Pete Cohen chats with Sonali Patil, Ph.D., Research Scientist at The Burzynski Clinic

1/2012Sonali Patil, Ph.D., Research Scientist at The Burzynski Clinic
(18:22) 9/18/2012
So you, you, you’re a scientist here ?

I’m a scientist here

And, and you work, just with antineoplastons ?

Not necessarily
This is our cell biology lab, and in molecular biology we do basic research on the antineoplastons
Sometimes we also study it in combination with the other, uh, medicines that Dr. Burzynski is interested in
So, but mostly antineoplaston
This is looking at mechanism for action
Trying to understand how it treats the cancer cells, is able to kill the cancer cells without damaging the other cells of the body
So mostly antineoplaston is the target here

And what do you think about
antineoplastons ?

We have found, uh, very interesting, uh, molecular pathways targets that antineoplaston is targeting, working very effectively to kill the cells, um, probably better than many other drugs, because, um, it has multiple targets, and so attacks the cells from many different angles, and is able to kill the cancer cells, more effectively

So, can I ask you, how did you come to work in, th, the Burzynski
the institution ?

Through an advertisement, it was
My position was advertised
I started 8 years ago, and

So ok
So it was advertised


So when you applied for the job, were you aware of the controversy of, (comments to self: learn to talk)
So when, when did you find out ?

Uh, eh, as soon as I joined (laughing)

Oh yeah ?

Few months later
I thought, it’s easy to find
It’s not hard

Of course

It’s not even, uh

Wha, what about any of you other colleagues, that prior to coming here ?
I mean, did they say anything to you, like, you know ?

Well they brought something up
(?) in, uh, uh, being there for him during this trial, my boss, my previous boss was here before me
Uh, so I have a very open picture of it, and it doesn’t bother me
He came up against it and won


So that’s a good thing

An, and why do you think, it kinda hasn’t been, kinda lost the word, hasn’t taken off, you know ?
Has the scientific community hasn’t really embraced ?

Well anything that is non-traditional always, you know, takes its own time to get to people
Besides, the traditionalists don’t want it coming out because, uh, it affects, a lot of other things, um, finance, in, in the big Pharma


that is affected by this
So, um, if it, if it were, um, a medicine already with another big company, it probably would already be out in the market by now, but, uh, it’s because it’s one man’s show
He’s fighting against, uh, traditional medicine, big, big centers like M.D. Anderson right here in Houston
So, most people want to believe, uh, what the other doctors, the oncologists, are telling them, because that’s what everybody does
So very few filter out of that and come looking for him, because they’ve lost hope there, and they’ve tried everything else, and they come because; which I wish they wouldn’t, come here as a last resort, you know


and, by then, sometimes, uh, enough damage has been done that is sometimes even he cannot cure
It’s not magic
There’s a logic to the way the medicine works
The science behind it is not, it’s not just a magic bullet
So, and you have to target it at the right time
Catch cancer at the right time

So I have a, friend of my mother’s at home, whose spent, her whole, academic career, 20, 30 years, researching, astrocytomas


And, uh, you know, I did my research, and, I was no doubt that we were coming here
No question
My, my research was more based on people

Excuse me

On people
Talking to people who had been treated, and seeing the results, and then looking at the research afterwards, and she was just saying that “I’ve spent all my years, research, and research, and research, I can’t find anything, that validates, this, this treatment
Now I’m not asking you to comment on what she said, but,

No, validation, validation basically means, uh, proof in scientific community
If you’re not accepted into the scientific community, you’re not going to be able to present that truth, and we go and present at conferences all the time, eh, when it comes to publishing papers, uh, we haven’t been very successful
Dr. Burzynski has published, uh, a lot of data of his patients
So it’s out there


If you, if you want to believe it, and you’re looking for it, you’ll find it


It’s just, um, it’s not in the mainstream places, because it gets rejected out of there
Um, it’ll probably take some time to get into those spots where everybody else is publishing, and everybody else is talking about it, but it doesn’t mean that it’s not true

So obviously you’re here on a daily basis
So when was the 1st

Last 8years

So the last 8 years
When was the 1st time you actually saw, was it in the dish where you actually saw it ?

Well we see it, we’ve seen it for years before I came here

Yeah, but when was the 1st time you saw it, when you came here yourself and you saw ?

Well we see it every day
Um, we have cancer cells in the lab, that we treat, with the medicine
We see them dying
We see them undergoing a necrosis, which is the cancer deaths, pathway, that most people study and talk about


So, it’s happening, it’s happening in front of our eyes everyday
So, we have proof for it
you know (?)
We just have to get it out there, and there’s a, there’s a system to all that


and were trying to, get it through the system, and get it out there

So what, when you 1st realized there is something here, did you not just feel like just shouting from the rooftops and telling everybody?

Well I wasn’t the one who discovered
He did, in the ’80’s


and since then he’s been shouting from the rooftop
It’s just, nobody would listen to him

Yeah, yeah

So, you know, we’re just doing the, uh, actually it’s backwards
People usually do, uh, pre-clinical research 1st, because the medicine


goes out and to the patients, and we, we are kind of doing it, the other way around
He already has patient data
He’s been treating people
on this
People, survivors walking around, to tell the story, and now we are being made to understand how it works in the cells
So, it’s, it’s kinda doing, the research, after the trials

Just tell me
One more question
What’s it like
How would you describe Dr. Burzynski ?

I admire his, uh, passion, for what he does
He truly believes in what he does, and to me that’s, that’s a big thing
If you don’t believe in yourself, then nobody else will, and, his memory
He, he has tremendous memory, and, uh, uh, quick thinking
He’s able to piece together stuff, uh, research articles, papers, put together puzzle, come up with a theory
He does that every day, every time I meet him it’s, it’s interesting to me to see how his brain works

you say, in, in the purest sense, he’s a scientist

I think he’s a doctor 1st, but a doctor who’s very, very interested in science, and that’s an important thing, because a lot of, uh, doctors don’t care about the research, and he does
I think, I think his primary aim is to treat patients, mostly

So if there were any type of skeptic, research scientist out there, what would you say to them about what goes on here?

We do, we do, everything that happens in any other lab, anywhere else
I went to school at Houston, ah, so, I know exactly how the labs work
We do exactly what they do


Um, we try to write up our papers, and send them to the journals, just like everybody else does
Uh, present at conferences
We try to get our data out there
Um, we’re trying to do our best, just the way everyone else is

I, I suppise trying to do your best it, it, it’s fascinating because you actually have something


that really, really does work


I mean, it’s a cure, right ?

We believe it is

It’s a cure for cancer
Not for all cancers
I actually asked Dr. Burzynski


I filmed him the other day and said to him, why do you, specialize in brain tumors ?


Do you know what his answer was ?

What was it ?

He said it’s because it’s the most difficult type of cancer

Well it is if, if you think about it
I don’t think there are many doctors who claim to have survivors, eh, at least in the numbers that he has, to present


and, um, I hear that at conferences too when we, were standing around, they will look at the slides, eh, eh, which is a tumor, and they will say: “Well that’s not a tumor,” ye, “it’s just necrosis
It’s just a patch on the skin, and you just cured nothing, and”, uh, all the, “the patient was probably cured from, the therapy that he took elsewhere, you know, the radiation he got 10 years ago”
“That’s probably what cured him,” but, you know, th, those kind of patients will be rejected from other, hospitals, don’t survive, that far enough to, to tell a story

So what is it ?
Just people living in denial ?
Is it fear ?
Is it ?

Fear or denial
I’m going to do what everybody else does
Why, why should I go out and do something different, here ?
Yeah (?)

And, and lastly, you know the, the power the pharmaceutical companies have

Well of course
I mean, but I’m nobody to, comment about that

Yeah, yeah

You know
There’s, there’s a lot going on behind the scenes that we are not even aware of, but this is just what, um, my experience is, when I talk to other doctors at meetings and conferences, and they, you’re immediately dismissed as, oh, you know: “What you’re going to say doesn’t really make any sense because you work for, Dr.

His name has been tarnished
There’s a lot more, to that, than just, people playing politics, this, this, a whole lot of stuff going on behind there
So, I don’t think it’s, it’s (supression ?) as much, it’s just trying to tell your story, uh, so that somebody would listen and accept it, uh, maybe using, the right channels, going, presenting it in a different way, make it more convincing
All that, would help

So if it, if it was you, in his position, would you not have just given up ?
Or would you

Oh, definitely
We all talk about it all the time, that the amount of determination that he has, most people, would back off and leave, but like I said, he believes in what he does, and that’s what keeps him going

As far as publishing is concerned, ’cause a lot of scientist want to see

We’ve tried
We, we, don’t get past the initial screening
We repeatedly send it back to other journals and that’s the process I keep doing all the time
Comes back, I send it back to another journal
Hopefully, one day it will get it

So, let, let, let, let me get this straight, ok ?
You write articles, right ?




and you submit them to, medical journals


and then what happens ?

They come back

Why do they come back ?

Sometimes, um, if they get to reviewers, uh, it’s not enough data, or, which I understand
We can work on changing, modifying papers, but, many times they come back, without any reason
They just get rejected, at the 1st, screen itself
So they come back without any reason

And why do you feel that is, in your own humble opinion ?

Wha ? (laughing) not humble opinion
It’s, it’s hard, um, publishing is a tricky game, you know ?
You have to publish once, to get your name in there, and then, they might publish you again, but, uh, with the negative publicity that we already had, and most of the community would look at the name and say: “Oh we, we just don’t want to, want to even read it”
So, it, it doesn’t even get past the 1st screen, because they don’t turn, flip the 1st page even

Ok, so, what you’re saying is that you see things that are published in these journals

Oh yes

And, you see ?

very similar stuff
We try to, we try to do research that is on par, uh, with what everybody else is doing, as far as the techniques, the ana, the data analysis
We, we try to do everything which is the standard for, uh, the research community, but, doesn’t get past

Um, how frustrating must that be for you ?

Mmm, it is (laughing), it is

So do you feel like you’re a party, or you’re trying to get into a party, and knocking on the door, and no one’s letting you in ?

I feel like that at the conferences too because, um, sometimes they come up to your, poster presentations, and, um, they’ll ridicule you right there, while you’re standing there by your presentation

Ok, just last thing, because one of the things I heard


recently, which were, that, uh, there’s some evidence that Dr. Burzynski has from, from the phase 2 clinical trials, showing people who have, uh, glioblastomas who’ve been alive for 10 years


and there’s something there that they want to try and get published


What you’re saying is, that might never get published ?

Well, Dr. Burzynski’s case is different
He has published some of his patient data
I’m talking about the research, uh, the pre-clinical research, the cell culture data, the molecular data
Um, we haven’t had success getting that out, but, he has, he also faces rejection a lot, but he doe, he has managed to get ta, a few publications in

So how does it work ?
If, if you submit something they can
What’s the process ?
They can submit it back ?

That’s not, there’s a review
There’s a whole review board
Um, you can select your reviewers
It goes through couple of cycles of review before it’s, agreed that they will publish it

And in case they say no to publishing it

You can

do you, can you take it somewhere else ?

Yeah, you can take it somewhere else, but, um, but it’s, the peer-reviewed journals that are the ones that you want to get into, you can publish whatever you want, ah, that doesn’t count
That’s why when, somebody who’s of, uh, any significance in science would not even look at those articles if they’re not in a peer-review journal
So, they have to get into a decent place to make a mark

Do you think that will happen ?
What do you think has to happen in order for ?

It’ll happen, in, in time
They can’t keep refusing you
We, we try again and again
But in time they just want to, not focus on it, and just have’m, bring in more numbers, and keep doing this, and in the meantime keep treating, some number of patients
On, on, top of everything, my personal belief is, uh, brain tumors are not, uh, a money-raising factor, because it’s a, it’s a minority cancer
If this were treating, uh, mainstream cancers as they’re called, as, uh, breast cancer, maybe they would look at it more seriously, but the numbers, with the brain tumors, which is a good thing
I mean it’s a deadly cancer
You don’t want more people to have it, but, that puts it in the category of, um, you know, not so feasible, as far as the money-making
And so, the priority; even though, it’s the most vicious, and it should be looked at more seriously, but, it’s not the one that brings the big bucks


So, put it aside

So why would the FDA, haven’t closed him down then ?

Because they, they, uh, believe the data that he’s sending them so far, and they don’t have a valid point to, just say no, it doesn’t work, and put it away
They see effect, and so they want, more numbers, more data

Is it, it the phase 2 trial is finished ?


but they’re still accepting people ?


on more like a special ?

Special basis, and, um, sometimes compassionate grounds

(compassion exception)

Uh, exceptions

That’s normal ?


(Yes I guess it is a funding issue ?)


(Like FDA, during the 2nd phase of clinical trials they found the data to be, real, real one, and they gave him the ok to go for 3rd phase of clinical trials, but just to go through this process you would probably need $100,000)

(?) and that’s stalling

(even more, millions dol, millions of dollars, to go through the 3rd phase of clinical trials, and)


(he’s a single doctor
It’s a 1st case)


(probably in American history)

It is

(that single doctor is trying, to get a his job)


Whatever you’ve seen on that plant, everything came out of his practice
So he was the one who funded, literally the, the, research and development phase, but those installation, operation, all this big plant was built ?)

Yes, ’cause, uh,


one of the things I hear a lot, I’ve heard slot in the U.K. is that: “Why is he charging people for clinical trials ?

Well, uh, how else would you run this place ?

How will you run this place, and how else will people be on the trial, because


you know, there’s no pharmaceutical company involved here, right ?

There’s nothing
It’s all out of his pocket
Every single bit
And what is stalling (?) is (?) again is, is funds

Yeah, I also heard that the phase 3 they wanna do radiotherapy with, with it


Hopefully, that will not be the case, but

we’re trying to
I think, uh, he is trying to fight against that, but, the FDA is the FDA, so

And what do you think about this case, he’s now got coming up in April ?
You know, he’s got this court case

Well there’s always something

Yeah (laughing)

He, he’s won before, so


Do you think he needs the support, do you think he feels the support from, from all of you ?

I think so, for sure

(Oh, absolutely)


Nobody forced us to work here



We get paid, but, you know
I could always look for another job if I needed to (laugh)

So would you stay here because you really believe in what’s going on here ?


(Yes, that’s one thing that’s unique about our operation, and I’m talking about this location is, uh, whoever joined the company; and we have a guys who joined the company in the 80’s, 90’s
They stay with the company
Turnover is zero)


(Joined the company
Stays with the company
It’s a challenge)


(It’s a (?) challenge for us)


Pete Cohen chats with Richard A. Jaffe, Esq.

4/2012Pete Cohen chats with Rick Jaffe
(33:59) 11/9/2012
Richard A. Jaffe, Esq.
How did you meet Dr. Burzynski?

A long time ago in 1988, um, he hired us to represent him in his Medical Board case, so, uh, started working for him then, and then there got to be more and more work, and, uh, at some point it was so much work, it was just easier for me to be down here
So I moved from New York to Texas, mostly just to, to represent him, and my wife was in the oil industry, so, it was a “no brainer” for her to move down here too

And how, were you intrigued by this whole case ?
I mean, did you work out straight away that this guy was genuine, and there was really something here ?

No (laugh)
How do you know, you know ?
At the time we represented, uh, a number of a alternative health practitioners around the country, and we heard a lot about Burzynski, but you don’t really know
I mean, um, um, there are a lot of stories out there
Every doctor seems to have a few patients, uh, that were helped
So initially, I mean, how do you know ?
His operation was larger than most of any, uh, health practitioners, alternative health practitioners in the country, and, uh, seemed a lot more sophisticated, but, uh, it’s not really until you dig in the medical records of the patients that you really see what’s going on
I mean, that’s what you really need
I mean,
It’s not really even, it’s
’cause this whole thing about anecdotal evidence, that everyone has testimony
so every doctor
You know what I mean ?
Even charlatans have testimony
one or two people
or 3 or 4 that’ll come, and say w
they were cured, and maybe, maybe the patients really believe that to be the case, but, um, oftentimes there’s other explanations
Prior treatment, um, the nature of the disease
Sometimes it’s such that their natural, the natural history is not straight linear, um, but after looking at some of the medical records, I mean, you know, I think
it’s just,
uh, anybody would become a believer, and indeed, I mean, government, government doctors have come down here and looked at

some of the records, and they were convinced that, that the treatment was causing remissions in some brain cancer patients

So, I mean, obviously lawyers, I imagine many lawyers all over the world would often take on a case, when they know, possibly the guy isn’t telling the truth, but they can see there’s still a story, and they, they, they, they, uh, represent that person, but for you, I suppose
that when you realized that there really was a story here, did you kind of get, emotionally caught up in this whole thing and think: “Right, th this guy’s got a cure for cancer, and I I need to bring this to, bring him to just, not bring him to justice, but, clear his name
Well, I think with Burzynski, more so than any client I’ve ever represented
He represents a unique constellation of medical services
He’s the only guy in the world doing what he’s doing with antineoplastons and now with this treatment, so, it’s really different
Uh, you know, with Burzynski, most of the patients, are in bad shape
They’re either dying, uh, they, or they have a disease for which there is no known cure, you know, like a lot of these brain tumors
So, even from the beginning, what’s different is their are many, many patients back then who were on the treatment, that uh, that felt that without this treatment they were going to die, and so that, that’s much different, than the average, any kind of lawsuit
Right ?
So th th these lawsuits, the Burzynski cases back then and now, uh, these cases matter, in a, in a deeper, and fundamental, and personal way than most anything, well I think that any lawyer does
I mean, any criminal defense lawyer, who defends an individual, is defending that person’s, uh, liberty
Alright ?
Versus incarceration
But here it, it wasn’t so much, or, it wasn’t exclusively about Burzynski, it was really about all these other patients, and they certainly believe they needed him, and, uh, uh, many of them, obviously did
So, so that, that, that’s a whole ‘nother dimension, which typically we lawyers don’t get involved in
So, I mean, it’s a responsibility but also a great privilege to be working on these kinds of cases

You’ve been representing him for how long ?

For a long time
Since 1988, continuously

And can you believe this is still going on ?

Well, you know, uh, it’s, you know, it’s, it’s just ongoing
I mean, until there’s a cure for cancer, for all cancer, either done by acknowledged

or, uh, uh, to be Burzynski’s cure or somebody else’s
I mean, this is ongoing
And I guess the problem is, you know, ultimately, there’s nobody yet
Not even Burzynski has the cure for every cancer or
even every stage, or even ev, every, ev, ev, every person that had cancer
So, because it’s such a tough battle, and because, it doesn’t work on everyone
So you have these open questions
Ah, so, so,
Yeah, I mean, I guess, I, I can’t believe he’s still messing around with these clinical trials
I mean, I think that if the drug didn’t have his name attached to it, it’d probably would have been approved by now
So, and I think, so that, that’s unfortunate, I think, that when you fight the FDA, and even if you win, you know, the F, the repercussions, you know, you know I, you know I
Hopefully the drug will be approved, sometime in the future, but, but who knows ?

So, um, why do you think, why was it, I mean, obviously I came over here as you know, for this case, which is now not going ahead at the moment
Why, why, why is that ?
Wha, what has the judge, said ?

Well, of course, you have to (under)stand, this case involves a different type of treatment
It doesn’t involve antineoplastons,the drug Dr. Burzynski invented, and your friend is receiving, and it involves a new approach to cancer, which is sort of like personalized medicine, where they take a bunch of FDA approved drugs, that have shown some promise, on a particular cancer, but are not, uh, approved for that indication, and based on these early clinical trials showing promising results for genetic testing they give these combinations of FDA approved drugs, off-label to patients, and that’s really what the, this case is about, and, uh, you know I think, I don’t think they, they never had a case
I mean, they never had a case
The, the main allegation, in each, of the 2 patients involved, is that they used this treatment, which wasn’t sufficiently tested, and was non-therapeutic, and whatnot, and we had a, what I would call a dry run
We presented the evidence to the Board, or 2 members of the Board, in both of these cases
In each, in each case, the Board members felt that the treatment, was within the standard of care, given the advanced condition of the patient, or one patient, and given how rare the other patient’s tumor was
So, we had our dry run in each case, and the Board found in our favor on the main charge
They had some technical issues with medical records or whatnot, and, uh, the Board basically said, they took the position, ok, agree to some kind of sanction on these little charges, or, or we’re going to go after you on everything
So, we refused the honor, and, uh, the Board then charged him with the same thing that they already cleared him with, or on, and, and so we had to do, you know, basically the same case again, and, uh, the irony in, is in these 2 cases Burzynski wasn’t even in the country
He was, he was, he was away for, uh, in both, for both cases, when the patientscame
So, uh, the question is how do you hold someone responsible
Even if you own the clinic, for treatment administered and prescribed, by other doctors, and that concept of vicarious liability does not, uh, exist in jurisprudence, and in the law governing professional re, responsibility, anywhere in this country
So, the Board’strying to start that
You know, I think they just got in over their heads, they
Most people just knuckle under
You know, most people don’t, are afraid to go to court, so they’ll sign anything just to, you know, not to go forward, but, you know, Burzynski faced serious stuff
I mean, he set, faced, 5, 10, 15 years in jail
So he wasn’t going to be intimidated, by the Medical Board, and he refused to give in
So when I told the Board at the time, and I told them all along, they have no case, and o on the merits they have no case
We already won, and they have no case now, and, and slowly I think, the Board is starting to understand that

And what sort of a person would you say Dr. Burzynski is ?

Well I think he’s a complicated person
I mean, I think, uh, uh, you know, he, I think like a lot of mavericks; I represent a lot of mavericks around the, uh, uh, country
One of the main characteristics of these guys, is that they have absolute and total certainty, in what they believe in, in what they do, um, and no doubt
Uh, they all think they’re right
They all think that history is going to vindicate them
Now, I’ve represented some people where I personally doubt (laugh) that, uh, uh, that belief, but not in Dr. Burzynski’s case
I mean, I think he’s all, he’s definitely helping people
He’s definitely, uh, uh, uh, making, extending people’s lives, and curing some people that otherwise would have died, and so I think he, and so I think he happens to be right
So, uh, you know, so, but, but he’s a human
He’s got a big ego
He thinks he’s, uh, he thinks he has made an important, contribute to medicine, and he’s not shy about sharing that sentiment
So, uh, I think, and I think that he’s, uh, not American
So he comes with a completely different mentality towards, say, the government
Alright, he grew up in communist Poland, where everyone, where everyone, has to work around, the government, and I think that’s much harder here, and, you know, I think he has expectations that, that he would have a lot more freedom, than it turned out he had, too, and he thought he would not have to deal with the kind of government, uh, rigamarole that you have to deal with in communist, Poland

And, and how do you think it might all pan out for him ?
I mean, I know you don’t have a crystal ball, but if you could look, 5 or 10 years down into the future, and, do you think that he will have got somewhere, to be accepted in the medical (?) of oncology ?

Well, I certainly hope so
I mean, 5, 10 years from now
I mean, I think, at a minimum, what’s going to happen, there will be many, many patients who will be alive, and continue to be alive because of him
Some, will have their lives extended
Some will be cured
Some wi, won’t be cured, and will die
So, I think that’s for sure, going to happen
You know, is there going to be an end to, uh, all this ?
We had a period of maybe 10 years where there was very little action with the Board, but, uh, you know, it’s hard, frankly, I mean, just in, and again my perspective, like I’m in a, like a, a sergeant in the trenches, in trench (laugh) warfare
So, it’s hard for me to see the big picture
I mean, I just keep fighting these battles, and there’s one, after another, after another
So this is really just the latest, and on there’s civil lawsuits, and then there are people on the Internet, and then, you know, there could be more Medical Board investigations
So, lo, look there are a lot of people who don’t like what he’s doing
They think what he’s doing is either unethical or wrong, or shouldn’t be giving drugs, these drugs to people, except under clinical trial conditions, and, you know, he has detractors, and he has a lot of supporters
I mean, uh, mostly amongst the patients he’s cured
So, I don’t know that, that, that is gonna resolve itself
I mean, ultimately, he’s one of the few people in the country, that, or maybe the only person in the country that does what he does, and, it’s not the way medicine is practiced, in this country, typically
Right, and, you know, I think what he does, is, is more, is more patient oriented, in a sense that, once you’ve been told you’re terminal, why should you just get the palliative care that a medical oncologist thinks, you know, they should be given
even though when, no one ever gets cured of chemotherapy, once it’s palliative, once you have stage 4, solid tumor


I mean, they give chemotherapy for what they call palliative reasons, which means, not curative
So, this concept of giving, just conventional chemotherapy to make you feel better, extend your life 9 weeks, I mean, y, not everyone wants to do that
Some people want a shot for a real cure, and, you know, based on the evidence with antineoplastons
, I mean, he seems to be giving people that shot, and curing some of the people
So, you, you know, I don’t see how, this thing gets resolved
Up until the time that the
treatment, the
antineoplastons is approved by the FDA and, you know,
it’s, it’s hard to see a clear path, for that, for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is financial
I mean, it takes dozens of 10’s of millions of dollars


or 10, 100’s of millions
So, I mean, someone has to finance the clinical trials
The drug companies aren’t interested right now
They’d just as soon, buy a drug that’s been fully tested
So, I mean, the drug company response has not been overwhelming, because, even though this phase 2 phase, have resolved, and, and, uh, they have excellent results, the drug companies want to wait and see
So, uh, it’s, it’s big money
I don’t think there’s any way in the world Dr. Burzynski, himself, can fund phase 3
I mean, he, he funded everything else now, but phase 3 are, is a much bigger stage involving dozens and 100’s of patients, and that’s just within the financial means of any individual

it seems like it’s unlikely that its going to happen right
I mean, even from the point of view of, what, with phase 3 trials, they’ll be with children

with brainstem gliomas, right
and the FDA’s saying they’ve got to have radiation

Yeah I, um,
I unfortunately, I haven’t been involved in that process
I just see the result, and I, I, I just don’t see how any parent agrees to that, you know

I don’t see how any parent agrees to it
I don’t see how clinical investigator, agrees to do it
Um, I don’t know
I got so, I got some questions of the FDA as to, why they forced him into this particular protocol
I mean, I don’t know
I don’t have any facts or evidence, but I, I, just doesn’t make any sense to me

what’s you’re about that ?

I don’t know
I mean, I, it just doesn’t seem to me, that it’s a, that it’s a fair clinical trial that


either an investigator would find ethical, or a patient, or a family, would agree to have their patient treat, their, their kid treated under
I mean, it just doesn’t make any sense to me
I mean, it’s worse than
I mean, both phases, both phases, both arms of the study, you get radiation
It’s radiation alone versus radiation with his stuff
So, I mean, it just doesn’t make any sense to me, given, given the clinical, the phase 2 clinical trial results

So just a, so just a few things, like, you know I’m going to talk about big Pharma, and then talk about the FDA


They talk about the many people as if they’re one person, but, you know, they’re obviously a collective group of individuals who work for an organization, right ?

Well, I mean, I think, the concern is, that the FDA now, by statute is, in no small part funded, by the pharmaceutical industry
It’s like “Pay as you go”
So the, the pharmaceutical ind, industry now, pays for, the processing of the clinical trials by the FDA
So, and then you have the whole concept of the revolving door
You have a lot of government officials going into the drink, uh, drug companies
So I think that’s another problem
So, I mean, you know, I think conspiracy is too strong of a word, m, but, you know, I will say, I don’t think the system’s set up, for an individual like Burzynski, to get a drug approved
I, I, I just don’t see
There’s no support for that
I mean, the days
I mean, it’s like, Einstein, you know ?
He sat in a patent office, and, and doodled, and had his little theory
He could never get his, stuff published today, you know ?
Where did he go to school
Where was he teaching, you know ?
So Burzynski has a lot of the same problems
They say he doesn’t publish, but, they won’t let him publish
So, uh, or they won’t let him publish , in, in the mainstream journals
So, I, I, I think though, I think the, I think the system, has a strong bias, against a guy with a discovery
So, that’s not quite saying, there’s a conspiracy, but it’s, it’s sort of along the same lines, and, you know, the conspiracy implies some kind of, um, intentionality on the part of one or two, or some small group or coterie of people, and I don’t know, I don’t think that’s really the case
I think what happens is, the institutions are such that, they allow certain things, and disallow certain things
Alright ?
I think that’s just
there’s no
I don’t think there’s any 2, 3, 4, or some, coterie of Rocka, they’re like a Rockefeller conspiracy
People are saying that there are 12 industrials
That they control the world
I mean, I don’t see that happening, but, the whole system is such that, you know, it’s, it’s
I guess what, uh
The, there’s a book by, uh, a, a, Thomas Kuhn, the Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and he talks about, normal science, and how science progresses, in terms of paradigm shifts
So, normal scientific medicine, works, uh, by big institutions doing, studies about combinations of drugs, after drug companies, invent mostly, modifications of existing drugs, and, less commonly, completely new drugs, and, uh, less commonly, different classes of drugs
So, you have a whole, you have a whole pipeline from a drug company, a whole, uh, uh, mechanism of testing, by the universities, funded by the pharmaceutical company, uh, all the pharmaceutical companies, and that, that just doesn’t lend itself, to one guy, sitting someplace in Houston, or wherever, and having a drug, put through that process
That just doesn’t happen
Burzynski is, so far as I can tell, the only person, to ever completed, a phase 2 trials on a drug he invented
I don’t think that’s ever happened, before, and I don’t think it’ll ever happen again

Ah, was it ’98, was it the chairman, uh

Kessler ?

I saw, an interview he gave, press, a press conference where he was explaining about, being able to fast-track
The FDA trying to make it possible to fast-track, you know, drugs that have shown, you know, positive, rather than going through all of this sort of clinical trial, and there’s a guy in the, in the press conference who started asking questions about Burzynski


and you could just see quite clearly he was very uncomfortable


asking questions about, uh, about Dr. Burzynski
How do you think someone like him,
would view, someone like Dr. Burzynski ?

Not favorably
I think that, uh,

Do you think they must know ?
Do you think they must, even he, let’s just say, if he were on his own, he, he knows there’s something there
That he’s obviously got something

I don’t know, uh
I think, that, the guys in conventional medicine, because Burzynski came from orthodox medicine
He was at Baylor
He was a researcher at Baylor
So, I think, they’re not going to Burzynski, is that, he didn’t go about it, the way, other physicians would have done it, other scientists would have done it
So normally what would happen, is, uh, uh, I mean, I think the critical, point in his story is that, when he was at Baylor, and his, uh, professor was supporting him, this Unger, left, you know, they had space for him
They wanted him to go in the Oncology, uh, Department, but, they wanted the patent, to his drug, and he wouldn’t do it
So, that would have been the more conventional approach
You give up the patent rights, you become part of the team, then some big institution, uh, uh, shepherds the drug through, and then they find some drug company support, who will split the patent with the university
So, had he done that, uh, you know, I think the drug woulda been approved by now, but, you know, it was his drug
He came to America with it, and he wasn’t going to give it all away
So, I mean, I just think that’s, you know, I mean and that’s, you know, I think he wasn’t expecting that kind of thing in America
Maybe in communist Poland, but not in America
So I think that really, you know, set him down the path of being a, a, an alternative health practitioner

And wha, wha, what was it like for you when, uh, winning, the case, in was it, 199, 3, 1998 ?



Well, you know, there wasn’t just one case
I mean, I mean, it was everyone
I mean, I analogize it to, like whack-a-mole, or whack-a-rat, you know
You have, like a rat come out of, of a hole, and you bang him, and one comes out of this hole, and all of a sudden you’ve got 2, and then 3, and, so, you know, during the early ’90’s, I mean, I mean, there were 3 grand juries, uh, we had the Medical Board action, which went to hearing in ’93
The Texas Department of Health sued him in ’92
Half a dozen insurance companies had sued, uh, uh, sued him for, for some, for Racketeering
Uh, Texas Air Quality Department went after him
I’m trying to think who else
So, all of this happened, over the course of 3, or 4, or 5 years, and it was just, continuous, and so, one agency would, would get active, and then, they get beaten down
Then somebody else would come, uh, come up, and surface, and indeed, I mean, you know, it, you know, some of them flat out said they were waiting to see what happened, with this oth, wha, what happened with this other agency, and they weren’t gonna do anything, and then when they got tired, they decided, that this new agency had to do something
So, I mean, that was flat out, what happened
So, yeah, I mean, it culminated in the criminal case, I suppose, but even there it was up and down
I mean, the judge ordered, uh, ordered, prohibited him from giving the treatment to anybody else, because the Texas Medical Board case, ultimately went against us, and then we had to go Congress, and Congress forced the FDA to put all his patients on clinical trials which made the Medical B, Board case moot, and then we won the criminal case
So, after we won the criminal case in, uh, ’97, things got quiet for a little bit
So that, that, that was good
I mean, it was quiet
I mean, relatively quiet, and then, uh, lately in the last couple years it’s been very active again

So the worst case scenario would have been
What would have been the worst case scenario ?

For when ?

And this, this
What could have happened this week if the case had gone ahead ?

Well, the worst case scenario would be, there would be a finding, that, that it’s a depart, it’s a departure from the standard of care to use, uh, off-label drugs, that haven’t been approved by the
FDA for an indicated use, and you can’t use the combination of the drugs until someone gives the stamp of approval saying that their safe and effective, which means, you know, you couldn’t, it couldn’t, you couldn’t give the treatment anymore to patients
So you have 100’s of patients that are on this multi-agent gene-targeted therapy, and ultimately that form of treatment is only available at the Burzynski Clinic
I mean, I don’t think that even clinical trials
Burzynski, depending on how you look at it, he’s a few years ahead of, of, uh, well, even the clinical trials
I mean, they’re some clinical trials now on different kinds of cancer where they’re doing 1, 2, or 3 agents
He’ll use 4 or 5, albeit, lesser dosages
So he’s treated 1,000’s of patients like that, but there’s no place else in the world where people can get, the treatment
So it’s kinda the same thing as back in the ’90’s
We have people on drugs, uh, which are unavailable, uh, and, only available through Burzynski
So, if he couldn’t give them, to people, then they wouldn’t get ’em, and, they’re terminal, and, they’re doing well
I mean, or they’re not going to do as well, or they’re going to die
So, it’s, I guess it, it’s sort of the same thing here, ah, uh, only, uh, the irony is all these drugs are, approved by the FDA, and most cancer patients get off-label, uh, drugs
Drugs off-label
So that’s, very common in cancer
It’s just that not common with the drug used on these patients, and in the combinations used

So, this finally
Whe, when you’ve, uh, won these cases, I mean, there must be, it must be good, right ?
It must be good feeling

I had a good feeling last week
I mean, I mean, you know, or I’ve been working non-stop, for months, every day
I mean, there’s no day off in this kind of stuff
It’s just constant
It’s just, his war
There’s always something to do, and then I’m a solo practitioner
So, when the judge cut the heart of the Board’s case out, I’ve been telling the Board, that they can’t, that they have no basis to, to, to bring charges against him, for several years, since 2010
, 2009, and they’re not listening, and, and, I was pretty sure that once you had a judge look at the case, they would, rule in our favor, you know, but the problem is the Board is, like a law unto themselves, and they think they can do anything, and, uh, they just changed the law, in September
So actually, the Board has no recourse
They, they used to be able to change findings of facts, and conclusions of law, but as of September, 2011, they can no longer do so
So, if the, judges’ ruling s, uh, stands, as I think they will, their only remedy is going to be to appeal to a State District Court, and they’re not used to that, because they, like exercising, uh, complete authority
So, they’re in a new position, and I’m sure this is the 1st case, that they’ve ever, not gotten what they want to, from, from a judge, administrative law judge, and not being able to correct it
So, I mean, that, this is a good ti, completely new experience for the Board, and I feel bad for them (both: laughing)

You, you, you do
As a Board they all sit down, and as a group of people, and talk about Dr. Burzynski, and, and, and work out how they’re gonna bring him down, and then ?

Well, that’s more the conspiracy
I, I, I, I think that, some of the Board members, may know of him
He, but, but, but like I say, he’s appeared in front of these informal settlement conferences, and basically, individually they, I mean, exonerate him, of, of the main charges, but I, I, I think that, you know, when we talk about the Board, the Board other than these a, acting informal settlement conferences, where you have one Board member, and one member of some district disciplinary review committee, we’re not really talking about the Board members, these doctors, and lay members of the Board, we’re talking about the Board staff, and that’s the lawyers and administrators of the Board, and I think, you know, I don’t know
I have some, uh, uh, they need to clean house
I mean, they’re getting some very, very bad legal advice, and I, I just think the legal advice at the top, is, is, is horrible, and, and they need to make some dramatic changes, and I think it would be better for the people of Texas if they, just did some house cleaning with the administrative staff there

And what do you think about the way that, uh, Dr. Burzynski’s been , what’s the word, in England, he’s got a very bad press there

(Alright ?)

and, um, why do you think that is ?

Uh, why, well, I mean, look
I mean, I think, people have opinions
they have the right to express opinions
I mean, I think, uh, some of his agents did some things that I think, were not wise, in retrospect
I mean



The stuff with the, this kid, this blogger



And I think that, uh
I think you have to be very careful, about what you tell people that are expressing opinions, and, you know, I mean, I, I, I think, you know, I think there’s a reason why, lawyers get involved in these cases, and should be involved, and I think what happens is, you know, I think there was a, you know, a well meaning, individual, who just went too far, and I think stirred things up unnecessarily so
You know, I mean, I think someone who had some legal training, acting on Burzynski’s behalf, might not have made some of the, you know, just faux pas that were made
So, I mean, that stirred, some things up, and I think

(?) stirred something up that was already there ?
You know, ’cause, I know, I’ve spoken to so many people in the U.K., and, uh, and you find very few people that have anything positive to say
In fact, a friend of mine who’s a famous doctor on television, when I was here, he was on British television with a little girl, and her father, who were trying to, uh, raise money to, um, come over here and, um, in fact, they couldn’t come anywhere, come, they couldn’t come anyway, because, the, uh, FDA said that this type of brain tumor, she couldn’t be treated anyway
But this doctor, who’s a friend of mine said, uh, Dr. Burzynski is, you know, he’s a medical pioneer
He’s, uh, uh, he said that and then literally, for 2 months, non-stop, I think especially on Twitter, they said that he never should have said this, and the guy is a quack, and he’s a, he’s a fraud, and

So your, your friend got in trouble for saying that he’s a pioneer ?

He didn’t get in trouble, but I mean he got a lot of bad press, for speaking on television with this child next to him, saying that, Dr. Burzynski was, you know, a pioneer, and pioneers often have a hard time, and

Right, right

And, you know, you look at Twitter, uh, you probably don’t
You could be (laugh) and you just see, it’s probably, probably the only, 30, hard, hard core people, who spend, all of their time, trying to

Yeah, I think that’s right
I think it’s a very small group, of people, that are making pretend it’s a big movement
I mean, we’ve looked, at some of the traffic
We’ve analyzed some of the traffic
I don’t even think it’s 30
I think it’s more like, 3, or 4, or 5, that are creating things, and then someone had some friend who’s an actor, who has, you know, 3 million followers, and all
So it’s really a very small group of people, but historically, medical doctors who have stood up for Burzynski, have had negative consequences
We had, someone from the National Cancer Institute, NIH testify, this Nick Patronas, and he got in a lot of trouble for doing that
So, you know, it’s not, it’s, unfortunately, you know, speaking up for Burzynski can have, uh, negative career consequences, or, or just some bad P.R., but that’s, part of being a pioneer
It doesn’t mean that, uh, Burz, I mean, if anything, I mean, it shows, it shows that’s like the medical mafia
So, that’s what I call, the church of medical orthodoxy
So, that’s what I call

Well I, I think it’s gonna be so interesting when I get this film broadcasted, to see what kind of reaction we get
It, it’s just a story I felt I had to (?)

Where are, where are you going to try and get it ?

I’m going to try and get it
I know people at the BBC


I’ve worked in television
So I’m going to try

Oh really, (?)

I’m gonna try those avenues, but you know what ?
Even if it doesn’t

You have cable
You have some kind of public access ?

I’ve, I’ve worked in television for years
So I’ve, I have a very good stab at getting it out there, but if I don’t, I’ll get it broadcasted on the Internet

Oh sure
You do, do a YouTube or something, or do what Merola did as a documentary


That’s had an amazing impact

He’s making a sequel
Eric was just over in England

Oh really ?

I looked after him when he came over

He wanted to talk to some of the patients and doctors

Eric, I said, ah, you know, so, we’ll see
But listen, I really appreciate the opportunity to ah

Ok, no problem

really, to be able to talk to you


Critiquing David H. “Orac” Gorski, MD PhD and his Personalized MUD-Targeted Skeptic Therapy

I’ve made no secret of my opinion of a certain cancer “research” doctor named David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, of Wayne State University School of Medicine and Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Center / Institute, Detroit, Michigan fame

Gorski, as you may recall was responsible for this 6/3/2013 “Orac” posting:
In which the latest movie about Stanislaw Burzynski’s “cancer cure” is reviewed…with Insolence
Critiquing: In which the latest movie about Stanislaw Burzynski “cancer cure” is reviewed…with Insolence:
When last we left Gorski, his propaganda, which I characterize as pure propaganda so incompetently made that it would make blush blush

After a couple of winks I changed my characterization to say that it would have made Penn and Teller vomit in revulsion at its sheer incompetence

Be that as it may, I view Gorski as highly unethical and pseudononsense, an incompetent purveyor of “personalized MUD-targeted medicine for dummies,” and someone who might at one time have been on to something but, like all hacks, just couldn’t let go when it became clear that his personalized MUD-targeted Skeptic therapy was far more toxic than advertised and way less efficacious, if it’s even efficacious at all, which is highly doubtful.

Gorski claimed:

“[I]f I had screwed up, I would have admitted it”

Data talks

BS walks

And there’s no doubt that Gorski, too, is pure BS

In fact, I think I’m being too kind

I have yet to see his admission that he lied when he posted:

“how Burzynski never explains which genes are targeted by antineoplastons … “
Critiquing: Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski, M.D., Ph.D, L.I.A.R.:
8/12/2013 Gorski blogged:
A study of antineoplastons fails to be published. Stanislaw Burzynski’s propagandist Eric Merola whines about it. News at 11.
—————————————————————— ======================================
In regards to antineoplastons, Gorski states:

“antineoplastons are chemotherapy”

“They even have significant toxicity!”

What science based medicine publication(s) does Gorski cite in support of his “theory”?

NONE !!!

What do the science based medicine publications indicate?
[1] 4/1/1992 PHENYLACETATE-novel NONTOXIC inducer of tumor cell differentiation
Sodium PHENYLACETATE found to affect growth and differentiation of tumor cells in vitro at concentrations achieved in humans WITH NO SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECTS
PHENYLACETATE is effective in inducing tumor cell maturation and FREE OF CYTOTOXIC AND CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS, a combination that warrants attention to potential use in cancer intervention
Sodium PHENYLACETATE is investigational new drug approved for human use by U.S. Food and Drug Administration
DRUG ALREADY ESTABLISHED AS SAFE AND EFFECTIVE … we propose use may be extended to cancer preventation and therapy
[2] 8/20/1992 Difficulties may be overcome through exploitation of recent discovery of sodium PHENYLACETATE as NONTOXIC inducer of differentiation …
(pro-drug) Sodium 4-PHENYLBUTYRATE can be given in oral doses of 0.3 to 0.6 g per kilogram of body weight per day with NO ADVERSE REACTIONS
[3] 9/15/1992 we explored efficacy of PHENYLACETATE, an amino acid derivative with LOW TOXICITY INDEX WHEN ADMINISTERED TO HUMANS
PHENYLACETATE, used alone or in combination with other drugs, might offer safe and effective new approach to treatment
[4] 5/1993 NONTOXIC differentiation inducer, sodium PHENYLACETATE (NaPA)
In vitro antineoplastic activity was observed with drug concentrations that have been achieved in humans with NO SIGNIFICANT TOXICITIES, suggesting PA, used alone or in combination with other antitumor agents, warrants evaluation in treatment of advanced prostatic cancer
[5] 10/1/1993 Sodium PHENYLACETATE (NaPA) and its precursor, sodium 4-PHENYLBUTYRATE (NaPB), can enhance HbF production in cultured erythroid progenitor derived from normal donors and patients with SS anemia or beta-thal, when used at pharmacologic concentrations
[6] 2/15/1994 sodium PHENYLACETATE can induce cytostasis and reversal of malignant properties of cultured human glioblastoma cells, when used at pharmacological concentrations that are WELL TOLERATED BY CHILDREN AND ADULTS
Systemic treatment of rats bearing intracranial gliomas resulted in significant tumor suppression with NO APPARENT TOXICITY to host
[7] 4/1/1994 Pg. 1690
protocol underwent several modifications over 6-month period
Interest in PHENYLACETATE as anticancer agent generated by reports that ANTINEOPLASTON AS2-1, a preparation which by weight is 80% PHENYLACETATE, displayed clinical antitumor activity (13)
17 patients (16 men / 1 woman) (36-75) median age 57
Pg. 1693
Clinical Toxicities. NO TOXICITY associated with bolus administration of drug
Drug-related TOXICITY clearly related to serum
3 episodes of Central Nervous System (CNS)
, limited to CONFUSION
and LETHARGY and often preceded by emesis, occurred in patients treated at dose levels 3 and 4
Symptoms resolved within 18 h of terminating drug infusion in all instances
Pg. 1694
PHENYLACETATE serum concentrations … were typically associated with CNS toxicity
While ability to cross blood-brain barrier may underlie clinical improvement seen in patient with glioblastoma, could also explain dose-limiting side-effects of drug, i.e., nausea, vomiting, sedation, and confusion
Limited experience with 150-mg/kg i.v. boluses suggests serum PHENYLACETATE concentrations occurring transiently
above 500 ug/ml are well tolerated
Intermittent drug infusion should permit some drug washout to occur, thereby minimizing drug accumulation
Predicts wide range of peak drug concentrations will be observed
Possible these would be sufficiently transient so as not to produce CNS toxicity and troughs not prolonged as to abrogate antitumor activity of drug
Dosing alternatives should be explored, our study indicates PHENYLACETATE can be safely administered by CIVI and result in clinical improvement in some patients with hormone-refractory
prostatic carcinoma and glioblastoma multiforme who failed conventional therapies
[8] 6/1/1994 PHENYLACETATE is naturally occurring plasma component that suppresses growth of tumor cells and induces differentiation in vitro
[9] 9/1994 PHENYLACETATE, NONTOXIC differentiation inducer, can suppress growth of other neuroectodermal tumors, i.e., gliomas, in laboratory models and humans
[10] 4/1995 PHENYLACETATE, an inducer of tumor cytostasis and differentiation, shows promise as RELATIVELY NONTOXIC antineoplastic agent in models and humans
[11] 6/15/1995 Growth-inhibiting and differentiating effects of sodium PHENYLACETATE against hematopoietic and solid tumor cell lines has aroused clinical interest in use as anticancer drug
In Phase I trial of PHENYLACETATE … commonly resulted in drug accumulation and REVERSIBLE DOSE-LIMITING NEUROLOGIC TOXICITY
18 patients
DOSE-LIMITING TOXICITY, consisting of REVERSIBLE CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM DEPRESSION, observed for 3 patients at 2nd dose level
[12] 10/12/1995 aromatic fatty acid PHENYLACETATE, a common metabolite of phenylalanine, shows promise as a RELATIVELY NON-TOXIC drug for cancer treatment
[13] 10/1995 investigated effects of a NONTOXIC differentiation inducer, PHENYLACETATE (PA), on neuroectodermal tumor-derived cell lines
[14] 1995 Antineoplastons, firstly described by Burzynski, are naturally occurring peptides and amino acid derivatives which control neoplastic growth
toxicological study of Antineoplastons A-10 and AS2-1 in combination with other anticancer agents or radiation in 42 patients
46 tumors with terminal stage cancer
Antineoplaston A-10 oral formulation
14 – patients
A-10 injectable formulation
25 – patients

Antineoplaston AS2-1 oral formulation
33 – patients
AS2-1 injectable formulation
10 – patients

Major adverse effects that may have been related to agents used in combination with other conventional chemotherapeutic agents or radiation:
liver dysfunction
general weakness

reduced albumin
increased alkaline phosphatase
increased amylase
reduced cholesterol
peripheral edema
fingers rigidity
excess gas
maculopapullar rash
adverse effects didn’t limit to continuation of either agent

Antineoplaston A-10 and AS2-1 LESS TOXIC THAN CONVENTIONAL CHEMOTHERAPIES and useful in maintenance therapy for cancer patients
[15] 1996 Antineoplastons, first described by Burzynski, are naturally occurring peptides and amino acid derivatives which control neoplastic growth
reported cytostatic inhibitory effect of A10 on human hepatocellular carcinoma cells and differentiation inducing effect of AS2-1 on various tumor cells suggest potential benefit for treatment of human hepatocellular carcinoma since tumor recurs frequently despite initial successful treatment
Clinical experience of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patient whose tumor, after incomplete trancathere arterial embolization (TAE) for a 7cm 7cm HCC, has been stable for more than 15 months during which time he has been taking Antineoplaston AS2-1 continuously WITHOUT ANY SERIOUS ADVERSE EFFECTS
[16] 5/1996
In pursuit of alternative treatments for chemoresistant tumor cells, tested response of multidrug-resistant (MDR) tumor cell lines to aromatic fatty acids phenylacetate (PA) and phenylbutyrate (PB), 2 differentiation inducers currently in clinical trials
Both compounds induced cytostasis and maturation of multidrug-resistant breast, ovarian, and colon carcinoma cells with no significant effect on cell viability
MDR cells generally more sensitive to growth arrest by PA and PB than their parental counterparts
PA and PB potentiated cytotoxic activity of doxorubicin against MDR cells
Taken together, in vitro data indicate PA and PB, differentiation inducers of aromatic fatty acid class, may provide alternative approach to treatment of MDR tumors
[17] 12/1996 PHENYLACETATE (PA) and related aromatic fatty acids constitute novel class of RELATIVELY NONTOXIC antineoplastic agents
[18] 8/1997 aromatic fatty acids PHENYLACETATE (PA) and PHENYLBUTYRATE (PB) are novel antitumor agents currently under clinical evaluation
ability to induce tumor differentiation in laboratory models and LOW CLINICAL TOXICITY PROFILE makes them promising candidates for COMBINATION WITH CONVENTIONAL THERAPIES
[19] 1997 PHENYLACETATE and analogs represent new class of pleiotropic growth regulators that alter tumor cell biology by affecting gene expression at both transcriptional and post transcriptional levels
Based on findings, NaPA and NaPB entered clinical trials at National Cancer Institute
Ongoing phase I studies with NaPA, involving adults with prostate and brain cancer, confirmed therapeutic levels can be achieved WITH NO SIGNIFICANT TOXICITIES, and provide preliminary evidence for benefit to patients with advanced disease (Thibault et al., submitted)
[20] 10/1997 Sodium PHENYLACETATE (PA) and sodium PHENYLBUTYRATE (PB) are aromatic fatty acids that can effect differentiation in a variety of cell lines at doses that may be clinically attainable
Pg. 1760
PB has been successfully administered to patients with urea acid cycle disorders and sickle cell anemia for extended periods of time, and NO HEMATOLOGICAL TOXICITY has been reported
Significant HEMATOLOGICAL TOXICITY was not reported in a Phase I trial of PA in patients with malignancy
Pg. 1761
Because of its ATTRACTIVE CLINICAL TOXICITY PROFILE, PB represents an excellent candidate for clinical trials in this group of disorders
[21] 11..12/1997 Antineoplaston AS2-1 exhibits cytostatic growth inhibition of human hepatocellular carcinoma cells in vitro and SHOWED MINIMUM ADVERSE EFFECTS in phase I clinical trial
[22] 6/1999 Burkitt’s lymphoma (BL) is readily treated malignancy, recurrences, as well as disease arising in immunosuppressed patients, are notoriously resistant to conventional therapeutic approaches
Using in vitro models of EBV-transformed lymphoblastoid as well as BL cell lines, we demonstrate increased expression of genes coding for HLA class I and EBV latent proteins by differentiation inducer PHENYLBUTYRATE (PB)
Aromatic fatty acid also caused cytostasis associated with sustained declines in c-myc expression, a direct antitumor effect that was independent of EBV status
Findings may have clinical relevance because in vitro activity has been observed with PB concentrations that are
and nonimmunosuppressive in humans, a desirable feature for different patient populations afflicted with this disease
[23] 8/2001 PHENYLBUTYRATE (PB) is aromatic fatty acid with multiple mechanisms of action including histone deacetylase inhibition
Overall DRUG WELL TOLERATED with most common TOXICITIES being grade 1-2 DYSPEPSIA and FATIGUE
Nonoverlapping dose-limiting TOXICITIES of NAUSEA/VOMITING and HYPOCALCEMIA were seen at 36 g/day
PB (p.o.) IS WELL TOLERATED and achieves concentration in vivo shown to have biological activity in vitro
[24] 10/2001 Sodium PHENYLBUTYRATE (PB) demonstrates potent differentiating capacity in multiple hematopoietic and solid tumor cell lines
Pharmacokinetics performed during and after first infusion period using validated high-performance liquid chromatographic assay and single compartmental pharmacokinetic model for PB and principal metabolite, PHENYLACETATE
24 patients with hormone refractory prostate cancer being predominant tumor type
All evaluable for TOXICITY and response
Dose escalated 150 to 515 mg/kg/day
One patient at 515 mg/kg/day and one at 345 mg/kg/day experienced this DLT
Maximum tolerated dose 410 mg/kg/day for 5 days
Recommended Phase II dose 410 mg/kg/day for 120 h
Dose-limiting TOXICITY (DLT) was neuro-cortical, exemplified by EXCESSIVE SOMNOLENCE and CONFUSION and accompanied by clinically significant HYPOKALEMIA, HYPONATREMIA, and HYPERURICEMIA
Other TOXICITIES mild, including FATIGUE and NAUSEA
DLT in Phase I study for infusional PB
given for 5 days every 21 days is neuro-cortical in nature
TOXICITY resolved < or =12 h of discontinuing infusion
[25] 2003 Case of survival for nearly 8 years after treatment of unresectable multiple liver metastases from colon cancer, using microwave ablation and NONTOXIC ANTITUMOR AGENT, ANTINEOPLASTONS
72-year-old man diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of ascending colon and 14 bilateral liver metastases underwent right hemicolectomy combined with microwave ablation of 6 metastatic liver tumors
Antineoplaston A10 given intravenously, followed by oral antineoplaston AS2-1
Patient underwent 2nd and 3rd microwave ablation of recurrent tumors, and has survived for nearly 8 years WITHOUT SUFFERING ANY SERIOUS ADVERSE EFFECTS
Demonstrates potential effectiveness of NONTOXIC ANTITUMOR AGENT, ANTINEOPLASTONS, for controlling liver metastases from colon cancer
[26] 4/2005 Determined maximum tolerated dose (MTD), TOXICITY profile of … oral sodium PHENYLBUTYRATE (PB) in patients with recurrent malignant gliomas
All PB doses of 9, 18, and 27 g/day WELL TOLERATED
At 36 g/day, 2 of 4 patients developed dose-limiting grade 3 FATIGUE and SOMNOLENCE
At MTD of 27 g/day, one of 7 patients developed reversible grade 3 SOMNOLENCE
[27] 4/2007 PHENYLBUTYRATE (PBA), and its metabolite PHENYLACETATE (PAA), induce growth inhibition and cellular differentiation in multiple tumor models
Conversion of PBA to PAA and PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINE (PAG) documented without catabolic saturation
Administration of PBA twice-daily infusion schedule is SAFE
None of the above publications indicate that antineoplastons are toxic as Gorski would have people believe

12/12/2011 Gorski published his attempt at trying to explain why antineoplastons are supposedly toxic
What Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski doesn’t want you to know about antineoplastons
Gorski posited:

“He’s also prescribing huge doses of antineoplastons (up to 25 g/kg/d for A10 and 80 mg/kg/d for AS-2.1, as we have seen). both of these are so far above the maximal tolerated dose of 300 mg/kg/d determined in the phase I trial I cited above as to be terrifying”

In support of his “theory”, Gorski provided a link to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH):
However, as is the case with a lot of Gorski’s lame research, he makes you search for what he is referring to:

[14]Ba Primitive neuroectodermal tumor (13)


Max dose: A10: 25 g/kg/d; AS2-1: 0.6 g/kg/d

Does this support Gorski’s “toxic theory”?
[28] 2005
5 years 7 months (1-11) median age
13 / 100% – children with recurrent disease or high risk
5 / 38% – weren’t treated earlier with radiation therapy or chemotherapy
3 / 23% – Complete Response
1 / 8% – Partial Response
4 / 31% – Stable Disease
5 / 38% – Progressive Disease

6 / 46% – Survived 5+ years from initiation of ANP
Serious side effects:
1 – anemia
1 – fever
1 – granulocytopenia

average dosage of A10 was 10.3 g/kg/d and of AS2-1 was 0.38 g/kg/d
REDUCED TOXICITY MAKES ANP PROMISING for very young children, patients at high risk of complication of standard therapy, and patients with recurrent tumors
The above sure does NOT support Gorski’s “toxic theory”

When science based medicine keeps saying the following:
[29] 9/27/1995 (7/17/2006) Alterations in expression of ras oncogenes are characteristic of wide variety of human neoplasms
Accumulating evidence has linked elevated ras expression with disease progression and FAILURE OF TUMORS TO RESPOND TO CONVENTIONAL THERAPIES, INCLUDING RADIOTHERAPY AND CERTAIN CHEMOTHERAPIES
observations led us to investigate response of ras-transformed cells to differentiation-inducer PHENYLACETATE (PA)
Interestingly, IN CONTRAST TO THEIR RELATIVE RESISTANCE TO RADIATION and doxorubicin, ras-transformed cells were significantly more sensitive to PA than their parental cells
IN PURSUIT OF ALTERNATIVE TREATMENTS FOR CHEMORESISTANT TUMOR CELLS, we tested response of multidrug-resistant (MDR) tumor cell lines to aromatic fatty acids PHENYLACETATE (PA) and PHENYLBUTYRATE (PB), 2 differentiation inducers currently in clinical trials
[15] 1996 Antineoplastons, first described by Burzynski, are naturally occurring peptides and amino acid derivatives which control neoplastic growth
reported cytostatic inhibitory effect of A10 on human hepatocellular carcinoma cells and differentiation inducing effect of AS2-1 on various tumor cells suggest potential benefit for treatment of human hepatocellular carcinoma since TUMOR RECURS FREQUENTLY DESPITE INITIAL SUCCESSFUL TREATMENT
0 / 0% – EXHIBITED CLEAR-CUT TUMOR regression
[32] 2000 treatment combination PRODUCED NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE in overall POOR prognosis of patients
Most tumors responded initially to treatment but RECCURED as study progressed
Based on POOR RESULTS, recommend ALTERNATIVE TREATMENTS be tested in patients with this type of tumor
[33] At time of approval, NO RESULTS were available from randomized controlled trials in refractory ANAPLASTIC ASTROCYTOMA that show clinical benefit such as improvement in disease-related symptoms or prolonged survival
[35] 2002 p53 tumor suppressor gene plays important role in protecting cells from developing undesirable proliferation
Mutant p53 gene or malfunctioning p53 protein found in more than 50% of cancer cells impedes DNA repair or apoptosis induction
[36] 2004 outcome for patients with either type of tumor is POOR when STANDARD multimodality THERAPY IS USED
children are ideal candidates for INNOVATIVE TREATMENT approaches
administration of temozolomide after RT DIDN’T ALTER POOR PROGNOSIS associated with newly diagnosed diffuse BRAINSTEM GLIOMA in children
[37] 2/2008 addition of vincristine and oral VP-16 to standard external beam radiation causes moderate toxicity and DOESN’T IMPROVE SURVIVAL OF CHILDREN WITH DIFFUSE INTRINSIC BRAIN STEM GLIOMA
[38] 5/6/2009 Currently, NO DATA available from randomized controlled trials demonstrating improvement in disease-related symptoms or increased survival with Avastin in GLIOBLASTOMA
[39] 10/12/2011 Afinitor (ubependymal giant cell ASTROCYTOMA (SEGA) brain tumor)
none of their tumors went away completely
[18] 8/1997 aromatic fatty acids PHENYLACETATE (PA) and PHENYLBUTYRATE (PB) are novel antitumor agents currently under clinical evaluation
ability to induce tumor differentiation in laboratory models and LOW CLINICALTOXICITY PROFILE makes them promising candidates for COMBINATION WITH CONVENTIONAL THERAPIES
So what does Gorski think is going to fill the void?

His clinical trial drug ?

The potentially profitable drug Gorski is in the process of conducting a clinical trial for is the ALS drug Riluzole, made by Sanofi-Aventis and marketed as Rilutek

Apparently, David Gorski has had his eye on that drug for a long time, but as a possible treatment for breast cancer

As suggested by a 2008-2009 webpage of a breast cancer website:

“Three years ago in another cancer (melanoma), Dr. Gorski’s collaborators found that glutamate might have a role in promoting the transformation of the pigmented cells in the skin (melanocytes) into the deadly skin cancer melanoma”

“More importantly for therapy, it was found that this protein can be blocked with drugs, and, specifically, in melanoma cell lines and tumor models of melanoma using a drug originally designed to treat ALS and already FDA-approved for that indication (Riluzole) can inhibit the growth of melanoma.”
Better luck next time with your personal MUD-targeted Skeptic therapy Gorski

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Dvorit D. Samid learned about antineoplastons from Burzynski
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[1] 4/1/1992
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
SAMID, D., Shack, S., and Sherman, l.. T.
Cancer Res., 52: 1988-1992, 1992
Cancer Res 1992;52:1988-1992
Cancer Res April 1, 1992 52; 1988v I
Cancer Res. 1992 Apr 1;52(7):1988-92

Click to access 1988.full.pdf

Cancer Res 52:1988,1992
SAMID D, Shack S, Ti-Sherman L
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland
PHENYLACETATE-A novel nontoxic inducer of TUMOR CELL differentiation
↵1 Supported by Elan Pharmaceutical Corporation Grant G174ED
Reference: 12 (SAMID, D.)
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[2] .8/20/1992
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Dover GJ, Brusilow S, SAMID D. Increased fetal hemoglobin in patients receiving sodium 4-PHENYLBUTYRATE. N Engl J Med. 1992 Aug 20;327(8):569–570
N Engl J Med. 1992 Aug 20;327(8):569-70
August 20, 1992
N Engl J Med 1992; 327:569-570
N Engl J Med 327569, 1992
Dvorit Samid, Ph.D
National Cancer Institute
, Bethesda, MD
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[3] 9/15/1992
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
SAMID D, Yeh A, Prasanna P. Induction of erythroid differentiation and fetal hemoglobin production in human leukemic cells treated with phenylacetate. Blood. 1992 Sep 15;80(6):1576–1581
Blood. 1992 Sep 15;80(6):1576-81
Blood September 15, 1992 vol. 80 no. 6 1576-1581
Blood 80:1576, 1992
Blood 80(6):1576–1581

Click to access 1576.full.pdf

Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD
SAMID D References: 15, 20-21 and 34
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[4] 5/1993
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
SAMID D, Shack S , Myers CE . Selective growth arrest and phenotypic reversion of prostate cancer cells in vitro by NONTOXIC pharmacological concentrations of PHENYLACETATE . J. Clin. Invest . 1993;91:2288
J Clin Invest. 1993 May;91(5):2288-95
J Clin Invest. 1993 May; 91(5): 2288–2295
Published in Volume 91, Issue 5 (May 1993)
J Clin Invest. 1993;91(5):2288–2295
1993, The American Society for Clinical Investigation
J Clin Invest 91:2288, 1993
PMCID: PMC288233
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland
SAMID D References: 9, 13-14, 17 and 33
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[5] .10/1/1993
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Enhanced fetal
hemoglobin production by PHENYLACETATE and 4-PHENYLBUTYRATE in erythroid precursors derived from normal blood donors and patients with sickle cell anemia and P-thalassemia
Blood. 1993 Oct 1;82(7):2203-9
Blood 822203, 1993
Blood October 1, 1993 vol. 82 no. 7 2203-2209
1993 82: 2203-2209

Click to access 2203.full.pdf

Blood 82(7):2203–2209
Department of Hematology, Hadassah University Hospital, Jerusalem, Israel
Fibach E, Prasanna P, Rodgers GP, SAMID D
SAMID D References: 15, 19-21 and 32
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[6] 2/15/1994
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
SAMID, D., Ram, Z., Hudgins, W. R., Shack, S., Liu, L., Waibridge, S., Oldfield, E. H., and Myers, C. E. Selective activity of PHENYLACETATE against malignant gliomas: resemblance to fetal brain damage in phenylketonuria. Cancer Res., 54: 891-895, 1993
Cancer Res. 1994 Feb 15;54(4):891-5
Cancer Res February 15, 1994 54; 891
Cancer Res 1994;54:891-895
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
Work supported by funds from Elan Pharmaceutical Research Corporation through Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CACR-0139)
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[7] 4/1/1994
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
A phase I and pharmacokinetic study of intravenous PHENYLACETATE in patients with cancer
Cancer Res. 1994 Apr 1;54(7):1690-4
Cancer Res 54(7):1690-4 (1994), PMID.8137283
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland

Click to access 1690.full.pdf

Thibault A, Cooper MR, Figg WD, Venzon DJ, Sartor AO, Tompkins AC, Weinberger MS, Headlee DJ, McCall NA, SAMID D, et al.
Study supported in part by grant from Elan Pharmaceutical Research Co
References: 8-12
Reference: 13
13. BURZYNSKI, S. R., Kubove E., Burzynski, B. Treatment of hormonally refractory cancer of the prostate with antineoplaston AS2-1. Drugs Exp. Clin. Res., 16: 361-369, 1990
Drugs Exp Clin Res. 1990;16(7):361-9
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[8] 6/1/1994
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Growth inhibition, tumor maturation, and extended survival in experimental brain tumors in rats treated with PHENYLACETATE.
Cancer Res 54:2934-2927, 1994
Cancer Res. 1994 Jun 1;54(11):2923-7
Cancer Res 54(11):2923–2927
Surgical Neurology Branch, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland

Click to access 2923.full.pdf

Ram Z, SAMID D, Walbridge S, et al:
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[9] 1994
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Liu L , Shack S , Stetler-Stevenson WG , Hudgins WR , SAMID D . Differentiation of cultured human melanoma cells induced by the aromatic fatty acids PHENYLACETATE and PHENYLBUTYRATE . J. Invest. Dermatol . 1994;103:335
J Invest Dermatol. 1994 Sep;103(3):335-40
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[10] 4/1995
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
J Clin Pharmacol 35:368-373, 1995 Abstract
J Clin Pharmacol 35:368-373, 1995 Abstract
The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
Volume 35, Issue 4, pages 368–373, April 1995
J Clin Pharmacol. 1995 Apr;35(4):368-73;jsessionid=DFDEF1599D764E2845EC2897269C198B.d01t01
Article first published online: 8 MAR 2013;jsessionid=43600D49608A093971D675F3DB5FF13D.d01t03
Piscitelli SC, Thibault A, Figg WD, et al: (SAMID D)
Pharmacy Department, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
DOI: 10.1002/j.1552-4604.1995.tb04075.x
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[11] 6/15/1995
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Phase I study of PHENYLACETATE administered twice daily to patients with cancer
Cancer. 1995 Jun 15;75(12):2932-8
Cancer 75(12):2932–2938
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
Thibault A, SAMID D, Cooper MR, Figg WD, Tompkins AC, Patronas N, et al
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[12] 10/12/1995
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Cytostatic activity of PHENYLACETATE and derivatives against tumor cells:
Correlation with lipophilicity and inhibition of protein prenylation.
Biochem Pharmacol. 1995 Oct 12;50(8):1273-9
Biochem Pharmacol 50:1273-1279, 1995
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[13] 10/1995
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Stockhammer G, Manley GT, Johnson R, et al: (SAMID D) Inhibition of proliferation and induction of differentiation in medulloblastoma and astrocytoma-derived cell lines with PHENYLACETATE. J Neurosurg 83:672-681, 1995
J Neurosurg. 1995 Oct;83(4):672-81
Cotzias Laboratory of Neuro-Oncology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA;
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[14] 1995
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Toxicological study on antineoplastons A-10 and AS2-1 in cancer patients
Kurume Med J. 1995;42(4):241-9
The Kurume Medical Journal
Vol. 42 (1995) No. 4 P 241-249
Department of Anesthesiology, Kurume University School of Medicine, Japan
Tsuda H, Hara H, Eriguchi N, Nishida H, Yoshida H, Kumabe T, Sugita Y
Burzynski References: 1 – 3 and 5
Nishida et al. (Japan) A-10 Reference: 4 and 7
Muldoon et al. A-10 Reference: 6
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[15] 1996
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Inhibitory effect of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 on human hepatocellular carcinoma
Tsuda H (Japan)
Kurume Med J. 1996;43(2):137-47
Department of Anesthesiology, Kurume University School of Medicine, Japan
Burzynski References: 1 – 3, 5 and 7
SAMID Reference: 13 (who learned from Burzynski re PHENYLACETATE)
Nishida et al. (Japan) A10 Reference: 4 and 10
Muldoon et al. A10 Reference: 8
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[16] 5/1996
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Vulnerability of multidrug-resistant tumor cells to the aromatic fatty acids phenylacetate and PHENYLBUTYRATE
Clin Cancer Res. 1996 May;2(5):865-72
Clin Cancer Res 2(5):865–872
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA

Click to access 865.full.pdf

Shack S, Miller A, Liu L, Prasanna P, Thibault A, SAMID D
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[17] 12/1996
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Gorospe M, Shack S, Guyton KZ, et al: (SAMID D)
Up-regulation and functional role of p21Waf1/Cip1 during growth arrest of human breast carcinoma MCF-7 cells by PHENYLACETATE. Cell Growth Differ 7:1609-1615, 1996
Cell Growth Differ. 1996 Dec;7(12):1609-15
Cell Growth Differ 7(12):1609–1615

Click to access 1609.pdf

Laboratory of Cellular and Molecular Biology, Gerontology Research Center, National Institute on Aging, NIH, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[18] 8/1997
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Miller AC, Whittaker T, Thibault A, et al: (SAMID D)
Modulation of radiation response of human tumor cells by the differentiation inducers, PHENYLACETATE and PHENYLBUTYRATE. Int J Radiat Biol 72:211-218, 1997
Int J Radiat Biol. 1997 Aug;72(2):211-8
Armed Forces Radiobiology, Research Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[19] 1997
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
PHENYLACETATE and PHENYLBUTYRATE as novel, NONTOXIC differentiation inducers
Adv Exp Med Biol (1997), PMID.9547596
Adv Exp Med Biol. 1997;400A:501-5

Click to access 10.1007%2F978-1-4615-5325-0_67.pdf

Eicosanoids and Other Bioactive Lipids in Cancer, Inflammation, and Radiation Injury 2
Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology Volume 400, 1997, pp 501-505
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD USA
D D SAMID, W R WR Hudgins, … C E CE Myers
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[20] 10/1997
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Impact of the putative differentiating agents sodium PHENYLBUTYRATE and sodium PHENYLACETATE on proliferation, differentiation, and apoptosis of primary neoplastic myeloid cells
Clin Cancer Res. 1997 Oct;3(10):1755-62
Clin Cancer Res October 1997 3; 1755
Clin Cancer Res. 1997a;3:1755–1762
The Johns Hopkins Oncology Center, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

Click to access 1755.full.pdf

Gore SD, SAMID D, Weng LJ
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[21] 11..12/1997
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Antineoplaston AS2-1 for maintenance therapy in liver cancer
H Tsuda phase I clinical trial
Oncol Rep. 1997; 4:1213- 1216
Oncol Rep. 1997 Nov-Dec;4(6):1213-6
Oncol Rep 4 (6):1213-6 (1997)
Oncology Reports
4 (6):1213-6
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[22] 6/1999
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
PHENYLBUTYRATE induces cell differentiation and modulates Epstein-Barr virus gene expression in Burkitt’s lymphoma cells
Clin Cancer Res. 1999 Jun;5(6):1509-16
Clin Cancer Res 5(6):1509–1516
Clin Cancer Res June 1999 5; 1509
Pediatric Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
Bar-Ner M, Thibault A, Tsokos M, Magrath IT, SAMID D
Supported in part by funds from Elan Pharmaceutical Research Corporation
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[23] 8/2001
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
A phase Idose escalation and bioavailability study of oral sodium PHENYLBUTYRATE in patients with refractory solid tumor malignancies
Clin Cancer Res. 2001 Aug;7(8):2292-.300
Clin Cancer Res 7(8):2292-.300 (2001), PMID.11489804
Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Oncology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA
J Gilbert, S D Baker, … M A Carducci
SAMID D References: 2-3, 5-6, 15 and 20
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[24] 10/2001
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
A Phase I clinical and pharmacological evaluation of sodium PHENYLBUTYRATE on an 120-h infusion schedule
Clin Cancer Res. 2001 Oct;7(10):3047-55
Clin Cancer Res 7(10):3047-55 (2001), PMID.11595694
Division of Medical Oncology, The Johns Hopkins Oncology Center, Bunting-Blaustein Cancer Research Building, Baltimore, MD, USA
M A Carducci, J Gilbert, … R C Donehower
SAMID D References: 10-11, 13-14, 17-18, 23-24, 27, 33, 40-41 and 47
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[25] 2003
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Long-term survival following treatment with antineoplastons for colon cancer with unresectable multiple liver metastases: report of a case
Long-Term Survival Following Treatment with Antineoplastonsfor Colon Cancer with Unresectable Multiple Liver Metastases:
Report of a Case
A10 and AS2-1 – Phase II Clinical Trial
Hideaki Tsuda
Surg Today. 2003;33(6):448-53
Surg Today 2003; 33:448–53
Surg Today. 2003; 33:448-453
33 (6):448-53
Surgery Today, Springer
Surg Today 2003
DOI: 10.1007/s10595-002-2503-2
Department of Surgery, Kurume University School of Medicine, Kurume, Fukuoka, Japan
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[26] 4/2005
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Oral sodium PHENYLBUTYRATE in patients with recurrent malignant gliomas:

A dose escalation and pharmacologic study
Neuro Oncol. 2005 Apr;7(2):177-82
Neuro-oncol. 2005 April; 7(2): 177–182 PMCID: PMC1871887

Click to access neu0702p177.pdf

The New Approaches to Brain Tumor Therapy CNS Consortium, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
Buckner Reference: 3
SAMID D References: 12, 17 and 19-21
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[27] 4/2007
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Phase I dose escalation clinical trial of PHENYLBUTYRATE sodium administered twice daily to patients with advanced solid tumors
Invest New Drugs. 2007 Apr;25(2):131-8. Epub 2006 Oct 20
Investigational New Drugs
April 2007, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 131-138
Invest New Drugs 25(2):131-8 (2007), PMID.17053987
Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Joan and Sanford I. Weill Medical College of Cornell Medical Center, New York, New York, USA
Luis H LH Camacho, Jon J Olson, … Mark G MG Malkin
SAMID D References: 4-5, 7, 20, 24, 30 and 32-38
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[28] 2005
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
14. Burzynski SR, Weaver RA, Janicki T, et al.: Long-term survival of high-risk pediatric patients with primitive neuroectodermal tumors treated with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1. Integr Cancer Ther 4 (2): 168-77, 2005
Integr Cancer Ther. 2005 Jun;4(2):168-77
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[29] 9/27/1995
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Increased susceptibility of ras-transformed cells to PHENYLACETATE is associated with inhibition of p21ras isoprenylation and phenotypic reversion. Int J Cancer 63:124-129, 1995
Int J Cancer. 1995 Sep 27;63(1):124-9
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
Int J Cancer 63:124-129, 1995
Int J Cancer. 1995 Sep 27;63(1):124-9.
International Journal of Cancer
Volume 63, Issue 1, Article first published online: 17 JUL 2006
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.2910630122
Shack S, Chen L-C, Miller AC, et al: (SAMID D)
Shack, S., Chen, L-C., Miller, A. C., Danesi, A., and SAMID, D. Int. J. Cancer, 63: 124-129, 1995
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[30] 5/1996
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Shack, S., Miller, A., Liu, L., Prasanna, P., Thibault, A., and SAMID, D.. Vulnerability of MULTIDRUG-RESISTANT TUMOR CELLS to the aromatic fatty acids PHENYLACETATE and PHENYLBUTYRATE. Clin. Cancer Res., 2: 865-872, 1996
Clin Cancer Res. 1996 May;2(5):865-72
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USA

Click to access 865.full.pdf

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[31] 7/1997
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
A phase I study of high-dose tamoxifen for the treatment of refractory malignant gliomas of childhood
Clin Cancer Res. 1997 Jul;3(7):1109-15
Clin Cancer Res July 1997 3; 1109
Department of Neurosurgery, Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[32] 2000
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Radiation therapy and high-dose tamoxifen in the treatment of patients with diffuse BRAINSTEM GLIOMAS:

results of a Brazilian cooperative study
Brainstem Glioma Cooperative Group
J Clin Oncol 18, 1246-1253
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[34] 12/2000
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

new indication
Prescrire Int. 2000 Dec;9(50):170-1.
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[35] 2002
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
A novel strategy for remission induction and maintenance in cancer therapy
A10 and AS2-1
H Tsuda
Oncol Rep 2002;9:65–8
Oncol. Rep. 2002;9:65-68
Oncol Rep 9(1):65-8 (2002)
Oncology Reports, Spandidos Publications
Department of Anesthesiology, Kurume University, School of Medicine, Fukuoka-ken, Japan
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[36] 2004
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

two challenges for the pediatric oncologist
Oncologist. 2004;9(2):197-206.
Oncologist 9, 197-206
Division of Neuro-Oncology, Department of Hematology-Oncology, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA
1/1/2005 (11/24/2004) – Role of temozolomide after radiotherapy for newly diagnosed diffuse BRAINSTEM GLIOMA in children:

results of a multiinstitutional study (SJHG-98)
Cancer. 2005 Jan 1;103(1):133-9.
Cancer 103, 133-139;jsessionid=6717837591CCC8FCBD8E46163808E221.d03t01
Volume 103, Issue 1, pages 133–139, 1 January 2005
Article first published online: 24 NOV 2004
Cited By:
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.20741
Department of Hematology-Oncology, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA
Cancer 103, 133-139
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[37] 2/2008 (Article first published online: 2/2/2007)
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Treatment of children with diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA with radiotherapy, vincristine and oral VP-16:

a Children’s Oncology Group phase II study
Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2008 Feb;50(2):227-30
University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, USA;jsessionid=DE7A67EFBAC1A184F6805F11CFC4F30B.d02t02
Article first published online: 2 FEB 2007
DOI: 10.1002/pbc.21154
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[38] 5/6/2009
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval of Avastin (bevacizumab) for people with GLIOBLASTOMA (brain cancer) with progressive disease following prior therapy
effectiveness of Avastin in AGGRESSIVE form of BRAIN CANCER based on improvement in objective response rate
According to FDA analysis of study
Study AVF3708g
Study NCI 06-C-0064E
Efficacy of Avastin in GLIOBLASTOMA that progressed following prior therapy supported by another study that used same response assessment criteria as AVF3708g
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[39] 10/12/2011 (Published online: 8/1/2011)
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Everolimus tablets for patients with subependymal giant cell ASTROCYTOMA
Expert Opin Pharmacother. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 July 5.
Published in final edited form as:
Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2011 October; 12(14): 2265–2269.
Published online 2011 August 1. doi: 10.1517/14656566.2011.601742
PMCID: PMC3389821
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �