Dr. Burzynski in houstan.

• By stayingcalm (Inactive)
• Reply 935351
• June 22, 2010 at 3:03 am
• Report post

LOL, it's none too scientific at all. I suggest you not post on this topic, it draws too many flies :)

• By cards7up
• Reply 935399
• June 22, 2010 at 6:06 am
• Report post

His is an alternative approach. When you don't see clinical trials, then my thought is, it's not worth it. If no company/organization will back a clinial trial, there must be a reason. I'd like to know the cost of this treatment. So, if you find out, let us know.
Take care, JC

• By Steelboss
• Reply 935491
• June 22, 2010 at 8:27 am
• Report post

When there are no clinical trials all it means is that the medicine being prescribed is not patentable. He has had a lot of success but most insurance plans will not cover.

• By ollie111
• Reply 935955 · In reply to 935351 by stayingcalm
• June 22, 2010 at 12:14 pm
• Report post

Staying calm I don't understand why not to post???!! He has much success and only a few hospitals are doing what he is in Europe. That says something!!!!! I'm just searching out for new and better things, I want know If I don't ask! Jc I believe u put down 30,000 as a deposit. It's not cheap at all. I don't think most insurances cover it because we are in a country where money rules. His approach is less demaging than chemo and seems to work for Many people. So I guess if you had the money....... That's a lot of money for us. I was just curious.

• By gkukurin
• Reply 936011
• June 22, 2010 at 12:40 pm
• Report post

Ollie,


We looked into it for my father-in-law.

There seems to be trials ongoing. But my FIL did not qualify. They wanted $25K. Which was steep but doable. The problem is the treatment was $5-7K per month...for life.

Not doable

• By mvpetrovich
• Reply 936102
• June 22, 2010 at 1:16 pm
• Report post

Actually his work is VERY scientific. Although, sometimes it seems that science is in the eye of the beholder.

Cancer treatment is often political and economic, and much less about science. The history Dr. Stanislaw Burznski is one that is quite sad. In 1983, the FDA began harassment of Dr. Burzynski which included summoning by four grand juries, an indictment, and a trail in which the FDA lost.

He was educated in Poland, and earned both an MD and PhD. At age 24, he was the youngest person in Poland to have earned both degrees. He later came to the United States. What he had done was identify specific peptides which were involved with the inhibition of DNA synthesis and cell division in cancer cells. He called those peptides "Antineoplastons," which means "anti-cancer."

Burzynski ran into trouble because these Antineoplastons were species specific, meaning you could not do animal trails. If he could not do animal trials, he could not get FDA approval.

You will see on his site "Burzynski Research Institute Gets SPA Clearance from the FDA to Initiate Pivotal Phase III Trial of Combination Antineoplaston Therapy and Radiation Therapy." So, maybe things are starting to change.

He was attacked by everyone including the American Cancer Society, National Cancer Institute, the FDA, the Texas Department of health, the American Medical Association, and the Texas Board of Medical Examiners. When you read the story of Dr. Burzynski it is quite upsetting, and quite sad. You will find several books that cover his story.

• By stayingcalm (Inactive)
• Reply 936122
• June 22, 2010 at 1:23 pm
• Report post

Insurance won't cover it because there is no science behind it. But the man has the best of both worlds, he gets paid a bunch of money for doing junk "science" and his patients aren't around long enough to sue. Here's a quote from one patient's daughter:
"I just watched the show and need to tell you what happened to my mom when she went to Dr. Burzynski. She was diagnosed with Stage IV breast cancer and, after exhausting all chemo treatments, decided to consult with Dr. Burzynski to see if my mom was a candidate. He said yes and my parents flew to Houston for her treatments, which are not to be used on patients with cancer in the brain. My mom's breast cancer had spread to the brain, which was noted in the file that was sent, however, they continued to treat her. Needless to say, her head literally blew up like a balloon and they left her laying in a hotel room for days, suffering. My father thought she was going to die and she was close. I just feel that Dr. Burzynski and his staff did not look closely at her file, and just took my parents' money, thousands, as this treatment is not covered by insurance. When my mom returned, she was a different woman, and never recovered. Please PLEASE do not take his treatment ideas lightly. He has good ideas but there's a reason the FDA has not approved his treatments..."

• By stayingcalm (Inactive)
• Reply 936175
• June 22, 2010 at 1:50 pm
• Report post

There's a lovely long article in the Houston Press - I started to post portions of it here but there's just too much to share - here is the article. Hope you're not expecting a pro-Burzynski story even on his own turf!

• By rancher_al
• Reply 937109
• June 23, 2010 at 3:00 am
• Report post

Dr. Burzynski has had some particularly good success with some very difficult-to-treat brain cancers. He has succeeded in many documented cases where conventional treatment had either failed, and/or had such a low probability of success that the alternative program was selected.

If the cost figures quoted in this post are correct, Dr. Burzynski may be less expensive than chemotherapy.

I've heard that you could expect to pay $50,000 - $75,000 at Burzynski Clinic. Doesn't a couple of years of Chemo end up in the $200,000 - $400,000 range?

I'm really curious to know if these figures are close to being correct - does anyone know the answer?

Al

• By cleonard (Inactive)
• Reply 938093
• June 23, 2010 at 4:08 pm
• Report post

Staying calm is right on the mark regarding Burzynski and is supported by the investigations of numerous reputable scientific bodies. Check out sites such as quackwatch and science-based medicine for greater detail. The tragedy is that so many people waste their lives and treasure on charlatans and snake oil pitchmen.

• By stayingcalm (Inactive)
• Reply 938259
• June 23, 2010 at 5:59 pm
• Report post

Furthermore, most insurance covers chemo, it does not cover a Burzynski treatment!

• By keepongoing
• Reply 938537 · In reply to 937109 by rancher_al
• June 23, 2010 at 9:35 pm
• Report post

Rancher Al,
You cannot compare the costs of Bruzynski's treatment and regular chemo because the fact is that even if the treatments are cheaper they are not covered by insurance so they are all out of pocket for the patient. Chemo no matter how expensive is covered by insurance because Big Pharma has made sure of that. The Health Care system in this country is nuts. They will pay twice and three times as much for something that will put the bucks into Big Pharma's pockets but not pay 1/2 of that for a treatment that does not support Big Pharma. There are many other treatments that are helping Cancer patients but are not associated with Big Pharma so therefore not covered by insurance despite the fact that they are not nearly as expensive as traditional chemo.

• By keepongoing
• Reply 938546 · In reply to 935955 by ollie111
• June 23, 2010 at 9:43 pm
• Report post

Ollie,
You must be relatively new here. There are two camps on this forum. Some of us who believe that there is more than one way to handle this horrible illness successfully, and some small minded people who call everything that is not traditional chemo, "junk" despite the fact that they know nothing about it. This dichotomy of opinions has been going on for a long time and gets pretty heated up. If you are considering treatment that is not mainstream there are many sites on the internet that will provide you with information as to what is available out there. Dr. Bruzynski is not the only doctor who treats cancer successfully without chemo. You might want to read Suzanne Sommers book "knockout" for more information on other doctors who are treating cancer with alternative means and have had success. The biggest problem is that none of the alternative Cancer therapies are covered by insurance, so you have to be able and willing to spend your own money on them. You also need to keep an open mind and research everything thoroughly and keep in mind that many people who go through traditional chemo do not succeed just as people who go through alternative treatments do not necessarily succeed. It is a very complicated maze to negotiate.
Good Luck and Good Health

• By rancher_al
• Reply 938779
• June 24, 2010 at 1:57 am
• Report post

I agree with keepongoing.

There are different approaches to dealing with cancer, and feelings generally run strong, depending on what you believe.

The fact is, that "the answer" to cancer is elusive. I personally wish there was more organized support for new methods - as it is, unless you are pursuing conventional medicine's approach, most grants, facility support, etc. are closed to prospective researchers, etc.

If you research Dr. Burzynski, you'll find a long list of documented cancer remissions/cures among his patients. He is definitely not a "quack" as some would allude to - in fact he has patients living today that would have died 15 to 20 years ago if left to conventional treatments. In fact, he had such an impressive record of SUCCESS that he won a Federal court case brought against him by the FDA, who was attempting to stop him from practicing. Think about that - he literally has "had his day in court", and PROVED that he was able to cure cancer (or "long-term remission", if you prefer) to the jury's satisfaction.

Now think again - do you think YOUR oncologist could PROVE in court that he/she could "cure" cancer patients? Have you even asked them what their "success" record really is?

And I suspect that too often his patients resemble the lady discussed in stayingcalm's "negative example". She was a stage IV breast cancer patient who had EXHAUSTED ALL CHEMOTHERAPY OPTIONS - in other words, conventional medicine had said "go home and die". AND, she had mets to the brain. She was on death's door when she arrived in Houston. I think Dr. Burzynski deserves a lot of credit for just being willing to take on such a desperate case.

Now I'm confused about the part where she was left to suffer in the motel room for several days - I inquired about their procedures when my wife was considering going there. They require you to stay in the local area and come in every day for a week or two while they try out each of the medicines you will be going home with. If there had been a problem, it would have been dealt with immediately. Also, they have some of the leading EXPERTS in the nation on brain cancers, so the story does not sound right in that regard either. Could this have been written purposely to discredit the Burzynski Clinic? I don't know. But some of the statements made do not sound right to me.

I guess the bottom line is that each person must search their soul and go in the direction that seems correct to them. I would just recommend that people not let themselves be rushed too quickly into treatment - take out a few days, or weeks even, to figure out what is available and what the choices are.

You might find it of interest that the Burzynski Clinic uses conventional chemo to a limited extent on some of their patients. And I believe that you can get insurance help with those aspects of your treatment if it applies.

The main thing is I hope someone finds a way for everyone to beat this disease. I'm glad to see as much alternative research as possible happening - the "cure", when it is found, will probably not be just a better version of today's conventional treatments - I think it will be a new twist of some kind. There has been too much money and effort thrown at it over the past 50 years with little real breakthroughs in regard to "cures". That is my opinion, anyway.

• By mvpetrovich
• Reply 939377
• June 24, 2010 at 11:45 am
• Report post

Just a note, "quackwatch," as mentioned by cleonard is also site filled with BAD science, and should not be trusted. Stephen Barrett, M.D. is less than reputable. If you want an alternative view and history of quackwatch, try http://quackpotwatch.org/

The search for truth is often very difficult, and is sometimes elusive. Sorting out what is real science and what is not, is not always easy. What we all want to determine is if there is evidence that a particular treatment or protocol will work for us, given our condition, and the underlying causes of that condition, and our biological individuality. Given that, most "scientific" studies do not have the "external validity" to apply to our specific condition.

If you go into a hospital, it is estimated that less than 30% of the treatments and protocols have supporting scientific evidence. I am sure it is even worse in the alternative medicine community.

When my mother was dying of cancer, several years back, I began looking at alternative approaches. There is so much to sort through. I concluded that there were a number of alternative approaches that were quite viable. But sorting through what needs to be done specifically for an individual's cancer treatment is not easy. I concluded that after a diagnosis, if one were to "self research" all of the alternatives out there for dealing with cancer, they could be dead by the time they figured it out. If you want to go the alternative route, you need to find a good Naturopath or enlightened MD with experience in alternative cancer treatment, understands you, and that can sort through and give you guidance.

• By cleonard (Inactive)
• Reply 940005
• June 24, 2010 at 7:15 pm
• Report post

If and when you follow the mvpetrovich link re quackwatch you will come to a conclusion opposite of the one drawn in the post. Any number of individuals such as Bolen have had their scams exposed at Quackwatch and strike back with whatever lie they can to discredit the voices that discredited them. It won't take you much time to determine where credibility resides. But don't take my word and don't take mvpetrovich's. Go to the sites and see for yourself. Who is credible - the many volunteer medical professionals at Quackwatch or the PR flack Bolen? Gee. That's a tough one.

• By stayingcalm (Inactive)
• Reply 940044
• June 24, 2010 at 7:46 pm
• Report post

"...he won a Federal court case brought against him by the FDA, who was attempting to stop him from practicing. Think about that - he literally has "had his day in court", and PROVED that he was able to cure cancer (or "long-term remission", if you prefer) to the jury's satisfaction."

Really now? From what I read, the FDA case most definitely did NOT prove any such thing! It acquitted him of shipping drugs out of Texas is what it did.

• By cleonard (Inactive)
• Reply 940134
• June 24, 2010 at 8:50 pm
• Report post

Ollie, as you make your difficult journey through the maze of traditional and alternative claims you might do well to keep in mind one or two simple facts:

1) Many, perhaps most, alternative claims are based on the argument that big pharma and big med suppress cancer cures in order to continue making exhorbitant profits off ignorant cancer victims; and

2) Some cancers, breast cancer prominent among them with a successful treatment rate of about 90%, are being cured by the very oncologists and pharmas dismissed as criminals by advocates of quackery.

It will always be up to you whether you prefer the expertise of a Suzanne Sommers or of someone who does not believe science is in the eye of the beholder.

• By mvpetrovich
• Reply 940945
• June 25, 2010 at 12:14 pm
• Report post

From cleonard, "Who is credible - the many volunteer medical professionals at Quackwatch or the PR flack Bolen?"

Those at Quackwatch are hack medical professionals and are not what you think. It's kind of scary that people think that Quackwatch is a legitimate organization.

I've met Bolen. I do not particularly care for his website. Although the introduction page does contain some of the background on Quackwatch. Quackwatch's origins go back to when the American Medical Association was charged with racketeering in their attempts to eliminate the chiropractic profession, and the AMA's materials were passed on to Stephen Barrett, who started Quackwatch. Bolen basically helps people that have come under attack, like the late Hulga Clark, when she was arrested. They have been quite effective in court dealing with the Quackwatch folks. There currently is quite a battle going on.

• By cleonard (Inactive)
• Reply 941433
• June 25, 2010 at 7:02 pm
• Report post

Hulda Clark claimed to be able to cure cancer using devices she called the "Ozonator" and the "Zapper".

This places her in the same league as Burzynski though it's not clear if she had as many victims or made as much money.

I hope Quackwatch did expose her but they didn't arrest her so somebody in the judiciary was on the case as well.

All one needs to do to judge correctly the credibility of Quackwatch or its enemies (most often people exposed by Quackwatch) is to read both carefully.

If that doesn't satisfy then a quick trip to Google should.

Ollie, the real dichotomy is between science based medicine and everything else. Your life, your choice.