Critiquing: National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc. – NCAHF News: JURY NULLIFICATION THWARTS BURZYNSKI CONVICTION

20130927-164635.jpg
3/7/2013 – “The Skeptics™'” Lynne Batik posted this article on the Colorado Public Television (CPT12) PBS Facebook page: [1]

“The trial of Stanislaw Burzynski for cancer fraud ended in a hung jury (6-6) on March 4” [2]

The problem with this statement is that there is:
——————————————————————
a) NO such thing as a “cancer fraud” law
======================================
b) – 3/3/1997 – “Lake acquitted Burzynski of 34 counts of mail … fraud” [3]
——————————————————————
c) – 3/3/1997 – “He set a May.19 retrial on the remaining charges of introducing an unapproved drug into interstate commerce and contempt of court” [3]
======================================
d) – 5/19/1997 – “A cancer doctor accused of illegally marketing an experimental drug to patients nationwide may face just a single contempt charge … [4]
——————————————————————
e) – 5/19/1997 – “Attorneys for Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski said prosecutors told them they will drop 40 of 41 remaining counts [4]

“Those charge the doctor with violating U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations in dispensing an unapproved drug [4]
——————————————————————
f) – 5/19/1997 – “Assistant U.S. Attorney Mike Clark refused to say at a pre-trial hearing Friday whether prosecutors intend to only pursue a contempt-of-court charge [4]
——————————————————————
g) – 5/19/1997 – “The contempt count accuses Burzynski of ignoring a federal judge’s orders in 1983 and 1984 against introducing the drug … into interstate commerce [4]
——————————————————————
h) – 5/19/1997 – “(Prosecutors) are telling us the only case they want to try Dr. Burzynski on is the contempt case,” defense attorney Dan Cogdell told Lake … “ [4]
——————————————————————
i) – 5/19/1997 – “He then acquitted Burzynski on 34 counts of mail fraud … “ [4]
======================================
j) – 5/19/1997 – “Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski was charged with mail fraud, contempt and violating Food and Drug Administration regulations [5]
——————————————————————
k) – 5/19/1997 – “At a hearing on Friday … prosecutors had said that they planned to try Dr. Burzynski only on the contempt charge [5]
——————————————————————
l) – 5/19/1997 – “Judge Lake acquitted him of 34 fraud counts [5]
——————————————————————
m) – 5/19/1997 – “The 41 remaining charges include 40 counts of violating F.D.A. regulations [5]
======================================
n) – 5/21/1997 – “A jury here heard opening arguments this morning in the retrial of a criminal contempt charge against a doctor who offers an unapproved cancer drug” [6]
——————————————————————
o) – 5/21/1997 – “In November 1995, Dr. Burzynski was indicted on 40 counts of interstate delivery of an unapproved drug, 34 counts of mail fraud and 1 count of contempt … “ [6]
——————————————————————
p) – 5/21/1997 – “The fraud counts said Dr. Burzynski had used the mail to send insurance claims that were false or misleading” [6]
——————————————————————
q) – 5/21/1997 – “After declaring a mistrial, Judge Simeon T. Lake 3d of the Federal District Court here issued a directed verdict of acquittal on the 34 fraud counts … “ [6]
======================================
r) – 5/28/1997 – “The charges included 40 counts of interstate delivery of an unapproved drug; 34 counts of mail fraud for using the mails to file false or misleading claims to insurers, and one count of contempt … “ [7]
——————————————————————
s) – 5/28/1997 – “Judge Simeon Lake 3d of Federal District Court declared a mistrial and then issued a directed verdict of acquittal on the counts of mail fraud … “ [7]
——————————————————————
t) – 5/28/1997 – “On the first day of the retrial, the Government moved to dismiss the 40 counts of interstate delivery against the doctor and all remaining counts against his institute, leaving only the contempt count … “ [7]
======================================
u) – 8/1/1997 – “After Burzynski’s first trial ends in a hung jury, federal prosecutors drop all charges but a single contempt-of-court citation … “ [8]
======================================
I did NOT see “cancer fraud” mentioned anywhere in those above 1997 newspaper articles
======================================
“CBS’s 48 Hours’ interviews of jurors told the tale as to why they couldn’t agree”

“Clearly, the jurors agreed that Burzynski was guilty as charged of violating court orders not to distribute his unapproved “Antineoplastons” in interstate commerce … “

If the jurors (“Clearly”) agreed that Burzynski was guilty as charged,” why is it
——————————————————————
a) – 3/3/1997 – “Prosecutors vowed to retry a self-described medical revolutionary who treats cancer patients with a compound found in human urine after a jury deadlocked … “ [3]
——————————————————————
b) – 3/3/1997 – Jurors split 6-6 on all 75 counts against Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski … “ [3]
——————————————————————
c) – 3/3/1997 – ” … Judge Lake declaired a mistrial [3]
——————————————————————
d) – 3/3/1997 – Jurors said … that they were divided from the start, and the six for acquittal never wavered [3]
——————————————————————
e) – 3/3/1997 – The big problem was intent,” explained juror Sharon Wray, 37, a legal assistant. I don’t think he woke up one day and said `I think I’ll break the law.”’ [3]
——————————————————————
f) – 3/3/1997 – Juror Darlene Phillips concurred

If we had to have decided `Did he break this law,’ probably most of us could have made that decision by noon last Monday,” Ms. Phillips said

“But the judge’s instructions went a little bit further and we had to say that he not only broke those laws, that he did it with the intent to mislead and to defraud.” [3]
======================================
g) – 5/19/1997 – “He had declared a mistrial in March when a jury deadlocked on 75 counts against the doctor [4]
======================================
h) – 5/19/1997 – “A jury deadlocked in Dr. Burzynski’s trial in March” [5]
======================================
i) – 5/21/1997 – “In February, a trial against Dr. Burzynski ended in a mistrial, with the jury deadlocked, 6 to 6 [6]
======================================
l) – 5/28/1997 – “At Dr. Burzynski’s first trial earlier this year, the jury deadlocked 6 to 6 … “ [7]
——————————————————————
m) – 5/28/1997 – I just don’t think that the state proved their case,” said one juror, Stephenie Shapiro, who is a lawyer”

”There was enough ambiguity in the document that they weren’t willing to have a criminal finding against someone

“And it was very unanimous from the beginning. It’s not like anybody had to be talked into it.‘” [7]
======================================
n) – 8/1/1997 – The jury acquits unanimously, noting that Burzynski got his staff and patients to sign waivers saying they would not send the drugs outside Texas” [8]
——————————————————————
The lesson: Do NOT believe everything you read that’s NOT backed up by citations references or links
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – 9/13/2013 A Critical Analysis of Wikipedia’s “Failure to Communicate”:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/13/a-critical-analysis-of-wikipedias-failure-to-communicate/
======================================
[2] – NCAHF News, March/April 1997, Volume 20, Issue #2
——————————————————————
http://www.ncahf.org/nl/1997/3-4.html
======================================
[3] – 3/3/1997 – Associated Press (A.P.) News: HOUSTON (AP)
——————————————————————
http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1997/Jury-deadlocks-retrial-planned-for-Dr-Stanislaw-Burzynski/id-58e7ec089bfad6697d138d7bfe26c011
======================================
[4] – 5/19/1997 – Associated Press (AP): Monday, May 19, 1997, Cancer doctor goes on trial again in federal court, By JOAN THOMPSON / Associated Press Writer, HOUSTON (AP)
——————————————————————
http://www.texnews.com/texas97/doc051997.html
======================================
[5] – 5/19/1997 – New York Times:
——————————————————————
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/19/us/all-charges-but-one-dropped-against-doctor.html
======================================
[6] – 5/21/1997 – New York Times: Unorthodox Doctor Goes on Trial Again on Contempt Charge, May.21, 1997
——————————————————————
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/21/us/unorthodox-doctor-goes-on-trial-again-on-contempt-charge.html
======================================
[7] – 5/28/1997 – New York Times:
——————————————————————
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/28/us/doctor-cleared-in-trial-on-unapproved-drugs.html
======================================
[8] – 8/1/1997 – Reason: Rick Henderson from the August/September 1997 issue, Assets, Sound Diagnosis: Unconventional cancer physician Stanislaw Burzynski’s 14-year battle with the FDA is over
——————————————————————
http://reason.com/archives/1997/08/01/balance-sheet
======================================

Advertisements

Questioning “The Skeptics™” Colorado Public Television (CPT12) PBS Facebook comments with links

——————————————————————
This page is linked to:
======================================
A Critical Analysis of Wikipedia’s “Failure to Communicate”:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/13/a-critical-analysis-of-wikipedias-failure-to-communicate/
======================================
Questioning “The Skeptics™” – 131 comments with links
——————————————————————
104 – Didymus Thomas
18 – Robert Davis
8 – Eric Merola
1 – Paul Battista
======================================
https://www.facebook.com/questions/488444654552853
======================================
3/5/2013 – Paul Battista
Get the book FDA FAILURE DECEPTION ABUSE by he life extension foundation at
http://www.lef.org.
Highest
lef.org
======================================
3/5/2013 – Robert Davis
Some good reading on its way…
http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/cancer1/antineoplastons.htm
more to come
mnwelldir.org
——————————————————————
3/5/2013 – Robert Davis
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/06/11/burzynski-the-movie.aspx
Burzynski the Movie
articles.mercola.com
——————————————————————
3/5/2013 – Robert Davis

Money
youtube.com
——————————————————————
3/5/2013 – Robert Davis

sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
——————————————————————
3/5/2013 – Robert Davis

Dr Burzynski
youtube.com
——————————————————————
3/5/2013 – Robert Davis

sorry, no popcorn
youtube.com
——————————————————————
3/6/2013 – Robert Davis

Dr Burzynski movie (FULL
youtube.com
——————————————————————
3/6/2013 – Robert Davis
http://burzynskimovie.com/
Burzynski:
burzynskimovie.com
——————————————————————
3/6/2013 – Robert Davis

——————————————————————
3/7/2013 – Robert Davis
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16484713
Targeted
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
——————————————————————
3/7/2013 – Robert Davis
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15563234
Phase
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
——————————————————————
3/7/2013 – Robert Davis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oncology
——————————————————————
3/7/2013 – Robert Davis
http://healthwyze.org/index.php/component/content/article/443-jama-admits-that-chemo-and-radiation-are-likely-to-cause-death.html
JAMA
healthwyze.org
——————————————————————
3/7/2013 – Robert Davis
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12094134
Treatment
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
——————————————————————
3/7/2013 – Robert Davis
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1531648/
Chemotherapy
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
——————————————————————
3/7/2013 – Robert Davis
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2011/dec2011_Cancer-Establishment-Hides-Radiation-Side-Effects_01.htm
——————————————————————
3/7/2013 – Robert Davis
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_die_each_year_from_chemotherapy
——————————————————————
3/7/2013 – Robert Davis

sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
==========================
============
3/5/2013 – Eric Merola
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/healthprofessional/page5
Antineoplastons
cancer.gov
——————————————————————
3/5/2013 – Eric Merola
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=burzynski+sr

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=antineoplastons
burzynski sr – PubMed – NCBI
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
——————————————————————
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120934207044648511.html
Cash Before Chemo: Hospitals Get Tough
online.wsj.com
——————————————————————
3/5/2013 – Eric Merola
course:https://www.burzynskimovie.com/images/stories/Understanding/EmailFromFDA_Phase3_ANP.pdf
——————————————————————
3/5/2013 – Eric Merola
http://archive.org/details/Cbs48Hours4496MaryJoSiegel
——————————————————————
3/5/2013 – Eric Merola

Cancer – Burzynski – Jessica Ressel’s March in D.C. 9/28/96
youtube.com
——————————————————————
3/5/2013 – Eric Merola

Brain Cancer Cured – Medulloblastoma – from “Burzynski, the Movie” http://www.burzynskimovie.com
youtube.com
——————————————————————
3/5/2013 – Eric Merola
.. you ready Darren?
http://www.ncbi.dnlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=burzynski+sr
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=antineoplastons
Link: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/healthprofessional/page5
burzynski sr
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
——————————————————————
3/7/2013 – Eric Merola
http://burzynskimovie.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=96&Itemid=77
Transcript – Chapter 1 of 10 – Introduction
burzynskimovie.com
======================================

“The Skeptics™” Colorado Public Television (CPT12) – PBS Facebook comment links

——————————————————————
This page is linked to:
======================================
A Critical Analysis of Wikipedia’s “Failure to Communicate”:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/13/a-critical-analysis-of-wikipedias-failure-to-communicate/
======================================
“The Skeptics™” – 38 comments with links
——————————————————————
19 – Lynne Batik
5 – Fenwicke Bootzin
5 – Adam Jacobs (@DianthusMed)
3 – David H. Gorski (@gorskon @oracknows @ScienceBasedMed)
2 – Fred Hamlet
2 – Rene F. Najera
1 – Robert Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz)
1 – Andy Roseborrough
======================================
https://www.facebook.com/questions/488444654552853
======================================
3/6/2013 – Lynne Batik
http://theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com/
The OTHER BURZYNSKI PATIENT GROUP
theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com
——————————————————————
3/7/2013 – Lynne Batik
http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/pharmacologicalandbiologicaltreatment/antineoplaston-therapy
——————————————————————
3/7/2013 – Lynne Batik
http://burzynskiscam.com/

http://skepticalhumanities.com/2011/12/05/more-patients-whose-deaths-burzynski-has-presided-over/

http://www.jag-lawfirm.com/burzynski-suit-kprc-02012012.html
Burzynski Scam
burzynskiscam.com
——————————————————————
3/7/2013 – Lynne Batik
http://www.casewatch.org/board/med/burzynski/complaint_2010.shtml

http://www.casewatch.org/civil/burzynski/quinlan/petition.shtml
charges
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/11/26/significance-of-the-tmb-dismissal-case-against-burzynski/
——————————————————————
3/7/2013 – Lynne Batik
http://www.ncahf.org/nl/1997/3-4.html
NCAHF Newsletter March/April 1997
ncahf.org
——————————————————————
3/7/2013 – Lynne Batik
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/EnforcementActivitiesbyFDA/WarningLettersandNoticeofViolationLetterstoPharmaceuticalCompanies/UCM326631.pdf
promotional
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/EnforcementActivitiesbyFD
fda.gov
——————————————————————
3/7/2013 – Lynne Batik
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10069350?dopt=Abstract
Phase
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Lynne
http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)64143-8/fulltext
Efficacy
mayoclinicproceedings.org
——————————————————————
3/7/2013 – Lynne Batik
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=burzynski
his trials are all
Search of: burzynski ClinicalTrials.gov
clinicaltrials.gov
——————————————————————
3/7/2013 – Lynne Batik
Antineoplastons ARE
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15061600
Alternative
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
——————————————————————
3/7/2013 – Lynne Batik
http://anaximperator.wordpress.com/2010/05/06/do-75-of-doctors-refuse-chemotherapy-on-themselves/
Do Doctors
anaximperator.wordpress.com
——————————————————————
3/7/2013 – Lynne Batik
http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)64144-X/fulltext
Efficacy
mayoclinicproceedings.org
——————————————————————
3/7/2013 – Lynne Batik
And Didymus — your cherry-picked
http://www.casewatch.org/board/med/burzynski/complaint_2010.shtml

casewatch.org
——————————————————————
3/7/2013 – Lynne Batik
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski2.html
The Antineoplastin Anomaly
quackwatch.org
——————————————————————
3/7/2013 – Lynne Batik
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzynski_Clinic#Lawsuits
Lawsuits
en.wikipedia.org
——————————————————————
3/7/2013 – Lynne Batik
http://www.houstonpress.com/2009-01-01/news/cancer-doctor-stanislaw-burzynski-sees-himself-as-a-crusading-researcher-not-a-quack/full/

houstonpress.com
——————————————————————
3/7/2013 – Lynne Batik
Wow, Didymus
https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/27/27.F3d.153.93-2071.html
I don’t think it says
bulk.resource.org
——————————————————————
3/7/2013 – Lynne Batik
http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2012/03/the-burzynski-millions.html

quackometer.net
——————————————————————
3/7/2013 – Lynne Batik
http://www.zenbuffy.com/2012/03/burzynski-and-patient-choice/
——————————————————————
3/7/2013 – Lynne Batik
http://www.hcdistrictclerk.com/Edocs/Public/Search.aspx?Tab=tabCivil
Quinlan’s estate
======================================
3/4/2013 – Robert Blaskiewicz
http://theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com/2013/01/02/burzynski-luna-ps-story/

theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com
======================================
3/5/2013 – Fenwicke Bootzin
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3A7PDGO8PSZR8J%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fantineoplaston.us%2Fterms_of_service%2B%22pediatrica%22+antineoplastons+%22burzynski%22&client=safari&rls=en&oe=UTF-8&gs_l=heirloom-serp.3…7243.10604.0.11030.2.2.0.0.0.0.122.174.1j1.2.0…0.0…1c.1.rmjc5-Ob7a8&hl=en&ct=clnk
Antineoplaston.us – Terms of Service
webcache.googleusercontent.com
——————————————————————
3/5/2013 – Fenwicke Bootzin
Oh, and Eric, could you please Association (U.K.)”?
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/sr-burzynski-md-phd.html
(And, yes, there’s a screen capture.)
burzynskiclinic.com
——————————————————————
3/5/2013 – Fenwicke Bootzin
John Barratt, “As to why he hasn’t
http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01260103
A Randomized Study of
clinicaltrials.gov
——————————————————————
3/6/2013 – Fenwicke Bootzin
Indeed,
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=burzynski+antineoplastons&Search=Search
Search of: burzynski ClinicalTrials.gov
clinicaltrials.gov
——————————————————————
3/6/2013 – Fenwicke Bootzin
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=burzynski+antineoplastons&Search=Search
antineoplastons – List Results – ClinicalTrials.gov
clinicaltrials.gov
======================================
3/5/2013 – David H. Gorski
for Burzynski’s unproven treatment. Bottom line: AntineoplastonsARE chemotherapy. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/stanislaw-burzynski-bad-medicine-a-bad-movie/
Science-Based Medicine
sciencebasedmedicine.org
——————————————————————
3/5/2013 – David H. Gorski

Sparks – “I Predict” (official video)
youtube.com
——————————————————————
3/5/2013 – David H. Gorski
“LOOK AT THE 5 YEAR SURVIVAL STATS AFTER CHEMO IN THIS AUSTRALIAN STUDY”
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/chemotherapy-doesnt-work/
Science-Based Medicine
sciencebasedmedicine.org
======================================
3/5/2013 – Fred Hamlet
LOOK AT THE 5 YEAR SURVIVAL STATS AFTER CHEMO IN THIS AUSTRALIAN STUDY: yurt.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=3418040376468&set=a.2556921889044t.2113227.1433907906&type=3&src=https%3A%2F%2Fsphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ash4%2F295112_3418040376468_1479525257_n.jpg&size=720%2C426
——————————————————————
3/5/2013 – Fred Hamlet

Dying To Have Known
youtube.com
======================================
3/5/2013 – Adam Jacobs
http://theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com/
The OTHER Burzynski Patient Group
theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com
——————————————————————
3/5/2013 – Adam Jacobs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antineoplaston
Burzynski Clinic – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
——————————————————————
3/5/2013 – Adam Jacobs
http://theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com/2013/02/17/burzynski-patient-john-ds-story/
Burzynski Patient John D’s Story
theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com
——————————————————————
3/6/2013 – Adam Jacobs
Diddy:
http://www.mskcc.org/cancer-care/herb/antineoplastons#msk-herb-tab-consumer
Antineoplastons
mskcc.org
——————————————————————
3/7/2013 – Adam Jacobs
http://www.mskcc.org/cancer-care/herb/antineoplastons
Antineoplastons
mskcc.org
======================================
3/5/2013 – Rene F. Najera
We could see Mr. Merola comi
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/02/18/as-josh-duhamel-shills-for-the-burzynski-clinic-eric-merola-prepares-to-carpet-bomb-the-blogosphere-with-nonsense/
As Josh Duhamel
scienceblogs.com
——————————————————————
– Rene F. Najera
We could see Merola
http://scienceblo
gs.com/insolence/2013/02/18/as-josh-duhamel-shills-for-the-burzynski-clinic-eric-merola-prepares-to-carpet-bomb-the-blogosphere-with-nonsense/
As Jossh Duhamel
scienceblogs.com
======================================
3/6/2013 – Andy Roseborrough
http://www.skepticblog.org/2011/11/28/the-burzynski-clinic-another-crank-tries-to-intimidate-a-blogger/
======================================

A Critical Analysis of Wikipedia’s “Failure to Communicate”

======================================
[1] – 1st 7 comments by
“The Skeptics™”

======================================
34 – # of “The Skeptics™”
======================================
29 – # Questioning “The Skeptics™”
======================================
192 comments – “The Skeptics™”
——————————————————————
44 – Lynne Batik
31 – Fenwicke Bootzin (Sizzling Bacon Scent) Sizzling Burnt Bacon Scent
13 – Robert (Bobby) Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz)
13 – Adam Jacobs (@DianthusMed)
12 – Jen Abe
10 – David H. Gorski (@gorskon @oracknows @ScienceBasedMed)
7 – Edward Jenner
6 – Guy Chapman (@SkepticGuy)
6 – Fred Hamlet
6 – Rene F. Najera
6 – Darren Woodward (Sebastian Armstrong @spikesandspokes on Twitter)
4 – Angela Campagna
4 – Val Perry Rendel
3 – Amy Hochberg Beaton
3 – Susan Scotvold Goodstein
3 – Karl Mamer
2 – Scott Hurst
2 – Laura Calise Neimeyer
2 – Tsu Dho Nimh
1 – Catherina Becker
1 – Vicky Forster
1 – Jan Gosau
1 – David James (@StortSkeptic)
1 – Terry D. Johnson
1 – Jen Keane
1 – Adam Levenstein
1 – Keir Liddle (@endless_psych)
1 – Matthew Miller
1 – Paul Morgan (@DrPaulMorgan)
1 – Richard Murray
1 – Scott Myers
1 – Andy Roseborrough
1 – Footy Stuff
1 – Tom Steinberg

======================================
239 comments – Questioning “The Skeptics™”
——————————————————————
112 – Didymus Thomas *
71 – Robert Davis
15 – Jon Barratt
13 – Eric Merola
7 – Bruce Scherzer
4 – Ben Hymas
2 – Bill Doucette
2 – Teresa Kennett
2 – Krassi Kostova
2 – Jessica Ressel-Doeden
2 – Jennifer Woods
1 – Angela Campagna
1 – Jessica Guillory Garza
1 – Melissa Gilbert
1 – Russell David Humphress
1 – Karl Jobst
1 – Anya Matkowski
1 – Susanne McAllister
1 – Terri Miller
1 – Mark Mord
1 – Shannon E. Peters
1 – Chris Rodriguez
1 – Pat Rozek
1 – Cindy Samora
1 – Ric Schiff
1 – Gary Susie
1 – Kevin Thurston
1 – Laura Vincent
1 – Susan Wassenhove
——————————————————————
* Requesting “The Skeptics™” reply when they did NOT, pointing out where they did NOT provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support their claims
======================================
38 comments with links – “The Skeptics™”
——————————————————————
19 – Lynne Batik
5 – Fenwicke Bootzin (Sizzling Bacon Scent) Sizzling Burnt Bacon Scent
5 – Adam Jacobs (@DianthusMed)
3 – David H. Gorski (@gorskon @oracknows @ScienceBasedMed)
2 – Fred Hamlet
2 – Rene F. Najera
1 – Robert (Bobby) Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz)
1 – Andy Roseborrough

======================================
131 comments with links – Questioning “The Skeptics™”
——————————————————————
104 – Didymus Thomas *
18 – Robert Davis
8 – Eric Merola
1 – Paul Battista
——————————————————————
* One of “The Skeptics™” made the mistake of commenting that Burzynski, had NOT published any publications
======================================
“The Skeptics™” LIES
——————————————————————
[2] – 3/5/2013 – Adam Jacobs

” … did you know that he’s recently removed all mention of antineoplastons from his website … “
——————————————————————
[3] – 3/5/2013 – William M. London

” … Burzynski’s anti-cancer fantasies … “
——————————————————————
[4] – 3/5/2013 – Paul Morgan

“As for his “gene-targeted” therapy, firstly Burzynski is simply using a cocktail of chemotherapy drugs in a random and haphazard manner with no thoughts as to the potential interactions and unpredictable toxicity of his mix of chemotherapy drugs”

“As for being “gene-targeted”, his approach could be described as “gene-targeted” in the same way as the military regard carpet bombing …”
======================================

======================================
======================================
“The Skeptics™” who got it WRONG
——————————————————————
3/5/2013 – Rene F. Najera

“I predict this poll and subsequent comments will be taken down by the end of the day”
——————————————————————
This “Skeptics™” must have had
CPT12
confused with “The Skeptics™” like Robert (Bobby) Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz), David H. Gorski (@gorskon @oracknows @ScienceBasedMed), Adam Jacobs (@DianthusMed), and Keir Liddle (@endless_psych), who block people on their blogs
======================================
“The Skeptics™” who did NOT provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support their claims
——————————————————————
3/6/2013 – Lynne Batik

“Dr. B is a scam artist who has found a few people he can claim to have cured, and uses those to sucker in far more people who he will bankrupt without curing”
——————————————————————
3/4/2013 – Amy Hochberg Beaton

“I think Burzynski has proved multiple times over that his $*&% doesn’t work and he is not running a legitimate trial”
——————————————————————
3/5/2013 – Catherina Becker

“To prey on desperate, dying people, encouraging them to fund raise, risk hundreds of thousands of dollars of debts, for life threatening humbug must be the vilest phenomenon in Medicine”

“To support such behaviour by running adverts for these vultures is equally vile”
——————————————————————
3/4/2013 – Robert Blaskiewicz

“ANP is toxic as anything!”

“most of Burzynski’s patients never qualify for his trials”

“They all end up taking tons of chemo used off label”
——————————————————————
3/5/2013 – Susan Scotvold Goodstein

“Airing a film that is nothing more than an advertisement / informercial for Burzynski’s 30 year medical scam is not presenting a fair and balanced program”
——————————————————————
3/5/2013 – David H. Gorski

“Antineoplastons, however, are neither nontoxic nor an effective treatment”

“In fact, they’re definitely toxic”

“People have developed a dangeros condition called hypernatremia (too high a sodium level) as a result of antineoplaston treatment”
——————————————————————
3/5/2013 – Adam Jacobs

“Burzynski absolutely does not research “non-toxic” treatments”

“Mostly, he uses conventional chemotherapy, but in a rather amateurish way, using unproven combinations of drugs”

“The treatment that has made him famous, antineoplastons, is highly toxic and has been known to kill people”
——————————————————————
3/5/2013 – David James

“You run the risk of genuinely endangering people’s lives by exposing them to unproven and ridiculously expensive treatment modalities”
——————————————————————
3/5/2013 – Adam Levenstein

“do I think that the fraud Burzynski should be promoted with an infomercial on a taxpayer-funded TV station … “
——————————————————————
3/5/2013 – William M. London

“Colorado Public Television functions as an infomercial broadcast service for false medical prophets (who profit from Colorado Public Television’s irresponsibility)”
——————————————————————
3/5/2013 – Paul Morgan

“Antineoplaston chemotherapy – despite the claims of Burzynski and his shills – are far from being non-toxic”

“They contain vast quantities of sodium, which results in patients having to ingest vast quantities of water to counteract the overpowering thirst generated by taking in so much sodium”

“Some patients have become grossly hypernatraemic (high serum sodium), others profoundly hypokalaemic (low serum potassium)”

“Others have developed renal failure”

“All these TOXIC SIDE EFFECTS are extremely hazardous and life-threatening”

“If you consider antineoplastons to be non-toxic, you are seriously deluded”

“If you think antineoplastons are not chemotherapy, you are also wrong”
——————————————————————
3/5/2013 – Tsu Dho Nimh

“You are being co-opted to slather a layer of respectability over Burzynski’s quackery”

“You seem to fit the definition of a media whore … will sell out for ratings”
——————————————————————
3/4/2013 – Val Perry Rendel

“Do I think magic voodoo bullshit should be used to profiteer from human suffering and desperation?”
——————————————————————
3/6/2013 – Andy Roseborrough

“Burzynski not only sells
bullcrap
for profit at the expense of people’s health, but he tries to silence legitimate criticism via his lawyers”

——————————————————————
3/4/2013 – Darren Woodward

” … the completely unproven, very expensive treatments sold to vulnerable people … “

” … rather than informing your audience it looks like you are trying to misinform them”

“by what measure are antineoplastines non-toxic, certainly medically they are toxic”
======================================

======================================

======================================

======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – Critiquing Wikipedia: Burzynski Clinic, Colorado Public Television (CPT12), and Public Broadcasting System (PBS):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/12/critiquing-wikipedia-burzynski-clinic-colorado-public-television-cpt12-and-public-broadcasting-system-pbs/
======================================
[2] – Burzynski updates Scientific Publications page:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/burzynski-updates-scientific-publications-page/
======================================
[3] – Critiquing: American Cancer Society – Antineoplaston Therapy:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/09/critiquing-american-cancer-society-antineoplaston-therapy/
======================================
[4] – University of Michigan, where is alum Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski’s Grapefruits ?:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/04/university-of-michigan-where-is-alum-dr-david-h-orac-gorskis-grapefruits/
======================================
“The Skeptics™” Colorado Public Television (CPT12) – PBS Facebook comment links:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/the-skeptics-colorado-public-television-cpt12-pbs-facebook-comment-links/
======================================
Questioning “The Skeptics™” Colorado Public Television (CPT12) PBS Facebook comments with links:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/questioning-the-skeptics-colorado-public-television-cpt12-pbs-facebook-comments-with-links/
======================================

Critiquing Wikipedia: Burzynski Clinic, Colorado Public Television (CPT12), and Public Broadcasting System (PBS)

[1] – Wikipedia, which is behind on updating the “propaganda” on their Burzynski article, posted:

Legal issues

2010 film, Burzynski – Cancer is Serious Business

[2] – “A showing of Burzynski by CPT12 only generated a handful of complaints to the PBS Ombudsman

“These mostly concurred with earlier reviewers of the film that the movie displays a serious lack of objectivity”

[3] – “Some CPT staffers were also criticized for failing to ask Eric Merola any of the hard questions”[65]

[4] – What Wikipedia fails to advise the reader is how many times “The Skeptics™” lied, misinformed, disinformed, and / or did NOT provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support their claims, did NOT respond to questions, used adolescent excuses and / or instead of addressing one issue per comment, posted numerous multiple issues in each comment which required research to address each issue, and thus #FAILED on the CPT12 Facebook page

[5] – [6] – Here is a list of “The Skeptics™” who participated in this questionable behavior

Darren Woodward (Sebastian Armstrong @spikesandspokes on Twitter)
Val Perry Rendel
Amber Sherwood K
Amy Hochberg Beaton
Robert Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz)
Adam Jacobs @DianthusMed)
Paul Morgan (@DrPaulMorgan)
William M. London
Scott Myers
David James (@StortSkeptic)
Guy Chapman (@SkepticGuy)
Karl Mamer
David H. Gorski (@gorskon @oracknows @ScienceBasedMed)
Adam Levenstein
Rene F. Najera
Tsu Dho Nimh
Jen Keane
Vicky Forster
Scott Hurst
Susan Scotvold Goodstein
Catherina Becker
Footy Stuff

Oh, wait

That would take too much time since it was about all of “The Skeptics™”
=====================================
[1] – Burzynski Clinic – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
——————————————————————
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzynski_Clinic
——————————————————————
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzynski_Clinic
——————————————————————
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzynski_Clinic
=====================================
[2] – 3/23/2013 – My review of “Burzynski: A note to the PBS ombudsman”:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/23/my-review-of-burzynski-a-note-to-the-pbs-ombudsman/
=====================================
[3] – [65] – 3/22/2013 – PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler – Cancer Is ‘Serious Business.’ Is the ‘Documentary’?
——————————————————————
http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/2013/03/cancer_is_serious_business_is_the_documentary_1.html
=====================================
[4] – 3/7/2013 – Colorado Public Television 12 – PBS (broadcasted a version of “Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business”(Part I)
——————————————————————
http://www.cpt12.org
——————————————————————
#CPT12 @ColoPublicTV
——————————————————————
https://www.facebook.com/questions/488444654552853
=====================================
[5] – 3/9/2013 – Colorado Public Television – PBS:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/09/colorado-public-television-pbs/
=====================================
[6] – 3/26/2013 – My Critique of Bob Blaskiewicz (Colorado Public Television – PBS CPT12):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/my-critique-of-bob-blaskiewicz-colorado-public-television-pbs-cpt12/
=====================================

My Critique of Bob Blaskiewicz (Colorado Public Television – PBS CPT12)

Skeptical Humanities
Learning is Cool

A Letter to the PBS Ombudsman about CPT12′s Airing of

“Burzynski”
http://t.co/RxDZHDN2RM

Posted by Bob

PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler

“To understand the complexities and history involved takes a lot of work, far more than we could possibly expect of Mr. Getler”

(or, as I have proven, of YOU)
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/critiquing-bob-blaskiewicz-burzynski-cancer-is-serious-business-part-ii

“That said, however, I do disagree with some of his conclusions”

(You could see that coming a mile away, couldn’t you?)

Getler starts off:

[ ” … It is about the decades-long struggle of a Polish-born physician and biochemist, Stanislaw Burzynski, who set up a clinic in Texas in 1976, to achieve acceptance for a cancer-cure therapy based on a treatment he developed based on what he calls “Antineoplastons.” [ANP]”

“I submit this is already wrong

There is little evidence that Burzynski is at all serious about developing antineoplastons for wider marketing”

THAT certainly explains the Phase III stuff

“If that were true, surely he would have managed to have completed and published a single advanced trial in 35 years

“If you look at the trials he’s been required to register at clinicaltrials.gov, you see over 60 trials, 1 completed, and none published

NONE”

Bobby, where is the

Citation(s),

Reference(s), and / or

Link(s)

that support your

“required to register”

statement ?

NONE ?

Are you a sociopath who thinks that people should believe you just because you blogged or twitted it ?

“This is important because he is restricted to giving his ANP in clinical trials

But he apparently abandons his trials, almost all of them

This is not normal”

Bobby, how many is

“almost all of them” ?

“He charges patients out the nose to participate in the clinical trials

This is not normal”

Does it cost as much as any of THESE ?

Cost cancer
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-16/politics/health.care.hearing_1_health-insurance-post-claims-underwriting-individual-health?_s=PM:POLITICS

2008 – Cost cancer insurance
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/health/06avastin.html?_r=0

Cost cancer chemo up-front
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120934207044648511.html?mod=2_1566_topbox#articleTabs%3Darticle

3/2012
http://www.avalerehealth.net/news/2012-04-03_COA/Cost_of_Care.pdf

CHEMOTHERAPY:
9/24/2012

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/09/24/3549634/prices-soar-as-hospitals-dominate.html

5/14/2012
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-05-14/national/35457286_1_lung-cancer-drug-drugs-work-multiple-myeloma-patients

RADIATION:
1/4/2013

http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2013/01/13370/how-prostate-cancer-therapies-compare-cost-and-effectiveness

3/15/2012
http://www.ascopost.com/issues/march-15-2012/rising-costs-in-radiation-oncology-linked-to-medicare-coverage.aspx

http://cancer.disease.com/Treatment/Radiation-Therapy

“This is not the behavior of someone who intends to market the product widely later and expects a return on an investment

It sure looks like someone taking the money while he can”

THAT sure explains THIS 7/5/2012 Marketing and Consulting Agreement contract:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/724445/000110465912047927/a12-16018_1ex10d10.htm

“I put the word “documentary” in quotes above because while the actual film does indeed document very well Burzynski’s seemingly endless battle to win acceptance and approval for his treatment against the FDA, National Cancer Institute, patent challenges and big pharmaceutical companies — and includes very powerful filmed interviews with cancer survivors who say his treatment (in Texas, where it was allowed) saved them — it doesn’t have the kind of critical other-side that one is used to in other documentaries

That last part is true

the movie is one-sided”

Bobby, you do know that Eric Merola offered oncologist and self-described researcher, David H. Gorski

(@gorskon @oracknows @ScienceBasedMed #sciencebasedmedicine http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org)

the opportunity to appear in

Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business, Part II,

and he REFUSED, right ?

“Of course, why this is might be more apparent if Mr. Getler had realized that Merola’s cousin was a patient of Burzynski (she later died, of course) and that Merola raised funds for his cousin’s treatments on his website

Merola is not impartial

He has skin in the game

He has sunk an enormous amount into Burzynski”

Yeah, just like every other documentary film-maker or director of multiple movies re the same subject (Jaws, Terminator, Predator, Alien, etc.)

“Mr. Getler mentions that Shari Bernson, the person responsible for the programming and who appeared in fundraising spots, described the movie as “controversial.”

To someone on the outside, it may appear to be controversial

To someone who understands the science and process of publication and who has found endless descriptions of how patients end up making really, really bad choices out of desperation at that clinic, however, there is no controversy”

The “controversy” is “The Skeptics” who do NOT know how to “Fact-Check,” and instead “Insert Foot in Mouth”

“The fact remains that after 35+ years, the Clinic has never produced a single reproducible result that would constitute the barest minimum for serious consideration among experts

It just hasn’t”

That certainly explains the antineoplaston studies done in Poland, South Korea, Russia, Egypt, Japan, China, Taiwan (ROC), and the USA

That China published their most recent antineoplaston A10 study 10/1/2010

Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry

October 2010, Volume 286, Issue 1, pp 135-140

#Burzynski References: 5. – 6.

The Randomized Japan study is scheduled for publication THIS year

“Should that ever happen (I’m not holding my breath), then, hell, yes, we’ll be on board cheering the advance of science”

“But he has to play by the rules

And this is important too, playing by the rules that all real researchers abide to

Part of the FDA’s job is to ensure that Burzynski’s people are doing this

And on February 7th, they were doing just that; they were in the facility inspecting to make sure that Burzynski’s team was playing by the rules

In a FOIA release this week, the FDA revealed a number of things that had been found out and reported to the clinic by the time the movie aired

By law, the Clinic had 15 days to respond, so if they responded, it was before CPT12′s love-in

(The observational notes can be found here:”
http://skepticalhumanities.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/burzynskiform483feb2013.pdf)

“Two investigators observed:”

“The IRB [Institutional Review Board] used an expedited review procedure for research which did not appear in an FDA list of categories eligible for expedited review, and which had not previously been approved by the IRB”

“Specifically, your IRB routinely provided expedited approvals for new subjects to enroll under Single Patient Protocols.”

“[2 adults and 3 pediatric patients are mentioned]”

“The IRB approved the conduct of research, but did not determine that the risks to subjects were reasonable in relation to the anticipated benefits (if any) to subjects, and to the importance of the knowledge that might be expected to result”

“Specifically, your IRB gave Expedited Approval for several Single Patient Protocols (SPP) without all the information necessary to determine that the risk to subjects are minimized.”

“[4 examples follow]”

“The IRB did not determine at the time of initial review that a study was in compliance with 21 CFR Part 50 Subpart D, ‘Additional Safeguards for Children in Clinical Investigations.’”

“Specifically, an IRB that reviews and approves research involving children is required to make a finding that the study is in compliance with 21 CFR Part 50 Subpart D, ‘Additional Safeguards for Children in Clinical Investigations.’”

“Your IRB approved research involving children without documentation of the IRBs finding that the clinical investigation satisfied the criteria under Subpart D.””

“[3 examples follow and there is a note that this is a repeat observation that had been found in an Oct 2010 Inspection.]”

“The IRB did not follow its written procedure for conducting its initial review of research”

“Specifically, the IRB is required to follow its written procedures for conducting initial and continuing review”

“Your IRB did not follow your written procedures for conducting initial and continuing review because these subjects received IRB approval via an expedited review procedure not described in your Standard Operating Procedures”

“If your IRB would have followed your own SOP for initial and continuing review, the following subjects would have received review and approval from the full board rather than an expedited review.””

“[2 adults and 3 pediatric patients are listed.]”

“The IRB has no written procedures for ensuring prompt reporting to the IRB, appropriate institutional officials, and the FDA of any unanticipated problems involving risks to human subjects or others”

“Specifically, your current SOP-2012 v2-draft doc does not describe the requirements on Investigators on how unanticipated problems are reported to the IRB, Institutional Official, and the FDA, such as time intervals and the mode of reporting, or otherwise address how the prompt reporting of such instances will be ensured.”

“The IRB has no written procedures [in the SOP-2012 v2-draft doc] for ensuring prompt reporting to the IRB, appropriate institutional officials, and the FDA of any instance of serious or continuing noncompliance with theses [sic] regulations or the requirements or determinations of the IRB.”

“A list of IRB members has not been prepared and maintained, identifying members by name, earned degrees, representative capacity, and any employment or other relationship between each member and the institution.”

“You have to play by the rules”

So, NOT as bad as THIS 9 pager ?
http://www.pharmalive.com/fda-warns-stem-cell-company-over-violations

“I’m not sure that this round of investigation is over yet, as the audience at the premier of the sequel was apparently told that the FDA was still on site”

“Researchers should not be playing fast and loose with the rules that protect children (a protected subject population, like prisoners and students–yeah, I’m IRB certified)”

“There should be procedures in place to see that proper oversight and reporting of unexpected events is ensured”

“Hell, there was apparently no document even saying WHO was on the IRB!”

“This is not a report on a serious research institution”

“It’s more like the observations of the IRB of a clown school”

How many more businesses with more IRB issues than Burzynski did you find during you intense “Fact-Finding” mission ?

“Back to Mr Getler’s letter:”

“On the other hand, Bernson’s sidekick on the in-studio, pledge-drive promotion who was interviewing the clinic spokesman, made me gag when she said,

“I’m Rebecca Stevens and I’m proud to be a journalist who asks the hard questions.”

There were no hard questions”

[I believe the question that followed up this statement was, “What is peer-review?”–RJB]

“And where Bernson may have gone too far, depending on who you believe, was in her statement that:

“Antineoplaston therapy has had significant success rates with terminal brain cancer patients and especially in children.”

No, she went too far no matter who you believe, and his next paragraph demonstrates this:”

“The National Cancer Institute, reporting last month on Antineoplastons, said, among other things:

“No randomized, controlled trials showing the effectiveness of antineoplastons have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals”

and that they are

“not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the prevention or treatment of any disease.”

Aaaand…how’s that controversial?

In light of this, how could Sherri possibly be right?

My bottom line is that CPT12 obviously has a right to show this film

Nobody questions that

“What we wanted, and what was offered to the station, was the opportunity to have an independent oncologist in the studio at the time of the broadcast, you know, to stir up the kind of informed discussion the station says they want to have instead of settling for two True Believers talking to two CPT12 pitch people”

“When the station had that opportunity, they walked away from it”

“That’s indefensible”

“Especially when you consider that the people we are worried about, patients and their families, may NOT be as discerning as your average viewer, as CPT President Willard Rowland suggests in his response to the ombudsman:

“The program’s airing is grounded in the station’s mission, specifically those portions about respecting our viewers as inquisitive and discerning citizens, addressing social issues and public concerns not otherwise adequately covered in the community, and cultivating an environment of discovery and learning.”

Some of them haven’t had good news since their diagnosis”

“Then they hear that some lone genius with the cure for cancer is operating in Houston and they are on the next flight down”

“I’ve seen it dozens of times, and I have hundreds more patients on deck to write about”

“These are vulnerable, vulnerable people who deserve the best information from their public broadcasters”

“I’m fairly disappointed by the tepid response, honestly”

“I have a hard time imagining that Mr. Getler, or Mr Willard Rowland for that matter, could possibly think that this program was anything but misleading if they spent a half hour at The OTHER Burzynski Patient Group, which chronicles, in patients’ own words, what goes on in that Clinic”

“All of the people told that getting worse is getting better”

“(for decades being fed the same line!),

the children having strokes

(unrelated to their tumors)

while on the medicine, the “terrifying” amounts of sodium that go into patients”

“The quasi-legalistic threats and phone calls to dissatisfied cancer patients”

“The untested chemo cocktails given to most of his patients”

“None of that was mentioned in the CPT12 fundraiser”

“Of course, that’s not Mr. Getler’s fight”

RJB
http://skepticalhumanities.com/2013/03/26/a-letter-to-the-pbs-ombudsman-about-cpt12s-airing-burzynski

Maybe you should go here and explain the critics actions:
https://www.facebook.com/questions/488444654552853

The cult of “Misinformation” continued

Adam Jacobs

“Yes, of course he uses chemotherapy. He uses both conventional chemotherapy and antineoplastons. Antineoplastons, despite Burzynski’s attempts to paint them as being made of unicorn tears, are just another form of chemotherapy. They have toxic effects, mainly including hypernatremia, which can be fatal. The main difference between antineoplastons and conventional chemotherapy is that antineoplastons don’t work. As for where I get this information from, there are a great many sources, but this one is a good start:”
http://theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com/
March 5 at 3:39pm

The Cult of “Misinformation”

Review of “disinformation,” “misinformation,” and “misdirection” posted by #Burzynski critics

Vicky Forster

“There is no evidence that his treatments are non-toxic and infact a fair bit to the contrary”
March 5 at 10:35am

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support “a fair bit to the contrary” statement

Adam Jacobs

“It is transparently obvious that your goal is to present misleading, biased information. As a result of that, real cancer patients may be harmed. You must clearly understand that now that you’ve read all the feedback above. The fact that you clearly don’t care about the fate of cancer patients is reprehensible”
March 5 at 10:39am

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support “present misleading, biased information,” ” real cancer patients may be harmed,” and “you clearly don’t care about the fate of cancer patients” statements

Scott Hurst

“Adam Jacobs gets this one exactly right. Seconded”
March 5 at 10:51am

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support this statement

Susan Scotvold Goodstein

“I completely agree with the other posters here. Airing a film that is nothing more than an advertisement / informercial for Burzynski’s 30 year medical scam is not presenting a fair and balanced program. I won’t be making any donation to your fund raising CPT12. This is NOT quality programming”
March 5 at 10:57am

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support “Airing a film that is nothing more than an advertisement / informercial” and “medical scam”
statements

David H. Gorski

“Indeed. Colorado Public TV must think we’re complete idiots to think that such a transparent bit of self-serving PR-speak that is so at odds with the obvious reality would fly. The bottom line is that CPT is using a movie promoting an unproven cancer cure to raise money for its pledge drive. It is also featuring the film’s producer and a PR flack representing the subject of the film, all the while posting a “poll” whose very premise is false. (Oncologists are already trying to research less toxic therapies and have been for decades, while Burzynski’s antineoplastons are anything but “nontoxic.”) Then, when criticized, a PR flack for the station tries to feed critics a line of bull about being “neutral” and “telling both sides,” when the film certainly doesn’t do anything of the sort and CPT’s own actions belie its claim to be “neutral.”

Seriously, whoever you are speaking for CPT? Did you actually read that message you posted? Do you really think it’s believable? Disagreement I can handle; contempt for my intelligence kind of ticks me off”
March 5 at 10:58am

FAIL – Your alleged intelligence is at question here since you were given the opportunity to be in Part II of the Documentary, and you prefer to snipe from behind the safety of your keypad

David H. Gorski

“Actually, when CPT does that, I think that David Irving would be the best guy for them to get to comment after the movie. Then, the next week, they can play “Loose Change” and find a 9/11 Truther or two to comment …”
March 5 at 11:03am

FAIL – You believe the 911 party line?

NOT surprising

Robert Blaskiewicz

“How awful does your feedback need to be before you realize that you are going to endanger your viewership?”
March 5 at 12:25pm

241 – Yes
97 – No
2 – Undecided

Catherina Becker

“This is incredibly disappointing and CPT’s answer is lame. To prey on desperate, dying people, encouraging them to fund raise, risk hundreds of thousands of dollars of debts, for life threatening humbug must be the vilest phenomenon in Medicine. To support such behaviour by running adverts for these vultures is equally vile”
March 5 at 12:34pm

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support “prey on desperate, dying people” and “ife threatening humbug” statements

Rene F. Najera

“CPT12, There are no two sides to science. Either the Burzinski treatments work or they don’t. Either he publishes his results so that oncologists and scientists can look at the evidence or he doesn’t. Yes, you are correct in that it is controversial, thought-provoking, etc. But how will you justify it if one, just one person forgoes evidence-based treatment to go pay thousands of dollars to the Burzinski clinic to be allowed into a clinical trial that has not been shown to work? How is that “journalism” or how does it serve the public interest?

I’d have more respect for you if you called it what it is: AN INFOMERCIAL”
March 5 at 12:35pm

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support “INFOMERCIAL” and supposed threat that someone “forgoes evidence-based treatment”as if they can’t think for themselves and need you to “save them”

Footy Stuff

“This gives away the real motivation for the film as its a selling tool for the clinic. If it were a real review of new cancer therapies why isn’t there some balance in the form of a range of oncologists giving their view. Don’t be bought by the conspiracy rubbish – no mainstream Dr or group from a reputable University or department has been able to reproduce his data, a central tenant of medical science. His clinic is virtually unique in charging patients their life savings for treatment that is unproven. This is underhand and preys nj the desperate and broken”
March 5 at 1:35pm via mobile

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support “oncologists giving their view,”
“no mainstream Dr or group from a reputable University or department has been able to reproduce his data,” “charging patients their life savings” and “underhand and preys nj the desperate and broken”statements

Karl Mamer

“CPT a better poll might be “how many of you will cancel your plans to donate to PBS if we run this dangerous informercial? How many who have never donated will now donate?” Oh well. Seems to me people donate to PBS because it’s a small oasis of good science reporting. You’re abusing your privileged access to the public airwaves by running a one sided informercial”
March 5 at 1:39pm

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support “dangerous informercial”
and “running a one sided informercial” statements

Adam Jacobs

“I think some people here are confused. No-one is saying we shouldn’t research non-toxic cancer therapies. All we are saying is that Burzynski is not doing that: he uses toxic chemotherapy, but pretends that it’s non-toxic. Really not the same thing”
March 5 at 3:21pm

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support “he uses toxic chemotherapy” statement

Orac and the Cult of “Misinformation” (Part III)

David H. Gorski

” Nonsense! You’re using the film to raise money for your pledge drive, and you’re featuring a discussion with the producer and a representative from the Burzynski Clinic with no countering opinion from real experts in oncology. What you are doing is, in essence, a big infomercial for the Burzynski Clinic, without a hint of critical analysis. So what if you lob Eric Merola the occasional softball question. Is anyone going to ask him why Burzynski is promoting his work through a guy who makes corporate promotional videos for a living, instead of through the scientific literature?”
March 5 at 10:40am

FAIL – You were offered the opportunity to appear in:

Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business (Part II)

1. Lead,
2. follow, or
3. get out of the way

3. is what you chose

If you were really, truly concerned, you failed to Carpe Diem
https://www.facebook.com/questions/488444654552853

Keir Liddle and the Cult of MISINFORMATION

#Burzynski critic blogs:

The Anti Burzynski Movement?

Posted by Skeptic News

By Keir Liddle

“As Edzard Ernst puts it”

“Ad hominem attacks are signs of victories of reason over unreason“:

“Ersnt treats this tactic as a sign skeptics and critics are winning the argument

That those who resort to these tactics aren’t in fact insulting us but rather they are complementing the strength and rigour of our arguments

They can find no reasoned argument or rational rebuttal to the points or criticisms raised so they resort to insults or fantastical conspiracy theories to dismiss and defame their critics”

“As for the accusation that I have been involved in spreading MISINFORMATION?

Well all the articles I have written on Burzynski link to the sources they base their arguments on

To those who would believe that I am spreading MISINFORMATION I invite you to go back to the sources and read through them, don’t rely simply on the cherry picked and neatly presented resources available from Eric Merola on the Burzynski Movie site

See what everyone has to say and then make up your mind”
http://www.thetwentyfirstfloor.com/?p=7998

Burzynski clinic responds to criticism! (Sort of)

Posted by Endless Psych

By Keir Liddle

“Problematically for Burzynskis publishing ambitions the STABLE DISEASE category is not recognized by FDA as a measure of response”
http://www.thetwentyfirstfloor.com/?p=8001

Is this Burzynski critic “spreading MISINFORMATION” ?

Guidance for Industry – Food and Drug Administration

Guidance for Industry

Clinical Trial Endpoints for the Approval of Cancer Drugs and Biologics

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration

Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER)

Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER)

May 2007 Clinical/Medical

“STABLE DISEASE should not be a component of ORR

STABLE DISEASE can reflect the natural history of disease”
(Pg. 10 of 22 = actual pg. 7 of PDF)

“Also, STABLE DISEASE can be more accurately assessed by TTP or PFS analysis (see below)”
(Pg. 11 of 22 = actual pg. 8 of PDF)

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm071590.pdf
Burzynski: STABLE DISEASE
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-stable-disease/
Oh where, oh where, has The 21st Floor gone? Oh where, oh where, can it be?
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/oh-where-oh-where-has-the-21st-floor-gone-oh-where-oh-where-can-it-be
TUMBLR:
http://the21stfloor.tumblr.com
MIRROR:
http://twentyfirstfloormirror.wordpress.com