say and offer the public is beyond reproach, anymore than I believe that everything the Alt med sites have to offer is phony.
I was doing some looking around the internet and discovered that they only keep five year stats on surviving cancer patients. So, when a cancer patient develops cancer for the second time, it’s considered new. It would be very interesting to see how many people come down with cancer again in eight or ten years. Now, I know your son’s ten year survival stats are out there, but it’s not common.
Dr Graf is no different than any other Dr’s in Houston, big egos and they detested Dr Burzynski. The question is what about all those people who testified on his behalf? Are you saying they are all liars or don’t have the sense to understand if they were cured or not? There is a lot of information on the net both good and bad about him. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because of all the people who have spoken on his behalf. Some people died, but no cancer treatment is perfect and probably never will be.
I read some articles on the Respectful Insolence site and didn’t like it. I don’t like pointy head elites who seem to think they know so much more than everyone else. It’s these kinds of people who would love to take away our freedom of choice in medicine and have us go in for a prescription for vitamin C because it’s for our own good and we don’t have the sense to see it. There are enough people like that in Washington.
There has to be evidence that "more options that were less toxic" cured the disease. Everyone, including research scientists and pediatricians and parents and patients, would love to have them. They do not exist. That does not mean there is no research being done to find them. For example there is now a test which can tell which women with early stage breast cancer can skip chemo.
It is not true that they only keep stats for five years. Five years is a milestone because most recurrences happen before then. The leukemia my son had is not the only malignancy with ten-year figures.
If a patient develops cancer again, it may be a recurrence of the original cancer or an entirely different cell type. My MIL has had both breast cancer and melanoma, for example.
The reason docs in Houston hate Burzynski is because they have to clean up his messes. His treatment is not non-toxic and has included serious neurological complications. If the man was doing what he claims, he would have no problem getting his results published. As best I can tell, he has published nothing, and I can hardly envision him being able to do a phase 3 trial with no results for phase 1, much less phase 2. He would also have to do each of those for every type of cancer and a specified stage. You cannot just lump them all together. He is charging people obscene amounts of money with no evidence that his treatment works for anything.
We know nothing about the people who give testimonials. We do not know if they even had cancer or not.
The author of the Respectful Insolence articles is a cancer surgeon. He has to treat alt med failures who might have had better outcomes if they had not gone the alt med route.
Requiring that a treatment that you might choose has some evidence to support its use is the only wise approach.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
