6/3/2013 “Orac” (@oracknows Dr. David H. Gorski @gorskon @ScienceBasedMed #sciencebasedmedicine
posted his laughable review of:
Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II
In which the latest movie about Stanislaw Burzynski “cancer cure” is reviewed…with Insolence
I’ve been ignoring “Orac” lately, since unlike “Orac,” I’ve been doing REAL research; which “Orac” has made excuses for NOT doing
Unlike “Orac,” my critique is done in order as it appears in Part 2
11/29/2011 “Orac” posted a review of the 1st #Burzynski Documentary:
12/12/2012 “Orac” was on vacation from his “exhaustive research” re Dr. Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski, so one of his “Oracolytes” posted:
This was a repost of “Orac’s” 11/29/2011 review of Burzynski Part 1
I posted a critique of “Orac’s” cherry-picked 12/12/2012 posting
If you access the above link and scroll down, you will see that it only has comments from the day the article was posted (12/12/2012) through 1/30/2013
A grand total of about a month and a half
Comment #15 is the last item
This is a rarity since usually “Orac” has more than 15 comments to one of his posts
You didn’t delete my critique from your blog, did you?
Like you deleted that you had been approached by Eric Merola to appear in Burzynski 2?
“Orac” whines about Eric Merola’s “exhaustive research,” in a sarcastic manner, and claims that he is “intellectually dishonest”
Let us find out if Gorski is what he claims Merola is
1. (9:14) Chris Onuekwusi
Gorski laments that Mr. Onuekwusi did NOT have surgery, but instead, chose Burzynski
Gorski, why did Mr. Onuekwusi choose Burzynski and NOT surgery?
Since Burzynski is supposedly your fave subject, one would think that you would know, but your blog seems to indicate you are clueless, because you act as if Mr. Onuekwusi was supposed to choose surgery
Gorski, if you had done “exhaustive research” on Burzynski and “Gene-Targeted Cancer Therapy,” you would have viewed this @youtube video:
Texas Med. Bd. v. Dr. Burzynski – Gene-Targeted Cancer Therapy – Case Dismissed 11/19/2012
Gorski, if you would have listened and viewed this video, you would have heard Mr. Onuekwusi just say “NO,” to “SURGERY” at 4:35
2. (31:17) Laura Hymas
Gorski becomes the “apologist” for the unnamed United Kingdom (U.K.) National Health Service (NHS) oncologist who Ben, Laura, and her parents converse with on the recording
(36:35) Ben makes it clear that the Primary Care Trust would pay for the 8 week MRI scans, blood tests, and personal health check
Gorski completely ignores this in his review
(37:00) Ben points out that just the past Wednesday, a friend of theirs, a prior 7-year-old Burzynski patient who was now 11, had seen this doctor, and this patient had been cared for by a UK doctor after returning from America
(38:30) Ben indicated that the doctor would be sent a sheet that would need to be faxed to Burzynski with the blood test results and such
The doctor said to let him know when Laura needed a scan, but then it seems he reneged on that
Gorski completely ignores all this
Laura’s mom raised the issue that no matter the doctor’s opinion about Burzynski, he had taken the Hippocratic oath
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon’s knife or the chemist’s drug.
I will not be ashamed to say “I know not,” nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient’s recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know.
Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death.
If it is given me to save a life, all thanks.
But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty.
Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person’s family and economic stability.
My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter.
May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
Perhaps the UK doctor believes the Hippocratic oath is a joke, and maybe Gorski does also
(42:15) Laura’s parents give the UK N.H.S. the “business”
3. (1:00:00) Tori Moreno
Merola relates that brainstem glioma has a median survival of shorter than a year, and other data
(1:01:40) Tori’s father reveals that he was told in August of 1998 that she was going to die because of the Diffuse Intrinsic Pontine Glioma (DIPG) which was almost completely replacing the pons region and extending beyond the brainstem itself
Gorski rants because Eric missed the following 3 publications re spontaneous regression which are not even titled as DIPG’s
None of these publications were around in 1998
Gorski does NOT indicate whether any of the lesions were as large as Tori’s, and that the infants would die
The last one has nothing to do with children
4/2007 – Spontaneous remission of a diffuse brainstem lesion in a neonate
Pediatr Radiol. 2007 Apr;37(4):399-402. Epub 2007 Feb 23.
April 2007, Volume 37, Issue 4, pp 399-402
Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
7 week infant – spontaneous remission of diffuse brainstem lesion
Clinical / MRI strongly suggested diffuse pontine glioma
MRI studies showed continuous decrease in size of lesion
No longer visible at 27 months (2 years 3 months)
Spontaneous remission of diffuse pontine glioma extremely rare
To our knowledge there are reports of only 3 similar cases
1/2005 – Spontaneous regression of a diffuse brainstem lesion in the neonate. Report of two cases and review of the literature.
J Neurosurg. 2005 Jan;102(1 Suppl):65-71.
Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics
Vol. 102: 65-71 (Volume publication date: January 2005)
Section of Pediatric Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, Children’s Hospital of Columbus, Ohio, USA.
2 newborns with diffuse brainstem lesions regressed without treatment
characteristics of diffuse brainstem glioma
Subcategory of diffuse lesions may exist, particularly in neonatal period
Must be stressed that nearly all patients with diffuse brainstem lesions experience poor outcome, regardless of tumor grade or treatment
2/2005 – A brainstem cavernoma demonstrating a dramatic, spontaneous decrease in size during follow-up: case report and review of the literature.
Surg Neurol. 2005 Feb;63(2):170-3; discussion 173.
Department of Neurosurgery, Osaka City General Hospital, Osaka, Japan
Volume 63, Issue 2, February 2005, Pages 170–173
Large brainstem cavernoma showing spontaneous, dramatic reduction in size after removal of only biopsy specimen of lesion
Gorski does NOT address where Tori’s father states that a gag order was in effect so that he could NOT discuss which insurance company paid for Tori’s care
4. Amelia Saunders
No, Gorski, Eric did NOT say:
“Two months after this interview, Amelia’s brain tumor began to swell and fill with fluid. There was confusion and disagreement between their local radiologists and the radiologists in Houston about why this was happening—so her parents decided to discontinue antineoplaston therapy.”
“Two months after this interview Amelia’s condition began to deteriorate…”
Unless your purchased version of the movie somehow magically differs from the free version that was available 7/13/2013 – 7/20/2013
5. (1:10:00) Accelerated Approval
Gorski, being his usual SkeptiCoward© self, does NOT broach the subject of why the United States Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval to Temodar (1999) and Avastin (2009), but has NOT granted approval for antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1, even though the FDA supervised Burzynski’s phase 2 clinical trials and was at the Burzynski Clinic going through their documentation, and as Fabio pointed out, Burzynski has provided the FDA with 2.5 million pages of clinical trial documents
6. (1:10:12) FDA requiring radiation be used in Burzynski’s phase 3 clinical trial even though Burzynski had shown better results when radiation is NOT used before antineoplaston administration
Again, Gorski does NOT touch this with the proverbial ZZ Top Ten-Foot Pole, as is his custom
7. (1:20:20) Bob Blaskiewicz
(Also known as rjblaskiewicz @rjblaskiewicz Robert J. Blaskiewicz Faux Skeptic Exposed! Blatherskitewicz
See also: Robert Quickert @RobertQuickert (also known as Robert Quackert a/k/a RobertQuackert)
Gorski has nothing to say about his fellow “man-crush’s” comments re Burzynski’s clinical trials allegedly being:
“unpromising imaginary trials”
even though phase 2 clinical trials are for:
“evidence of effectiveness”
and the FDA has approved phase 3 trials for Burzynski, which is for:
“Phase 3 studies begin if EVIDENCE of EFFECTIVENESS is shown in Phase 2″
“These studies gather more information about safety and EFFECTIVENESS”
Nor does Gorski comment on his pal’s comment that Burzynski’s clinical trials are a “scam,” which in turn means that he is stating that the F.D.A. is involved in a “scam”
Gorski is also silent on his blog buddy’s statement that Burzynski’s clinical trials are “unproven,” since ALL clinical trials are “unproven” until such time as the FDA approves the drug(s)
8. (1:23:20) Death Cult
Blaskiewicz also postulates that Burzynski has a “death cult,” and Gorski, who claims:
“I will call you out publicly”
in relation to the critics, cynics, The Skeptics™, and SkeptiCowards© who posted certain twits on Twitter
It seems that that standard possibly does NOT apply to Gorski’s bud
9. (1:25:50) Costs of clinical trials
Bobby also ridicules how much it costs to run a clinical trial, as if he’s a clueless “sheeple” who does NOT know how to do real research, like Gorski
Gorski plays “silent Bob” to “Bob”
10. (1:26:30) $800,000 a month standard care for cancer treatment
When it is pointed out that antineoplaston (ANP) treatment was costing $10,000 a month, yet the individual knew someone who had an $800,000 a month standard care for cancer treatment bill, Gorski was as silent as a titmouse
11. (1:27:38) Gorski
Gorski gets a mention, and his comment is that at least he can use his blog as a tax write off
Gorski, I do this for FREE
NO tax write off
12. (1:27:50) Gorski’s Respectful Insolence blogsplat
“Orac” gets some screen-time
More on his blog, after the below entries
13. (1:29:53) 11/26/2012 The Lancet Oncology Peer Review Team D-12-01519
Gorski can NOT seem to bring himself to pontificate on The Lancet’s lame excuse for NOT publishing Burzynski’s phase 2 clinical trial Progression-Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS) re patients 8 – 16 years after diagnosis, results, and the Lancet Peer Review Team coming up with this piss-poor ejaculation in 2 hours 8 minutes and 51 seconds
Gorski pretends he took a bathroom break when Burzynski mentions he was using Herceptin to treat stomach cancer when the FDA had only approved it initially for brain cancer, and only later approved it for stomach cancer after Burzynski was already using it for that purpose
15. Tennessee and Alabama doctors
Gorski is as silent as a church mouse on making any comments derogatory as to the doctors who had treated Burzynski patients
16. Texas Medical Board
Gorski calls for Burzynski’s medical license to be pulled; apparently because Gorski still does NOT understand what the term “standard of care” means
Yet Gorski is a clam when it comes to the last time the TMB went after Burzynski and FAILED, as to why the TMB did NOT go after the specific doctors at the Burzynski Clinic who were actually those patients doctor of record, if the TMB had an actual case; though I should point out that it was predominantly the State Office of Administrative Hearings involved in that fiasco
Gorski mentions an individual who posted tweets, and posted, as I mentioned in 8., above:
“I will call you out publicly”
as if everyone reads his blog!
I have absolutely NO qualms about
calling them out publicly, NOW:
“appears to be just a money laundry for a lying quack fraud”
“when Laura dies #Burzynski will just move on to his next mark if she doesn’t run out of money first”
BurzynskiSaves (@BurzynskiSaves) tweeted at 7:42pm – 25 Dec 11:
“@RatbagsDotCom:They will be even more vulnerable when Laura dies and #Burzynski forgets her and moves on to the next mark” #unconscionable https://twitter.com/BurzynskiSaves/status/151115741888909312
Is that YOU, Peter Bowditch (also known as HeadInDitch)?
Nary a word does Gorski spout about the FDA and the comments made about who it really serves
19. The “Present”
Gorski comments about the “present” that Blaskiewicz was involved with:
1/6/2013 – PZ Myers Let’s make Houston cancer quack Burzynski pay! http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/01/06/lets-make-houston-cancer-quack-burzynski-pay/
“That’s why I like the idea of the campaign that Bob Baskiewicz has come up with to wish Dr. Burzynski a happy birthday this year, skeptic style:” http://thehoustoncancerquack.com/2013/01/04/happy-birthday-dr-burzynski/
I posted blogs about what this “present” REALLY was:
Critiquing Bob Blaskiewicz (#Burzynski Cancer is Serious Business, Part II):
The “present” included sayings like:
“Let’s make Houston cancer quack Burzynski pay!”
“there is a plan to remind him of the grief he has caused”
“his snake oil”
“bilk people out of buckets of money”
“Crime does pay”
“The Burzynski clinic is a place you go to die”
I guess this means Gorski has given this his “Orac” stamp of approval
20. Whiny Gorski, Part 2
Just like in his review of the 1st Burzynski documentary where Gorski claimed he was going to deal predominantly with “science,” but then ended up whining about almost everything under the sun, Gorski does the same with Burzynski 2, which is hilarious, since he blathers about the narration of the movie as if it is “creepy,” when it is no more “creepy” than his lame “cancer researcher” pal:
21. Publication of final phase 2 clinical trial results
Gorski blogsplats that Burzynski has NOT published his final results, but ignores that Burzynski’s 1st completed phase 2 clinical trial was in 2009, and that MD Anderson, which had done a clinical trial in 2006, did NOT publish their results until 6-7 years later, in 2013
It really does NOT matter if Burzynski does publish the final results, since Gotski can just whine that phase 2 trials are only for “evidence of effectiveness,” or make excuses that he does NOT understand the publication(s), but then again, I’m guessing that Gorski did NOT graduate 1st in his class, unlike Burzynski
22. “I’ve recently learned a lot about how and why these trials were originally approved by the FDA”
Gorski posits the above in regards to Burzynski’s clinical trials
What, Gorski ?
Did that UK NHS employee @FrozenWarning (a/k/a Frozen Boring a/k/a FrozenBoring) who posts on your blogsplat, finally let you in on the details of their post on #Forbes, when your “bud” Dr. Peter A. Lipson posted that mudfish-wrap:
“A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics”
where FW posted:
“The FDA was ordered by a scientifically illiterate judge to allow these trials, they had no choice.”
whilst doing what The Skeptics™ SkeptiCowards© are famous for, providing NO citation, reference, and / or link in support of this claim
Or did you finally read all the comments I posted on your blogsplat, outlining how Burzynski went through the process of getting the clinical trials underway, before you BLOCKED me for pointing out that you and The Skeptics™ SkeptiCowards© are:
“intellectually dishonest” ?