New more effective cure for cancer

[Twinbird24]

Here is the link for more information about this treatment by medical doctor and Ph.D biochemist Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski:

https://www.burzynskimovie.com/

 

I watched some of the movie clips and trailers for the movie and listened to part of the interview. This is not the first example I've heard where the FDA have suppressed a new/ alternative treatment for a disease/ disorder. It seems that medicine and cancer treatment is more about making money than helping people and saving lives. I find it sad that today's world is governed by people who just care about money and power.

 

Here is another example of FDAs suppression:

This is an excerpt from a book I have (Natural Prescriptions by Dr. M. Giller):

"The supplement coenzyme Q10 (or CoQ10) has been of enormous help to my patients with congestive heart failure. Unfortunately, CoQ10 is on the FDA's 'hit list,' not because it's dangerous, but because the FDA claims that it has no benefit."

 

I also have another book (which I can't find at the moment so I can't tell you the name of the book or provide any specific details) that compares the prices of certain drugs and medical equipment sold in USA to other countries around the world, the prices in USA (for the same drug) are substantially higher than in other countries.

Edited June 14, 2011 by Twinbird24

[Stefan-CoA]

Actually medicine and cancer treatments are about saving lives. It's just that the amount of research and money that goes into developing and testing a new medicine is insane. You can't expect companies to just give the stuff away for free. These people also have families to feed. Would you rather for every person saved from cancer, a family of four is forced into poverty just because you were to stingy to save your life?

[Twinbird24]

Then why does the FDA attack Dr. Burzynski? It's ridiculous. His cure has no side effects and has been clinically tested, he has not received any complaints from any patients and has already cured several patients. Chemotherapy and other drugs used to treat cancer are a lot less effective and have worse side effects, yet it is approved and lots of money is made from this treatment. "When Antineoplastons are approved for public use, it will allow a single scientist to hold an exclusive license to manufacture and sell these medicines on the open market—before they become generic—leaving PhRMA absent in profiting from the most effective gene-targeted cancer treatment the world has ever seen."

 

From another website:

"Ubiquinone (coenzyme Q10) has not been approved by the FDA to treat any disease, and it should not be substituted for prescription medications. Ubiquinone has not been evaluated by the FDA for safety, effectiveness, or purity. All potential risks and/or advantages of this product may not be known." Dr. M. Giller has had great success with this product, which has very little side effects (all of which are only mild), but it's still recommend that you keep taking your drugs.

 

I was not implying that all doctors and health care professionals are in it for the money and don't care about people (I would say most doctors genuinely care about the patients they treat). I'm talking about the people who own and run organizations like the FDA and the large pharmaceutical companies, the few people that make the enormous amounts of money and will do whatever they can to keep and expand their money and power.

Edited June 15, 2011 by Twinbird24

[Marat]

The essential ridiculousness of the FDA is that it requires various substances on the market to prove the claims made about them by people other than those making them. This allows products to be banned because they fail to live up to the exaggerated claims made by quacks about their healing capacities.

 

Another absurdity of current policy is that it forgets that the basic idea of America is supposed to be individual liberty, and there can logically be no more personal, private, and essential freedom than the freedom to determine for yourself how you will treat or cure your illness or attempt to save your life. Yet the government somehow supposes that this liberty belongs to itself! The right of each individual to control his own medical fate is surely within the individual private sphere of autonomy recognized by the Supreme Court in such cases as Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade.

 

It is also now generally forgotten that the founding fathers of America were dedicated to individual medical freedom. Thomas Jefferson mocked the fact that in France the government had the nerve to ban the emetic and insisted that there should be a right to medical freedom in the American Constitution. Benjamin Rush, one of the founding fathers who was also a medical doctor, was also a vigorous supporter of medical freedom for Americans.

 

In fact Americans used to have medical freedom until the beginning of the 19th century, when the medical fraternity enlisted the support of the government to support its monopoly control on medicine. Before then, Coca Cola had cocaine in it, you could buy opium at a grocery store, and poisons were freely available at pharmacies as long as the purchasers signed a form with their name and address in case there was a murder in town. Anyone could set himself up as a doctor, and a wide variety of alternative medical schools existed.

 

Another absurdity of the FDA is its assumption that drugs have to be 'safe and effective' before they can be released to the public. But the problem with this notion is that living with a disease is itself not safe, and in many cases, no remedy is as yet provably effective. So why not allow people to weigh the risks and benefits of conservatively living on with their current illness either inadequately treated or not treatable at all by currently approved therapy or taking a gamble on unproven remedies? That should be up to each individual.

 

This issue was explored in American law in Abagail Alliance v. von Eschenbach, and in the most insane judicial reasoning ever heard in an American courtroom, the court decided that it was better for dying cancer patients who cannot be helped by any conventional medicine just to die without having the right to reach out to any alternative treatments, which might not be safe or effective. By analogy, if you are drowning in quicksand and only one tree branch is in range to pull yourself out, you had better not try it unless the government comes around in time to certify it as safe and effective.

[CharonY]

This issue was explored in American law in Abagail Alliance v. von Eschenbach, and in the most insane judicial reasoning ever heard in an American courtroom, the court decided that it was better for dying cancer patients who cannot be helped by any conventional medicine just to die without having the right to reach out to any alternative treatments, which might not be safe or effective. By analogy, if you are drowning in quicksand and only one tree branch is in range to pull yourself out, you had better not try it unless the government comes around in time to certify it as safe and effective.

 

This is somewhat misleading. The case was about whether terminally ill patients have the fundamental right to these treatments. In the end it was a constitutional question that had to be answered. Also it should be noted that no one is banned from trying alternative medicine. Unless it is harmful it does not fall under FDA regulation if it does not explicitly state that it heals cancer, for instance (that is, without passing the trials).

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Then why does the FDA attack Dr. Burzynski? It's ridiculous. His cure has no side effects and has been clinically tested, he has not received any complaints from any patients and has already cured several patients.

I've checked his website and found a great deal of information on how to buy his DVDs and very little on the claim that it has been clinically tested. Have his test procedures and results been published? Did he perform a double-blind trial?

 

Another absurdity of the FDA is its assumption that drugs have to be 'safe and effective' before they can be released to the public. But the problem with this notion is that living with a disease is itself not safe, and in many cases, no remedy is as yet provably effective. So why not allow people to weigh the risks and benefits of conservatively living on with their current illness either inadequately treated or not treatable at all by currently approved therapy or taking a gamble on unproven remedies? That should be up to each individual.

An American patient may freely choose to take any number of "nutritional supplements" which websites or alternative doctors claim will cure their disease. These products are not regulated by the FDA, apart from the requirement to submit information suggesting they are safe. (Only one "dietary supplement" has ever been rejected.)

 

The regulation is on the companies which claim their products are cures. If a company is free to market a medication with unproven claims that it is highly effective, the patient is denied their right to weigh the risks and benefits accurately, and must rely on potentially false or exaggerated information.

[Marat]

Many substances are banned from interstate sale or the use of the federal mails, even though individual states (usually Nevada) may permit them. Any product which requires professional assistance to administer or use safely is in effect banned by professional society regulations. The risk of tort suits for failure to observe the usually primitive 'standards of contemporary practice' will dissuade most physicians from trying anything in the least bit imaginative.

[Twinbird24]

The website for Burzynski's clinic is here: http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/

I cannot find any published results from his trials/ test by searching the web, I just know that in his video he says he has used it on patients with success (not %100 success, he doesn't claim it to be a miracle cure, and I also believe it says somewhere on his website that he does not guarantee results from his therapy). He does publish his result though: "The official reports on the progress of the clinical trials on Antineoplastons are presented regularly by Dr. Burzynski and his associates at various medical symposia and conferences. Mid-term reports from the clinical research are regularly published in peer-reviewed journals and subject-related scientific books." The website also offers success stories of some of his patients. "Clinical trials conducted in our Clinic are FDA approved protocols." So it seems that the FDA have reduced their suppression/ suspicion of Dr. Burzynski but that was not always the case.

 

"Hydrazine sulfate is another substance used in cancer therapy, and the results showing it's effectiveness has been published in leading medical journals, including The Lancet, Cancer, and Journal of Clinical Oncology. Hydrazine sulfate has undergone more than fifteen years of controlled testing at both UCLA Harbor Hospital and at the Petrov Research Institute in St. Petersburg, Russia. In a 1991 multi-institutional study , a team of scientist from the Petrov Institute reported that hydrazine sulfate stopped tumors in roughly half the patients. NCI has not followed up on the Russian study, which American cancer officials have dismissed as 'poorly done work ... not up to our standards.' US clinical trails conducted in 1992 and 1993 were allowed to occur without heeding Dr. Gold's warning that hydrazine sulfate is not effective when used in conjunction with incompatible substances such as alcohol, sleeping pills, etc. Instead of conducting further tests according to Dr. Golds established protocol, NCI officials continue to reject hydrazine sulfate as a viable cancer treatment, informing physicians that its use it little more than 'quackery.'" (from Alternative Medicine The Definitive Guide)

Edited June 17, 2011 by Twinbird24

[Marat]

Interesting results like this emerge all the time, but if they are too far outside of the mainstream or point to the superior action of cheap chemicals which cannot be patented which could replace expensive drugs which are patent-protected, somehow they are never properly tested.

 

E.g., niacin for cholesterol reduction; intravenous oxygenated infusion of hydrogen peroxide to treat infections in the 1920s; heating the patient's own blood and adding high levels of glucose to it, then returning it intravenously to the patient to kill only the rapidly metabolizing cancer cells (Dr. Ardenne); injecting small doses of animal cells to restore loss of function in the corresponding human glands (Dr. Niehans); treatment of peripheral neuropathy by electric currents; detaching glucose from diabetic hemoglobin and thus reducing damaging advanced glycation endproduct formation by the application of ultraviolet light to highly vascularized, superficial regions of the body (e.g., the feet); use of the pro-vitamin Benfotiamine to concentrate levels of vitamin B1 in diabetics to block three out of the four metabolic pathways by which diabetic complications form, etc.

 

Only if the power of the physicans and Big Pharma are protected by using only prescription medicines to treat disease will cures ever be submitted to adequte testing. Thus everything else can always be honestly dismissed as 'unproven,' not because it cannot scientifically be proved to work, but only because the institutional resources to prove it will never be summoned.

[CharonY]

"Clinical trials conducted in our Clinic are FDA approved protocols." So it seems that the FDA have reduced their suppression/ suspicion of Dr. Burzynski but that was not always the case.

 

I am not sure what you mean. Burzynski has started selling his cure before he finalized all the required trials. There is no suppression outside normal regulation. Incidentally the data should be published soonish, and since most appear to be phase II (where efficacy is evaluated) one can see whether it works or not. What is slightly worrisome is that although some of the studies appear to have concluded quite a while ago, he so far only presented it on meetings but not yet in a publication. If that happens we will know more.

 

I do not know the story about hydrazine sulfate, however a quick search in the Lancet did not reveal any studies showing effectiveness. Did they provide references?