After Gorski’s “research” of Burzynski’s phase I (1) clinical trials:
Critiquing: How Stanislaw Burzynski became Burzynski the Brave Maverick Doctor, part 1:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/critiquing-how-stanislaw-burzynski-became-burzynski-the-brave-maverick-doctor-part-1/
he asserts:
“For one thing, in 1976 Burzynski had no animal data to speak of”
“In fact, the question of animal studies is an interesting one”
“Both Elias and Jaffe recount a story in which ANPs didn’t work in animal tumors, and Burzynski has been quoted in multiple places as claiming that ANPs are species-specific and that ANPs derived from human blood and urine don’t work in animal tumor models”
“This is in contrast to what Null reports in his near-contemporaneous account, in which he stated that in tissue culture and animal models Burzynski’s ANPs worked “specifically against certain types of cancer,” all with “no toxic side effects”
“It makes one wonder whether the “species specificity” was an excuse developed later to explain the lack of animal data”
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Laboratory/Animal/Preclinical Studies:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/healthprofessional/page4
“Burzynski states that antineoplaston A is species-specific because it had no therapeutic effect when the human preparation was tested on animal tumor systems”
“Although this finding limits the usefulness of animal model testing, the developer has suggested that a “marked” therapeutic effect was produced in a xenograft bearing human tumor tissue.[1]”
“This claim is made only for antineoplaston A”
“Other formulations of antineoplastons have not been tested in animal models”
Gorski should REALLY read his own blog:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/21/quoth-joe-mercola-i-love-me-some-burzynski-antineoplastons/
Comment #158 – Didymus Judas Thomas
At the Tu-Quack Center Educate Orac Oracle Phase I
February 4, 2013
.11/15/1982.- 2 Toronto physicians, Martin E. Blackstein, Head of the Division of Oncology at Mount Sinai Hospital & Daniel E. Bergsagel, Chief of Medicine at Princess Margaret Hospital, visited the Burzynski clinic & research institute
.
Both were powerful & respected physicians in the Canadian cancer establishment
.
They returned with a blistering, critical report
.
The essence of their critique was
.
(1) there was little evidence that antineoplastons had significant antitumor activity against human or animal cancers;
.
(2) SRB’s argument that antineoplastons were species-specific created a line of argument for avoiding standard animal & tissue culture screens & required testing in humans
.
SRB cooperated but was dubious
.
There were several test-tube & preventative models in which the drug had showed effectiveness, but the standard NCI pre-screen, P388 mouse leukemia, was not 1 of them. …
.
As he had predicted, these compounds were not effective against mouse leukemia
.
SRB reasonably suggested that NCI try the Antineoplastons in cell-culture assays that were similar to “human solid tumors, especially adenocarcinoma of the breast” …
.
SRB was hardly alone in voicing doubts about the P388 mouse model
.
1983 – Ironically, it was Dr. John Vendetti himself, chief of the NCI’s Drug Evaluation Branch, who coauthored an article in which he argued the limitations of this very mouse system
.
Scientists at NCI had found, for instance, that of 79 drugs which had previously been judged negative in the P388, 14 showed “significant activity” when retested in cell culture assays [1] [2]
Comment #163 – Didymus Judas Thomas
February 4, 2013
Orac’s blog hates links reformatting (www removed)
.
[1] http://www.commonweal.org/pubs/choices/21.html
[2] 9 Moss, The Cancer Ind., 14, 299-300
(Ralph Moss, The Cancer Industry)
�
27. Burzynski SR, Hendry LB, Mohabbat MO, et al. Purification of structure determination, synthesis and animal toxicity studies of antineoplaston A10. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Congress of Chemotherapy. Vienna, Austria; 1983:17, PS. 12.4 11-4.
�
34. Burzynski SR, Mohabbat MO, Burzynski B. Animal toxicology studies on oral formulation of antineoplaston A10. Drug Exptl Clin Res. 1984;10:113-118.
�
40. Ashraf AQ, Liau MC, Kampalath BN, et al. Pharmacokinetic study of radioactive antineoplaston A10 following oral administration in rats. Drugs Exptl Clin Res. 1987;13(suppl 1):45-50.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3569015/
�
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/3569015/
43. Ashraf AQ, Kampalath BN, Burzynski SR. Pharmacokinetic analysis of antineoplaston A10 injections following intravenous administration in rats. Adv Exptl Clin Chemother. 1988;6:33-39.
Didymus Judas Thomas' Hipocritical Oath Blog 