“Child’s Nervous System” – submitted by the Burzynski Research Institude

We are pleased to announce that Springer Publishing Company has presented a new article “on line” as an early version accepted by the peer-reviewed journal, “Child’s Nervous System.”  The printed version of the article will be available soon.  Please find this important article below and on the home page under ANP Publications.


This article presents a study which included 40 patients diagnosed with different types of Brainstem Gliomas.  The study focuses on one of the most challenging brain tumors in terms of treatment; recurrent pediatric diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas (RPDIPG).

The results of this study depict a high level of efficacy along with a more than acceptable tolerance of ANP.




  1. I read through this and am confused. What happened to the rest of the patients? 40 were enrolled but less than half are discussed. Are the rest alive? Dead? I’ve never seen a Phase II study that just fails to account for so many patients.

    • Hello Alex!

      The very first section of this article “Background”, explains that these 17 patients are grouped together as “pediatric reoccurrences” of the DIPG. That means that they all failed “standard of care” surgery, radiation and or chemotherapy and among brainstem gliomas, are the most difficult group to treat. For these patients, there was realistically no other treatment available. This group has the shortest potential survival rate, and no possibility of cure.

      What this article shows is that Antineoplaston’s were able to extend a statistically significant number of these patients lives, and in at least one case placed the individual in complete remission. All this while maintaining an incredibly high quality of life in comparison to other attempts at treatment.

      There are two more articles pending publication which will address the balance of clinical trial patients. As most persons aware of ANP already know, the group which encompasses younger patients who have not experienced any prior treatment other than ANP will show a much higher that 6% complete remission rate. All one has to do is go to http://www.burzynskipatientsgroup.org to read Tori Moreno and Jessica Ressel’s stories. They will be patients included in those subsequent articles.

      There will always be questions and controversy when analyzing cancer patients, no two cancers are ever exactly the same. Clinical researchers can only do their best to group patients appropriately. I would personally question a clinical trial where all 40 patients were assumed the same.

      Thank you for visiting our website and for your questions.
      Ric Schiff

  2. Can you confirm my reading of the data please? It looks like the only one that survived beyond the normal prognosis for their condition, had a benign tumour so was not in danger anyway. Is that right?

    • Hi John,

      I’m sorry, but neither of your readings are remotely accurate. Please refer to table (3) for a comparison of clinical trial results. None of the other comparable clinical trials had ANY patients who survived more than one year. Only one clinical trial had (9.7 % of their patients) still alive after 6 months. After the first year, 29.4 % of the ANP clinical trial participants were still alive. That is over three times more than the best six month survival rate. A significant number of ANP patients survived much longer than the normal prognosis for the RPDIPG. The “Discussion” after table (3) describes this comparison. In addition to the much longer survival rate, toxicity was very low for these patients who consequently had a much higher quality of life (comparatively).

      With respect to your assertion that the long term survivor had a benign tumor, I see no mention of benign tumor in the literature nor will you. For the diagnosis of DIPG, several specific criteria must be met. There must be at least 50% involvement of the Pons region of the brain, or a diagnosis of Astrocytoma grade 3 and or a diagnosis of glioblastoma (always stage 3). Under these conditions, the (US) standard is that the tumor is always considered malignant. Every patient in this clinical trial met the standard, so the “ benign” tumor theory holds no validity. For those of you who are interested, the standard does very by Country for a DIPG diagnosis.

      Brain tumor pathology and diagnosis is a very specialized field and often the answers are quite complex. Thank you for your questions and for your interest in our website.

      Ric Schiff


Leave a Reply