High Grade Glioma Peer Review Article

Another Peer-review ANP publication was released this week! The Journal of Cancer Therapy (Scientific Research Publisher) is presenting “A Phase II Study of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 in Children with High Grade Glioma. Final Report (Protocol BT-06), and Review of Recent Trials”.

High Grade Glioma – BRI

This peer-review article addresses BRI’s success using ANP to address one of the most difficult tumors to treat…High Grade Glioma patients who have failed conventional treatments.  Page 573 shows a comparison of ANP and seven other clinical trials. In the words of the article,” the results of our trial compare favorably to the other studies”. This is an understatement given that the ANP actually had a survival rate (33.3 %) after the first year, and none of the other clinical trials did!

Obviously no article could completely detail all of the nuances involved, so I will share a significant one missing from this partial report. The Atypical Rhabdoid described at the bottom of page 568 was my daughter, Crystin. The article graciously describes her death as a result of pneumonia, which is technically correct. What it does not tell you, nor would it be appropriate to mention in that particular form of media, is that the pneumonia was a direct result of the damage that Crystin had sustained from her previous radiation and chemotherapy treatments.

It is fact that my daughter had progressive disease when she went to BRI for treatment. It is also fact that after being on ANP treatment for about 8 months her MRI’s showed no disease. I took her off ANP treatment and within a month her cancer had returned and was quickly spreading throughout her brain. Within 9 weeks of resuming ANP treatment Crystin’s MRI showed no more visible enhancement. Crystin subsequently died a year later of radiation necrosis……the radiation that she had originally received had been to such a degree that it was lethal.

All of this was documented by the University of California in San Francisco. Their pathologist, their MRI machine and in the end, their autopsy. The article is quite accurate when it cites that Crystin’s autopsy showed no viable cancer cells anywhere in her body.

So, if one child in this study was made cancer free after being treated with ANP, and then died as a result of her previous treatments, how many others would still be alive today had they not received their initial chemo/radiation treatments?

These Phase II clinical trial results are astounding in comparison to other treatments, but it is far more likely that they would even have been better had these patient’s received ANP as their primary treatment. It’s time to start saving lives……

 

Ric Schiff

Another Peer-review ANP publication was released this week! The Journal of Cancer Therapy (Scientific Research Publisher) is presenting “A Phase II Study of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 in Children with High Grade Glioma. Final Report (Protocol BT-06), and Review of Recent Trials”.

DOI: 10.4236/jct.2014.56065

This peer-review article addresses BRI’s success using ANP to address one of the most difficult tumors to treat…High Grade Glioma patients who have failed conventional treatments.  Page 573 shows a comparison of ANP and seven other clinical trials. In the words of the article,” the results of our trial compare favorably to the other studies”. This is an understatement given that the ANP actually had a survival rate (33.3 %) after the first year, and none of the other clinical trials did!

Obviously no article could completely detail all of the nuances involved, so I will share a significant one missing from this partial report. The Atypical Rhabdoid described at the bottom of page 568 was my daughter, Crystin. The article graciously describes her death as a result of pneumonia, which is technically correct. What it does not tell you, nor would it be appropriate to mention in that particular form of media, is that the pneumonia was a direct result of the damage that Crystin had sustained from her previous radiation and chemotherapy treatments.

It is fact that my daughter had progressive disease when she went to BRI for treatment. It is also fact that after being on ANP treatment for about 8 months her MRI’s showed no disease. I took her off ANP treatment and within a month her cancer had returned and was quickly spreading throughout her brain. Within 9 weeks of resuming ANP treatment Crystin’s MRI showed no more visible enhancement. Crystin subsequently died a year later of radiation necrosis……the radiation that she had originally received had been to such a degree that it was lethal.

All of this was documented by the University of California in San Francisco. Their pathologist, their MRI machine and in the end, their autopsy. The article is quite accurate when it cites that Crystin’s autopsy showed no viable cancer cells anywhere in her body.

So, if one child in this study was made cancer free after being treated with ANP, and then died as a result of her previous treatments, how many others would still be alive today had they not received their initial chemo/radiation treatments?

These Phase II clinical trial results are astounding in comparison to other treatments, but it is far more likely that they would even have been better had these patient’s received ANP as their primary treatment. It’s time to start saving lives……

 

Ric Schiff

Leave a Reply