Monday, October 8, 2012

2nd 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

40 comments:

  1. I thought the Burzynski film was really interesting!! I can't believe I had never hear of him before... I thought the FDA was stupid for trying to indict him just because his research was taking money away from their programs. Speaking of indictment, THERE WERE SO MANY COURT CASES. Like, after the first two, shouldn't they get the message that this guy is not breaking any laws??? That was ridiculous. If I know someone who has cancer, the first thing I'm going to think of/suggest is this film and Dr. Burzynski. There is finally a real cure for cancer. -- Gabby Orlando :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. The fact that stood out to me is that Stainslaw Burzynski discovered the antineoplaston. I also learned that antineplastons target cancer cells without harming the healthy cells. I was surprised to know that Burzynski was involved in numerous court cases, even though there wasn't any evidence that would prove that he broke the law. I never heard of him because these court cases took place when I was very small, and he doesn't come in the news anymore. I believe him because there's substantial evidence that can back up his claims, such as the disappearance of tumors. I would recommend his treatment center to anybody who has cancer because the patients in the video were satisified by his treatments by claiming it was a "life saver", and the results of it are proven.

    Jay Tandon

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think that Burzynski should be more well known since his treatment is extremely successful. It's pretty messed up that the only reason why he isn't well known and can only treat people in the state of Texas is because more people will use his method which results in the FDR losing money that they would have gained through the treatments of chemotherapy and radiation. I would definitely recommend his treatment to cancer patients because his research is pretty thorough and his success rates are a lot higher than going through traditional cancer treatments. His discovery of the antineoplaston, which switches off the cancer cell without destroying healthy cells, is treating people with all kinds of cancer including Brainstem Glioma, which is the hardest to treat. --Meby Skariah

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think that a possibility for why I have not heard much about him is that he is a relatively small business, and the FDA probably wouldn't want to advertise much about him. A quick google search shows that the third link is of the movie, so that is probably where much of his fame is from. However, the whole video sounded like it was made by someone working for Burzynski, so it sounded a little biased to me. For example, why didn't it work for the 75% of people in the clinical trial? In addition to the hefty price Burzynski charges for the medication, it appears, after some research, that the antineoplaston treatment targets a wide range of genes. The main problem with chemotherapy is that it targets a wide range of genes, and thus can cause harmful side effects. Something similar can be applied to the antineoplastons. This accounts for the 75%. (The difference between the percentages of the Burzynski cure numbers and the chemotherapy cure numbers can easily be explained by manipulation of statistics, noting that the sample size of the Burzynski trial is much smaller.) However, the idea of the antineoplaston treatment is an interesting one, and further development in this direction may yield the "real" cure for cancer. However, it seems that what Burzynski is developing right now is a step in the right direction, but should be refined and should not be viewed as a miracle cure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, but Mr. Chen, you are greatly mistaken. Dr. Burzynski's treatment did not work for 75% of people, but chemo and radiation didn't and doesn't work for about 95% or more.

      Delete
    2. In anticipation of such replies, I offset a discussion in the brackets in my original response. You seem to have overlooked it, and I will reproduce it here:

      (The difference between the percentages of the Burzynski cure numbers and the chemotherapy cure numbers can easily be explained by manipulation of statistics, noting that the sample size of the Burzynski trial is much smaller.)

      Further discussion:
      Is the difference between 75% and 95% statistically significant or legitimately obtained? We don't know.It is important that we note that the 75% and 95% were from samples, and not the "true population proportion" as your message implies. The impartiality of the documentary becomes shaky when one realizes that it is clearly quite biased towards Burzynski. Books as How to Lie with Statistics show just how numbers can be manipulated to appear how you want them to be.

      I am not dismissing Dr. Burzynski entirely, but I am, however, saying that based on the documentary we watched and other information, I am unconvinced that the Burzynski treatment is a "miracle cure" for cancer: Instead, it seems to provide an interesting avenue of research in the field of oncology.

      Delete
    3. +1 like ^This kid smells fishy.

      Delete
  5. The film was very interesting. I was surprised about how bad the side effects of Chemo therapy& Radiation were. The way the two treatments were described in the film made it seem as if it was safer to have the cancer than go through the intensive treatments. I'm surprised i never heard about Dr. Burzynski; i think we don't know about him is because the FDA/government block him from the people.I feel that Burzynski treatment of antineoplastons is the best treatment to go through. I would recommend Dr.Burzynski to anyone diagnosed to cancer because unlike chemo&radiation, the antineoplastons treatment doesn't have those harsh side affects, and it goes after cancerous cells, not healthy cells, and lastly, it actaually saves lives.
    - Modupe Banjoh

    ReplyDelete
  6. I actually enjoyed this film a lot, although it was quite a bit repetitive. It seemed to have a quasi-advertisement and quasi-documentary approach and Dr. Burzynski's breakthrough is pretty amazing. The fact that the FDA was trying to extinguish this treatment merely for economical avarice is quite scary; what other programs might they have done this to?! If a drug is providing very useful in curing a particular disorder, than it should not matter the manner of distribution, only the fact that lives are being saved.Burzynski had very sound logic in his antineoplaston treatment, and I applaud his commitment. I am very surprised to not have heard of such a pioneer in the medical field. I believe the main reason is the bad press that he must have received due to the FDA and prior to this video, I believed no painless treatment existed for cancer. I do believe in his treatment and if I was to ever get severe brain cancer, I would go to him. His track record is quite impressive and there is no denying his successful treatment. Not only does his treatment involve a non-side effect way to stop tumor growth, but it has a much higher rate of treatment and much less hospital time. If anyone I knew had severe cancer, I would highly recommend Dr.Burzynski. I believed the Texas board of Medicine and ultimately the FDA were the antagonists through numerous grand jury trials and extensive efforts to shut down this wonderful program. It has proved itself many times over and saved dozens of lives. I believe although this video was made last year, the dates themselves are quite outdated, often dating back 20 or 30 years. Burzynski has in fact opened a new doorway to oncologists and I believe he is on the right path for cancer treatment. This reminded me of a drama and I believe if the FDA was to side with Burzynski, real measures could truly be accomplished.

    -Dr. V. Reddy

    ReplyDelete
  7. The film was interesting and at parts infuriating. I was not very surprised that the FDA (Government) attempted to stop Dr.Burzynski's work,(I'm one of those what you like to call Conspirators or anarchist . shhh don't tell). Some of the facts that stood out to me were how quickly and effectively his use of antineoplastons worked on patients, especially those who had brain tumors.I didn't know that there was any possible way to even try to cure it (probably because the government is doing such an excellent job of not telling us crap) The 75% that didn't work in the "Clinical" trial was said by the FDA who you know want to kill us all (in my opinion) and don't want any further research into antineoplastons because they want to keep people suffering while they make billions on people paying for treatments from the 70's & 80's.We probably have not heard of this guy before because of again, the government.Do i believe him? yes, he's Polish. How can you not believe a fellow Eastern European? Seriously though, he seemed like his intentions were for the people and to save their lives. I believe that he found the base part of the cure to cancer and that the corrupt lying FDA should really get their stuff together and actually look into this.I would certainly recommend anyone I know who has cancer to look into his treatment, If i were to get cancer I would without a doubt seek his treatment instead of any sort of chemotherapy.I just cannot believe the American people have not done anything to take back the FDA yet. This whole movie documentary thing just added fuel to the wildfire of distrust i have for any government.

    - George Kalaitzidis

    ReplyDelete
  8. The movie was very surprising, in that I didn’t think the Government was greedy enough to put down a good cancer treatment so that PhRMA and other multi-million dollar companies could get money on Chemotherapy and Radiation treatment. Anti-neoplastons were not perfect by any means, but Dr. Burzynski didn’t deny that. He was still testing the medicine and he seemed to be getting miraculous results. What really astounded me was the fact that no one had heard of him or his treatment. It seems the government is very effective (like Burzynski’s treatment!) at cleaning up their messes and making sure that those who don’t do as they wish fade away into obscurity. From a scientific standpoint, I didn’t know that there is a protein found in normal, healthy cells that are not found in cancer cells. It was really cool how Doctor Burzynski isolated that protein from animal urine and administered to patients with aggressive cancers with low, to almost non-existent survival rates. The most intriguing part of the treatment was not the science, but the results. The results clearly showed that the treatment was effective on hard to fix cancers, like brain tumors, and that it had little to no side-effects. In the movie there was discussion that maybe it was the effects of chemotherapy or radiation that actually cured the tumors. However, a multitude of people, due to the horrible side-effects of chemo and radiation, took only anti-neoplastons and were cured. The rate of survival with Burzynski’s treatment was not 100%, but it was much higher than chemo and radiation (i.e. 25% on Bur. to .05% on other treatments). The movie itself was very biased towards Burzynski, all of the interviews were from Burzynski sympathizers or from Burzynski himself. However, with all things considered, Burzynski may be the forgotten hero of our time his treatment may have unfairly faded in to the darkness, but may be an AP Bio student can bring it back from the grave!!

    ReplyDelete
  9. The video for me was really eye opening. The fact that someone out there has found a pretty reliable cure for cancer is amazing, but I still kind of expected somebody to find it eventually. Too many people have spent too much money to fund scientists who have been trying to find a cure for too long. A cure was bound to be found, so the next shocking part was that the FDA tried to cover up. I got the whole point about how they were making a ridiculous amount of money and they did not want to give that up because some guy with a creepy mustache supposedly found a cure, but there was so much evidence that his treatment was a legitimate cure that it is even more ridiculous that the FDA was able to drag out that trial as long as they did. The other thing that i didn't really get was how antineoplastons actually work. There was a short section in the beginning of the video that said healthy people have antineoplastons and people with cancer don't, so if you give people with cancer this thing that people who don't have cancer have it will cure them. I didn't really understand their logic in that. They also said antineoplastons were just amino acids and proteins and they just left the definition at that. I couldn't really believe the guy because I didn't understand what he was giving people. They didn't show how the antineoplastons fought the cancer, the video just showed crying mothers and it made the FDA sound worse than Hitler. Also it bothers me that Burzynski is not advertised more, but maybe I've never heard of him because I don't know anybody with terminal cancer and the trial took place before I was born. The guy seems legit since he had so many people who vouched for him, but I wouldn't recommend him since I don't know anything about cancer or how to treat it.

    - Christopher Lloyd Powell

    ReplyDelete
  10. The Burzynski film was both interesting and eye-opening. It seems ridiculous that the government could be aware of a potential cure for cancer and not pursue it. Each mother tearing up over her son's miraculous recovery and every protest made up of the doctor's indignant patients, as well as several people who saw the trial and believed the charge to be unjust, testified to the truth of Dr. Burzynski's work. The worst that could happen from receiving antineoplaston treatment would be to have no improvement at all, and that's significantly better than just taking the prognosis and doing nothing but crying about it. The parents and family members of those given only a few months to live refused to give up and researched extensively until they found out about this Polish doctor and his potential cure. From an outsider's perspective, that choice seems so much better than slowly becoming a vegetable as the quality of life decreases each time a patient receives radiation or chemotherapy. Also, it is almost outrageous to think that this man has been working in this direction since the 1970's and yet none of us knew of his work, or even recognized his name, though this is probably due to FDA intervention. The FDA and its struggle to remain in power was also an intriguing bit of information showcased in the video; I was unaware that the corruption in the government went so far as to deliberately hold back a potential cure for cancer, one of the most common causes of death. As Dr. Whitaker stated in the film, the reason that no one is finding a cure even though millions of dollars are donated each year is precisely because that money goes to the same scientists that are unable to think up new ideas. Burzynski is probably unable to further his research due to the fact that he has limited resources and can not do as extensive a search as he would if backed by a professional company such as elan or even the federal government. I think that Burzynski is brilliant for observing such as he did and is brave to continue his work even though he had been and is still prosecuted for it, and I would recommend anyone I knew with cancer to his clinic in Texas, a much better alternative to destroying their bodies with chemotherapy or radiation which by the way could also cause cancer. What is the point of a cancer therapy treatment that could possibly result in leukemia?

    Sarah Kang

    ReplyDelete
  11. While most people would consider a medical documentary to be a very bromidic piece of work, I actually found the Burzynski film to be very interesting. I was totally amazed by the brilliance that Dr. Burzynski showed in his usage of antineoplastons. His logic made sense to me: Burzynski saw that certain peptides were more common in healthy human blood and urine, than in cancer patient blood and urine. Based on this factual data, Dr. Burzynski reasoned that if more antineoplastins were inserted into a cancer patient, their tumor could be suppressed, and ultimately vacate the human body. In the film, many patients with serious, malignant tumors had tried chemotherapy--to no avail. Doctors told these patients that, unfortunately, they had very little time left to live. With all hope lost, the patients visited Burzynski for treatment. Time and time again, Burzynski cured these patients of their tumors. However, despite the success of Burzynski's treatments, I was appalled by the actions of the FDA, PhRMA, and the Texas Medical Board to convict Dr. Burzynski of using illegal and unauthorized drugs. I could not see why they were doing this. Burzynski was very successful in his treatements with antineoplastions, as confirmed by his medical records. I was simply outraged by the constant attempts of these organizations to stop Dr. Burzynski. Personally, I believe Dr. Burzynksi, and I think that his treatments are effective ways of curing cancers, especially brain tumors. The reason I take Dr. Burzynski's side is because of the numerous facts that were shown to support the statement that Burzynski's antineoplaston treatment was more effective than chemotherapy. One specific example of a fact I found that stood out to me was one case of cancer longevity. When chemotherapy was used on young children (infants to late 3 year olds) with a certain brain tumor, some patients survived. But, of those patients that did survive, none of them lived past the age of 5. However, with antineoplaston treatment, a greater number of those children survived the brain tumor, and all of them lived past the age of 5. The reason I probably haven't heard of Dr. Burzynski is because many of the major events in Burzynski's life, such as the trials and cancer treatment breakthroughs, happened before I was born. Also, Burzynski has a small, private business that is not as prestigious as public hospitals or research facilities. Additionally, there might be a possibility of the FDA, or other companies/administrations, wanting to keep the fame of Dr. Burzynski a secret, so that he does not get more success then they do, economically or socially. However, if someone I knew did have cancer, I would definitely recommend Dr. Burzynski, because his treatment is proven to have no harsh side effects, while also completely healing the cancer patient. Imagine the medical breakthroughs we could have in dealing with cancer, if the FDA, PhRMA, or the Texas Medical Board worked with and funded Dr. Burzynski. We could have vast amounts of people with malignant tumors, become cancer-free, thanks to the medical pioneering of Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I found this film to be interesting but very biased. I don't want to believe that so much taxpayers' money is feeding the monster of the FDA that continued to indict Dr. Burzynski without any real evidence, so I would be very open to hearing the opinions of the FDA agents who worked to shut down the Doctor's business and of the Doctor's patients who were not cured. The results portrayed in the video were statistically impressive but I am sure that there is another side to the story that was not as detailed. The movie certainly did not help my distrust of pharmaceutical companies in general, however. In my opinion, Dr. Burzynsky is not a criminal- instead, he is passionate about his research and intends the best for his patients. His research with antineoplastons for cancer treatment is commendable and should be continued with aid from the government since he has made progress by helping some tumors disappear completely. I think that one of the best qualities of his treatments is that there are no harmful side effects (yet discovered)- I understand completely why patients would turn their attention towards Burzinsky instead of toxic chemotherapy options. A reason that I have never heard of the Doctor would include the FDA's obvious oppression of his success. Lastly, I feel like I am in no place to recommend cancer treatment of any kind to anyone, but if I knew that someone were desperate for alternatives to FDA-approved cancer treatments, I would mention to them to look into independent clinics such as his. I also wholeheartedly believe that able-minded adults should be able to choose the medical treatments of their choice. Burzinsky seems to be making progress in oncology, and he should be allowed to continue his research since he is not harming anyone. However, I wish that the movie touched more on technicalities like why the antineoplastons treat the cancer rather than how many mothers believe he is a miracle man, but I suppose that would have been less entertaining for people to watch.
    - Sabrina Moin

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sabrina, I do not agree with your ideas. No offence, but you are wrong. I will have to speak with Ihraq about this.

      Delete
  13. The Burzynski film was an interesting and generated ambivalent emotions within me. At first, I was horrified at the avarice the government had committed to this altruistic and selfless doctor. Dr.Burzynski , at first, seemed like a great exemplary doctor with graduating first in his medical school and developing a cure through the extraction of proteins from healthy patients to the patients of cancer. It was primarily legit but that Friday I went home thinking: why did I never hear about this person? I was concerned and asked my dad who watches medical innovations and improvements about this, he gave a blank and confused look. At this point, I was not reticent about holding my thoughts back anymore and ran to the computer opening a tab and searched Burzynski and found out that Burzynski was a successful but somewhat erroneous. This is a treatment and though it has a better survival percentage than chemotherapy and no dangerous side effects, it can make malignant tumors reappear, as the MRIs have shown. Also the Burzynski treatment is a treatment not a cure, thus I have been casting doubts on how effectual is his treatment. The documentary is a bit paradoxical though when Burzynski is describing his treatment he is stating also that he knows that on some people it does not work. Also it is paradoxical when Burzynski is saying that it was incorrect that the NCI had researched more than him yet he wants to expand the research. In recent years, the NCI has provided evidence against the Burzynski antineoplastons stating that it is not effectual. (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/patient/page1, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/12/12/what-dr-stanislaw-burzynski-doesnt-want/, http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski1.html) Another thing I noticed was that since the NCI had furthered research, shouldn't antineoplastons be well known for there so called great effects. However, it has been effectual in some people, providing life time benefits. I do encourage that modern medicine to incorporate this technique, only if they have innocuous side-effects. Burzynski has faced some stupid actions by greed and money driven from the PhRMA and FDA agencies with four~five juries. That is a way to squander federal taxes on useless trials. Overall, Burzynski is a good doctor, but his practices seem questionable and the chemotherapy doesn't serve a better option.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Akshay, this was really bad! You need to work on your writing more. Remember, it is never a good idea to put a link in a writing piece!

      Delete
    2. Lies - AKSHAY

      Delete
  14. I was very taken aback by the film, and it sparked somewhat of an anger towards the same guys the money for cancer research has constantly been going to- mainly the FDA, for being the main source trying to knock out Burzynski and his antineoplaston clinical trials. The FDA constantly came out to me as senseless and uncivilized, for favoring money over the lives of people suffering, and the countless losses families are constantly faced with. I was appalled when they stated that whether or not antineoplastons work wasn't the issue in the trial case. If it wasn't, what was the primary goal of the origin of this issue? It's outrageous of the heartlessness of these statements and core intentions, it's a slap in the face to the families and patients. Although there was a percent of situations where antineoplastons didn't fully work to potential it has constantly had, which is removing a tumor completely, it is in my opinion the closest we are EVER going to get to a cure. Taking in account to the science behind cancer and how it's coded into our genes, not to mention the amount of years we put into this, antineoplastons is it for us. It's cured every type of cancer- down to the worst type of cancer to treat, Brainstem Glioma. The first success stories presented in the film were of patients who suffered a childhood brain tumor- 100% fatal, treated normally with radiation. Because of my feelings about this being the closest thing to a cure, I would most definitely recommend this treatment center to someone with cancer. It's 10,000 times a better option than radiation- radiation has severe, toxic, and fatal side effects. Cancer can come about from this treatment. Where as antineoplastons have no damaging or toxic side effects, there's no question, and no thinkable reason as to why these shouldn't be shipped freely around the world. When we're talking about millions of lives, does law really need to come first? Should it really matter whether or not the drug was formally approved? Certainly not- it takes it down to the question of pure sanity and logic. - Christine Amyette

    ReplyDelete
  15. This innovative approach to cancer treatment intrigued me in more ways than one. First, I give credence to Dr. B’s amazing discovery and his pursuit of new knowledge. It's cool how he found and isolated the protein from human urine and readily found meaningful application. But my initial reaction was that if the FDA was against this guy, then something “smell fishy.” As the movie went on, I was surprised and a bit annoyed by the extent to which the FDA tried to muffle his new treatment. Apparently they did a good job, considering I’ve never heard of him before. But was it really all for the sake of economic gain? If not, I can see why they’re concerned– Burzinski is walking on thin ice, considering his lofty prices, especially for a treatment that's still under experimentation. As far as the validity of the antineoplastons, I’m hesitant to say that he has cured cancer. Yes, it does target genes, but not in the way that “targeted therapy” usually works, which is by targeting one or a handful of related genes with prodrugs that activate at a certain site (tumor) in response to an enzyme or other catalyst. Rather, antineoplastons target a bunch of genes, making it, in essence, no more “specific” than chemotherapy, like Ryan said. I don’t feel like I’ve seen both sides of the story. I’m a little disappointed by how such exciting information was presented with such thinly veiled bias. The movie did a fine job of showing success stories and briefly accounting for Dr. B’s modesty, but the counterargument is nonetheless weak. Granted, this approach seems like it has a lot of potential and should defiantly be further investigated.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I found the video interesting in that the FDA went against such a revolutionary medicine but it is with a reason. That reason is an unjust one, for the greed of money.Every company that was producing some sort of chemotherapy was in danger of losing the millions that they earned because so many developed cancer and it was their only hope. Most of the time, the effects are worse though, giving them leukemia, and only extend the person's life for a few months. The FDA spent millions pursuing Dr. Burzynski and his antineoplastons even though everything he did was within Texas and Federal Law. He was saving lives without the aftermath that was severe surgery and toxins in the person that resulted in side effects such as loss of hearing and brain damage. There is a silver lining to this though. The FDA ended up giving Dr. Burzynski 27 clinical trials after his final indictment in 1995/6. If someone i knew developed cancer, i would recommend them Dr. Burzynski because the worst that can happen is the treatment does not work. His treatment has no side effects on the person and his success rate is higher than any other traditional methods.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Cancer patient stories are always very powerful and heartbreaking, and with them I seriously think a viewer (or even a jury, as shown in the film) can be convinced of anything. This antineoplaston treatment pioneered by Burzynski seems to be the miracle treatment, especially for brain tumors. Basically, I always thought chemotherapy and radiation were the only ways to treat cancer, and in the course of 2 days, I have learned that there is totally different method treating cancer that can get rid of tumors completely and extend the prognosis of patients. By adding amino acids (antineoplastons are cancer-fighting substances found in human urine) missing in cancer patients, cancer can be cured? It sounds so unbelievably simple; it makes Burzynski sound like an exclusive genius. And what I don’t understand is why Burzynski isn’t more well known by now; why have I not heard of him before? There has to be at least SOME truth in what the FDA said-they brought him to court so many times. The movie portrays the FDA as a business out to collect money in their own pockets, not to contribute to the well-being of cancer patients. I feel like I need to hear the FDA’ s side one more time. But I do agree that Burzynski’s methods are working with patients, so it shouldn’t be outlawed completely. Patients should have a choice as to what method they prefer. In my opinion, the film was biased. I have never heard of Burzynski before, and I feel like the film wants me to view him as “cancer treatment god”. In fact, Burzynski’s “trials” cost an unbelievable amount of money, but it is true that he has had more successes than chemotherapy. I would never say that Burzynski has cured cancer (even he admits that survival rate isn’t 100%) ; but he has given hope to the millions of cancer patients that desperately need it; he has opened another door (that the FDA for some odd reason-is the universal monopoly of cancer treatment really the only reason?- frantically tried to close). The film, overall, is an advertisement of Burzynski’s methods, and by no means should a cancer patient should be convinced of taking Burzynski’s method just by watching this film. So to answer the question: Do I believe him? Yes and no. It sounds too good to be true. I want to believe in this newfound method, but at the same time, there has to be some reason besides money that has caused all these trials to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dr.Burzinski's revolutionary cancer treatment had saved many lives, but the influence of the Texas medical board, the FDA, and PhRMA had caused the general public to be weary, and those with cancer patients to be outraged. The idea that an independent lab could produce a solution to life-threatening cancers better than chemotherapy scared these companies, having only concern for the loss of their so-called "research money". As the courts pressed on and no indictments were made, people became furious, especially with the FDA, but on the 6th or so trial, an unjust indictment of 75 charges were made, all of which but one were dropped, and that one led to nowhere. Dr. Burzinski had done no wrong, yet kept being egged on by law suits because of fears of the loss of money, not lives. Of course, the common populous sided with the doctor, and eventually the companies ended their bombardment of lies. The evidence that Dr. Burzinski was right, and these 3 companies wasting millions of tax payer's money shows that maybe not all of our trust should not be rested in the government's hands, if they would deny this treatment to patients.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I was continually appalled while watching this documentary. The one thought that kept reappearing in my head was, "There must be another story!" After some brief research, the main discussion I found that was not said on the video was that Burzynski's "cocktail" of antineoplastons often overcompensates for the genes needing treatment in a cancer patient. In other words, the drug is not as exact and "targeted" of a therapy as BRI has sold it to be. This can lead to ineffective treatments, prescribing too large of doses, and harmful side effects, according to http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/12/12/what-dr-stanislaw-burzynski-doesnt-want/.
    However, even after looking at the other side, I am not convinced of what so much of the medical and pharmaceutical community seems to think- that Burzynski is a quack. After numerous trials with very positive results, PhRMA and the FDA continued to pursue Burzynski for rediculous criminal charges. This is wrong to me on so many levels. Maybe I am the victim of a biased documentary, but from what I saw, Burzynski's 10-year run-in with the law was the result of a self-serving and convoluted bureaucracy of government officials, pharmaceutical companies, and scientists. Despite the profound evidence shown from Burzynski's clinical trials, research and pharmaceutical firms were so immersed in government funding that they felt threatened by Burzynski's success; if Burzynski's treatment was approved and widespread, long-standing investment in chemotherapy and radiation would dissolve rapidly. I cannot believe those countless medical and government professionals of the companies involved in Burzynski's trial. They were employed as public servants, and the need for Burzynski's antineoplastons certainly was and is very prevalent in cancer treatment. Maybe I need to hear a thorough investigation of this from the opposing point of view to see both sides fully, but as of now, I am thoroughly disgusted by what occurred between our government and Burzynski.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Sally Seo (My first response got deleted, so this one isn't as thorough.)
    My opinions about the Burzynski film altered between the first day and second day of watching the film in AP Biology. During the first day, I was beyond optimistic about the hope of my mom's friend being completely cured of her terminal stage of liver cancer. I discussed with my mom during Friday night about Burzynski and his antineoplastons that were unknown to the world today due to the government efforts to maintain the prosperity and stability of the large portion of the cancer treatment field dedicated to chemotherapy and radiation. However, the questions that she imposed made me truly think about the possibility and reality of Burzynski's tactics. Is this it? Have we finally found the treatment to cancer? What is our current president doing about this? Is my friend going to live to watch her children get married? Has her chemotherapy and radiation been doing her more harm than good?
    Upon these questions, I can honestly say that my initial joy was shrouded by skepticism. Having faith in the government, I believed that maybe, maaaybe there was a plausible reason for Burzynski's methods not being widely known today. Maybe he used illegal methods, maybe patients suffered from side-effects not mentioned in the film, or maybe he was a criminal. However, during the second day, I was both appalled and ecstatic to learn that, perhaps, Burzynski was a brilliant and humane scientist who put true value to life, displaying a stark contrast with the avaricious men in large corporations who aimed to arrest him at the cost of many lives. He had FDA-approved clinical trials and patients who claimed to have been saved by his antineoplastons and abundant evidence that his treatment was either effective or neutral; six grand jury trials by the FDA concluding "no indictment" further elucidated my thought on Burzynski.
    I will do my part in researching about Burzynski because one film is not sufficient enough for me to raise the hope of my mom's friend. However, this film was eye-opening personally. It gives me the pleasant expectation for the future of my mom's friend and her ability to be able to say that she is a cancer survivor.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I thought the video was very interesting as well as amazing. I had completely no idea that antineoplastons even existed to fight cancer. I found it degrading that agencies like the FDA are not approving certain drugs because they will loose revenues to individuals. It makes me wonder how many drugs have been created that could have been revolutionary in treating a severe and hard to cure disease such as cancer or HIV/AIDS that have been rejected by the FDA. Regarding the creation of antineoplastions, I thought it was cool that the ingredients used to produce antineoplastons were found by investigating compounds that were in the urine of cancer free patients and were not in the urine of people diagnosed cancer. I find it interesting that research to fight cancer is taking more unique paths, and in this case it led to an effective treatment of cancer. The antineoplastons are also non-toxic which is great perk. Normal cancer treatments, like chemotherapy and radiation, are toxic to the body and do not necessarily help cancer victims a lot of the time because of all of the serious side effects. Antineoplastons are non-toxic and are showing effective results. If I knew someone who had cancer, I would recommend Doctor Burzynski immediately. I am surprised by the fact that antineoplastons have been around since the late 1980s. I would have thought that this revolutionary treatment was only a few years old. I hope that sometime in the future it is possible for Dr. Burzynski to be able to ship his products throughout the U.S. so that these effective cancer treatments are available for a far greater amount of people.

    ReplyDelete
  22. While the documentary Burzynski: Cancer is a Serious Business provides a closer look at Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski’s apparently “miraculous” work in the field of oncology, the information comes across as being very biased and made to boost Burzynski’s seemingly obscure antineoplaston cancer treatment. If his work really produces the amazing results presented in the documentary, then why is Burzynski’s name and treatment – which has been around since the 1980s – not as commonly known as other presently applied cancer treatments, such as chemotherapy or radiation? A possible explanation for the limited public knowledge of Burzynski’s work lies in his long court battles with the FDA; the FDA may be limiting the release of information of the doctor’s antineoplaston treatment due to the possibility of the government program losing funding in the event that Burzynski’s treatment does exceed the rates of success of chemotherapy and radiation. (Throughout the late twentieth century, the FDA’s unjustified relentless pursuit of Dr. Burzynski’s medical license included four trials in which the FDA sought to indict the doctor.) Doctors and physicians of the time obviously did not support Burzynski’s work – perhaps because these court battles may have given Burzynski a “bad rap” – probably causing some patients to themselves doubt the efficacy of the doctor’s work with antineoplastons. However, according to the documentary, antineoplaston cancer treatment does not have any negative or dangerous side effects; why, then, is the failure rate of Burzynski’s work such a high value (75%)? Furthermore, why are chemotherapy and radiation presently more commonly chosen paths for cancer treatment if their failure rates are around 20% greater than that of antineoplaston treatment? The fact that so many significant, unanswered questions can be raised after watching this documentary further supports my belief that the information in the video cannot be considered completely valid without more research. I am particularly skeptic about Burzynski’s approach due to the fact that antineoplaston cancer treatment targets a large number of genes besides the cancerous genes, which results in similar problematic effects to those of chemotherapy and radiation. Therefore, I am hesitant to recommend Dr. Burzynski’s treatment center to anyone that I know who is facing a battle with cancer.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Ahmad Rathor
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


    I thought the Burzynski film was amazing. I was surprised that I had never heard of this revolutionary cancer treatment before. The dozens of testimonials gave credence to his claims. If his revolutionary treatment did not work, there would logically not be as many emotion-filled testimonials. Additionally, the actions of the FDA helped give merit to Burzynski’s claims. Motivated by profit, the government tried to repeatedly discredit his findings and put him on trial. Eventually, they accepted the fact that Burzynski’s methodology generated some degree of success and stopped harassing him. This is concurrent with the remarks of Burzynski, who stated that his treatment is not the perfect solution (although it, of course, creates good results in many cases). To evaluate the credibility of his claims, we also need to take into account the production of the movie. The movie is quite glaringly biased and the movie was presented in a documentary – type manner to, quite possibly, try and cover up the biases. In this day and age, information can be altered easily via editing, so we cannot take all of Burzynski’s claims as the truth. Furthermore, there are several reasons why the general public has not heard of this guy before. The avaricious FDA, who are only concerned about greed and power, may have went on a campaign to try and stop information about this treatment from leaking out and becoming more popular. Additionally, the FDA may have undergone a misinformation campaign, in a manner similar to how many argue that the government misinforms its citizens about marijuana. While some may think that the idea of an FDA misinformation campaign is a stretch, it is quite obvious that the FDA tried to jail Burzynski several times in the 1990s.


    Personally, I would recommend his treatment for someone who has the more gruesome types of cancer. For example, if the person has a cancer that has a history of being destroyed by your regular chemotherapy treatments, it would be useless to recommend Burzynski’s anti-neoplaston method. If the person has a more strenuous type of cancer, such as brain cancer, I would definitely recommend Burzynski, as his method has a high success rate for those types.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Even though I was absent for the first half of the film, I still managed to get a very in-depth look at the convoluted world behind the money that goes into and comes out of the medical field. It is appalling to me that the organization in which we trust to ensure the safety of our foods and the quality of our lives seems to care more for the profit of cancer treatment than the lives being altered by its success or failure. Though there are two sides to this story, it cannot be ignored that the FDA continually chased after Burzynski for his revolutionary research and spent $60 million of the government’s money, taxpayer’s money, OUR money in their pursuit of this man and their attempt to shut him and his research down. And for what? Though no treatment is perfect and it is still a clinical trial, Burzynski saved lives that would have otherwise been lost to cancer. Ignoring this crucial fact, the FDA was more concerned that his innovative new cancer treatment involving antineoplastons would take away from their income received through radiation and chemotherapy, which were also harsher, less promising options. His name is probably not familiar since the government seems to have worked hard to keep Burzynski’s business low and did not want his name advertised. Though his name may be new, I believe in this man and his treatment not only for his scientific background and the research that went into the antineoplastons, but he truly cares for the people that he is helping and wants to change the world for the better. I would go through with this procedure myself and would definitely share it with anyone searching for a treatment. It is shocking that the government does not feel the same way.

    -Holly Gunder

    ReplyDelete
  25. I thought the video was very interesting and appalling. I had no idea that there was such a thing cure that could treat cancer such as antineoplastons. I found it inhuman that the FDA was not approving certain drugs because it would harm their company. What was interesting was that Dr. Bruzynski found that adding amino acids in cancer patients that were missing them, cancer could be cured. First I thought that it was all fake and it was only a one time deal. But, the cancer patients medical records proved me wrong. I don't understand how the world hasn't heard of Dr. Bruzynski yet. He has made miracles happen with his patients and should be allowed to distribute his medicine throughout the country. There was no reason in having so many court hearings against Bruzynski. The FDA was wasting everyones time by bringing the same thing up over and over again. They only wanted to gain profits for themselves and not for the well-being of cancer patients. I thought that radiation and chemotherapy was the only way for cancer patients, and even with that they wouldn't live long, but with more horrible side effects. But Bruzynski's antineoplaston treatment shows no side effects and shows that cancer patients are slowly being sure. Maybe he hasn't cured cancer all the way but has at least showed people that being cancer free is possible. What is the point in cancer treatment that will eventually lead you to worse symptoms than before? At least taking Dr. Bruzynski's treatment will expand your life for a couple more years than from radiation or chemotherapy that could maybe extend your life for a couple more months. Which would you chose if you were a cancer patient?

    ReplyDelete
  26. My initial reaction was just "wow, there's a cure for cancer". But as the film progressed, I gained a better understanding of how the antineoplastons actually work. It's not necessarily a cure, but it is a better, safer treatment and should be opening doors for new research. The shocking part was that it existed even before we were even born! How it managed to stay under wraps for that long, I have no idea. I thought that if there was a better treatment for cancer it would have spread around the world in a matter of days. If the treatment works, then why is the FDA so hammered onto the idea of bringing Dr. Burzynski down? If they started manufacturing this treatment, of course money would be lost, but there would be a bigger gain in the end. Money WOULD be gained from these treatments, and you'd be saving peoples' lives. A win-win situation. I believe that the main reason as to why we haven't heard of Dr. Burzynski is because of the FDA. Even though from the film, it seemed like the cases gained so much publicity; that publicity probably just stayed within the borders of Texas.
    Based on the how successful Dr. Burzynski was with this treatment, I would definitely recommend it to a person who has been recently diagnosed with brain cancer. Maybe more-so if intense levels of radiation and chemotherapy are required. All-in-all this treatment seems much more safer than chemo or radiation. Also knowing that if the antineoplaston treatment doesn't work, and you won't be harmed immensely because of it, is a plus.
    It is a bit unbelievable as well. At some point during the film, the thought that this might be fake did come into my mind. Even though it the treatment supposedly "works", there's still lots of questions that should be answered before one can believe it completely.
    Just WOW.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Albeit I was aware that various forms of cancer treatments existed other than chemotherapy and radiation, I was ignorant to the fact that treatments existed that induced no negative consequences such as antineoplastons. The discovery that Dr. Burzynski was able to notice the lack of specific peptide bonds in cancer induced patients than in non cancerous patients was astounding and a medical marvel. However, I am not surprised that the FDA went to such great lengths to sue Dr. Burzynski due to the tremendous loss of revenue they would endure if his antineoplastons were to become patented. It is amazing that the usage of antineoplastons was able to save so many lives and families; however, the video was engulfed in bias protecting Burzynski's point of view, rather than providing insight from both the FDA and pharma. The overabundance of pathos from Burzynski's clients skewed the bias in his favor. in all honesty, the film radiuated a Saturday night documentary special vibe, rather than an intelligent and coherent analysis of a new approach to medical science and its subsequent consequences, due to the lack of hard science and overabundance of statistics, emotional appeal, and ludicrous amounts of bias. I had never heard of Dr. Burzynski due to my lack of research on doctors. Although the film is full of bias, I wholly side with the biased side that is shed a positive light on Dr. Burnzynksi. I had never heard of him before also because I never had many relatives inflicted with cancer. If I knew somebody was inflicted with cancer, I would tell them to give Dr. Burzynski a chance, due to his rate of success and the publicity that it garnered. Dr. Burznyski has started to become a household name in the world of cancer induced patients.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Tyler Houston
    I though this video was going to be terribly boring, but I have to admit I enjoyed it a lot. It seems that his innovative method for curing the devastating disease so simple. I believe that it is wrong that they want to eliminate Dr. Burzynski and his ideas all together. Government corporations such as FDA and Pharma rely on chemotherapy and radiation for a large percentage of the money they make. They fear that Dr. B’s new method will take that money away from them and put it into the lap of a single man. Years of scientists studying and devoting their lives to find a cure for cancer and millions of dollars have gone into these expensive government programs. Dr. B came up with a simple, nontoxic way of getting rid of tumors, and all he did was look at the differences in people who have cancer and the people who don't. I was surprised that a solution so simple took so long to discover. Without causing damage to the body through radiation and without drastic side effects, this treatment was ideal. The risks and side effects of radiation really shocked me. You could even get another form of cancer by trying to treat the cancer you already have…. To me, it’s not worth living only a few more months while enduring these harsh side effects. The saddest part was when the father said his young daughter brain basically fell apart from so much radiation. That hit me pretty hard. Burzynski will potentially take all of the main corporations’ clients, meaning they will take all of their money. The government has tried and failed MANY times to but the doctor out of busness, but there is no good evidence so he cannot be persecuted. What they see is someone threatening their income, but what we the people see is someone trying to do what is best for those whose lives need to be saved.

    -

    ReplyDelete