Monday, October 8, 2012

3rd period


AP Biology Students!

I hope that you enjoyed watching the Burzynski film.  What I would like for you to do is to find your class period and post with your name (so that you can receive credit), your thoughts on the film.  What facts stood out to you?  Why have you never heard of this guy before?  Do you believe him?  Why or why not?  Would you recommend his treatment center for someone that you know who has cancer?  Any sort of reaction that you have is fine, I just want to hear what went through your mind as you watched the film.  Since this is an AP class, I expect a thorough reaction to be posted tonight.  Comment on this post if you are a member of this class period and I will give you credit as long as it is completed by 11:59 pm.  See you Wednesday and I'm looking forward to being back :)

Coach Chvatal

41 comments:

  1. The Burzynski film did give evidence of the efficacy of the treatment since numerous patients with malignant tumors were cured. Previously, I never heard of Burzynski mainly because few of my relatives have had cancer. However, it seems like if antineoplastons were as effective as the movie seems to suggest, then these drugs would be more mainstream. An article by the National Cancer Institute (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/healthprofessional/page7) states that antineoplastons have failed to show the same positive results in cancer patients for researchers besides Dr. Burzynski. There could be some truth in this, but the NCI could also be working to discredit Burzynski. Another fact I failed to understand is why the FDA fought four legal battles against Burzynski when the public opinion was clearly against the FDA. I think the FDA should have taken into greater account the opinion of the people. I would probably recommend this treatment to others because even if it does not work, there are not as many harmful side effects as chemotherapy and radiation. I do not have complete faith in Burzynski's work since more petient data is necessary to reach a satisfying conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is way too short. This is not what I would expect from you. Also, remember not to include links in your report, Chobani.

      Delete
  2. Hey this is Samantha Vasallo.
    I thought that this documentary was very interesting and showed a great insight to how federal organizations can be so corrupt, even when human lives are at stake. Although it is obvious that Dr. Burzynski's antineoplastic treatment can't absolutely cure cancer, it is definitely far better than chemotherapy and radiation; which unlike antineoplastons, those treatments can have very harmful and painful effects. Cancer patients have double the chances of survival after antineoplastic treatment than in any other cancer treatment. Based of the numerous successful clinical cases Dr. Burzynski has presented, his treatment is working and saving lives. In my opinion, Burzynski should be allowed to continue his practice and the FDA should be doing their real job, which is to protect people from harmful substances. Antineoplastons are obviously not hurting patients, so why have federal agencies spent almost 15 years and large amounts of tax payers' money to get Burzynski out of business? It's because his success threatens the well-being of their businesses. If more people are treated using anitneoplastons, then there is a lower demand for chemotherapy and radiation. Long story short, the agencies and government only seem to care about money and not on the well-being of the people.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Neil Goel

    The film seemed to be very biased and only showed Burzynski's viewpoint. Although it did give evidence of the efficacy of Burzynski's antineoplastons treatment, it failed to go into detail about the reasons for the wide spread opposition to this treatment. The fact that stood out the most was the video's comparison between the antineoplastons treatment vs traditional chemotherapy and radiotherapy. The video showed that Burzynski's antineoplastons treatment was over two times more effective than chemotherapy and radiotherapy. However, trials by different institutes, including the National Cancer Institute, did not produce the same results that Burzynski's trials showed. In addition, I have never heard of this treatment center before because of the large opposition and the relatively small business, located only in Texas. The treatment is not widespread or common. Based solely on the video, Burzynski's treatment seems to be one of the largest developments in curing cancer. However, further research leads to skepticism. Personally, I would recommend Burzynski's treatment to someone with cancer. Burzynski's antineoplastons treatment has few, if any, side effects compared to the numerous harmful side effects of chemotherapy and radiotherapy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Too short! You need to elaborate!

      Delete
  4. I liked that this movie was about a smart Eastern European man, just like me!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jack [the Beast] Obeng-MarnuOctober 9, 2012 at 3:21 PM

    Honestly, before watching the Burzynski video, the idea of the existence of cancer treatments separate from chemotherapy or radiation had not really crossed my mind. The video introduces some good points on this area of oncology and showed me the specific ways Dr. Burzynski is striving to aid patients struggling with cancer. However, I could not help but noticing how strongly biased the video was. There were numerous interviews and film clips that seemed to only highlight the positive aspects of antineoplaston treatments. Even the narrator’s speech radiated an intense tone of support for Burzynski. Furthermore, the statistics that were provided compared the large sample sizes from the hospitals to the small sample sizes of Burzynski’s office, and could have easily hidden a different trend. For example, when discussing Childhood Brainstem Glioma, the video used the figure ‘1 out of 107 people who were treated with chemotherapy and radiation lived at least five years survived’ to show the drastic ‘success’ of the antineoplastons, which had a survival rate of 11 out of 40 patients. Of course, 107 and 40 are very different sizes and cannot really be accurately compared. Despite these forms of obvious bias, the video still gives plenty of reasons why their treatment is better than radiation; there are no extreme negative side effects from antineoplastons, while there are several known results of chemotherapy (or as one man would call it “Kill ‘Em Therapy”). Another major concern of mine is my lack of knowledge of Burzynski. His studies appear to be wonderful, but I cannot help but question how great they are if they are not widely known. Also, like any scientific procedure, Burzynski’s ideas should be able to replicated. However, there does not seem to be much support from scientists who have personally proved the importance of antineoplastons. Perhaps, more years of research will produce stronger results that will further support Burzynski’s ideas, but for now I won’t be recommending this treatment.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The discovery of the usefulness of antineoplastons and the mechanisms by which they function fascinated me. Dr. Burzynski noticed that cancer patients lacked certain peptides that people without cancer have in their blood and urine, and decided to administer them to his cancer patients in a cocktail of peptides and amino acids. The antineoplastons work to disable life processes of cancer cells and force them to stop dividing and die off. The video states that antineoplastons are typically more useful than normal cancer drugs because the antineoplastons have very few negative side effects, and can shut down hundreds of genes in cancer cells, whereas traditional treatments typically only target one or two genes and have devastating side effects, including hair loss, infertility, and more cancer. This being said, I believe that the video was very biased to Burzynski's viewpoint. The video always put him as the victim and made out antineoplastons to be a wonder drug that could cure any cancer that was thrown at it. Given this, I do think that the astronomical number of law suits filed against Dr. Burzynski is quite a quandry. It did not seem in the video that Burzynski ever lost a lawsuit, but he may have lost one that limited his ability to publicize his lab. I also believe that I have never heard of him because I was not alive during the time that all of the drama regarding antineoplastons was occuring. I believe that during the time that this was going on, it would have been decently covered across the nation. Given all of this, you can't argue with results. Burzynski has some of the highest rates of cancer remission of any treatment, and for this, I think that Burzynski would be a safe bet for cancer treatment of my friends and family if they wanted alternative treatment of their cancer.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Though I was cognizant of treatments other than chemotherapy, I never knew of antineoplastons. It was amazingly interesting how things labeled as incurable could be cured by simply adding what is missing. It was absurd how the FDA adamantly protests the use of a drug that can save lives. However, even with the "mountains" of evidence, i couldn't help but think that the video was very bias. It only showed the side protecting Burzynski. At the same time, it filtered through documents picking out single strings of words that helped their case. On top of that, all accounts of patients cured by Burzynski were backed with emotion more than information. The use of his treatment was not what bothered me but instead it was the way the video presented the information. Instead of a biological video, it seemed like one that was advertising Burzynski, a statistical video, or one that was concerned with the government. If i were to believe everything from the video, i would say that i never heard of the man because the FDA is an evil money grubbing entity that wants to stifle all progress. This is obviously not true though it may be in the Burzynski's case. The "more correct" answer to why i never heard of the man is because i never really looked into cancer and its cures. I also have never had a loved one plagued with this horrid disease so the name never reached me. I truly to believe in him, though I protest his bias video. What he does is simply appalling. Curing the uncurable is what happens in movies, not in real life. Burzynski gives hopes the thousands though he seems to be the victim of human nature. If someone close to me were ailed with some sort of cancer, I would mention Burzynski's treatment but not recommend it. I would tell them to research the man and tell them to conclude themselves whether or not they wish to receive their treatment. To conclude, Burzynski has opened the door to the future. Whether we enter that door or not is determined by those above us and our own tenacity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You used "cognizant" in the first line. how many times have you had Mr. Kling?

      Delete
  8. Lauren Taylor
    Many of my family members have been diagnosed with various types of cancer, and my grandfather actually died from a severe case of prostate cancer. Cancer is a scary word in my household because we know the power it possesses and the doctors’ inability to completely cure it. The Burzynski film provided a possible cure. As a graduate student, Stanislaw Burzynski discovered a peptide difference in the blood and urine of cancer patients and healthy patients. As a biochemist, Burzynski then began to research FDA rules in which he would be able to experiment with the drug he created to replace the missing peptide in cancer patients. This drug, Antineoplaston, targets genes which assist the growth of cancer. Although there were similar FDA approved drugs on the market at the time, they only targeted one gene whereas Antineoplastons targeted hundreds. The documentary made sure that statistics of Dr.Burzynski’s success compared to Chemotherapy were mentioned frequently. In cases of Inoperable Brainstem Glioma, Chemotherapy had a 0.9% short term success rate and a 0% long term success rate while Burzynski’s method had a 27.5% short term success rate and a 27.5% long term success rate. Inoperable Brainstem Glioma typically occurs in children and has only one treatment- Radiation. Radiation is not a proper way to spend your life whether you live or die. I have seen its evil effects first hand as my grandfather withered up and died. I wish my grandpa knew about Dr. Burzynski’s treatment when he was still living. I am not sure if I completely believe in Doctor Burzynski’s methods are completely sound due to a bias in the video. The data does not lie, his method works, but others have not been able to match his results. In the video, it appeared that the National Cancer Institute and the FDA tried to test his experiments but any error could be accounted to the government’s lack of cooperation in the exact replication of Burzynski’s experiments. The FDA also pursued Dr.Burzynski ferociously. Anyone who merits the government’s undivided attention in the way that Burzynski did is certainly up to no good. The real question is if Burzynski’s methods are somehow immoral or harmful or if a great scientist just got caught up in the politics of healthcare. I believe that when patients are given the death sentence which is often associated with Cancer, most would do anything to be able to survive. Burzynski’s methods could be dangerous but radiation and chemotherapy have proven to be just as deadly. If my grandfather were still alive, I would recommend this treatment to him. He was one of the first to opt toward the radiation/chemotherapy route when it became available over the surgery method. The typical prescribed method tortured him and destroyed the man he once was. Based on personal experiences, I would rather try Burzynski’s method and have it fail then not be able to try at all. Antineoplastons should be available to any cancer patient who wishes to take the chance. It is not the government’s decision to choose who lives and who dies. It is unfair for them to not even make it an option.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hey! This is Meredith Mellard
    This film was very interesting and entertaining. Before this video, I have never heard of antineoplastons. They seem to be quite helpful in the cancer field. I thought at first that this guy was just a fake. No wonder why he caused such drama! As the video progressed, I started to believe in him more and more. He seemed like a magician to me. All he would do was gave the patient the pills and within a couple of months, they were cancer free. Many of them grew up to be healthy teens and adults. I think that cancer patients should look into this pill because it has hardly any harmful side- affects, unlike the toxic chemotherapy and radiation. I think his name is not as famous because less money would come in for chemotherapy and radiation. It’s crazy to think that the solution to heal cancer patients was only a tiny peptide! I wonder why other doctors have never considered this before. The patients seemed to be satisfied with the pill! I would recommend this to someone I know with cancer. I hope that the number of survivors increase when using the pill. I recall him saying that 11 out of 40 patients lived a healthy life after battling cancer with this pill. I hope that one day this numbers will increase. I think this is a forward step in healing more patients with cancer.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Katie Hachat

    While watching the film, I was simply taken aback by the mere thought that one man has found a non-harmful way to treat cancer and I had never heard of him. By studying the bodies of healthy and cancerous patients he found a difference in peptides that looked promising. He found a way to extract these peptides to put in cancerous people to cure them. Remarkably, it worked! Burzynski had found a treatment for cancer that showed no harmful side-effects. During the course of his work, he was constantly taken to court by the FDA and the National Cancer Institute. They were attacking him despite his success, which stood out to me. The fact that he was so disregarded as an effective cancer treatment doctor is probably the reason that I have never heard his name. I am extremely shocked. Due to the extensive evidence of success with antineoplasty, I believe his methods do work. It is shown that 9% of patients that treat their cancer using radiation and chemotherapy are cancer free whereas 25% of patients that are treated with antineoplasty are cancer free. It is obvious what the choice should be. Radiation and Chemotherapy have extremely harmful side-effects. Using these alone may very well lead to your demise if not just to a slower, more painful death from the cancer. Antineoplasty has not shown any harmful side-effects at all. I don't know of anyone that would like to die a slower, more painful death rather than to have the opportunity to try to rid themselves of the cancer side-effect free. If anything, one can start with antineoplasty and move to radiation and chemotherapy if it does not work. I most definitely would recommend Burzynski's treatment center for anyone I know who has cancer. If there is a possibility for that person to be cured of cancer without any side-affects, they should know about it. In the end the only question is whether to take radiation and chemotherapy treatments and live for only a little while longer but in pain, or to possibly be cured without pain. If death is imminent anyway, the painless route is the better one.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Wow, I didn't know I posted another comment while I was driving! //endsarcasm

    Burzynski seems like a cool guy. Coming from Europe, of course he would want to treat his patients with the best possible treatment instead of some sub-par, cancer-inducing treatment that works rarely and can bankrupt its patients. In 'Murica u cnt b liek dat or da popo gon' sue u 4 tkng its $$$. Throughout the video, I wasn't surprised by the FDA's repeated thorough cavity searches of the good Doctor. This happens so often in the "capitalist" nation we live in that there is really no excuse to expect any good coming from government agencies. I haven't heard of this man before partly due to his practice only being legal in Texas and partly due to his practice, which isn't a huge business, not buying advertisements on the television. What really stood out to me was the effectiveness of his treatment, both in not harming his patients and actually treating them of their cancers. This mean is easily believable. What motivation does he have to lie? Granted, the movie we watched only showed the opinions of Burzynski's supporters, so it's pretty ironic that we watched such an "ethical" film. I'd recommend his treatment to anyone whose cancer would require debilitating chemotherapy/radiation. The most important part of this movie, regardless of how one-sided, is that the government likes its monopoly over everything and will stop at no cost to its taxpayers, of course, to assert and maintain its undeserved dominance. The most annoying part about the video is that they were able to stretch out a small information into such a long video.


    ReplyDelete
  12. Oh, and way to be on PST, Coach C <3

    ReplyDelete
  13. The Burzynski film was very interesting to me because I had never heard of any other kind of cancer treatment than radiation/chemotherapy before, especially something such as neoplastons. To me, it stood out that the traditional method of treating cancer, chemotherapy, can cause many dangerous and harmful side effects in the patient, such as causing leukemia, which pretty much makes the problem even worse. Plus, it's obviously not safe for small children to undergo radiation therapy because of the possible harmful effects radiation can have on developing children (this may possibly relate to epigenetics, but It was not stated in the film.)To me, it made sense that using special combinations of proteins and amino acids to make neoplastons might be a more viable treatment process for cancer patients. Because amino acids are so essential to the processes of life, it seems to connect with the success of neoplaston drugs in that cancer patients may express some genes that cancer-free people do. The amino acids used in the drug can apparently take on the role of those not expressed in cancer patients and therefore allow the cancer patient to continue to live a healthy life, expressing essential genes because of their proteins. In contrast to radiation, it was also suprising to me that there are no negative side effects to Burzynski's treatment. While it almost seems too good to be true, I believe that his drugs may hold the future for cancer curing research. Based on the multiple success stories provided by now cancer-free patients of Burzynski, it appears that there is a much higher survival rate for patients that underwent his experimental neoplaston treatment process than radiation chemotherapy. Although he is not very well known, I would still believe him over companies that provide treatments with harmful radiation agents that may cause even more harm to a cancer patient. I mean, after witnessing the cruelty of the FDA and various pharmeucutical companies in the film, I would definitely trust Burzynski with a relative who had cancer. It shocked me at how the film portrayed the FDA as a company that only works for its own monopolitic benefit. Because Burzynski had tried to save people's lives with his antineoplaston treatment, they had to sue him? That really didn't make sense to me, but it allowed me to look at the FDA in a new way. I used to think they were just the main company that approved new drugs, but now I realize that they're just a huge business that operates to keep their precious monopoly on drug treatments that don't even work most of the time. They would rather have their exclusive treatment used instead of saving millions of lives by promoting Burzynski's antineoplaston treatment. I really can't believe how many times they tried to sue him even after they literally had no evidence against him. It's sad to think that the main company that approves drugs in our country only approves drugs that benefit the company economically rather than think of the people of the country who have cancer. Anyway, I think Burzynski is pretty unknown even today because of FDA propaganda. Even while they lost their cases against Burzynski, they still refuse to promote his successful treatments because they don't want to acknowledge the possibility of the United States starting to use his pioneering cancer treatment methods. In my opinion, that's a serious problem for us. After watching this film, I would recommend Burzynski's trials for anyone with cancer, especially after learning of the reality of the FDA and other medical boards' true intentions.

    -Brendan Harris, 3rd Period.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This film not only amazed me but also surprised me. I never imagined that someone had discovered a nontoxic and effective treatment for cancer. I knew a few things about the risks of chemotherapy and radiation due to some of my family members suffering through cancer, but I had never imagined that there was another safer way. It’s startling how Dr. Burzynski discovered that cancer patients’ urine and blood didn’t contain certain peptides that non-cancer patients had. With this information he created antineoplastons which targets a hundred different genes unlike radiation and chemotherapy, which only target a few specific genes. His antineoplastons helped cure childhood brain tumors which are extremely difficult to cure, without hindering his/her development. What bothered me the most was the FDA’s reaction to the antineoplastons. The reason why I never heard of Dr. Burzynski and his cure is probably due to the fact that the FDA and other pharmaceutical companies constantly tried to shut him down. They wasted time and money to shut down a cure that was helping hundreds of people. I couldn’t believe the FDA would go to such lengths to help themselves and not those suffering through cancer. Even after all the evidence Dr. Burzynski provided they kept on trying to retract his medical license. The thing that bothered me the most was doctors recommending putting toddlers and children through toxic radiation and chemotherapy. No child should have to go through such horrific procedures, especially without any guarantees of them becoming healthy again. I would definitely recommend Dr. Burzynski to cancer patients; however I would also recommend them to do more research on Dr. Burzynski and antineoplastons.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dr. Burzynski's treatment seemed legitimate throughout most of the video, but at the same time there was a feeling that the video was an overly biassed informercial. At the same time, I noticed some things that cast doubt on the argument made by the video. The FDA continually attacked Dr. Burzynski, and the video continually made the FDA out to be prosecuting to simply attack Burzynski out of bad blood. However, if a governmental organization has no case, like the video stated, then they would have no reason to continue trials.THe video never gave any examples of evidence that the FDA and Texas Board used against Burzynski. Without the counterargument, there is no way to judge the argument Burzynski gives. It was also never stated exactly how the medicine was created. The closest the video came to showing how the medicine was made was nothing more than pipe splashing some off-white fluid around. Without the knowledge of how the medicine is made, I cannot understand completely what exactly it is. The video also never shows how treatment is administered, which casts doubt on what Dr. Burzynski's method is to effectively treat these deadly diseases. The video did show some pill bottles with "antineoplastons" on the label, but the video should have no problem quickly clarifying how the therapy is administered. The most doubt comes from the fact that the video never specifies how the medicine actually worked. Do the antineoplastons identify cancer cells and destroy them? Do the antineoplastons detect and area of cancer and attack the general area? Or maybe do antineoplastons effectively rev up the body's immune system to produce some kind of cancer-battling particles? At very least, the video could quickly skim over the basics of the chemistry of the reactions and/or methods by which the medicine works. Every common, modern way of battling cancer involves destroying not only the cancer cells, but also the healthy cells, so why would antineoplastons be any different? The fact that this is never talked about casts much doubt on the validity of Dr. Burzynski's treatment. On the other hand, there is a scientific experiment that is begging to be taken up, outside of the trials to validify the efficacy of antineoplastons. If antineoplastons are only found in only a non-cancerous human's urine, then why is it not seen in those with cancer? Is it being used up to fight the cancer or is the cancer destroying the antineoplastons? If a human effectively survives cancer, do the antineoplastons return to their urine. All of these questions could be answered with research and studies, and all of them could either prove or disprove Dr. Burzynski.

    --Nick LaMontagne

    ReplyDelete
  16. Maggie Collins

    The Burzynski video was extremely informational in the idea of a new way to treat cancer, specifically brain tumors. The only problem was that the video seemed to be biased towards mostly Burzynski's success stories. I thought it was extremely interesting that a new type of cancer treatment had been proved successful, but was surprised at the fact that I had never heard about it. Considering how some of the cases had happened over ten years ago, i was surprised that these new types of treatment weren't being used by more people now. Another aspect of the film that surprised me was the extent that the FDA went to against good moral and a higher rate of survival in patients. Even though there were several experiments and results that stated directly that more people survived with the use of antineoplastons, the FDA still fought against Burzynski. This brings up the fact of how odd it is that Burzynski's treatment isn't more widespread to this day. According to the video, I would be all for using Burzynski's treatment in the instance of a brain tumor. But there are more than likely more left out facts that may give reasons to not believe "criminal" Burzynski and his team.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The film was really eye opening; I knew that side effects for chemotherapy could be drastic but I never realized how much. The question that was raised in my mind quite a few times was, “Why is the FDA allowing facilities to treat individuals with cancer with things that could potentially lead to other forms of cancer?” In the film every chemotherapy treatment that was mentioned had the side effect of Leukemia except for one. While the Burzynski treatment seemingly had none. I’m not sure if that is because the film was obviously made with the bias that Burzynski was the clear choice for terminal cancer treatment or because antineoplastons really have no adverse side effects. But if something was this revolutionary and actually cured one of the few illnesses on the planet that there seems to be no cure for why would the FDA be so against it seeing the light of day? Really the only answer is because the FDA is influenced by corrupt companies that would rather cause people suffering and misery than be cured. A company who thrives on the illnesses of others isn’t going to let one man come through and cure one of the most profitable terminal illnesses in the pharmaceutical world. But at the same moment if Burzynski’s treatment really worked then he would create a monopoly on something that would be used for, perhaps, ever. Because of that fact the FDA and PHrma were, and most likely are, trying to put Dr. Burzynski down as a doctor and trying to disgrace his clinical trials so that they can allow large pharmaceutical companies to retain power over the corrupt market of pharmaceuticals. All that aside, I wouldn’t recommend the treatment to anyone I knew, know, or will know. The trials haven’t been completed and his practice seems really shady. Even though the film did mention that Burzynski was tried four times, and those four trials seemed pointless there was obviously a reason. Even if the persecutors were unable to get him, there is due cause somewhere. But because of the viewpoint and bias of the film you can’t get the sense of whether either party was correct or which one we should believe. All in all the film was fantastic, confirmed the corruption of pharmaceutical companies, and proved that modern medicine can be terrible for your health. But I’ll still be getting any kids I have inoculated because that’s just logic. In reality though, the film was propaganda to get people to do Burzynski’s Phase III Trials because he doesn’t have enough to conduct them. Without those trials he’ll never become king of the cancer free world. Which he would since he patented all the antineoplastons except phenylacetate because he, like the large pharmaceutical companies, probably wants to make some sort of a monopoly for himself. We live in a corrupt world where the source of all evil is drugs. Whether the drugs are legal, illegal, or in clinical trials they lead to corruption because the human race has become s dependent on pharmaceuticals that we can no longer function without them. Burzynski and large companies realize this and try to manipulate the average person for personal or corporate gain. That was what I was thinking while we watched the movie, how ridiculous we all are for allowing such crazy people to control the substances that can potentially give or take lives. It’s insane, and the film let us see a glimpse into the train wreck that we allow to control our food and drugs.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I have known people in my family that have been diagnosed with cancer and that suffered and died from cancer. Cancer was a uncontrollable and non-curable disease till Dr. Burzynski discovered antineoplastons as a use of cancer treatment. Many people, including me, wondered is this really going to work? As the suspects told their side of the story of how Dr. Burzynski cured their loved ones from cancer, I believed that Dr. Burnzynski is the key to most of the cancers out there in the world. FDA believed that Dr. Burnzynski is a biased doctor who treated people with unapproved treatment. PhRMA also believe that Dr. Burnzynski he is using unapproved treatment to treat people with cancer. I have never heard of this guy because honestly, i was in India, so I don't think these trails made it all the way over there. I wished that would have happened because that would have kept people in India aware of whats going on with the development of treatments for cancer. Yes, I do believe him because he has saved plenty of lives from this antineoplastons instead of the regular chemotherapy or radiation treatment that people used to receive as a treatment and would barely make any difference to the cancer present, I believe him because he saved lives and that is pretty darn good to convince people that he has the cure to cancer. Honestly, I would recommended everyone that has a cancer to see if there is a possible treatment to their present cancer. When I watched FDA hold his back on the case of antineoplastons for years and many many trails and still did not get any evidence to support their statement, I find that pretty pathetic, where they fight millions of dollars to prove that they are pretty much wrong. I seriously do not get how FDA can be so naive about these kind of cases involving people lives. I mean this guy saved many lives for gods sake! I seriously think that people are trying to ignore the fact that he has come up with a possible solution to a huge problem that been present for many many years. After the FDA went away, NCI came into this case and tried to negotiate with Dr. Burnzynski and convince him to giving them the secrets to cancer. I feel that the huge companies are pretty jealous of this guy and cannot act like mature adults and work together and come up with a more incredible solution rather than wasting years and years arguing about legal matters.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Cherechi IromuanyaOctober 9, 2012 at 7:06 PM

    The fact that this research facility and this "cure" has been here for decades and that i didn't know about it really baffles me! His statistics and rates of success in comparison to those of Radiation/Chemotherapy also amazes me. I suppose that I never heard of Burzynski because the trials involving him were "before my time" andalso because the state of Texas was trying extremely hard to make him as irrelevant as possible. I genuinely believe in Burzynski's studies and his results. One can't simply falsify all the miraculous testimonies that have been created because of him. I dont study cancer myself, obviously, but his research and findings are seemingly legitimate. I would recommend this treatment to cancer patients, even before radiation or chemotherapy fails them and causes them severe side effects.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Cherechi IromuanyaOctober 9, 2012 at 7:09 PM

    The fact that this research facility and this "cure" has been here for decades and that i didn't know about it really baffles me! His statistics and rates of success in comparison to those of Radiation/Chemotherapy also amazes me. I suppose that I never heard of Burzynski because the trials involving him were "before my time" andalso because the state of Texas was trying extremely hard to make him as irrelevant as possible. I genuinely believe in Burzynski's studies and his results. One can't simply falsify all the miraculous testimonies that have been created because of him. I dont study cancer myself, obviously, but his research and findings are seemingly legitimate. I would recommend this treatment to cancer patients, even before radiation or chemotherapy fails them and causes them severe side effects.

    ReplyDelete
  21. As having a really close friend who is currently struggling with pineoblastoma, this video made an impact on me. I have heard of Dr. Burzynski before through my mother (Polish people are awesome), who talked about him once when my friend was diagnosed with cancer, but I can honestly say that I never took the time to research him. Dr. Burzynski's treatment and trials seemed to be real and convincing throughout all of the video, and I can say that I do believe him and his findings. I do not have all of my faith invested in him since it is not a cure for cancer 100% of the time, but I have more faith in this than chemo. However, the video was made in a biased point of view, which made it hard to decipher the facts. I thought it was very interesting that Burzynski created Antineoplastons to help cancer patients, since he saw that many of them were lacking certain chemicals. Throughout the trials that Burzynski did, he discovered that his drug could in fact not only lengthen the lifetimes of cancer patients, but also reduce or even remove the cancer permanently from them. It was devastating to see that the FDA constantly prosecuted Dr. Burzynski, even though there was no clear cut evidence to why they were doing so. I question the video since the FDA was made out to seem as if their only purpose was to remove Dr. Burzynski from practice, and this makes me question the facts. Even with bias, if Texas, and at one point the US, did not have enough sufficient evidence, as said in the video, then how come people let the cases go on for so many years. I don’t understand why they would ever think about giving him the death sentence. The safety of Antineoplastons so far seems okay, especially versus chemo and radiation. Why should we punish a man trying to help people suffer less so they can have more time with their families? If a person wishes to go onto Dr. Burzynski’s Antineoplastons, why can't he/she? It is their life and only they can be responsible for it, not the government. It seems to me as if the FDA is just afraid that this method will cause them to lose so much money that desperate families are willing to invest into conventional treatments, and that prosecution seemed like the only way to stop it. After watching this video, I can say that I will probably send the link to my friend’s mother. Even though she has already started chemo and radiation, it might be something nice to watch to keep her optimistic about the future courses of her treatment.
    ---Michelle Surma

    ReplyDelete
  22. This film was very interesting to me because i have never heard of another treatment for cancer besides chemotherapy. it wasn't until Friday and yesterday that i found out that cancer was curable by antineoplastons. I am amazed how the FDA continued to take legal action after they knew they were wrong just so they could close his business and let the government continue to make millions without actually helping patients.This video exposes the evil ways of the government and the drastic measures they would take to make sure that the medical field continues to make money instead of finding a cure and losing patients that will never come back. I found this video a little biased because it just talks about Burzynski's benefits instead of talking about the overall outcomes on all the patients instead of the ones that were just successful. I do believe that he has found a alternative way to cure cancer instead of using high levels of radiation but I would do more research on him to see how good he is compared to how good he claims to be. this business might be really small because the FDA doesn't want people knowing about a cure because they would loose a lot of money in the economy but, I would recommend antineoplastons to somebody I know but would let the person choose if they want to choose Burzynski because they might be comfortable with a business that is not know or widespread.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Preston Thomas
    I am really glad i watched this movie. It gave me a lot of insight on the world of cancer treatment both popular and unpopular. I am also really surprised i have never heard of Burzynski and his practices before and i am surprised it is not world headline news. I think this is due because the movie is partially biased toward Burzynski and his practice. I feel like there is a side to this story that we do not know. the movie showed only the successes and did not explain the failures. Even so, I am also surprised at the lengths of the FDA to stop and consider Burzynski as a fraud even though he has cured a large percentage of patients. I understand how the cancer treatment business would not want Burzynski's cure to be valid due to the loss of jobs and revenue, however the way the movie portrayed it made it seem like this was the only reason why they were trying to make him and his practice look like fraud when there are probably other reasons not mentioned. Burzynski without a doubt made huge discoveries and achievements in cancer treatment and I believe in his cures based on the percentages, the testimonies, and the science behind it. I also feel like this could defiantly be the first stepping stone into learning more about cancer in general and the cure for caner.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Parker Greenway

    I found this documentary to be very insightful into what lengths some groups of people will go to in order to make profit. It was surprising to me that I had never even heard of antineoplastons and their efficiency in treating cancer. It seemed like Dr. Burzynski had discovered and implemented a great advancement in medicine. It baffled me that the FDA would attempt to destroy the hope of many patients with cancer simply to maintain the business they would receive from these patients. As somone in the video stated, it seemed as though the FDA simply had a vendetta against Dr. Burzynski. Why else would they repeatedly go after him with legal action even after a case had been dismissed several times? Based on the witnesses that spoke, it was clear to me that the FDA did not care about the well being of Dr. Burzynski's patients, but rather they cared about their profits. Treatment with antineoplastons had no harsh side effects and cured a great percentage of tumors. On the other hand, chemotherapy and radiation can cause terrible side effects and is much less effective than Dr. Burzynski's treatments. Based on the statistics shown in the video, I would say that antineoplaston treatment is a great option for treating brain tumors, especially when compared to radiation chemotherapy. I would most likely recommend such a treatment to a friend unless it did not apply to their situation for some reason. Overall, this video showed me a great new approach to cancer treatment that I was unaware of, and also it highlighted how greedy and cruel some corporations can be when they forget that they are catering to people and not just making a profit off of statistics.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Before the film, I had never heard of antineoplaston treatment for different types of cancers and I never realized how effective this was in contrast to other types of treatments. My dad passed away a number of years ago because of a brain tumor, and just watching the documentary made me angry that the FDA would put to trial the very person that could save lives. It also surprised me that, while my father had to go through radiation and chemotherapy he could have had another treatment that could’ve potentially saved his life. Although the documentary only highlighted the success rate of his clinical trials, I felt that if they had also shown also the negative results, it wouldn’t have changed my opinion about the treatment. I fully believe and stand by this type of treatment, because it provides an option for those patients who don’t have another option between life and death. When you’re at that point, you would do anything to save yourself. I agree that it might put many other pharmaceutical companies out of the industry but, they should help to invest in something that would benefit the patients that need it instead of killing them with unnecessary methods. I failed to understand why the FDA reacted the way they did during the hearings conducted. Their method in trying to sue Burzynski was just un-timely and not really justified on their part.

    ReplyDelete
  26. So, i just saw this and have nine minutes to condense my full page of notes into a choherent thought path. One, wow it blew my mind at one point being the emotional teenage girl that i am and having an uncle who just recently survived stage four cancer. I find this simply heartwrenching that a doctor has actual non-harmful treatments for cancer and his medical license was in danger. It literally felt like an episode of the twilight zone. WHYYYYYYYYY would the FDA do this to people... do they have hearts??? Why would the texas board of medical examiners become pawns in the hands of the FDA do they have any sef control. It just kept gettin worse and worse at one point when i thought wooooohooo this movie is gonna be happy THE NCI (national cancer institure) and Elan are gonna sponsor him yay patients lives saved.. FALSE the scientist DVorit goes behind his back uses the one antineoplaston ingredient he didnt patent and tries to make a clinical trial from it and waste millions of dollars after Stanislaw Burzynski had already done 20 years of clinical trials with results showing that that particlar chemical alone had little to no effects on the tumors?!?!?!?!?! They were freaking crazy.... it really opened my eyes to just how much the FDA really cares about my well being ... I dont know about you but i sure as heck am not just gonna take any drug the FDA approves after seeing that in reality all they are is a cold hard business corporation run for profit ... not for the health and safety of the U.S. citizens. I plan to call my aunt and tell her of this treatment... she has been in remission for a brain tumor for over ten yaers and it just came back worse this time. Since she is very old the survival chances dont look good and with the life sucking chemotherapy they look even worse. I fully stang behind Stanislaw Burzynski and i hope (we didnt see the end yet) that he is allowed to practice and that the FDA got the F away if you catch my drift.... stupid greedy money hoarders killing innocent people ... denying treatment to a baby ... really?!?!?! good one FDA really thought it through... good PR...

    ReplyDelete
  27. This video made the FDA look like money focused corporate bigwigs that could care less about people. The steps they took to stop Burzynski were ridiculous. It was sad to see how close large corporations are to the government and how hard it is to get treatments like Burzynski's approved. Although the video showed that the treatment is more successful than chemotherapy it didn't explain how the enzyme can stop cancer. The video focused more on the legal aspect of Burzynski's cancer efforts, not the actual science. It also made me realize how reluctant the government is to move forward in oncology. The chemotherapy we are using now is from the 70's. Pretty much everything we use is up to date and modified almost every month so I don't understand why Burzynki's methods, which work, aren't viewed around the world as the cure to cancer. Based just on the video I wouldn't recommend the treatment because I don't know what he actually does to stop the cancer. I guess the treatment is probably extremely expensive which is why it hasn't spread as the main method to cure cancer. Either way it does show us that there are other methods to stopping cancer you just have to research. It also made me mad how that Indian lady completely stabbed Burzynsky in the back.

    ReplyDelete