ract|cum #2

An LxamlnaLlon of AnLlneoplasLons as Lhe luLure 1reaLmenL and

revenLlon of Cancer
uanlel Lyre
@@
1hls popular press arLlcle asserLs LhaL Lhe role of anLlneoplasLons ln Lhe LreaLmenL of
cancer ls boLh revoluLlonary and necessary 1herefore fallure Lo uLlllze Lhe
knowledge of Lhelr efflcacy wlll resulL ln more socleLal harm Lhan galn
Eyre 2

Brainstem glioma (BSG) is essentially a death sentence. It occurs most oIten in
children oI very young ages, and is the most malignant diagnosis oI cancer that can occur
within the brain. Essentially, because tumors are wrapped around the brainstem and
remain intertwined with extremely sensitive parts oI the body, traditional methods oI
treatment such as radiation therapy and traditional chemotherapy are much less eIIective
than when treating other Iorms oI cancer. In essence, the location oI the tumors and
relative compromised state oI aIIected individuals due to their young age, makes it highly
unlikely that anyone with this prognosis will live. More speciIically, it is very rare that a
patient will make it past 2 years, even with the best treatmentand as Ior patients with
recurring tumors, it is highly unlikely that they will even survive past six months
(Freeman et al). Brainstem glioma was essentially a death sentenceuntil now.
Until recently, our most eIIective methods oI treating any type oI cancer,
especially aggressive types such as BSG, have been based on radiation and chemical
therapies. These methods, although sometimes eIIective, are also quite detrimental to
patients but simply maniIested in diIIerent ways. For example: radiation therapy can be
likened to a massive 'Irying attack on all oI the cells local to the treatment. ThereIore,
treating a BSG case would resulting in complete hearing loss, hair Iollicle loss, additional
brainstem damage, and possibly mental retardation (just to name a Iew side eIIects)
(Mandell et al). Chemoor chemical therapyis derived largely Irom pesticides and
poisons such as DDT and other toxins. These chemicals are semi-eIIective at ridding the
body oI cancer because they kill everything they touch, regardless oI what it is.
ThereIore, the success oI chemo is simply a measure oI how much poison your body can
Eyre 3
endure beIore shutting down completely. Survivors oI this method that emerge cancer
Iree have simply endured beyond the resilience oI their cancer. This oIIers no closure
Irom Iuture return oI the disease, particularly due to the Iact that cancer is largely DNA-
based, and not communicable. It is Ior these reasons that the discovery and application oI
antineoplastons in modern medicine is so important, and why denying the incredible
beneIits oI this biotechnology is akin to shooting every cancer patient in the Ioot.
Dr. Stanislaw R. Burzynski, an immigrant oncologist Irom Poland, discovered the
power oI antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 in the early 1980`s. Essentially, these
peptidesor chunks oI genetic codewere Iound to be abundant in cancer-Iree
individuals, and relatively non-existent in those aIIlicted by the disease. Burzynski
postulated that these compounds could help cure and prevent the disease through a
'decrease oI DNA instability and ampliIication oI oncogenes through nomalization oI
global methylation oI the genes by A101 and activation oI silenced tumor suppressors
through inhibition oI methylation oI their promoters and deacetylation oI histones by
AS2-1 (Burzynski et al, 1-8), so he began to synthesize these compounds Ior treatment.
Over the years, he began to see great successto the point where his research required an
ultimate test oI eIIicacy: take the most deadly and untreatable Iorm oI carcinoma and cure
it. This led him to the treatment oI brainstem glioma. Many individuals are still either
unaware oI his treatment via antineoplastons or are in denial oI their eIIicacy, especially
the FDA and National Cancer Society. This is a problem.
In Burzynski`s 2006 publication entitled 'Targeted Therapy With Antineoplastons
A10 and AS2-1 oI High-Grade, Recurrent, and Progressive Brainstem Glioma, the
results oI his undisputable test were examined and analyzed Ior validity. InIormation
Eyre 4
relevant to understanding the results are as Iollows: 18 patients underwent clinical trials
over a median period oI 5 months. All oI the patients had been diagnosed by pathology
practices outside oI Burzynski`s practice, and 12 oI them had received prior treatment
and experience recurrence. Six oI the patients had undergone no treatments prior to the
trials. Seven days prior to commencing treatment, complete physical analysis was
conducted on all patients, including present levels oI antineoplaston analogues. These
patients underwent Iour phase 2 trials during this time that Ieatured an administration oI
A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) which are synthetic analogs oI phenylacetylglutamine.
Phenylacetylglutamine is a naturally occurring salt within the human body, along with
phenylacetic acid.
Response data to intravenous injection according to administration protocols was
as Iollows: there were 2 cases (11) oI complete responsemeaning that there was no
recurrence oI tumors at all. There were also 2 cases oI partial response, meaning that
there was greater than a 50 decrease in mass oI the sum oI the tumors. The remaining
14 patients were split down the middle in their responseshalI oI them experiencing a
stable disease state oI less than 50 reduction in the sum oI tumor massand the other
halI experiencing progression oI the disease past pre-treatment state.
Compared to a less than 10 survival rate beyond 2 years in patients undergoing
standard radiation treatment (and an even smaller survival rate while undergoing chemo),
antineoplastons showed a 22 survival rate oI the most deadly type oI cancer Ior more
than 5 years post-treatment. Even more impressive, the treatment maintained a survival
rate oI 39 aIter two years. That is approximately Iour times as eIIective as radiation
and vastly more eIIective than chemical treatments.
Eyre 5
Cancer aIIects nearly one in every two people in our modern, globalized world.
Chances are that even the individual reading this may have even experienced the disease
Ior themselves. It is Ior this reason that it is so important to understand the implications
oI such a signiIicant biological discovery. Outdated methods oI treating cancer patients,
iI not overtaken by more innovative techniques due to a lack oI interest, knowledge and
Iunding, will be the real deathblow to cancer patients. Now that we have a better
technique, the treatment inIrastructure we have in place, as well as the endless pockets oI
lobbying pharmaceutical companies should not prevent modern medicine Irom breaking
down the walls oI the industry and revolutionizing our approach. We must always
remember that breakthroughs in health are revolutionary, and we must embrace them,
even in times oI uncertainty, because that is the only way to progress and protect those
methods Ior the beneIit oI all.

#010703.08
Burzynski, Stanislaw. 'Targeted Therapy With Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 oI High-
Grade, Recurrent, and Progressive Brainstem Glioma. Integrated Cancer
Therapies 05 Mar 2006. 1-8. Pubmed Database. 31 Oct 2011.

Burzynski SR, Janicki TJ, Weaver RA, Burzynski B. Targeted therapy with
antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) oI high grade recurrent and progressive
brain stem gliomas. Paper presented at: 16th International Congress on Anti-
cancer Treatment; February 1-4, 2005; Paris, France.

Freeman CR, Farmer JP. Pediatric brain stem gliomas: a review. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol
Phys. 1998;40:265-271.

Mandell LR, Kadota R, Freeman C, et al. There is no role Ior hyperIractionated
radiotherapy in the management oI children with newly diagnosed diIIuse
intrinsic brainstem tumors: results oI a Pediatric Oncology Group phase III trial
comparing conventional vs. hyperIractionated radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol
Biol Phys