'Are Antineoplastons the Cure for Cancer? : The Work of Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski and the Smear Campaign to Discredit Him – January 28, 2014' have 4 comments

1. 

   January 29, 2014 @ 12:00 am Steve

   Thanks for your show today with Dr. Burzynski and related guests. It was so sad to hear how several of the parents unintentionally allowed the conventional doctors to kill their children by frying and turning to mush their brains with lethal doses of radiation. Too bad they did not know about the radiation protection offered by DIM and by DMSO:

   DIM protects cells from radiation
   http://www.thedoctorwillseeyounow.com/content/nutrition/art4169.html
   https://student.societyforscience.org/article/veggies-radiation-shield
   http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/vegetablederived-compound-protects-against-radiation/article5240313.ece
   http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2013/10/14/broccoli_chemical_saves_mice_from_death_by_radiation.html

   Here is an excerpt from about half way down the page at http://www.thehealingjournal.com/dmso:

   “One who remembers the DMSO combination and Dr. Tucker very well is Alva Ruth Wilson in the Houston area. She qualified for his treatment because when she sought him out (after hearing the TV program), she had been given six months to live from lymphosarcoma. Starting in January 1973, she took an intravenous drip of the DMSO-hematoxylon mixture five days a week. Before requesting Dr. Tucker’s treatment, Mrs. Wilson had maximum amounts of chemotherapy and radiation, but neither helped – the tumors kept on spreading. Chemotherapy had to be stopped because its side effects were giving her leukopenia, a disease in which her white cells had dropped to way below normal, leaving her with almost no immunity. While she was on Dr. Tucker’s program, her conventional doctor wanted to give her more radiation. Dr. Tucker told her that since she was on DMSO, the radiation would not hurt her, a fact well established by clinical studies in various countries and virtually ignored in the United States. Although no primary source of her cancer was ever found, some cloudiness in X-rays of the stomach aroused suspicion, so that was where the radiation was directed. Another woman (not one of Dr. Tucker’s patients) who started radiation of the stomach the same day returned for the second treatment in a wheelchair, so ill had the radiation made her, and for the third on a stretcher as a patient in the hospital. But Mrs. Wilson, taking her daily DMSO I.V., took the same radiation and felt great. By January 1974, after a year on Dr. Tucker’s program, no more tumors could be found and she continues in fine health in 2000.

   Your comment that since sulfur transports oxygen into cells, sulfur would probably treat or cure cancer is quite insightful. Organic sulfur and related tree products such as DMSO seem to be rather simply magical in their ability to cure/heal/promote vitality. Since water molecules bind to DMSO 1/3 more tightly than to other water molecules (see paragraph below), the internal cellular water is flushed out as the DMSO is absorbed throughout the body. Curing cancer by flushing out the cells harkens back to what Dr. John Apsley talks about based on the work of Dr. Alexis Carrel and Dr. Gilbert Ling. Ya’ gotta love the tree juice!

   “Dr. Stanley Jacob has said from the beginning that DMSO is not a new drug but a new therapeutic principle. Dr. Morton Walker quotes chemist Dr. Harry Szmant as explaining the principle in this way, “Cellular damage can be repaired and cells healed and restored to near normal by changing the water structure within a cell” – and DMSO can do this. Cell wall permeability, increased by DMSO, also “alters what normally goes into and comes out of a cell, permitting the flushing of toxins out of the cells”. Dr Jacob points out that water bonds with DMSO one-third more tightly than with other water molecules; because it can flow through cell membranes, it can carry water into cells, replenishing and renewing them. DMSO can also carry other substances which normally would not move through cell membranes – i.e., it is a new therapeutic principle, a new way of cleansing and supplying nutrition to cells. DMSO also boosts the immune system, increasing the production of white cells and macrophages, and facilitating their movement as they search the body for materials that should not be there (such as microorganisms), destroying them.

   • 

     January 30, 2014 @ 3:43 pm George Posnak

     My own experience with DMSO is limited to topical applications.
     I combined it with strong Lugols solution (7-10%) to “cure” several biopsied melanoma lesions. The DMSO will cause the Iodine to penetrate all the way to the bone.
     I have also applied DMSO with tea tree oil and have felt the heat in lymph nodes 8 inches away from a cancerous lesion on my back.
     Remarkable molecule.

2. 

   January 29, 2014 @ 2:39 pm Paul Morgan

   Oh dear! Here we have a classical example of how Stanislaw Burzynski and his acolytes protest against those who challenge them. They conveniently ignore basic facts about the abject failure of Burzynski to provide the evidence of benefit they all claim exists for his so-called “antineoplaston” therapy, despite his apparently having researched various peptides originally extracted from urine since at least 1976 (i.e. at least 37 years) in an attempt to find an effective treatment for cancer. By way of comparison the usual timescale for taking a new cancer drug from laboratory to full licensed production is about 10 years. Burzynski has published many articles about his “signature” therapy, but all they amount to are a handful of laboratory studies, a few case reports and case series cobbled together from various trials in a way that is scientifically nonsensical. Despite having registered over 60 clinical trials, Burzynski has only ever completed one trial, the results of which have never been published. Recently we discovered that much of the reason behind this failure to complete trials and publish results is down to a failure to maintain adequate records, destruction of baseline measurements, exaggeration of therapeutic responses and failures to report significant adverse events. We also found out that Burzynski had further failed to protect the interests of patients by abusing the approval process for admitting patients to “single patient protocol” or compassionate use exemptions for using “antineoplastons” outside the registered clinical trials. Basically, Burzynski has been playing fast and loose with people’s health and has ripped them and their families off for thousands if dollars. Money to pay for patients’ treatment has often had to be raised through charities and the generosity of strangers who unwittingly fund Burzynski’s lifestyle but don’t realise that they are being conned in the process. By and large, this is not the fault of the patients and families who, given the desperation of their situation, find themselves clutching at straws and will try anything. Sadly, this is a common modes operandi of quacks.
   Many of Burzynski’s acolytes point to the research of a Japanese anaesthesiologist, Dr. H. Tsuda. Quite why an anaesthesiologist should be researching cancer therapy is beyond strange. However, the great claim of his publishing proof of “antineoplaston” benefit is utter nonsense. The claimed proof is just a laboratory report of giving doses of these agents to cancer cells in Petri dishes far beyond anything that could be achieved when giving them to humans. The “antineoplastons” contain such vast quantities of sodium that any effect on cancer cells in a dish may be due to sodium toxicity rather than any actual effect of the “antineoplastons” themselves. This is such excruciatingly bad science that it’s embarrassing. That his acolytes think somehow that Tsuda’s work is of any value in purporting to be evidence of benefit only serves to expose their fundamental inability to understand science.
   It may well be that when Burzynski started his research back in the 1970s he did so with the best of intentions but, as has been seen in many, often high-profile, cases he became so convince that he was right that he lost sight of scientific rigour. However, whatever the reason or background, what has become apparent is that his treatments have never been shown in any meaningful way to have any benefit in the treatment of any cancer. Nor, as he has also tried it claim, is there any benefit for any of his treatments for HIV, vasculitis or as anti-ageing products. It seems pretty clear that, whatever his original intentions at the outset, Burzynski is purely in it for the money. He clearly has been a charmer and a smooth talker – he couldn’t have made his fortune otherwise. What is also clear, however, is that he has no scruples.
   I’m also not surprised to the see the comment above by “Steve” which attempts to promote other quack therapies such as DMSO. Sorry, Steve, but all you’re doing is displaying classical crank magnetism.

3. 

   January 30, 2014 @ 12:42 pm Lisa Beck

   I used to work at a biotech company in Kansas. We provided medium for cell culture for research and also the medium used when making biologic drugs. Because we were so closely connected with the process, I know a little bit about the pitfalls and timing.

   Why hasn’t Dr. Burzynski ever published any studies about his work that show actual progression, statistical analysis, etc.? If there is a $20 billion market to cure brain cancer, why doesn’t he work with the FDA to get his drug approved so he can be part of that market? He was given the opportunity to run multiple Phase II studies and had a Phase III study open for around a year, I think, without any enrollees. Since he was regularly treating patients with “Phase II” studies, I can’t quite understand why none of those patients were allowed to be Phase II instead?

   On DMSO – It was suggested I use it to help reduce inflammation and it did terrible, painful things to the skin in that area. Later, I was given one treatment with it for its only on-label approved use (as a 50%, sterile solution for interstitial cystitis, instilled intravesically) and it caused severe retention. It didn’t really seem like much of a miracle to me either off-label or as approved. There’s my anecdote for the day. :)