Author Message

:     At least 10% of the people who are given chemo are killed by it.  They
:aren't devastated; they're just dead.
:     The reason that common chemo is so much more toxic than antineoplastins is
:that common chemo is specifically designed to be toxic.  It kills cells, both
:good and bad.  Antineoplastins are not designed to kill cells, but to turn off
:the cancer metabolism.
:     Patients of Dr. Burzynski typically don't experience any side effects.
:When they do (the side effects are minor) the medication is reduced and the
:side effects generally go away completely.
:     There is just no comparison between that and the dry wretching, {*filter*}y
:urine, etc that common chemo produces.

Geeze - talking to someone who went to the Burzynski seminar at the recent
alternative therapies conference (Mike McGrath hardly an alternative
therapies opponent) it sounded like people on anti-neoplastons had
significant side effects - people were often fatigued - "wiped out" -
Apparently Dr. Burzynski reported a significant response rate in brain
tumors and there were also two independent doctors there who had reviewed
various Burzynski's cases and found them credible. So the other side of
the coin is increasing evidence there is something to it.

I don't know there the at least 10% statistic comes from but I doubt it -
doesn't fit with my experience or the literature I've seen - but also
clearly it would depend on the type of chemo - some are far more toxic
than others...

                                -Steve Dunn
The possibilities are infinitely  | CancerGuide: http://www.***.com/
greater than the averages.        | "When you need the right questions"

Mon, 04 Dec 2000 03:00:00 GMT


>>Geeze - talking to someone who
>>went to the Burzynski seminar at
>>the recent alternative therapies
>>conference (Mike McGrath hardly
>>an alternative therapies opponent)
>>it sounded like people on anti-neoplastons
>>had significant side effects - people
>>were often fatigued - "wiped out" -

     The format of the presentations due to time consraints didn't allow Dr.
Burzynski to respond to the other physician's assertions.  That left an
impression that doesn't stand up to further examination.  
     When side effects such as fatigue, fevers or headaches occur, the dosage
of medication is lowered.  That generally eliminates, or at least reduces, the
side effects.
     Most Burzynski patients do not experience those significant side effects,
but if they do, they aren't anything like the side effects seen with cytotoxic


>>Apparently Dr. Burzynski reported
>>a significant response rate in brain
>>tumors and there were also two
>>independent doctors there who had reviewed
>>various Burzynski's cases and found
>>them credible. So the other side of
>>the coin is increasing evidence there
>>is something to it.

     I agree.  As one who saw the MRI slides, I must say the results were
stunning, particularly when one considers, for example, that glioblastoma
multiforme has such a universally dismal prognosis.  According to the
presenters, Burzynski's success rate (complete response) was 15-25%.  That's
especially significant considering that many of Burzyski's patients come to him
as a last resort with advanced disease states.
     For the record, Burzynski told the audience that his treatments have not
been as effective in treating {*filter*} cancer.

     Be well,
     - Kelley

William Kelley Eidem, author "The Doctor Who Cures Cancer"  To order, call
1-800-717-2669 (1-800-717-BOOX)

Wed, 06 Dec 2000 03:00:00 GMT
 [ 2 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. Burzynski's "Antineoplastons"

2. Antineoplastons

3. Antineoplastons

4. antineoplastons

5. Stanislaw Burzynski and "Antineoplastons

6. Burzynski's Clinic, Texas re:antineoplastons

7. Antineoplastons

8. Antineoplastons in Europe? Info?

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software