Critiquing “Bad Argument Special: Inexpertly sown doubt”

Bad Argument Special: Inexpertly sown doubt

“It is in effect a long form response to an individual supporter of one Dr Stanislaw Burzynski who has been flooding critics tweets with his own peculiar, and often obtuse, criticism of their criticism.”

Wrong answer Sherlock

Read THIS:

Keir Liddle (Riddle Like) @endless_psych

this ones for you.

“You have, over the last few weeks

(note this is a rough estimate not intended as a definitive statement of how long you have actually been active before you tweet everyone about this or copy and paste this onto your own blog writing “FAIL”

(yes in all caps)

and moan about a lack of citations or references.)

been in contact with many of the critics of Burzynski

One by one we have blocked you on twitter and banned you from repeating the same comments over and over again while never addressing any responses to your “criticisms” or replies that pick the huge holes in your argument apart”

Blogs the individual known to be “Factually-Challenged”

2/25/2013 – PDiddymus

My good friend Endless Psych claims:

“I answered all of your questions”

Not true. You instead posted the expected excuse of some critics:

“I’m blocking you for flooding my mentions with drivel” 10:04pm – 23 Feb 13

Where are your “facts”?

For the benefit of you, below is a list where:

“E” = you
“M” = me

Want to guess who posted more?
Me 10:16pm – 23 Feb 13
E 10:04pm – 23 Feb 13
E 10:03pm – 23 Feb 13
E 10:02pm – 23 Feb 13
M 10:02pm – 23 Feb 13
E 10:02pm – 23 Feb 13
(E 10:01pm – 23 Feb 13)
E 10:01pm – 23 Feb 13
E 10:00pm – 23 Feb 13
E 9:59pm – 23 Feb 13
E 9:58pm – 23 Feb 13
M 9:56pm – 23 Feb 13
E 9:47pm – 23 Feb 13
M 9:12pm – 23 Feb 13
M 9:08pm – 23 Feb 13
M 9:03pm – 23 Feb 13
M 8:53pm – 23 Feb 13
M 8:48pm – 23 Feb 13
M 8:45pm – 23 Feb 13
M 8:43pm – 23 Feb 13
M 8:36pm – 23 Feb 13
M 8:33pm – 23 Feb 13
M 8:31pm – 23 Feb 13
M 8:27pm – 23 Feb 13
M 8:21pm – 23 Feb 13
M 8:15pm – 23 Feb 13
M 8:12pm – 23 Feb 13
M 8:03pm – 23 Feb 13
M 8:00pm – 23 Feb 13
M 7:51pm – 23 Feb 13
M 7:38pm – 23 Feb 13
M 7:29pm – 23 Feb 13
M 6:37pm – 23 Feb 13
M 7:36pm – 23 Feb 13
M 7:05pm – 23 Feb 13
M 6:35pm – 23 Feb 13
M 6:30pm – 23 Feb 13
M 6:25pm – 23 Feb 13
M 6:20pm – 23 Feb 13
M 5:49pm – 23 Feb 13
M 5:44pm – 23 Feb 13
E 3:23pm – 23 Feb 13
(E 3:22pm – 23 Feb 13)
E 3:22pm – 23 Feb 13
M 3:20pm – 23 Feb 13
E 3:14pm – 23 Feb 13
E 3:11pm – 23 Feb 13
E 3:10pm – 23 Feb 13
M 3:10pm – 23 Feb 13
E 3:03pm – 23 Feb 13
M 3:00pm – 23 Feb 13
E 2:52pm – 23 Feb 13
M 2:49pm – 23 Feb 13
M 2:47pm – 23 Feb 13
M 2:42pm – 23 Feb 13
M 2:32pm – 23 Feb 13
M 2:30pm – 23 Feb 13
E 2:22pm – 23 Feb 13
M 2:19pm – 23 Feb 13
E 2:19pm – 23 Feb 13
M 2:18pm – 23 Feb 13
E 2:17pm – 23 Feb 13
M 2:15pm – 23 Feb 13
M 2:12pm – 23 Feb 13
E 2:10pm – 23 Feb 13
M 2:08pm – 23 Feb 13
E 1:29pm – 23 Feb 13
E 1:26pm – 23 Feb 13
E 1:25pm – 23 Feb 13
E 1:24pm – 23 Feb 13
(E 1:19pm – 23 Feb 13)
E 1:19pm – 23 Feb 13
E 1:17pm – 23 Feb 13
E 1:13pm – 23 Feb 13
M 1:09pm – 23 Feb 13
E 1:09pm – 23 Feb 13
E 1:08pm – 23 Feb 13
(E 1:07pm – 23 Feb 13)
M 1:07pm – 23 Feb 13
E 1:07pm – 23 Feb 13
E 1:06pm – 23 Feb 13
E 1:05pm – 23 Feb 13
M 1:04pm – 23 Feb 13
M 1:02pm – 23 Feb 13
M 12:54pm – 23 Feb 13
E 12:54pm – 23 Feb 13
M 12:52pm – 23 Feb 13
M 12:50pm – 23 Feb 13
E 12:48pm – 23 Feb 13
M 12:46pm – 23 Feb 13
E 12:27pm – 23 Feb 13
(E 12:26pm – 23 Feb 13)
E 12:26pm – 23 Feb 13
M 12:25pm – 23 Feb 13
E 12:25pm – 23 Feb 13
M 12:24pm – 23 Feb 13
M 12:19pm – 23 Feb 13
M 12:17pm – 23 Feb 13
E 7:43am – 23 Feb 13
(E 7:42am – 23 Feb 13)
E 7:42am – 23 Feb 13
E 7:41am – 23 Feb 13
E 7:35am – 23 Feb 13
E 7:34am – 23 Feb 13
(E 7:31am – 23 Feb 13)
E 7:31am – 23 Feb 13
M 5:13am – 23 Feb 13
M 5:09am – 23 Feb 13
M 5:00am – 23 Feb 13
M 4:48am – 23 Feb 13
M 4:13am – 23 Feb 13
M 4:05am – 23 Feb 13
M 3:49am – 23 Feb 13
M 3:33am – 23 Feb 13
M 2:06am – 23 Feb 13
M 1:57am – 23 Feb 13
E 11:56pm – 22 Feb 13
M 11:52pm – 22 Feb 13
E 11:38pm – 22 Feb 13
E 11:37pm – 22 Feb 13
(E 11:36pm – 22 Feb 13)
E 11:36pm – 22 Feb 13
E 11:34pm – 22 Feb 13
E 11:32pm – 22 Feb 13
M 11:27pm – 22 Feb 13
E 10:14pm – 22 Feb 13
M 10:08pm – 22 Feb 13
E 9:48pm – 22 Feb 13
M 9:46pm – 22 Feb 13
E 9:05pm – 22 Feb 13
E 9:04pm – 22 Feb 13
M 8:59pm – 22 Feb 13
E 8:52pm – 22 Feb 13
E 8:51pm – 22 Feb 13
M 8:50pm – 22 Feb 13
E 8:49pm – 22 Feb 13
E 8:48pm – 22 Feb 13
E 8:47pm – 22 Feb 13
M 8:39pm – 22 Feb 13
(E 8:26pm – 22 Feb 13)
E 8:26pm – 22 Feb 13
M 8:24pm – 22 Feb 13
E 8:19pm – 22 Feb 13
M 8:16pm – 22 Feb 13
E 8:07pm – 22 Feb 13
(E 8:05pm – 22 Feb 13)
E 8:05pm – 22 Feb 13
M 8:04pm – 22 Feb 13
M 8:03pm – 22 Feb 13
E 8:00pm – 22 Feb 13
M 7:58pm – 22 Feb 13
E 7:55pm – 22 Feb 13
E 7:54pm – 22 Feb 13
M 7:51pm – 22 Feb 13
E 7:31pm – 22 Feb 13
E 7:30pm – 22 Feb 13
E 7:29pm – 22 Feb 13
E 7:23pm – 22 Feb 13
M 7:22pm – 22 Feb 13
M 7:04pm – 22 Feb 13
E 5:06pm – 22 Feb 13
(E 5:03pm – 22 Feb 13)
E 5:03pm – 22 Feb 13
E 4:58pm – 22 Feb 13
M 4:58pm – 22 Feb 13
E 4:57pm – 22 Feb 13
E 4:56pm – 22 Feb 13
(E 4:55pm – 22 Feb 13)
E 4:55pm – 22 Feb 13
E 4:54pm – 22 Feb 13
E 4:50pm – 22 Feb 13
E 4:49pm – 22 Feb 13
E 4:47pm – 22 Feb 13
E 3:14pm – 23 Feb 13
E 4:20pm – 22 Feb 13

You = 93
Me = 82

My friend posts:

“Your response was to ask them again and time and time again”

Prove it

“I gather that you aren’t satisfied with the answers I have given you but I respectfully suggest that you completely failed to answer any questions asked of you put by me”

Prove it

One of the lame excuses used by my learned friend is to attempt to deflect criticism by using the “spam” word:

“Instead preferring to spam my twitter with irrelevant links and rhetoric that betrays a complete misunderstanding of how either science or debate are supposed to work”

Prove it

And then he goes as far as to post:

“As regards the Josephine Jones comment it’s worth noting that this cuts to the heart of the issue with Burzynski”

Let us see what JJ actually posted, shall we ?

“It is stated that it is a TARGETED gene therapy”

What does it really state?

“For patients with primary brain tumors, we may be able to offer Antineoplastons, an EXPERIMENTAL gene therapy …”

JJ also states:

“Eric Merola falsely states that skeptics are a hate group paid to lie about #Burzynski” 2/19/13, 5:30 AM

What did he really state?

“The FBI’s classification of a “hate group” is what you people are”

“Either that, OR you too are on the skeptic payroll, paid to lie intentionally like the rest of them”

My friend then posts:

“He has delivered this therapy for around thirty five years

Only calling it experimental after the result of the FDA/TMB court case against him”

“Prior to this it was simply a “treatment””

So? What do you think a drug in clinical trials is?


And he posts:

“Also there is one other glaring problem with pinning your argument on the word “experimental” Experiments produce results”

So what? I guess after it finishes the clinical trials process it will no longer be “experimental”

And he at last posts:

“Where are Burzynskis results?”

The FDA has them. They are the ones who approved phase 3 clinical trials

2/25/2013 – PDiddymus

My good friend EP pulls a “psych” and posts:

““Flooding” does not simply relate to the volume posted but the timing in which they were posted”

Maybe he should thought of this before sending me a passel of twits

EP continues:

“Observe the last day. You made it impossible for me to use twitter to communicate with anyone else by responding to every single tweet I produced”

Posts the person who maybe should stick to “flooding” twitter with rugby or Zombie comments, or about turning up in Paisley a month early?

EP then foments:

“If you had read them before firing off a response you might have realised that many of them were an argument expressed over more than one (or even two) tweets and did not require a reply”

This is the same person who already proved that he knew how to number items if he was going to start posting replies to tweets, one after the other, in a “running commentary”
(see example below using “1.” and “2.”):

Riddle Like

Which is why I posed the question to EP:

“Running commentary ?”
8:36pm – 23 Feb 13

Or, he clearly could have posted what his intention was

Instead of asking what I thought he had not replied to, EP then goes off on a tangent where he “guesses” what he thinks should be addressed

“I’m sorry if that offends you but I like to be able to use twitter for more than being asked to answer the same questions I feel I have answered time and time again by the same person”

EP provides no proof in support of his claim about supposedly answering “the same questions I feel I have answered time and time again”
Nor does he “offend” me because I am we’ll aware of the excuses and tactics of critics, like this:

You: “Searching FDA website can only find info for Buphenyl” 7:31pm – 22 Feb 13

You: “what DEFINITION of APPROVED are you using exactly?” 11:38pm – 22 Feb 13

Me: “FDA’s:”
2:47pm – 23 Feb 13

You: “If you aren’t going to link to anything relevant or answer questions I’m afraid I’m not going to engage anymore” 2:52pm – 23 Feb 13

Me: “Quit making excuses. That’s FDA APPROVE orphan drug link” 9:08pm – 23 Feb 13

You: “No I am not” 9:47pm – 23 Feb 13

Me: “1. You asked for DEFINITION of APPROVED I was using. 2.That is the FDA DEFINITION” 9:56pm – 23 Feb 13

You: “NO I pointed out that orphan drug labelling /= approved as effective, safe etc” 10:00pm – 23 Feb 13

So, clearly, at the beginning of the dialogue you asked:

“what DEFINITION of APPROVED are you using exactly?” 11:38pm – 22 Feb 13

EP then continued:

“Particularly when the tweets are constructed in such a way that they are hard to comprehend and their meaning is thus difficult to divulge”

I could say the same about yours

EP next posts:

“As for proof? If your account is not suspended (as twitter informs me it is) I will perhaps storify the account if it appears again and answer your questions via that medium”

Do not worry about me

I am still there

EP states:

“My recollection of the conversation may be biased. Mea Cupla if so”

Yes, it might be, which is why I actually referred to the tweets

EP rambles:

“However as I recall it involved the following main points seemingly, from my end at least, endlessly repeated:”

As were your posts without supporting links

EP states:

“1. That there were missing links on one of our posts and that this undermined all the arguments within them”

Uhhh, No. That would be you:

“Have you read anything I’ve sent you?” 7:31am – 23 Feb 13

It is somewhat difficult to “read anything” if the links do not work

EP resumes with:

“2. You believe that unconvincing trials of CDA-2 somehow validates Burzynski. I apologise if you don’t think this but I’d struggle to see why you would have brought it up otherwise”

And so you conveniently ignore that CDA-2 went through phase 1 – 3 trials by 2003 and was approved as a first class new anti-cancer drug in solid tumors in 2004

And EP rolls on:

3. You seem to flip flop on the issue of whether Burzynski uses PB alone. Quite what you mean by this I am unsure

You seem to “flip flop:”

“I’m not going to defend that #burzynski is using PB as HDACi alone. As he isn’t”
1:05pm – 23 Feb 13

And then 1 minute later you posted:

“As I have actually said he is using PB alone as a pro-drug for ANPs” 1:06pm – 23 Feb 13

” … he is using PB … alone. As he isn’t”
” … he is using PB alone”

So: He IS, … or he ISN’T

You are the one who brought this up:

“For the benefit of @PDidymusJThomas a case study from #burzynski where he reports the use of PB”
7:35am – 23 Feb 13

And I pointed out:

“Sr.oncologist advised
consider chemo.
w/etoposide cisplatin
retinoic acid
5:44pm – 23 Feb 13

EP continues:

“Ironically enough references you provided against this point highlighted that it has little or no impact on cancer survival. With your favoured 2005 ref. showing 19/23 patients died”

Where you conveniently ignore the 9/2011 UK publication again

EP resumes:

“Most of the “issues” you raise, if I am honest, look a lot like nit picking to me. But picking that avoids answering the substantive questions raised in the many articles about Burzynski and ANPs raised on this and other blogs

Posts the person who cannot be bothered with reading a link:

Me: “Burzynski describe whether had success w/kind of cancer or not”
12:46pm – 23 Feb 13

You: “Could you reform that tweet in comprehensible English please as I am not sure what you mean?” 12:48pm – 23 Feb 13

Me: “Afraid 2 read? Burzynski more able to describe to patients whether he’s had success w/their kind of cancer”
7:36pm – 23 Feb 13

EP strides on:

“You have also rather missed the point about Burzynski treating people with ANP before running any clinical trials or research into toxicity/efficacy”

Burzynski SR, …
Toxicology studies on antineoplaston AS2-1 injections in cancer patients
Drugs Exp Clin Res 12 (Suppl 1): 25-35, 1986

Burzynski SR, …
Toxicology studies on antineoplaston A10 injections in cancer patients
Drugs Exp Clin Res 12 (Suppl 1): 47-55, 1986


“That’s a major failure of medical and research ethics and deserves more than a “so?””

So ?

“If you feel it would be productive to post further feel free”

Posts the person who stated:

” … clinic has removed all references to ANP from website” 8:05pm – 22 Feb 13

Which turned out to be incorrect

And you were the one to drone on and on about PB without providing any link(s) in support of your “theory” that it was “obsolete”

You: ” … there is little to suggest it is a HDACi

Me: “That explains this:
8:16pm – 22 Feb 13

You: “What in that do you feel contradicts the prior tweet?” 8:19pm – 22 Feb 13

Me: “studies point to potential role for PB in treating” 12:24pm – 23 Feb 13

You: ” … further research into PB … paints a different picture” 12:26pm – 23 Feb 13

Me: “You provide no link” 6:37pm – 23 Feb 13

You: “Looked promising as HDACi or adjunct to chemo in some studies. But others better” 12:27pm – 23 Feb 13 (PROVIDES NO LINK)

Me: “interest growing worldwide”
7:05pm – 23 Feb 13
(from 9/2011 UK publication)

“Though I would suggest it would be better to state your entire case (either in a comment below or on your own blog – I’ll admit I find the latter more appealing) and let people decide which they find more convincing”

Yes, I find that some critics cannot handle criticism on their own turf

“We aren’t going to agree and there seems little point in further engagement between the two of us”


I’m glad we agree” 2:19pm – 23 Feb 13

What was that, again ?

“It is unlikely I will reply again. As a friendly warning I won’t tolerate flooding of these comments boards either and if you do that I will block you at least temporarily”

Well, so much for that

2/25/2013 – PDiddymus

My learned critic Endless Psych quotes me:

“In America we have “Free Speech.” Something which must be “Foreign” here. I’m sure you like to post whatever you like with no rebuttal or anyone questioning your supposed “infallibility.””

And then posts:

“Always good to see that posted in a comment freely available on the site where you are making the criticism. It’s something of a delicious irony”

Yet he twatted:

“So the latest #burzynski supporters posts got marked by spam on @the21stfloor knows it’s stuff our spam filter!” 2/24/13, 1:08 PM

Having mentioned no one by name, I thought he was referring to me since when I tried to submit comments on the 21stfloor, it did not indicate that the comments were “awaiting moderation”

He then quotes my:

“Well, I do question people’s alleged “infallibility,” even when they resorted to child-like “name-calling,” “disinformation,” “misinformation,”

not backing up their comments with references, citations. or links to sources”

He then posts:

“All comments on Burzynski in the blogs here are backed up with reference to sources. Not all of them primary but they are there. In the case of the missing links you pointed out (of which there were a grand total of 3) two were taken down by Burzynski himself and one related to a newspaper article that was taken down by the press”

I had to repeatedly point out to EP that the link to:

“Indeed, in 1998, the FDA noted that 65% of the 404 patients participating in a study were suffering from hypernatraemia, which they said may have contributed to the deaths of at least seven patients”

did not work

At first it was linked to the Houston Chronicle, which did not work

Then it was linked to U.S. News and World Report, which did not work, and STILL does not work

Seriously, why would anyone link to a “newspaper” about a study, instead of the actual study?

EP then continues:

“There are of course no links to published peer reviewed papers reporting the results of any of Burzynsksi 60+ trials because these do not exist”


If you wanted to stay up with what is going on you could find it:

1. 2003 Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma:

a preliminary report

Drugs R D. 2003;4(2):91-101

2. 3/2006 Targeted therapy with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 of high-grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem glioma

Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Mar;5(1):40-7

3. 2007 Recent clinical trials in diffuse intrinsic brainstem glioma

Review Article

Cancer Therapy Vol 5, page 379
Cancer Therapy Vol 5, 379-390, 2007,_379-390.pdf

4. 2/29/2012 Form 10-K, fiscal year ended:

You may not like it, but it gives you an idea of what is going on

EP also cites my post:

“It’s called “Catch-22.” They complain if you respond to all in one post, so when you respond individually to them, Orac complains”

And proceeds with:

“I can’t really blame people for complaining about your posting style, having experienced being flooded by you on twitter with irrelevant nonsense. (Clearly you don’t think it is irrelevant but it pretty much is)”

This is the person I just proved wrong in my previously submitted post as to who sent more twits
He then finishes up by posting:

“Perhaps you should read our guide to posting on science forums? Though I suspect you could have written it!”

This again, is the person whom after I posted the FDA link re Orphan Drug Designation:


“Which shows it is an orphan drug?” 2/22/13, 11:32 PM

When the top of the document clearly has:

“Cumulative List of all Products that have received Orphan Designation: Total active designations: 2002 Effective: 5/5/2009″

2/26/2013 – PDiddymus

EPic quotes what has been quoted before

If there were theoretically some other blog out there, they would no doubt start referring to this as the

“tu-quote fallacy”

“Look your posts are here now!”

Maybe the Scottish have some redeeming quality after all

Embarrass myself? Really? I think not

Sure it is “preliminary report”

Nor did I deny that it “Does not report full results of any clinical trials”

And again, I did not indicate that the other 2 were anything other than what they are

Neither have I indicated that there are randomized controlled trials

And neither have I indicated that any trial results were published in peer reviewed literature

No, I did not miss the “Mea Cupla” and the excuse as to WHY you blocked me, for responding to your greater volume of tweets

“You appear to have massively missed the point of WHY I asked that question”

“I shall explain again:”

“I wanted you to agree that PB was an orphan drug before continuing. If you recall we were having a debate about whether PB was approved or not for use in cancer treatments”

“You might recall you posted a paper showing it was approved for use in urea conditions. To whit the response should probably have been “well done it’s approved for the condition it was developed to treat”

Really ?

You: “Searching FDA website”

Me: “Bottom 1/4th•Phenylbutyrate Treatment…leukemia”

11:27pm – 22 Feb 13

5 minutes later:

You: “Which shows it is an orphan drug?” 11:32pm – 22 Feb 13

So you needed to “clarify” the title of the document

Good one

Yeah, and I sent you:

“In my case this was because you effectively made twitter impossible for me to use by flooding my timeline with endless inane responses – most of them consisting of copied and pasted fragments of my own tweets”

See above


” You also, a little scarily, decided to reply to me with details from tweets indicating where and when I was, which were never directed at you so you must have searched for”

You are NO Richard (call me Rick) A. Jaffe

All anyone has to is select your pic on any one of your twits and it will take them to your Twitter where ALL your twits can be viewed; which I was doing in order to find the 90+ twits you had directed at me so I could reply to your:

“disinformation,” and / or

“However this hasn’t stopped you “replying” to those you disagree with and who disagree with you

As you have taken to copying and pasting their criticism on your blog and replying to it there

The problem is no matter where you criticisms are they have ALL already been answered or are so trivial that their discovery has little bearing on the wider issues critics hold with the clinic”

Nice try, DetectAin’t


Some Burzynski critics keep posting about


but when I ask them:

Is hypernatremia common ?

The frequency, cost, and clinical outcomes of hypernatremia in patients hospitalized to a comprehensive cancer center

Division of Internal Medicine, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA

Support Care Cancer. 2013 Feb 13. [Epub ahead of print]

hypernatremia in the U.S.:

They have NOT touched it with the proverbial “10-Foot Pole,” just like Orac

And THAT is just ONE of them

“I have broken these down for you briefly below:

On the subject of publication:

You repeatedly produce citations and references to papers that DO NOT contain the results of any completed trials of ANPs on human subjects

We are aware there are In Vitro studies, we are aware there are animal studies and we have seen all of the other papers you produce countless times

Some of us have even blogged about them

Though we have concerns over and above that of simply not publishing

We worry about the quality of the research that, may or may not actually have been, conducted and we worry about the ethics of those involved with the Research Institutes IRB

You also repeatedly state that the Clinic says it is trying to publish and is going to publish

To whit my response is twofold – why should we trust the clinic as a source?”

Why should anyone trust you or any other Burzynski critic when I have shown that the majority of you are “Factually-Challenged” ?

“and why have they resolutely failed to publish any trial results in the 35 odd years they have been using ANPs as a treatment for cancer without any good evidence?”

I take it that you might NOT have read my response to this question

2/26/2013 – didymusjudasthomas

Perhaps Burzynski wanted to wait until “all” clinical trials re A10 and AS2-1 were complete before publishing the final results

2/27/2013 – didymusjudasthomas

As I have posted elsewhere, in my personal opinion Burzynski was waiting until he finished ALL clinical trials re A10 and AS2-1 before publishing the final results

“On the subject of cost:

Your whole argument about the costs of ANPs from Burzynski being similar to that of other cancer therapies in the US again rather misses the point”

You are the one who misses the point

Cancer treatments, under the ridiculous healthcare system in the US, do indeed cost a lot

However it is important to note that these are treatments of proven efficacy that have gone through the clinical trial process and been subject to the scrutiny of peer review”

Sure, chemotherapy, radiation, and radiotherapy may be “treatments of proven efficacy,” but that does not mean that they have been proven to cure or treat cancers better than antineoplastons

“It is also important to note that Burzynski, in an ethically dubious manner, is effectively charging patients to take part in clinical trials”

If it was NOT “ethical,” he would not be allowed to do it

Burzynski does NOT receive Federal Grants / Funds, is NOT Tax-Exempt, and you can NOT write off a contribution as a tax deduction on your Tax Return

By comparison:

St. Jude:

2/15/2012 – the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has awarded St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital $4,314,800 for a childhood cancer survivor study

The new federal funds will be distributed by the National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Receives Federal Grants / Funds

Donations to St. Jude are tax deductible as allowed by law

FORBES: CEO – $742,718

“This is not only unethical it carries with it a small chance of biasing his results

(particularly those involved in determining quality of life and subjective reporting of side effects)”

Just because YOU blog that it is NOT “ethical,” does NOT make it so

“If Burzynski could prove his treatment worked than patients would be able to receive it through their insurance policies or living outside the US in say Britain free at point of delivery on their National Health Service”

If the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) did what they promised the American people they would do …

“On side-effects:

You have contested the idea that Burzynskis therapy can have dangerous side effects

I covered this in more detail here so shall summarize briefly the issues with your stance on this issue

On a high dose regimen of ANP, of the type Burzynski favours, a patient is exposed daily to 2.6 times the total amount of sodium normally found in the body

Side effects from sodium overdose alone are likely to include hypernatremia, edema, and, potentially, seizures

Even a low dose of antineoplastons pumps 41.4 grams of sodium into the same patient’s veins, by comparison, the daily sodium load of phenylacetate or phenylbuterate, two drugs closely related to antineoplastons, is around 8.8 grams

Yet even with a sodium content of about one-seventeenth of high-dose antineoplastons, phenylacetate and phenylbuterate are considered high-sodium drugs”

So why is only ONE of those listed on the:

National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH)

web-site ?

Adverse effects of antineoplaston therapy

“FDA officials said that according to Burzynski’s data, 4% of his patients died while on protocol

According to FDA, hypernatremia, or an excess of sodium in the blood, was present in 65% of patients participating and may have been a factor in the deaths of 1.7% of patients enrolled in the studies in 1997

Independent investigators involved in the NCI-sponsored trial also found ANP treatment to be associated with substantial toxicity finding severe toxicity in three (of nine) patients”

Are you referring to that “alleged” study?

The one you provide no

reference(s), and / or

for ?

On reporting response rates:

“You seem to misunderstand what is meant by “ Stable disease category is not recognized by FDA as a measure of response” let me explain:

What this means is that a patient displaying a stable response does not support the efficacy of a treatment

Which is not the impression you get from reading Burzynskis materials

No one is denying stable response is a recognised category the point is rather that we believe Burzynski is overselling it as an effect of ANP treatment”

Did you just read what you blogged?

“Stable disease category is not recognized … ”

“No one is denying stable response is a recognised category … “

“Actually that pretty much address you entire posting style.

Why are you so keen for me to read common weal? I have read it for the record. But see no relevance to any of our discussions”

If you had read it I figured you would remember what it contained, and if you did NOT, well, then you could re-read it


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s