Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski, Stanislaw R. Burzynski, Stanislaw Burzynski, Stan R. Burzynski, Stan Burzynski, S. R. BURZYNSKI, S. Burzynski, Arthur Burzynski, Orac, Respectful Insolence, scienceblog. com
If “lilady” thought that I “opened” a “huge tin of Spam, months ago!,” I hope she truly enjoys the huge tin of spinach that I opened on Wikipedia:
(This “lilady” has stated her stance on “Orac’s” “Oracolytes” blog, making it clear that this “lilady” is just another one of “The SkeptiCowards,” along with “Orac,” Guy Chapman, Boris Ogon, etc.)
The list of “The SkeptiCowards,” expands exponentially
guychapman (Guy Chapman) Critiquing “The Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics (page 9):
[[WP:SOP]] “Statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales:
(Wikipedia: Doing The Right Thing)
1. Doing The Right Thing takes many forms, but perhaps most central is the preservation of our shared vision for the neutral point of view policy and for a culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty.”
Time for a huge tin can of Alabamy WhoopA$$
Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Didymus Judas Thomas
Pages in category “Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Didymus Judas Thomas”
The following 10 pages are in this category, out of 10 total. This list may not reflect recent changes (learn more).
User:166.205.55.18
User:166.205.55.23
User:166.205.55.24
User:166.205.55.30
User:166.205.55.40
User:166.205.68.19
User:166.205.68.25
User:166.205.68.43
User:166.205.68.44
User:166.205.68.49
Last modified on 25 February 2013, at 00:06
“[[WP:NPOV]] “History of NPOV:” (Content # 6). “The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered,” references.” Thank you very much. 166.205.55.30 (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/21/2013l”
#174 – SW – February 12, 2013
[...] anti-Burzynski “bloggers”
[...] These individuals are also responsible for “gate keeping” the Wikipedia Page on The Burzynski Clinic.
This issue, as well as the identities of those involved, will be covered in great length in the new 2013 “Chapter 2″ documentary.
[...] You will notice the “anti-Burzynski bloggers” refuse to do that or adhere to reputable sources.
[...]
As one of those “gate keeping” wikipedians I find this quite laughable – not only the threat of “covering” my identity, but also the suggestion that bloggers and wikipedians (there may be an overlap, but I can assure you that I’m not a blogger) refuse to check and adhere to reputable sources
#203 – novalox – February 13, 2013
Now, let’s just wait and see djt make accusations of persecution and unfairness.
Should be entertaining to see his attempts at this.
Oh, BTW, djt, if you are still reading this, I was one of the Wikipedia editors who reported you for your trolling behaviors there.
Neither of these individuals has had the testicular fortitude to bring their “A Game” and post comments or reply to questions on MY blog; which is different than “The Censoring Skeptics” blogs (Have fun with THAT):
Dr. David H. Gorski, @gorskon, @oracknows, @ScienceBasedMed,
“Ne’s like a rash over the blogs and twitter, he’s also been banned from Wikipedia which has a more robust attitude to sockpuppets and block evasion than some services.”
“The U.S. v. Article’~ court stated that the FDA’s responsibility was to protect the ultimate consumer, which included protection of “the ignorant, the unthinking and the credulous.”‘
“the ignorant
the unthinking and
the credulous.”‘
SW and novalox, which are you?
Boris Ogon
“You are right now having a live “debate” in front of more than 10,000 people, and nothing you have presented suggests that you would be more coherent in person.”
4,089 views
Not so much
Waiting for the 10,000
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech“
12/26/2012 I requested that Wikipedia add the below Houston’s KPRC News article re Lola A. Quinlan, to the Burzynski Clinic Wikipedia article, considering that they had previously posted there:
“In January 2012, Lola Quinlan, an elderly, stage IV cancer patient, sued Dr Burzynski…”
“Please add re WP:NPOV that Burzynski’s attorney, Richard Jaffe has disputed Lola Quinlan’s claims:
“On February 1, 2012, Dr. Burzynski’s attorney, Richard Jaffe, disputed Lola Quinlan’s allegations on Houston’s KPRC News.”
“:So? [OR] Disputing it in the media probably means he doesn’t have a case. [/OR] In any case, a lawyer disputing the allegations against his client is not even news.” — Arthur Rubin 15:24, 26 December 2012
I had the impression that Arthur Rubin had not even bothered to read the article in question, and replied:
“::Arthur Rubin, I’m not sure what relevance your above post has re WP:NPOV since the article includes statements from attorneys representing both sides.”. 17:51, 27 December 2012 Didymus Judas Thomas 12/27/2012
Arthur Rubin’s, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ response?
SILENCE
Well, you know the saying:
Silence IS Golden
(Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View)
WP:NPOV clearly indicates: “Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing FAIRLY, PROPORTIONATELY, and as far as possible WITHOUT BIAS, ALL significant views that have been published by reliable sources.”
Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?
“ALL Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content MUST be written from a neutral point of view.”
Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?
“NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects.”
Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?
“This policy is NONNEGOTIABLE and ALL editors and articles MUST follow it.”
Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?
“The principles upon which this policy is based CANNOT be superseded by OTHER POLICIES or GUIDELINES, or by editors’ consensus.”
Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?
(Words CAPITALIZED for emphasis only.).
“1 Explanation of the neutral point of view.”
“This page in a nutshell:”
“Articles mustn’t take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias.”
Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?
“This applies to both what you say and how you say it.”
Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?
“Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another.”
Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?
“As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all notable and verifiable points of view.”.
Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?
[[WP:NPOV]] “History of NPOV:” (Content # 6). “The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered.”
(Wikipedia: Simplified Ruleset)
[[WP:SR]] “Wikipedia does not have its own views, or determine what is “correct.”
Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?
“Instead, editors try to summarize what good sources have said about ideas and information.”
Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?
“Differing views are presented objectively and without bias as they are reported in reliable sources—sources that have a reputation for being accurate.”
Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?
“Good sources are the base of the encyclopedia, and anyone must be able to realistically check whether contributions can be backed up by one.”.
Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?
[[WP:NPOVFAQ]]
(Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View Frequently Asked Questions)
Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?
Is Wikipedia’s Burzynski BIAS showing?
YOU decide, because in my opinion it IS, since this piece of “Yellow Journalism” is referenced in the Burzynski Clinic Wikipedia article:
2010 film, Burzynski – Cancer is Serious Business
“Prior to the debut of “Burzynski”, Houston Press correspondent Craig Malisow mocked the film’s lack of objectivity, characterizing it as “a puff-piece paean that cherrypicks facts and ignores any criticism”, and criticized the project for presenting only Burzynski’s side of the story.” [60]
60^ Malisow, Craig (2010-06-02). “Stanlislaw Burzynski: New Movie Proves He’s A Cancer-Fighting Giant – Houston News – Hair Balls”. Blogs.houstonpress.com. Retrieved 2011-11-25.
Jun 2, 2010 – Houston’s Stanislaw Burzynski, who sells a so-called cancer …
(Hair Balls hasn’t seen the movie, but nowhere in the … )
So, in a nutshell, Wikipedia will reference “Yellow Journalism” by a “Hack” who posts an article about a movie he has NOT even seen, but will NOT reference a news article which is posted on Lola A. Quinlan’s attorney’s web-site, which contains comments from her attorney, as well as Dr. Stanislaw R. Burzynski’s attorney
Wikipedia, your BIAS is showing
“The U.S. v. Article’~ court stated that the FDA’s responsibility was to protect the ultimate consumer, which included protection of “the ignorant, the unthinking and the credulous.”‘
“the ignorant
the unthinking and
the credulous.”‘
Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’, which are you?
Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Parel, Mumbai, India
PDF pg. 5 of 9
PHARMACOLOGIC AND BIOLOGIC TREATMENTS
BURZYNSKI
Burzynski (49), a biochemist, discovered that peptides and hormones including butyric acid and phenylbutyrate when added to cancer cells results in their differentiation, converting them into normal cells again
Clinical trials have, however, failed to accrue patients to test this exciting concept
In the solitary phase II study, Antineoplastons [consisting of antineoplaston A10 (A10I) and AS2-1 injections] were given intravenously in escalating doses
The overall survival at 2 and 5 years was 39 and 22%, respectively, and maximum survival was more than 17 years for a patient with anaplastic astrocytoma and more than 5 years for a patient with glioblastoma
Progression-free survival at 6 months was 39%
Complete response was achieved in 11%, partial response in 11%, stable disease in 39% and progressive disease in 39% of patients (50)
PDF pg. 9 of 9
References
49. Burzynski SR
The Present Stage of Antineoplaston Research
Integr Cancer Ther 2004;3:47–58
50. Burzynski SR, Janicki TJ, Weaver RA, Burzynski B
Targeted therapy with antineoplastons A10 and AS2–1 of high-grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem glioma
“a strong consensus not to add it, with plenty of reasoned argument in support.”
“The article presents the well-sourced consensus view of the scientific/medical communities already.”
“We shouldn’t be undermining that with poorer-quality sources.”
“(1/15/2013) AND “The article gives the consensus view of the professional community, as represented by the American Cancer Society and Cancer Research UK.”
“In relation, other one-off articles are “poorer-sources”, and we must not use them to undermine the clearly presented consensus.”
[[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] [[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Alexbrn|contribs]]|[[User:Alexbrn#Conflict_of_interest_declaration|COI]] 10:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
(Alexbrn; who is a Journeyman Editor with over 2,000 edits, has been on WP over 5 1/2 years, is a native speaker of English, and has a Doctor of Philosophy degree in English)
Let’s “FACT-CHECK” Alexbrn, shall we?
(Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View)
(1/16/2013). WP:NPOV clearly indicates:
“Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing FAIRLY, PROPORTIONATELY, and as far as possible WITHOUT BIAS, ALL significant views that have been published by reliable sources.
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
ALL Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content MUST be written from a neutral point of view.
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects.
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
This policy is NONNEGOTIABLE and ALL editors and articles MUST follow it.”
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
“The principles upon which this policy is based CANNOT be superseded by OTHER POLICIES or GUIDELINES, or by editors’ consensus.”
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
(Words CAPITALIZED for emphasis only.).
“1 Explanation of the neutral point of view.”
“This page in a nutshell:”
“Articles mustn’t take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias.”
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
“This applies to both what you say and how you say it.”
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
“Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another.”
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
“As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all notable and verifiable points of view.”
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
[[WP:NPOV]] “History of NPOV:” (Content # 6). “The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered,” references.” Thank you very much. 166.205.55.30 (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/21/2013l
[[WP:SR]] “Wikipedia does not have its own views, or determine what is “correct“.
(Wikipedia: Simplified Ruleset)
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
Instead, editors try to summarize what good sources have said about ideas and information.
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
Differing views are presented objectively and without bias as they are reported in reliable sources—sources that have a reputation for being accurate.
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
Good sources are the base of the encyclopedia, and anyone must be able to realistically check whether contributions can be backed up by one.”
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs, if you do NOT think (?) that the Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology is a reliable source—source that has a reputation for being accurate and / or “Good source”, then remove ALL [[WP:MEDRS]] references to it
[[WP:NPOVFAQ]] “Balancing different views/Pseudoscience:
(Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View Frequently Asked Questions)
Balancing different views
If we’re going to represent the sum total of encyclopedic knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false.
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
The task before us is not to describe disputes as though pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority
(sometimes pseudoscientific)
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
view as the minority view, and to explain how scientists have received or criticized pseudoscientific theories.
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.”
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
“3. Why is it that on the Wikipedia “Brainstem Glioma” Prognosis page it has “needs citations,” when I can do an Internet search and find reliable independent sources for that information?”
“The U.S. v. Article’~ court stated that the FDA’s responsibility was to protect the ultimate consumer, which included protection of “the ignorant, the unthinking and the credulous.”‘
“the ignorant
the unthinking and
the credulous.”‘
Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs, which are you?
JzG does NOT seem to comprehend that the reason something is titled as a “FACT,” is because it is NOT misleading
JzG does NOT seem to understand that indicating that a “FACT” is misleading, is oxymoronic
It is a “FACT” that:
“Trial results are not always publicly available, even after a clinical trial ends”
(Source: U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health)
An individual with the same initials (JzG also known as JzG|Guy) is one of the “gatekeepers” of the “Burzynski Clinic” Wikipedia page, as I documented HERE:
guychapman (Guy Chapman) Critiquing “The Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics (page 9)
redd.it/1dpsj6
(Guy Chapman, @SceptiGuy, @vGuyUK, guychapman)
Wikipedia’s “Neutral” policy history clearly indicates:
“The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered, …”
[[WP:NPOV]] “History of NPOV:” (Content # 6, Note 3)
(Wikipedia: Neutral Point Of View)
This is also a “factoid,” and the JzG|Guy “gatekeeper” on Wikipedia gave it the same amount of respect JzG gives the U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health
Which leads one to wonder if they are twins, considering that one had the testicular fortitude to post a comment, and the other is a coward and trumpets U.K. views
One JzG|Guy commented on Wikipedia:
> “We are told that 2013 will be a big year, but apparently his plan is to
> release another bullshit movie not to publish useful research.” JzG|Guy
> User:JzG/help|Help! 21:52, 24 December 2013
> See
and:
>
> “There is unlikely to be any dispassionate debate over ANPs while Burzynski
> continues with his unethical practices.” JzG|Guy User:JzG/help|Help!
> 12:43, 26 December 2012
>
> Continues with his unethical practices.? Yet TMB/SOAH had their
> case dismissed? Is WP judge, jury, & executioner?
> See
I could really care less what JzG|Guy’s “opinion” is, since:
Wikipedia’s “Neutral” policy history clearly indicates:
“The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered, …”
[[WP:NPOV]] “History of NPOV:” (Content # 6, Note 3)
(Wikipedia: Neutral Point Of View)
As the old military saying goes:
If I wanted your opinion … (Wikipedia) … I’d beat it out of you
In this blog post reply, Wikipedia shill “JzG” presents a single myopic misleading meme for a number of reasons in respect of Stanislaw Burzynski
JzG posits:
“Most obvious of these is that of the 61 trials registered by Burzynski over nearly two decades, only one has even been completed.”
WHAT “completed” trial is JzG referring to?
Good question, since I have yet to find one of “The Skeptics” who could adequately describe what Protocol, start date, and completion date apply to this “one” trial they keep mentioning
Antineoplaston Therapy in Treating Patients With Stage IV Melanoma
Phase II
Status: COMPLETED
Age: 18 and over
Protocol IDs: CDR0000066552, BC-ME-2, NCT00003509
Antineoplaston Therapy in Treating Patients With Stage IV Melanomau
Melanoma (Skin)
Drug: antineoplaston A10
Drug: antineoplaston AS2-1
Phase II / Phase 2
COMPLETED
Age 18 and over
Protocol IDs
CDR0000066552
BC-ME-2, NCT00003509
“Then there’s the fact that unpublished trials are not generally acceptable when applying for approval for a drug, or when promoting the drug (in this case it’s hardly relevant as he appears to have no intention of applying for approval; the trials seem to be used as an end-run around restrictions on his use of unapproved drugs).”
JzG ignores:
Burzynski: What happens when a clinical trial is over?:
National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Cancer Clinical Trials
15. What happens when a clinical trial is over?
“The results of clinical trials are OFTEN published in peer-reviewed scientific journals”
” … WHETHER OR NOT the results are published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal … “
The Declaration of Helsinki does NOT indicate WHEN final (completed) results of human clinical trials MUST be published
Burzynski: The FDA’s Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective:
redd.it/1e6gvj Nowhere does it indicate that final (completed) human clinical trial results MUST be published in a peer-reviewed scientific medical journal
“Why does the medical and scientific community not accept Burzynski’s claims to cure cancer? Because he has failed to publish credible evidence. The few papers he has published are neither compelling nor generally useful in evaluating his claims.”
JzG where is / are YOUR in-depth review(s) of the 2003-2007 phase II clinical trials preliminary reports?
If there is one aspect of cowards like “Orac” and “The Skeptic” Critic “Oracolytes” that is noteworthy, it’s “cowardice”
True, such a tendency is a human trait, but it’s one that seems to be cranked up to 11 in “Orac” and “The Skeptic” Critic “Oracolytes”
We’ve seen it time and time again
Most often, it takes the form of some sort of Twitter and / or blahg or blog bullying, such as when “The Skeptics” bit off more than they could chew by censoring (deleting and /or blocking) comments on:
onforb.es/11pwse9 Forbes (#Forbes)
“A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics”
Fortunately, they were ignominiously Faux Skeptic Revealed!, and had to retreat like the scum that they are
(in my not-so-humble opinion)
Over and over and over and over again, the story is the same
A “Skeptic” Critic aims the light of reason into a crevice of unreason and pseudo-nonsense, the target of that light doesn’t like it and, instead of slithering back under the rock from which he came, decides to try to abuse the social media system to get back at “The Skeptics” Critics
In “The Skeptics” universe, thuggery is a feature, not a bug, of wankery and tu-quoc quoankery
1/28/2013, “Orac” linked to and embedded a mischaracterized “excellent” YouTube video by C0nc0rdance
“Go to my link right now and try to play the video.”
“What do you see?”
“This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Merola Productions, LLC.”
“Yes, apparently Eric Merola has issued a DMCA takedown notice against C0nc0rdance, and Google, as it so often cravenly does, simply complied.”
“At least, that’s what C0nc0rdance has stated, and I have no reason not to believe him.”
Forbes
“A well-known “vlogger” who goes by the handle “C0nc0rdance” reports receiving a DMCA take-down notice from Eric Merola after posting a video critical of Burzynski.”
“According to C0nc0rdance:
He objected to my “Fair Use” of a small low-res image of his movie poster.”
Burzynski, The Movie shared a link. about an hour ago
“Wow, and people say the “Skeptics” (aka Astroturf campaign) aren’t powerful and with the system behind them.”
“This is what happens when I take down a YouTube video making false claims against my film and Burzynski as well as illegally using copyrighted images of me without permission within (not to mention publishing my personal emails in which I received countless profanity filled threats also in their YouTube post, and they claim “we” threaten – this is the system fighting back, hard):
“Orac” proceeds:
“In fact, C0nc0rdance posted a brief video explaining what was going on, but if you go to that link you will rapidly find this notice:”
“This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube’s policy against spam, scams, and commercially deceptive content.”
“Gee, I wonder who complained to YouTube about that video so rapidly, given that it hadn’t been up more than a day or so before it was taken down?”
“Could it be…Eric Merola?”
“That would be my first guess, of course.”
If there’s one thing “Orac” is practiced at, it’s “ASSuming;” just like his “Oracolytes:”. lilady, Guy Chapman, frozenwarning, Dr. Paul Morgan, and his “pal,” Dr. Peter A. (“bud”) Lipson
“Orac” states:
“Already, C0nc0rdance’s video about the Burzynski Clinic has been mirrored here, here, and here.”
“I’ll embed one of these mirrored versions of the video for your viewing pleasure.”
“Orac,” ONLY one ?
“It’s really worth taking a look at because it explains the essence of skeptical objections to Burzynski concisely and clearly, so that everyone can understand:”
A “FACT-CHALLENGED” video
“Orac” postulates
“No doubt Mr. Merola will take the mirroring of C0nc0rdance’s video as “evidence” of some sort of grand conspiracy by “The Skeptics,” given that he has repeated claims about such grand conspiracies at both of his Q&As after screenings of his new movie.”
“Orac” knows all about “conspiracy,” so much so that his cowardice has been revealed for all to see, HERE:
“Orac” and the “Oracolytes” Cult of Misinformation:
“Orac” continues, blissfully unaware in his “alternate universe”
“Mr. Merola, assuming he really was the one issuing this DMCA takedown notice, should Google the “Streisand effect.”"
“Orac” is so self-engorged that he does NOT even comprehend, that after the preceding, he and “The Skeptic” “Oracolytes” initiated a reverse Barbara Streisand Effect
“It really is applicable here.”
“Orac” blathers on:
“There’s no grand conspiracy.”
“Orac” IS a denialist
“There never has been, as getting skeptics—excuse me, “The Skeptics”—to paddle in the same direction on anything is much like the proverbial herding of cats.”
“Orac” is oblivious to the “fact” that it’s notably referred to as “lemmings in Sheeple’s clothing”
“Orac” rants on
“Mirroring like this and more people writing about the criticisms that Merola has tried to suppress is just what happens on the Internet, in particular on social media, whenever a person being criticized tries to use legal thuggery to silence or eliminate that criticism.”
“The examples are legion and include the ones I briefly mentioned at the beginning of this post.”
“There are more, of course.”
“Many more.”
“Orac” just described what Forbes, Wikipedia, and “The Skeptic” “Oracolytes” are experiencing
“In an case, although I’m not a lawyer there was nothing in C0nc0rdance’s video that I could see that was anything more than obvious fair use.”
“Orac” would most likely NOT ever be even close to being a lawyer, since lawyers are bound by ethical rules, and “ethics” is NOT one of “Orac’s” strong suits
“Early in the video there was a scene showing a shot that included a low resolution shot of the poster for Eric Merola’s Burzynski propaganda movie.”
“Later, there was another shot with that poster, and some random images associated with Merola’s filmmaking business as well as a photo of what looked like him.”
“Quite honestly, if I were C0nc0rdance, I’d just re-edit the video to remove the Burzynski Movie poster and any images of Merola, replacing them with either cartoons or a blank screen with a notice that the images had to be removed because Merola had issued a highly dubious DMCA takedown notice.”
“Let me also say this.”
“I know that Eric Merola obsessively reads pretty much everything I write about Burzynski; so I know he’ll see this.”
And here is where “Orac” truly showcases his ASSumption abilities:
“I also know that … Didymus Judas Thomas”
“(whose identity I’m probably about 75% sure of and whose Twitter handles mutate as fast as the genome of cancer cells)”
(“Orac,” considering your past track record of NOT being anywhere near 75% correct about alot of things re this subject-matter, I can NOT wait to learn what your “75% sure” ASSumption is)
“Orac” proceeds down the wide and straight aisle of ASSumption:
“also obsessively read anything posted about Eric Merola or Stanislaw Burzynski on any social media.”
If “Orac” was anywhere close to being 75% sure, I would have already reviewed “Doubtful News,” which received “free pub” on Forbes
“Finally, I believe that people like Eric Merola are hypocrites, feeling free to paint “The Skeptics” as “white supremacists” and puppy-eating evildoers to their heart’s content”
“Orac” truly should take time to check his “Mirror”
Maybe he should “Mirror” his “Mirror”
“(from what I’ve heard about Merola’s second Burzynski movie, in it skeptics are all but portrayed as Satan Incarnate)”
“Orac,” Satan was exceedingly beautiful, so there is NO way “The Skeptics” can be “Satan Incarnate”
“Orac,” I understand that a lot of “The Skeptics” claim their official religion as Atheism, so I can understand why “The Skeptics” would NOT be up on “Satan for The Skeptic Dummies”
“Orac’s” diatribe continues:
“but running like whipped puppies to the DMCA when either they or Burzynski are criticized, no matter how civil, reasonable, or science-based that criticism is”
“(and C0nc0rdance’s video was all of the above).”
“Orac” referring to the YouTube video by C0nc0rdance as “reasonable, or science-based” shows “Orac” for what he is
“Orac” the “ASSumptor”
The reason is, of course, clear.
Same as it ever was.
“Orac’s” tirade marches on
“One more thing:”
“Orac,” we know that where you are considered, it’s never just:
“One more thing:”
“If Eric Merola, Stanislaw Burzynski, and his crew of sycophants, toadies, and lackeys are offended by my opinion, my characterization of them that I have based on analyses of Burzynski’s claims and observation of the behavior of Burzynski and his propagandist Eric Merola, they should try something different to shut me up.”
“Orac,” I already know how to shut you up
All anyone has to do is mention my Post #73 on your blog, and that shuts you right up, because you have NO reponse for THAT
“Orac” reminds me of his “Oracolyte,” Guy Chapman (guychapman on Forbes, @SceptiGuy, @vGuyUK), who thought that because his BIASED 18 “Fact-Challenged” verbose comments were posted on Forbes, that that translates into his non-citation(s), non-reference(s), and / or non-link(s), being “credible”
I have just the thing, too.
It’s called “FACTS”
“Orac” rattles off
“Publishing the results of some of Burzynski’s allegedly completed phase II trials for the scientific community comes to mind first.”
“If Burzynski really has the goods, as Merola and company claim, then he can best shut up critics by bringing the science—solid, convincing science, that is.”
“I’ve said it before many times, and I’ll say it again:”
“I can be convinced by strong preclinical and clinical evidence.”
“I have yet to see anything resembling strong evidence from Burzynski.”
“Orac” is a coward, and has yet to publish a thorough review of Burzynski’s 2003-2007 phase II clinical trial preliminary reports
“Orac” rattles on
“At least, if he has such evidence he hasn’t published it yet, preferring to publish a mixture of case reports, tiny case series, unimpressive basic science, and the like in bottom-feeding journals, some of which aren’t even indexed in PubMed.”
“Orac” is unable to provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) that give any cloak of credibility to his above blogsplat comment
“Orac, thankfully, is running out of steam:
“A conspiracy among editors of journals is not the reason, contrary to the claims in the second Burzynski movie.”
“Nor is a conspiracy of skeptics—excuse me, “The Skeptics”—the reason why trying to suppress criticism will boomerang on Merola.”
“It’s all because of Burzynski’s own behavior and Merola’s willingness to distort, misinform, and slime Burzynski critics.”
“Orac,” like the “spiritual” leader of “The Skeptics,” ends his sermon with:
“Spread the word”
But this blogpost would NOT be complete without including the ravings of one
Marc Stephens Is Insane in the Membrane:
#55 – Marc Stephens Is Insane – April 24, 2013
“I realized I posted these comments in the wrong Count Stan thread.”
“I haven’t paid any attention to the lunatic rantings of DJT for weeks, but Guy Chapman just updated the list of his sockpuppet Twitter spam accounts”
“(he’s on his 10th account)”
(try again, MSII)
“so I checked out his latest incarnation.”
“He’s now been reduced to writing poems and limericks about the Forbes article and his “free speech” being censored by Dr. Peter Lipson.”
“From what I can glean from his incoherent babble, he posted a comment on the Forbes article that purported to have uncovered some conspiracy that Dr. Lipson and Orac are friends”
“(or “buds”)”
“and that prompted Dr. Lipson to delete the comment.”
“As far as I know, the authors of Forbes articles doen’t even have the power to delete comments, so maybe Forbes smelled the crazy and deleted the comment themselves.”
“It’s not quite along the same lines as Alex Jones’s conspiracy rantings about the Boston bombings, false flag attacks and “The Craft” but loony tunes nonetheless.”
“Since DJT has already proven to be a 9/11 truther, he probably also believes that Navy Seals planted the Boston bombs with the cooperation of the FBI and the two brothers were just “patsies” who were set up and/or framed.”
M.S.I.I. is a Master Specialist In Inaccuracies
#56 – Orac – April 24, 2013
“Well, actually Peter and I are buds.”
“There’s no secret about that..”
(“Orac” fails to mention that his “bud,” Dr. Peter A. Lipson (@palMD) did NOT disclose his relationship with Dr. David H. Gorski (“Orac,” @oracknows, @gorskon, @ScienceBasedMed, #sciencebasedmedicine, http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence, http://www.sciencebasedmedicine. org)
Yet, some of “The Skeptics” rant that Eric Merola did NOT disclose a relatives’ relationship with Burzynski
Boris Ogon
“You are right now having a live “debate” in front of more than 10,000 people, … “
3,934 views
Not so much
Waiting for the 10,000
Peter Lipson, Contributor
Musings on the intersection of science, medicine, and culture
4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Musings on the intersection of Articles, Bias, and Censorship
(The Big 3: A.B.C.)
4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM
A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics
Allen Jones 1 day ago
“Interesting article.”
“Since there are two competing sides here I decided to do a bit of research on Burzynski and his treatment.”
“Success seems to be defined in terms of anecdotes only.”
“And after a continued search there seems to be just as many anecdotes of failures for this treatment.”
“Reading the website “the other Burzynski patient group” that outline all the heart wrenching failures of this treatment was difficult.”
“My conclusion is that this Burzynski is a quack of the lowest level.”
“Shameful!!!”
Allen Jones, I really can NOT adequately express how convincing your “alleged” “bit of research” sounds
Shameful!!!”???
claire G 1 day ago
@Guy Chapman,
(claire G, I really can NOT adequately express how convincing your use of @Guy Chapman is, considering as how “Guy Chapman” has gone by “guychapman” in all 18 of his “erudite” posts)
“It seems to me that actually the FDA are being very fair to Burzynski.”
claire G, please expand on how THIS is “the FDA” “being very fair to Burzynski.”
“Despite the massive problems with hsi institutional review board, and his abject failure to publish results, they continued to allow him to register new trials.”
claire G, please expand on:
“they continued to allow him to register new trials.”
Exactly WHEN did “they continued to allow him to register new trials” “[d]espite the massive problems with hsi institutional review board”?
Please advise WHERE
“his abject failure to publish results”
was a condition for him “to register new trials.”
“I can’t think of anyone else in that position”.”
“You are so right.”
claire G, “you are so right”
“I can’t think of anyone else in that position”.
Exactly HOW are you going to answer THOSE questions?
“That cracking sound you hear is the FDA bending over backwards to accommodate Burzynski!”
claire G, please explain exactly HOW was the FDA requiring radiation in the phase 3 clinical trial, bending over backwards to accommodate Burzynski!”
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended 5/31/2010:
1/13/2009 Company announced Company had reached an agreement with FDA for Company to move forward with pivotal Phase III clinical trial of combination Antineoplaston therapy plus radiation therapy in patients with newly diagnosed, diffuse, intrinsic brainstem gliomas (DBSG)
Agreement was made under FDA’s Special Protocol Assessment procedure, meaning design and planned analysis of Phase III study is acceptable to support regulatory submission seeking new drug approval
2/1/2010 Company entered into agreement with Cycle Solutions, Inc., dba ResearchPoint to initiate and manage pivotal Phase III clinical trial of combination Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 plus radiation therapy (RT) in patients with newly-diagnosed, diffuse, intrinsic brainstem glioma
ResearchPoint is currently conducting feasibility assessment
ResearchPoint has secured interest and commitment from number of sites selected
Upon completion of assessment, randomized, international phase III study will commence”
Study’s objective is to compare overall survival of children with newly-diagnosed DBSG who receive combination Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 plus RT versus RT alone
” … only obstacles now are $300 million $s needed to pay for final phase of clinical testing-and FDA requiring children with inoperable brainstem glioma to also undergo radiation
treatment in Phase 3 trials, claiming it would be “unethical” not to do so”
“For all the whining and complaining by Burzynski fans that he’s been so hounded and mistreated by the FDA,”
Only the rich, powerful, and the affluent who are “in the know” can get it now (no longer in the USA).”
“Ha!”
“So what you mean then is that nothing has really changed?”
claire G, are you indicating that antineoplastons were NOT available in the USA?
“It was always only either the very wealthy or those who could scrap together the $200,00.00 from donations who could afford antineoplastons.”
claire G, are you indicating that EVERY antineoplaston patient has had to “SCRAP together the $200,00.00″?
“By not publishing his research so that it could be peer reviewed and approved by the FDA Burzynski assured that antineoplastons would not be covered by insurance.”
claire G, please provide your citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) which support your:
“By not publishing his research so that it could be peer reviewed and approved by the FDA
Burzynski: What happens when a clinical trial is over?:
“The FDA’s Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective”
“[T]he emphasis in Phase 2 is on EFFECTIVENESS”
“This phase aims to obtain PRELIMINARY DATA on whether the drug works in people who have a certain disease or condition”
“Phase 3 studies begin if EVIDENCE of EFFECTIVENESS is shown in Phase 2″
“These studies gather more information about safety and EFFECTIVENESS, studying different populations and different dosages and using the drug in combination with other drugs”
The Declaration of Helsinki doesn’t indicate WHEN results MUST be published
“If you were sitting on this effective cure for cancers that affect children especially, wouldn’t you want to do whatever it took to make it available to anyone who needed it?”
claire G, ask the FDA
“Isn’t that what an ethical, caring, humanitarian would do?”
claire G, I refer you to the above
Boris Ogon
“You are right now having a live “debate” in front of more than 10,000 people, … “
Peter Lipson, Contributor
Musings on the intersection of science, medicine, and culture
3,932 views
Not so much
Waiting for the 10,000
Peter Lipson, Contributor
Musings on the intersection of science, medicine, and culture
4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Musings on the intersection of Articles, Bias, and Censorship
(The Big 3: A.B.C.)
4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM
A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics
randy hinton 5 days ago
Hey Petey!
“I am ready to sit on a stage with Eric in front of a large crowd and debate this matter with you ANYTIME YOUR READY.”
Petey!, responds:
guychapman 5 days ago
(citing randy hinton 5 days ago)
“WHY DID 230 CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL’S TURN DOWN BURZYNSKI’S PHASE 3 BRAINSTEM GLIOMA TRIAL???”
“The answer is in your own post.”
“They were not convinced the treatment was likely to provide benefit, so why on earth would they subject children to the side effects, infection risk and other known problems with ANP treatment?”
“Unlike Burzynski, they seem to have followed the dictates of the Helsinki declaration.”
guychapman, HOW has Burzynski NOT “followed the dictates of the Helsinki declaration.”?
YOU remind me of this randy hinton comment:
“The hospital’s don’t seem to want to discuss this matter publically.”
And neither do YOU
Sharon Hill 5 days ago
“I am thrilled with this piece.”
“My website, Doubtful News, was also a target of the Burzynski PR machine when they tried to shut down critique and questioning.”
Sharon Hill, I’m “doubtful” your website was worth the trouble
But look on the bright side
You just got free “Pub” in a BIASED CENSORING publication
It’ll be something you can tell the grandkids about
“Very pleased that this part of the story is getting out.”
“The bottom line is, there would be no problems if the clinic just met the same standards expected from all clinics – you follow the federal and state rules and you have evidence to back up your claims.”
“The fact that they have to retaliate the way they do is GOOD evidence they have nothing better to show.”
Sharon Hill, and I see that:
“The fact that you have to retaliate the way you do is GOOD evidence you have nothing better to show.”
As in, NO “citation(s),” NO “reference(s),” and / or NO “link(s)” that support your claims
ovalwooki 5 days ago
“Mr. Burzynski is a fraud, a thief, and a scoundrel.”
ovalwooki, so, like YOU ?
“When people are at their lowest, facing death for themselves or a Loved one, he holds out a lie disguised as hope, takes every dime from them that he can, and in some cases even threatens with lawsuits the very people he’s just ripped off.”
ovalwooki, and we should just take your word for it, because, WHY?
“He threatens innocent people who call him out on his horrible record of successful ” cures “ .”
ovalwooki, WHAT is:
“his horrible record of successful ” cures“ ?
“As far as I know, he’s cured no one, ever, and there is no validity to him or his methods, at all.”
ovalwooki, exactly WHAT does:
“As far as I know”
MEAN ?
“He clearly defines what is most flawed with our system of healthcare, here in America.”
ovalwooki, “clearly defines what is most flawed with our system of” yellow journalism, here in America
randy hinton 5 days ago
“In the 1950’s, Congressman Charles Tobey enlisted Benedict Fitzgerald, an investigator for the Interstate Commerce Commission, to investigate allegations of conspiracy* and monopolistic practices on the part of orthodox medicine.”
“This came about as the result of the son of Senator Tobey who developed cancer and was given less than two years to live by orthodox medicine.”
“That is when he learned of alleged conspiratorial practices on the part of orthodox medicine.”
“The final report clearly indicated there was indeed a conspiracy to monopolize the medical and drug industry and to eliminate alternative options.”
guychapman 3 days ago
“That was 60 years ago.”
“And it was not adopted as generally plausible even then.”
guychapman, so, what has changed since then, because there are definitely still dissimulators like YOU?
“By peerless I mean risible, of course.”
guychapman, so, like your comments, right?
JGC2013 4 days ago
“It seems to me there are nly too possibilities here:”
JGC2013, “nly” ?
“1) Antineoplastons don’t work and after two decades and 60-plus uncompleted and unplublished ‘clinical trials’ Burzinsky is fully aware that there is no evidence antineoplastons showing they are effective at treating advanced cancers, but despite this continues to charge patients to receive antineoplaston treatment for financial gain.”
JGC2013, THAT certainly explains THIS:
Burzynski – The Antineoplaston Randomized Japan Phase II Clinical Trial Study:
“Or 2) antineoplastons DO work, and Burzinsky does have clinical evidence demonstrating efficacybut rather than publish the results of trials (allowing independent oncologists can first confirm and then adopt antineoplatosn therapy) he’s chosen not to publish in order to maintain a lucrative monopoly on antineoplaston herapy, offering it only to the small subset of cancer patients who afford to pay exorbitant fees to be treated at his clinic and effectively denying millions of other cancer patients access to a cure for their cancer.”
“I personally can’t envision any third posibility. Can anyone else?”
JGC2013,
3). Citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s)
guychapman 4 days ago
By a curious coincidence, several senior figures in the pharmaceutical industry today gave evidence to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee on the specific issue of publication before and after the event for clinical trials and data, and discuss the obligations of those conducting trials. http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=13017 (from approx. 18:44 for the directly relevant content)
guychapman, thank you for keeping us appraised of what’s going in the United Kingdom, home to Kings, Queens, Dukes, Dutchesses, Earls, Counts, Countesses, Knights, Dragons, Wizards, etc., and that fairyland you’re living in
"Figures as low as 70-odd percent and as high as 90+ percent."
guychapman, just in case you have NOT noticed, Burzynski is in the United States of America
“Nobody citing zero percent as being acceptable or desirable, oddly.”
guychapman, YOU have “zero percent” acceptability or desirability, oddly.
AstroturfWatch 4 days ago
“Hey Peter Lipson, while you were at the Cleveland Clinic, did you speak to Dr. Bruce Cohen, the director of Neuro-oncology?”
“Because he is in “Burzynski Part 1″ and was Paul Michaels neuro-oncologist and watch Paul’s brain tumor “disappear” (after previously telling Paul’s parents “this is the worst case we’ve ever seen”.”
“Dr. Cohen is in the “trailer #2″ from Burzynski, Part 1 also.”
“I think Bruce is still there, perhaps you need to give old Bruce Cohen a call “
Bruce H. Cohen, MD Bio – The United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation
Dr. Cohen joined Cleveland Clinic’s department of Neurology, in Cleveland, Ohio , in 1989
guychapman 3 days ago
“You don’t get it do you?”
“Science does not work by assuming that single voices in the wilderness somehow counter the consensus view.”
“The consensus of informed opinion is that Burzynski’s treatment is unproven and not terribly likely to become proven, not least because his science appears incompetent.”
guychapman, are you indicating that Dr. Cohen is NOT competent, and misdiagnosed his patient?
Boris Ogon
“You are right now having a live “debate” in front of more than 10,000 people, … “
3,932 views
Not so much
Waiting for the 10,000
| 4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
“
