“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting ‘fire’ in a theater and causing a panic.”
United States Supreme Court ruled 3/3/1919
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)
Am I implying on blogs, Facebook, and Twitter that Burzynski is perfect ?
No
But are critics who post their thoughts on blogs, Facebook, and Twitter, without seemingly doing “Fact-Checking” before “Inserting Foot into Mouth,” any better than someone shouting “FIRE” in a crowded theater?
I propose that they are NOT
I have made it clear why I am here:
Post #152 – Didymus Judas Thomas
Post #151 – OccamsLaser – Mr. Laser
2/7/2013
Post #151 – OccamsLaser
Mr. Thomas –
“I hope it encourages you to hear that your efforts are definitely contributing to the public image of the defining characteristics of supporters of Dr. Burzynski; …”
Thank you for ignoring my above post #150!!
You just don’t “get it,” do you???
Let me quote from:
1997 – The Dividing Line Between the Role of the FDA and the Practice of Medicine:
A Historical Review and Current Analysis (Citing Burzynski)
http://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/8846812
1997 – The Criminalization of Innovation: FDA Misdirection in the Najarian and Burzynski Cases
http://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/9453691
Strong sentiments, pro and con, were expressed by jurors on both sides
The jury foreman, John Coan, favored acquittal:
He is quoted in the New York Times:
“The fact that we didn’t make a unanimous decision 1 way or another does not mean we didn’t make a decision,” Coan said
“The decision is that he is neither guilty nor innocent doesn’t mean he doesn’t need to do work within his practice, and the FDA obviously needs to pursue things as well”
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/28/an-excellent-explanation-of-how-dubious-stanislaw-burzynskis-activities-are
Post #199 – Orac – 2/13/2013
“BTW, a certain commenter has been flooding the threads over the last 12 hours
His most recent comments are all in the moderation queue, but with more than 40 over the last 12 hours I probably won’t be releasing the vast majority of them, given how repetitive and inane they are
That would be a lot of annoying and obnoxious idiocy to release in such a short period of time, and if you look further upstream in this comment thread you’ll see that there’s already plenty of that from him there
Enough’s enough. I’m more tolerant of trolls and just plain obnoxious commenters than almost any blogger you’ll come across, but this is getting ridiculous”
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/02/08/will-the-fda-finally-slap-down-stanislaw-burzynski-for-good
This is the blog where when I replied to ALL in one post, they would complain
So when I let them be for 3 days and then returned and started replying to them individually, Orac complains
Catch-22
This, by the individual who claimed the below study supported his position, but when I requested that he respond to Burzynski’s comments re the study, he would NOT touch it with the proverbial “10-Foot Pole”
Post #73 – Didymus Judas Thomas
At the Tu-Quack Center Oracles of Deny to Respond tree
1/30/2013
Post #52 – Orac
“You do realize that that means that the Mayo trial failed to find evidence of efficacy, just as I said, don’t you?
The default of a finding like that is that there is no evidence of efficacy, not that failure to have adequate numbers to show an effect means that there’s an effect there
If SRB wants to convince skeptics that his treatments work better than conventional therapy, let him publish the evidence in a peer-reviewed journal in a manner that it can be independently verified
Thus far, he has failed to do so.”
Orac, I thoroughly enjoyed; with a dismissive limp wrist, you posted:
“Burzynski naturally has lots of excuses for why the trial failed and tried to blame the investigators, but his complaints are not convincing.”
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/21/quoth-joe-mercola-i-love-me-some-burzynski-antineoplastons
Now, why don’t you tackle those ?’s?
1. “[T]he study tested a dosing regimen known to be ineffective.”
2. “[D]osages used in the study “were meant for the treatment of a single small lesion…”
3. “5 of the 6 evaluable patients had either multiple nodules or tumors larger than” said single small lesion.
4. “As the provider,” SRB “strongly suggested to the NCI that these patients receive a much higher dose, consistent with their greater tumor load.”
5. “[T]he study was closed when” SRB “insisted that the NCI either increase the dosage or inform the patients that the drug manufacturer believed that the treatment was unlikely to be effective at the dosages being used (letter to Dr M. Sznol, NCI, on 4/20/1995).”
6. “A review of the clinical data in the article … proves the validity of” SRB’s “position” per SRB
7. “Their study patients had extremely low plasma antineoplaston levels.”
8. SRB’s “phase 2 study dosage regimen produced plasma phenylacetylglutamine levels that are 35 times greater, phenylacetylisoglutamine levels 53 times greater, & phenylacetate levels 2 times greater than those reported…’”
9. “The clinical outcomes reported … based on their inadequate dosage schedule, differ dramatically from” SRB’s “phase 2 studies in which a higher dosage regimen was used.”
10. “They reported no tumor regression. In contrast, in 1 of” SRB’s “ongoing studies on protocol BT-9, 4 of 8 evaluable patients with astrocytoma had objective responses.’”
11. “The difference in outcomes is primarily due to the difference in dosage schedules,” per SRB
12. “Another factor that may have caused a lack of response in the study by … is that the duration of treatment was too brief.”
13. “Almost all the patients in their study received treatment for less than 30 days.”
14. “1 patient received only 9 days of treatment.”
15. “The current studies indicate that objective tumor responses are usually observed after 3 months of therapy.”
16. “An additional 8 months of treatment is usually needed to obtain a maximal therapeutic effect.”
17. “[A]mbiguities in the response evaluation & analysis in the article…”
a) “In 2 patients, tumor necrosis was attributed to “radionecrosis.””
b) “However, such an interpretation is clouded by the fact that antineoplaston-induced necrosis can be indistinguishable from radionecrosis.”
c) “Moreover, the analysis … could have highlighted the 2 patients with recurrent glioblastoma who survived for more than I year.”
d) “This is of interest because these patients typically have a life expectancy of 3 to 6 months.”
18. “It is regrettable that, at the time of the study … the sponsor, NCI, decided against the higher dosing regimen that I proposed & closed the study.”
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/28/an-excellent-explanation-of-how-dubious-stanislaw-burzynskis-activities-are
Post #203 – novalox – 2/13/2013
“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
Have fun with that”
Amazing how an individual would suddenly gain “courage” after Orac’s edict
Reminds me of the “Cowardly Lion” in “The Wizard of Oz”
“The 21st Floor » Blog Archive » Defending ORAC
Feb 15, 2013 – (Only the second person I have ever had to block on social media). Though given ….. didymusjudasthomas commented … “
2/27/2013 – josephinejones
“And here’s your first warning: posting links and repeating arguments that have already been dismissed elsewhere as being of no relevance is a way to get yourself blocked for spam”
3/3/2013 – elburto
“He’s been banned from the Gorski-related blogs (and 21st Floor, Josephine Jones and others) … “
http://www.skeptical.gb.net/blog/?p=1442
3/16/2013 – Adam Jacobs
“In the interests of transparency, I should point out that Didymus has left another comment which I’ve not approved
This is not something I do lightly: I hate to censor comments, and believe firmly that everyone should have their say
However, the comment I consigned to the spam bin was another long, pointless, rambling one, with many irrelevant links
It doesn’t say anything of importance that Didymus hasn’t already said in his previous comments
I fear that Didymus is simply trying to make these comments unreadable by posting large quantities of irrelevance, and that’s something I really don’t think I can allow
Any future comments from Didymus with similar quantities of distraction material will be treated similarly”
http://dianthus.co.uk/burzynski-qa
3/4/2013 – didymusjudasthomas
“Unlike others, I do NOT block people from posting on my blogs”
http://www.skeptical.gb.net/blog/?p=1442
Censoring, blocking, and banning someone’s comments takes a lot of “courage”
It ranks right up there with the Burzynski critics who resorted to the adolescent usage of:
“trolls,” “spammers,” “disingenuous,” “dishonest,” “profoundly dishonest,” “sheer stubborn stupid,” “stupid,” “spambot,” “fools,” “shills, “conman”
https://www.facebook.com/questions/488444654552853
I guess it’s time for some more Burzynski critics
“disinformation,”
“misinformation,” and
“misdirection”
with no
citation(s),
reference(s), or
link(s)
in support
Here comes the Insolence
Didymus Judas Thomas' Hipocritical Oath Blog 