What is the generally accepted opinion of Dr. Burzynski's research?  He
paints himself as a lone researcher with a new breakthrough battling an
intolerant medical establishment, but I have no basis from which to judge
his claims.  Two weeks ago, however, I read that the NIH's Department of
Alternative Medicine has decided to focus their attention on Burzynski's
work.  Their budget is so small that I imagine they wouldn't investigate a
treatment that didn't seem promising.

Any opinions on Burzynski's antineoplastons or information about the current
status of his research would be appreciated.

--
Joshua Schwimmer

peace

greg nigh

The patient's oncologist, although telling him he would probably not live
past December 1992, was vehemently opposed to his trying Dr. Burzynski's
treatment.  Since the tumor stopped its rapid growth under Dr. Burzynski's
treatment, she's since changed her attitude toward continuing these
treatments, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Dr. Burzynski is an M.D., Ph.D. with a research background who found a
protein that is at very low serum levels in cancer patients, synthesized it,
and administers it to patients with certain cancer types.  There is little
understanding of the actual mechanism of activity.

/*********************************************************************/
/*                      --- David E. Scheim ---                      */
/* BITNET: none                                                      */

/* CompuServe: 73750,3305                  FAX: 301 402-1065         */
/*                                                                   */
/* DISCLAIMER: These comments are offered to share knowledge based   */
/*   upon my personal views.  They do not represent the positions    */
/*   of my employer.                                                 */
/*********************************************************************/

   Any opinions on Burzynski's antineoplastons or information about the current
   status of his research would be appreciated.

Burzynski's work is not too promising. None of his A-1 through A-5
antineoplastons have been shown to have antineoplastic effects against
experimental cancer. The NCI conducted tests of A-2 and A-5 against
leukemia in mice, with the result that doses high enough to produce
toxic effects in the mice were not effective in inhibiting the growth
of the tumor or killing it. (These were in 1983 and 1985)

Burzynski claims that A-10 is the active factor common to all of A-1
and A-5 (something which he has not shown, A-10 has only been
extracted from A-2. He also hasn't shown that A-1 through A-5 are actually
distinct substances). The NCI conducted a series of tests using A-10
against a standard panel of tumors that included different cell lines
from tumors in the following classes: leukemia, non-small-cell and
small-cell lung cancer, colon cancer, cancer of the central nervous
system, melanoma, ovarian cancer and renal cancer. A-10 exhibited
neither growth inhibition nor cytotoxicity at the dose levels tested.

It is necessary to process A-10 since it is not soluble (Burzynski's
theory requires soluble agents), but this basically hydrolizes it to
PAG (which he calls AS 2.5). PAG is not an information carrying
peptide, something which Byrzynski claims is necessary for
antineoplastic activity. AS 2.1 (also derived from A-10) is a 4:1
mixture of PA and PAG. PA (also not a peptide) can be purchased at a
chemical supply houses for about $0.09 a gram. A-10 is chemically
extremely similar to glutithamide and thalidomide, both of which are
habit forming and can cause peripheral neuropathy. The {*filter*} effects
of thalidomide are widely known. In spite of this similarity, A-10
does not appear to have been tested for it's potential to induce
teratogenicity or peripheral neuropathy.

Many of Burzynski's statements about the origin of his theory, early
research, past and present support by others for his work have been
shown to be untrue.

sdb
---

   A good source of information on Burzynski's method is in *The Cancer Industry*
   by pulitzer-prize nominee Ralph Moss.

Interesting. What book got Moss the pulitzer nomination? None of the
flyers for his books mention this, and none of the Cancer Chronicle
Newsletters that I have mention this either.

   Also, a non-profit organization called "People Against Cancer,"
   which was formed for the purpose of allowing cancer patients to
   access information regarding cancer therapies not endorsed by the
   cancer industry, but which have shown highly promising results (all
   of which are non-toxic).

Moss is People Against Cancer's Director of Communications. People
Against Cancer seems to offer pretty questionable information, not
exactly the place a cancer patient should be advised to turn to. Most
(maybe all) of the infomation in their latest catalogue concern
treatments that have been shown to be ineffective against cancer, and
many of the treatments are quite dangerous as well.

sdb
---

 Most

As for the ineffectiveness of antineoplasteons, the fact that the NIH didn't
find them effective doesn't make much sense here. Of course they didn't! I
tend to have more faith in the word of the patients who are now alive after
being told years ago that they would be dead of cancer soon. They are fighting
like hell to keep that clinic open, and they credit his treatment with their
survival. Anyone who looks at the NIH's record for investigation of 'alterna-
tive' cancer therapies will easily see that they have a strange knack for find-
ing relatively cheap and nontoxic therapies dangerous or useless.

gn

Perhaps you believe that either Dr. Burzynski's or your own understanding of
the mechanism of antineoplastins is sufficiently advanced such that you can
dismiss this clinical record for a disease with 0% five-year survival under
surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation on the basis of in vitro tests.  Do you
know that many alkylating agents such as ifosfamide only yield activity from
metabolites and will show no activity in vitro?

I would tend to put more weight upon clinical data and less on our professed
understanding of the mechanisms of chemotherapy, advanced as they are.

/*********************************************************************/
/*                      --- David E. Scheim ---                      */
/* BITNET: none                                                      */

/* CompuServe: 73750,3305                  FAX: 301 402-1065         */
/*                                                                   */
/* DISCLAIMER: These comments are offered to share knowledge based   */
/*   upon my personal views.  They do not represent the positions    */
/*   of my employer.                                                 */
/*********************************************************************/

   And where do you advise people to turn for cancer information?

The American Cancer Society is a good choice, the NCI is getting
better at distributing public information. There are many other fine
organizations (such as the candlelighters, specifically for children
with cancer) that are far more trustworthy than Moss's group.

   It seems to me you've offered a circular refutation of Moss's
   organization. Who has shown the information in the latest book of
   PAC to be questionable? Could it be those 'regulatory' agencies and
   medical industries which Moss is showing to be operating with
   *major* vested interests.

Of course, cancer researchers and their families never get cancer, so
they are happily going along with the suppression of the 'true' cancer
cures which only people who buy books like Moss's know about.
Scientists aren't interested in things like the Nobel Prize, and drug
companies aren't interested in selling {*filter*} --- why sell a drug when
you can suppress it. Sounds like a great basis for a {*filter*}.

On the other hand, Moss is a saint who isn't making a dime off of his
books, the 'cancer tours', the stuff in the People Against Cancer
Catalogue. And of course, the more people distrust scientific
medicine, the more they will be inclined to purchase Moss's books ---
I'm sure he is totally unaware of this fact, and therefore has no
vested interest of his own in casting doubt on the good folks at the
NCI.

   I tend to have more faith in the word of the patients who are now
   alive after being told years ago that they would be dead of cancer
   soon. They are fighting like hell to keep that clinic open, and
   they credit his treatment with their survival.

You should have less faith in people who tell you they were cured by
unconventional means. Often they never had cancer. Often they also had
standard treatment in addition to the unconventional therapy, and
often they are not actually cured.  I'm not saying BRI patients fall
into this all to typical pattern, I don't know. I do have to wonder
why Byrzynski fibbed about other people duplicating his work and
having succesful clinical trials.

   Anyone who looks at the NIH's record for investigation of 'alterna-
   tive' cancer therapies will easily see that they have a strange
   knack for finding relatively cheap and nontoxic therapies
   dangerous or useless.

The interesting thing here is that almost none of the stuff in the PAC
catalogue could be described as either nontoxic or cheap. As I pointed
out (but you seem to have missed), Byrzynski's claimed active agent is
extremely similar to both glutithamide and thalidomide, neither of
which are non-toxic.

sdb
---

   I would tend to put more weight upon clinical data and less on our
   professed understanding of the mechanisms of chemotherapy, advanced
   as they are.

I agree, and it would be wonderful if the current trials at the NCI
were to indicate some progress in treating glioblastoma multiforme.
Until these results are in, the clinical evidence is just as I stated,
not too promising. I also don't think it is out of order to question
what appears to be poor work and to point out that his theory is
without experimental foundation.

I think one might also be permitted to wonder why, if Burzynski's
antineoplastons are as good as he claims, he finds it necessary to
misrespresent the work of others to his favor. For example, BRI issued
a press release stating that Sigma Tau, Italy's largest pharmaceutical
firm felt the antineoplastons were suitable for cancer treatment and
based on their present studies were about to allocate millions for
clinical trials. In truth, Sigma Tau's in vitro and in vivo trials
were not promising enough to even consider conducting human trials
Sigma Tau stated that they informed Burzynski of this directly.

There are other examples of this. If you are curious, you might wish
to read Saul Greens article in JAMA Vol 267, No. 21, pg 2429.

sdb

   IF you're going to criticize People Against Cancer, it would be helpful
   to describe the treatments they recommend and tell us why they are
   dangerous. I can't imagine any treatments more dangerous than
   conventional cancer "therapy".

Well, how about IAT?  How many conventional cancer therapies can give
you aids or hepatitis B or both?

sdb
---

As long as data is intelligently discussed and considered, skepticism is an
ally of the scientific method.  I think such reasoned consideration of
specific results as you have presented, rather than generalities
about "traditional" or "alternative" characterizations, are most productive.

-- David Scheim

/*********************************************************************/
/*                      --- David E. Scheim ---                      */
/* BITNET: none                                                      */

/* CompuServe: 73750,3305                  FAX: 301 402-1065         */
/*                                                                   */
/* DISCLAIMER: These comments are offered to share knowledge based   */
/*   upon my personal views.  They do not represent the positions    */
/*   of my employer.                                                 */
/*********************************************************************/

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and

----------------------------------------------------------------------------