Re: Antyineoplastons for Brain Cancers

[Guest guest]

Dear Arnold, how come that there are no more recent results available? I

mean september 2000 is almost two years ago. I'm really interested in more

current results but also at the website of dr. Bursinky they aren't

mentioned.

Gr. kees Braam

webmaster www.kanker-actueel.nl

Antyineoplastons for Brain Cancers

> Hi Glen,

> Once again the best results in treatment of brain cancers was reoported by

Dr.Burzynski. The latest results I received this month, September,2000 from

Dr.Burzynski's clinical trials reported the following updated Results:

>

> His antineoplastons are in FDA sanctioned clinical trials for varying

cancers. Website www.cancermed.com you can link to a patient group that did

well on the treatment at www.burzynskipatientgroup.org.

>

> All of the reported results deal with Brain cancers.

>

> The detailed protocols for each of the clinical trials is on his website

www.cancermed.com

>

> click on the 72 FDA supervised clinical trials.

>

> The latest report of FDA supervised Phase 2 clinical Trials of

Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 included 35 evaluable patients diagnosed with

glioblastoma multiforme(39% of patients),anaplastic glioma(36%),low grade

glioma (14%),PNET(8%) and malignant meningioma (3%).

>

> In the CAN-1 results of 35 evaluable patients of 43 results improved

slightly some movement from partial response to complete response

>

> Complete Response-CR 25.7%

>

> Partial Response-PR 22.9

>

> Stable Disease-SD 31.4

>

> Objective ResponseCR+PR 48.6

>

> Positive Resp CR+PR+SD 80

>

> Progressive Disease 20

>

> Patients not admitted to CAN-1 results of 11 evaluable of 23

>

>

> Complete Response-CR 27

>

> Partial Response-PR 0

>

> Stable Disease-SD 46

>

> Objective ResponseCR+PR 27

>

> Positive RespCR+PR+SD 73

>

> Progressiv Disease 27

>

> BT-3 Astrocytoma in 20 Patients

>

> Complete ResponseCR 20

>

> Partial ResponsePR 10

>

> Stable DiseaseSD 50

>

> Objective ResponseCR+PR 30

>

> Positiv Resp CR+PR+SD 80

>

> Progressive Disease 20

>

> BT-3 High Grade Glioma in 12 Patients

>

> Complete ResponseCR 16.7

>

> Partial ResponsePR 16.7

>

> Stable DiseaseSD 33.3

>

> Objective ResponseCR+PR 33.4

>

> Positive RespCR+PR+SD 66.7

>

> Progressive Disease 33.3

>

> BT-9 Primary Brain Tumors in 11 evaluable of 17 patients improved moving

slightly from partial response to complete response.

>

> Complete ResponseCR 9.1

>

> Partial ResponsePR 45.5

>

> Stable DiseaseSD 36.4

>

> Objective ResponseCR+PR 54.6

>

> Positive Response 91

>

> Progressive Disease 9

>

> BT-11 Brain Stem Glioma in 18 evaluable of 23 Patients improved slightly

with movement from partial response up to complete and from stable disease

to partial response

>

> Complete ResponseCR 16.7

>

> Partial ResponsePR 22.2

>

> Stable DiseaseSD 27.8

>

> Objective ResponseCR+PR 38.9

>

> Positive ResponseCR+PR+SD 66.7

>

> Progressive Disease 33.3

>

> BT-13 Children with low grade Astrocytoma in 8 evaluable of 9 patients

there was slight improvement moving from stable disease partial response

>

> Complete ResponseCR 25

>

> Partial ResponsePR 37.5

>

> Stable Disease 25

>

> Objective ResponseCR+PR 62.5

>

> Positive RespCR+PR+SD 87.5

>

> Progressive Disease 12.5

>

> B-18 Mixed Glioma in 11 evaluable of 14 patients

>

> Complete ResponseCR 27.3

>

> Partial ResponsePR 9.1

>

> Stable DiseaseSD 18.2

>

> Objective ResponseCR+PR 36.4

>

> Positive RespCR+PR+SD 54.6

>

> Progressive Disease 45.4

>

> Medullablastoma (PNET) in 12 children under 2 protocols

>

> Objective ResponseCR+ PR 33.3

>

> Stable DiseaseSD 33.3

>

> Positive Response 66.6

>

> Progressive Disease 33.3

>

> Some of these patients classified stable disease continue to take

antineoplastons had tumor decreases and are approaching partial response.

>

> The one year survival rate on antineoplastons in these medullablastoma

trials is 92%

>

> The two year survival rate is 75%

>

> Most Patients (7) in this trial did not receive standard therapy; in these

cases they received antineoplastons after surgery.These patients had a 3

year survival rate of 86%.

>

> The survival rate of patients receiving only surgery is 0 to 12% after 1

year and 0% after 2 years.

>

>

>

>

> The above response rates were categorized as defined by the National

Cancer Institute definitions as follows:

>

> Complete Response required complete disappearance of all content-enhanced

tumor(s) on imaging studies for 4 weeks or longer.

>

> Partial Response required more than 50% reduction in the sum of the

products of the greatest perpendicular diameters in contrast enhanced

tumor(s) for at least 4 weeks.

>

> Stable Disease required less than 50% change(either greater or smaller) in

the sum of the product of the greatest perpendicular diameters of the

contrast enhanced tumor(s) for at least 12 weeks.

>

> Progressive Disease was greater than 50% increase in the sum of the

products of the greatest perpendicular diameters of the contrast enhanced

tumor(s)compared with the nadir evaluation or appearance of new lesions.

>

> In the CAN-1 trial, the oldest trial, median time to disease progression

was 16 months from first day of treatment. Median Time of survival was 27

months from first day of treatment and median time of survival from

diagnosis is 4 years. Of the 43 patients(including those non-evaluable) in

the CAN-1 trial 16 patients are alive and responding to antineoplastons for

an average survival of 4 years.

>

> Antineoplastons will be submitted to the FDA for approval as a new

prescription drug later this year. Currently they are only available in

clinical trials.

>

> Since it is considered experimental insurance and HMO's usually will not

pay for it up front although some people have received settlements after

they rcovered and claimed reimbursement.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=BZYR & read=289

> Dear Arnold, how come that there are no more recent results

available? I

> mean september 2000 is almost two years ago. I'm really interested

in more

> current results but also at the website of dr. Bursinky they aren't

> mentioned.

>

> Gr. kees Braam

> webmaster www.kanker-actueel.nl

> Antyineoplastons for Brain Cancers

>

>

> > Hi Glen,

> > Once again the best results in treatment of brain cancers was

reoported by

> Dr.Burzynski. The latest results I received this month,

September,2000 from

> Dr.Burzynski's clinical trials reported the following updated

Results:

> >

> > His antineoplastons are in FDA sanctioned clinical trials for

varying

> cancers. Website www.cancermed.com you can link to a patient group

that did

> well on the treatment at www.burzynskipatientgroup.org.

> >

> > All of the reported results deal with Brain cancers.

> >

> > The detailed protocols for each of the clinical trials is on his

website

> www.cancermed.com

> >

> > click on the 72 FDA supervised clinical trials.

> >

> > The latest report of FDA supervised Phase 2 clinical Trials of

> Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 included 35 evaluable patients

diagnosed with

> glioblastoma multiforme(39% of patients),anaplastic glioma(36%),low

grade

> glioma (14%),PNET(8%) and malignant meningioma (3%).

> >

> > In the CAN-1 results of 35 evaluable patients of 43 results

improved

> slightly some movement from partial response to complete response

> >

> > Complete Response-CR 25.7%

> >

> > Partial Response-PR 22.9

> >

> > Stable Disease-SD 31.4

> >

> > Objective ResponseCR+PR 48.6

> >

> > Positive Resp CR+PR+SD 80

> >

> > Progressive Disease 20

> >

> > Patients not admitted to CAN-1 results of 11 evaluable of 23

> >

> >

> > Complete Response-CR 27

> >

> > Partial Response-PR 0

> >

> > Stable Disease-SD 46

> >

> > Objective ResponseCR+PR 27

> >

> > Positive RespCR+PR+SD 73

> >

> > Progressiv Disease 27

> >

> > BT-3 Astrocytoma in 20 Patients

> >

> > Complete ResponseCR 20

> >

> > Partial ResponsePR 10

> >

> > Stable DiseaseSD 50

> >

> > Objective ResponseCR+PR 30

> >

> > Positiv Resp CR+PR+SD 80

> >

> > Progressive Disease 20

> >

> > BT-3 High Grade Glioma in 12 Patients

> >

> > Complete ResponseCR 16.7

> >

> > Partial ResponsePR 16.7

> >

> > Stable DiseaseSD 33.3

> >

> > Objective ResponseCR+PR 33.4

> >

> > Positive RespCR+PR+SD 66.7

> >

> > Progressive Disease 33.3

> >

> > BT-9 Primary Brain Tumors in 11 evaluable of 17 patients improved

moving

> slightly from partial response to complete response.

> >

> > Complete ResponseCR 9.1

> >

> > Partial ResponsePR 45.5

> >

> > Stable DiseaseSD 36.4

> >

> > Objective ResponseCR+PR 54.6

> >

> > Positive Response 91

> >

> > Progressive Disease 9

> >

> > BT-11 Brain Stem Glioma in 18 evaluable of 23 Patients improved

slightly

> with movement from partial response up to complete and from stable

disease

> to partial response

> >

> > Complete ResponseCR 16.7

> >

> > Partial ResponsePR 22.2

> >

> > Stable DiseaseSD 27.8

> >

> > Objective ResponseCR+PR 38.9

> >

> > Positive ResponseCR+PR+SD 66.7

> >

> > Progressive Disease 33.3

> >

> > BT-13 Children with low grade Astrocytoma in 8 evaluable of 9

patients

> there was slight improvement moving from stable disease partial

response

> >

> > Complete ResponseCR 25

> >

> > Partial ResponsePR 37.5

> >

> > Stable Disease 25

> >

> > Objective ResponseCR+PR 62.5

> >

> > Positive RespCR+PR+SD 87.5

> >

> > Progressive Disease 12.5

> >

> > B-18 Mixed Glioma in 11 evaluable of 14 patients

> >

> > Complete ResponseCR 27.3

> >

> > Partial ResponsePR 9.1

> >

> > Stable DiseaseSD 18.2

> >

> > Objective ResponseCR+PR 36.4

> >

> > Positive RespCR+PR+SD 54.6

> >

> > Progressive Disease 45.4

> >

> > Medullablastoma (PNET) in 12 children under 2 protocols

> >

> > Objective ResponseCR+ PR 33.3

> >

> > Stable DiseaseSD 33.3

> >

> > Positive Response 66.6

> >

> > Progressive Disease 33.3

> >

> > Some of these patients classified stable disease continue to take

> antineoplastons had tumor decreases and are approaching partial

response.

> >

> > The one year survival rate on antineoplastons in these

medullablastoma

> trials is 92%

> >

> > The two year survival rate is 75%

> >

> > Most Patients (7) in this trial did not receive standard therapy;

in these

> cases they received antineoplastons after surgery.These patients

had a 3

> year survival rate of 86%.

> >

> > The survival rate of patients receiving only surgery is 0 to 12%

after 1

> year and 0% after 2 years.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > The above response rates were categorized as defined by the

National

> Cancer Institute definitions as follows:

> >

> > Complete Response required complete disappearance of all content-

enhanced

> tumor(s) on imaging studies for 4 weeks or longer.

> >

> > Partial Response required more than 50% reduction in the sum of

the

> products of the greatest perpendicular diameters in contrast

enhanced

> tumor(s) for at least 4 weeks.

> >

> > Stable Disease required less than 50% change(either greater or

smaller) in

> the sum of the product of the greatest perpendicular diameters of

the

> contrast enhanced tumor(s) for at least 12 weeks.

> >

> > Progressive Disease was greater than 50% increase in the sum of

the

> products of the greatest perpendicular diameters of the contrast

enhanced

> tumor(s)compared with the nadir evaluation or appearance of new

lesions.

> >

> > In the CAN-1 trial, the oldest trial, median time to disease

progression

> was 16 months from first day of treatment. Median Time of survival

was 27

> months from first day of treatment and median time of survival from

> diagnosis is 4 years. Of the 43 patients(including those non-

evaluable) in

> the CAN-1 trial 16 patients are alive and responding to

antineoplastons for

> an average survival of 4 years.

> >

> > Antineoplastons will be submitted to the FDA for approval as a new

> prescription drug later this year. Currently they are only

available in

> clinical trials.

> >

> > Since it is considered experimental insurance and HMO's usually

will not

> pay for it up front although some people have received settlements

after

> they rcovered and claimed reimbursement.

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

I have just contacted the Bruzinsky clinic to find out how they could

help my son. Well in a 9 page reply all I read was that they were

more interested in money that actually helping people. It would cost

me A$244,000 for one years worth of drugs. In my book, a clinical

trial should not cost anyone (for any reason) this amount of money. I

have found sites where others have commented on the work of this Dr

Burzinsky.

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski2.ht

ml , http://www.hcrc.org/contrib/green/burznew.html ,

http://www.hcrc.org/contrib/green/washpost.html . I am dissappointed

with the information on this Dr Burzinsky. I know I am not in a

postion to comment on his work and the results he seems to get, but I

honestly couldn't deal with someone so contraversial when it comes to

the health of my four year old.

[Guest guest]

My wife has a friend that knows , the mother of

she gave my wives friend a note to give to my wife.On the note she

wrote $30,000.I think that's for the first month and then she wrote

$7000 per month. That comes to $107,000 for one year.Now I'm really

confused her numbers are less then half of yours but maybe your sons

case is not the same, who knows. had her son stay on the pills

for an extra 6 months or so even though Dr B said he didn't need them

anymore.She just wanted to be sure.My wife talked to her friend last

week and she said that was off the pills and was doing great.

Here is a few links that might help

http://www.burzynskipatientgroup.org/ryan.htm

http://naturalhealthline.com/newsletter/Hl990215/burzynski.htm

http://members.tripod.com/~AMN92/health.htm

http://www.cancercoalition.com/mission.htm

http://www.burzynskipatientgroup.org/contribu.htm

Take care

Jim

> I have just contacted the Bruzinsky clinic to find out how they

could

> help my son. Well in a 9 page reply all I read was that they were

> more interested in money that actually helping people. It would

cost

> me A$244,000 for one years worth of drugs. In my book, a clinical

> trial should not cost anyone (for any reason) this amount of money.

I

> have found sites where others have commented on the work of this

Dr

> Burzinsky.

>

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski2.ht

> ml , http://www.hcrc.org/contrib/green/burznew.html ,

> http://www.hcrc.org/contrib/green/washpost.html . I am

dissappointed

> with the information on this Dr Burzinsky. I know I am not in a

> postion to comment on his work and the results he seems to get, but

I

> honestly couldn't deal with someone so contraversial when it comes

to

> the health of my four year old.

[Guest guest]

That sounds about right, I am in Australia so the dollar value is

different. But how can someone charge so much for a Trial??

[Guest guest]

Hi

There are others on this list that can answer that better then I.

Arnold Gore comes to mind.The Burzynski clinic has no finance backing

like the others do from the big drug companies plus no grants.Simply

put Burzynski is on his own. When I read the companies financial

report I see that the company is just making it from one year to the

next. In fact this year don't look good at all. The company has a lot

of overhead and the only income is coming from the people in the

trials. Put that together with no insurance help and you have alot of

people that just can't afford to get in the trials.that's just the

way the big drug companies and the FDA wants it.Oh yea lets not

forget that you can't even get in until you have been through the

gauntlet and then they tell you there is nothing more they can do. So

in a sense you need there permission to go to the Burzynski clinic

and that's just the way they like it. And then if that's not enough

the big drug companies hire creeps like Barrett and Green to

discourage people from seeking help at the Burzynski clinic or any

other so called alternative treatment that might show promise.I'm

hopping Arnold will give you a short class on the likes of Barrett

and Green. All I can say is they are pure evil. seeing you are

from Australia you may find this interesting and it may even

help.Arnold Gore posted this almost two years ago.

cures for cancer/message/9432

Take care

Jim

> That sounds about right, I am in Australia so the dollar value is

> different. But how can someone charge so much for a Trial??

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

It's not inexpensive, but some people using it are getting their insurance

to cover it--not that many though. The only way Dr.B he can pay for

producing the drug is from patients. As to clinical trials being expensive,

the only reason the others are free is because after the big drug companies

submit their trial data they have a good chance of approval. Burzynski does

not. FDA is unfortunately NOT out their to approve only safe ands effective

therapies. they are really there to MAKE SURE there is no alternative to the

chemotherapy and radiation that is only marginally effective in rare cases

where it is stopped early enough to rebuild the patient, before the point of

no return. If you want to speak to some people using the therapy look up

http://www.burzynskipatientgroup.org

there are a number of patients and their famlies that might be able to tell

you how they are managing it and whatntheir resaults are.

There is a group only you need permission to join their list at

burzynskisupport

The people on quackwatch have opposed every advancement in the area of

nutrition and alternative medicine in the last 30 years. Barrett and Herbert

are just defending the drug companies and their monopoly. To a new person

coming to this situation it is hard to believe that people we have thought

of as out to help sick people can be so conspiratorial. It really is not an

overall sinister thing. It comes about when people-doctors-who undergo

expensive and time consuming educations graduate and find out if they ask

too many questions about why they have to restrict their treatment to drugs

that don't get to the underlying cause, they start to have trouble with

their state medical boards. Rather than face that, they go along as

" everybody else does " .

The few who rebel are in fights and " controversy " with their medical boards.

Arnold

Re: Antyineoplastons for Brain Cancers

> I have just contacted the Bruzinsky clinic to find out how they could

> help my son. Well in a 9 page reply all I read was that they were

> more interested in money that actually helping people. It would cost

> me A$244,000 for one years worth of drugs. In my book, a clinical

> trial should not cost anyone (for any reason) this amount of money. I

> have found sites where others have commented on the work of this Dr

> Burzinsky.

> http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski2.ht

> ml , http://www.hcrc.org/contrib/green/burznew.html ,

> http://www.hcrc.org/contrib/green/washpost.html . I am dissappointed

> with the information on this Dr Burzinsky. I know I am not in a

> postion to comment on his work and the results he seems to get, but I

> honestly couldn't deal with someone so contraversial when it comes to

> the health of my four year old.

>

>

>

> Get HUGE info at http://www.cures for cancer.ws, and post your own links there.

Unsubscribe by sending email to cures for cancer-unsubscribeegroups or by

visiting http://www.bobhurt.com/subunsub.mv

>

>