@PrismPodcast
http://www.prismpodcast.com/author/admin/
27 Sunday
October 2013
The Prism Podcast – Episode 8
http://www.prismpodcast.com/wp-login.php
Robert “Bob” Blaskiewicz is our guest today!
@TheWholeT00th can’t handle the Truth
Reply
Category Archives: Debate ?
“The Skeptics™” Burzynski Bias, Censorship, Lies, and Alibi’s: September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
——————————————————————
BB – Bob Blaskiewicz
——————————————————————
1:25:14
——————————————————————
BB – “Well we do have for for for for one thing, um, I guess to understand is that we are uh motivated by um uh a respect“
======================================
Bob, would that include “a respect” for “facts” ?
Because you seem to be the Hillary Clinton of “The Skeptics™”, in that you want people to think of the “children”, yet you also seem to want people to ignore that your “facts” might be “factually-challenged” and tainted by your “bias”
======================================
BB – “this is the one thing that that all Skeptics I think um are uh respect critical thinking“
======================================
Bob, I am very “critical” in my “thinking” of “The Skeptics™” who indicate that they supposedly want to “debate” and who claim that they will “respond on my blog” because “it only seems fair”, but then do NOT respond
Is THAT the kind of “critical thinking” you are referring to ? [1]
======================================
BB – “um, and um respect scientific uh a we we’re mostly scientific enthusiasts“
======================================
Bob, would that include Trollolo Mark McAndrew (@MarkMcan) who exhibited what type of “scientific enthusiasts” “The Skeptics™” attract, when he Trollolo’d all over “The Telegraph” ? [2]
======================================
BB – “but for the most part we all respect scientific consensus“
======================================
Bob, does that include the “scientific consensus” reached by the doctors who decided that Burzynski’s antineoplastons exhibited “antitumor activity” ? [3]
======================================
BB – “and we respect scientific method“
======================================
Bob, then why does your “The Other Burzynski Patient Group” (TOBPG) blog NOT “respect the scientific method” by indicating if those patients had no prior treatment, biopsy only, surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, or some other treatment, and how long they were on any therapy, if any ?
======================================
BB – “and have an enthusiasm for living in the real world”
======================================
Bob, exactly what “world” are you living in that you adopt lying and deception as part of your agenda regarding Burzynski ?
======================================
BB – “this is something that like all of us us are about”
——————————————————————
1:26:00
——————————————————————
Bob, do you mean what I wrote about above?
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/04/september-28-2013-the-skeptics-burzynski-discussion-by-bob-blaskiewicz-21951/
======================================
[2] – “The Skeptics™” Mark McAndrew is Trollolo:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/25/the-skeptics-mark-mcandrew-is-trollolo/
======================================
[3] – Critiquing: National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) CancerNet “fact sheet”
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/critiquing-national-cancer-institute-nci-at-the-national-institutes-of-health-nih-cancernet/
======================================
“The Skeptics™” Mark McAndrew is Trollolo
“The Skeptics™” Mark McAndrew #whining on “The Telegraph” while citing Guy Chapman’s blog, claims I shouldn’t be citing my own blog, but he does NOT have any problem whatsoever with his Skeptic guy friend, Guy Chapman, citing HIS own blog
HYPOCRITE
This is why I’m Hipocritical of “The Skeptics™”
Hipocritical
Hippocrates
Hypocrite
critical
critic
Mark McAndrew citing Guy Chapman’s (blahg) blog
Guy Chapman citing his own (blahg) blog TWICE
Guy Chapman citing his own (blahg) blog TWICE
Guy Chapman citing his own (blahg) blog
Guy Chapman citing his own (blahg) blog
Note below, how the moderator leaves my comment as “This comment is awaiting moderation. Show comment”, so that the reader has to select “Show comment” in order to see my reply
Guy Chapman
All of homeopathy, or just the imponderables?
——————————————————————
Didymus Judas Thomas
Mr. Chapman, I’m quite surprised that you’ve been mum about this particular Homeopathy publication on PubMed?
Cell Biochem Funct. 2013 Feb 13. doi: 10.1002/cbf.2960
[Epub ahead of print]
Stimulation of natural killer cells for homoeopathic complexes: An in vitro and in vivo pilot study in advanced cancer patients.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23408699/
Guy Chapman does NOT want to acknowledge that this publication exists
Note below, Mark McAndrew’s comment which gets deleted
Mark McAndrew, you must be the Troll under the bridge that people have to cross to get to the party
#8 – Mark McAndrew – October 22, 2013
Thanks Orac, great takedown
Perhaps you should ask the Telegraph for right of reply?
As a real oncologist (whose entire profession is under attack by these pricks) you have the moral authority to demand it
Comments were fun tho
Although debating the spectacular embarrassment that is Sandra Courtney was a bit like going ten rounds with a propped-up corpse
Good exercise, but not exactly testing
Nor hygienic
BTW, lilady, you’ve accidently upvoted one of the Demented One’s posts, the entirely non-ironic
“I think I have exposed your and other skeptics’ credibility as well
Actually, better than you think you have tarnished mine
More batty arrogance on display.”
(Is it true she reckons magic water saved her life from mercury poisoning from her fillings?
Gods, what a freak!)
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – “The Skeptics™” Bum Rush “The Telegraph” (@Telegraph): I Feel Empowered, In Control Of My Body: Four Women On Fighting Cancer With Alternative Therapies http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10383724/I-feel-empowered-in-control-of-my-body-four-women-on-fighting-cancer-with-alternative-therapies.html
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/23/the-telegraph-telegraph-i-feel-empowered-in-control-of-my-body-four-women-on-fighting-cancer-with-alternative-therapies/
======================================
[2] – Bias Biased “The Telegraph” Censor “Telegraph” Censors “The Daily Telegraph” Censored “The Sunday Telegraph” Censoring Censorship (@Telegraph): I Feel Empowered, In Control Of My Body: Four Women On Fighting Cancer With Alternative Therapies http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10383724/I-feel-empowered-in-control-of-my-body-four-women-on-fighting-cancer-with-alternative-therapies.html
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/25/bias-biased-the-telegraph-censor-telegraph-censors-the-daily-telegraph-censored-the-sunday-telegraph-censoring-censorship/
Bias Biased “The Telegraph” Censor “Telegraph” Censors “The Daily Telegraph” Censored “The Sunday Telegraph” Censoring Censorship (@Telegraph): I Feel Empowered, In Control Of My Body: Four Women On Fighting Cancer With Alternative Therapies http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10383724/I-feel-empowered-in-control-of-my-body-four-women-on-fighting-cancer-with-alternative-therapies.html
====================================
“The Skeptics™” – comments
——————————————————————
50 – Guy Chapman (1 – awaiting moderation): 1st person to comment
48 – Mark McAndrew (2 – deleted): 3rd person to comment
6 – Margaret Hardman
5 – lilady, R.N.
5 – anarchic teapot
3 – Adam Jacobs – 6th person to comment
4 – edith prickly (1 – deleted)
3 – jrtmedic
I – JGC
1 – AlanHenness
I – David Doran
1 – DoreeenParsons
I – Stephen Tonkin
I – skepticat
I – Tara
——————————————————————
(1 – awaiting moderation: Guy Chapman)
——————————————————————
(2 – deleted: Mark McAndrew)
(1 – deleted: edith prickly)
——————————————————————
131 – TOTAL (“The Skeptics™”)
====================================
Questioning “The Skeptics™” – comments
——————————————————————
42 – Sandra Courtney (6 – deleted): (3 – awaiting moderation)
13 – ReallyGoodMedicine (1 – awaiting moderation)
3 – Didymus Judas Thomas (1 – deleted): (1 – awaiting moderation)
3 – Gillian23 (1 – deleted)
2 – Jonnybones (1 – deleted)
1 – margretnewman (1 – awaiting moderation)
——————————————————————
(3 – awaiting moderation: Sandra Courtney)
(1 – awaiting moderation: ReallyGoodMedicine)
(1 – awaiting moderation: Didymus Judas Thomas)
(1 – awaiting moderation: margretnewman)
——————————————————————
(6 – deleted: Sandra Courtney)
(1 – deleted: Didymus Judas Thomas)
(1 – deleted: Gillian23)
(1 – deleted: Jonnybones)
——————————————————————
63 – TOTAL (Questioning “The Skeptics™”)
====================================
NEUTRAL
——————————————————————
1 – louise40
1 – Xassandra
1 – lordmuck
——————————————————————
3 – TOTAL (NEUTRAL)
====================================
I – deleted (by unknown)
——————————————————————
1 – TOTAL (deleted / unknown)
====================================
198 – TOTAL
——————————————————————
4 – censored *
——————————————————————
202 comments – TOTAL
====================================
131 – TOTAL (“The Skeptics™”)
63 – TOTAL (Questioning “The Skeptics™”)
3 – TOTAL (NEUTRAL)
1 – TOTAL (deleted / unknown)
——————————————————————
198 – TOTAL
——————————————————————
4 – censored *
——————————————————————
202 comments – TOTAL
====================================
* – at least 10 of Didymus Judas Thomas’ comments were censored
====================================
REFERENCES:
====================================
“The Skeptics™” Bum Rush “The Telegraph” (@Telegraph): I Feel Empowered, In Control Of My Body: Four Women On Fighting Cancer With Alternative Therapies http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10383724/I-feel-empowered-in-control-of-my-body-four-women-on-fighting-cancer-with-alternative-therapies.html
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/23/the-telegraph-telegraph-i-feel-empowered-in-control-of-my-body-four-women-on-fighting-cancer-with-alternative-therapies/
====================================
“The Sunday Telegraph,” “The Daily Telegraph,” “The Telegraph,” will you learn how “The Skeptics™” operate like Forbes did ? The Big 3: Articles, Bias, Biased, Censor, Censors, Censored, Censoring, Censorship:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/24/the-sunday-telegraph-the-daily-telegraph-the-telegraph-will-you-learn-how-the-skeptics-operate-like-forbes-did-the-big-3-artices-bias-biased-censor-censors-censore/
====================================
“The Sunday Telegraph,” “The Daily Telegraph,” “The Telegraph,” will you learn how “The Skeptics™” operate like Forbes did ? The Big 3: Articles, Bias, Biased, Censor, Censors, Censored, Censoring, Censorship
======================================
DJT – Didymus Judas Thomas
——————————————————————
BB – Bob Blaskiewicz
======================================
1:24:04 [1]
——————————————————————
DJT – I don’t give lame reasons for blocking people on my blog because I’m an American and I actually believe in “Free Speech”
——————————————————————
BB – “Well to be fair”
“It it it doesn’t strike me as necessarily a “Free Speech” issue, you know”
——————————————————————
DJT – Well to me it is when Forbes removes all my comments, in response to Skeptics some, and I showed this from screen-shots [2]
You know, stuff like that
——————————————————————
BB – “Was it down-voted ?”
——————————————————————
DJT – Oh no
——————————————————————
BB – “No”
——————————————————————
DJT – It wasn’t down-voted
——————————————————————
BB – “Mhmm”
======================================
Bob, what are you talking about ?
YOU were the 1st person to comment on that article
WHERE is there a “down-vote” option on #Forbes ?
======================================
DJT – They, I mean I’ve got screen-shots of where my comments were there, between other people’s comments, and uh, and they just decided to remove all my comments, and I blogged specifically about, you know, what they did and, uh, Gorski’s good friend and pal who authored that particular article
——————————————————————
BB – “Mhmm”
——————————————————————
DJT – SoI, I like how The Skeptics run things, you know [3]
——————————————————————
1:25:14
======================================
Bob, isn’t it nice how your picture is the 3rd one, below ?
======================================
PHARMA & HEALTHCARE | 4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM |2,516 views
A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics
106 comments, 4 called-out
Comment Now
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/04/september-28-2013-the-skeptics-burzynski-discussion-by-bob-blaskiewicz-21951/
======================================
[2] – Forbes Learns a Lesson, but Not the Right One: Censorship and Bias re: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/05/forbes-learns-a-lesson-but-not-the-right-one-censorship-and-bias-re-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/
=====================================
[3] – I Feel Empowered, In Control Of My Body: Four Women On Fighting Cancer With Alternative Therapies:
——————————————————————
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10383724/I-feel-empowered-in-control-of-my-body-four-women-on-fighting-cancer-with-alternative-therapies.html
======================================
“The Skeptics™” Bum Rush “The Telegraph” (@Telegraph): I Feel Empowered, In Control Of My Body: Four Women On Fighting Cancer With Alternative Therapies http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10383724/I-feel-empowered-in-control-of-my-body-four-women-on-fighting-cancer-with-alternative-therapies.html
I see “The Skeptics™” have descended on The Telegraph [1], just like they did on Forbes [2], and are attempting to “control the conversation” there, in the same manner
“The Skeptics™” LIE, comments get deleted, It’s like Forbes Part II (bias, biased, censor, censors, censored, censoring, censorship)
“The Skeptics™” obviously did NOT learn from their #epic Skeptic #fail #failure there
I wonder if “The Skeptics™” have taken a peek at #Forbes and seen that some of my comments which were removed, now have reappeared, as media sources find out how “The Skeptics™” operate ?
I also see that “The Skeptics™” fave oncologist has commented on the article and one of “The Skeptics™” has tried to get their Lord and Master, The King of “The Skeptics™” #epic Skeptic #fail #failure Disaster to join him in the pollution of another media source [3]
Mark McAndrew
Three people here have posted the link to Doctor Gorski’s response to this actual article
About as on-topic as it gets – and not their own work either
You, on the other hand, have spammed at least 12 people here with the exact same link to the “Didymus Judas Thomas’ Hipocritical Oath Blog” (sic), which – surprise – has absolutely nothing to do with this article
Is 12 less or more than 3, Diddy?
Who’s the liar?
Mr. McAndrew, did you get screenshots?
I only counted 10, which was provided because it backs up my comments
As far as who has posted your fave oncologist’s link
4 – Mark McAndrew
2 – lilady, R.N.
1 – Margaret Hardman
1 – David Doran
Do I really need to list the # of times Guy Chapman has cited his own blog?
And you were on your fave oncologist’s blog trying to get him to post here
Difference without a distinction
Guten Tag 🙂
DJT, USA
Mr. McAndrew, why don’t you ask your fave oncologist to reveal who I am so that I can prove him wrong?
Then you can try and prove that I work for the clinic after I prove him wrong
Problem solved
See how easy that is?
And you don’t end up looking like the
proverbial “village idiot” like one of “The Skeptics” who posts things without “fact-checking” them
I enjoy taking screenshots of my posts
Do you?
Sayanora
DJT, USA
Guy Chapman
All of homeopathy, or just the imponderables?
——————————————————————
Didymus Judas Thomas
Mr. Chapman, I’m quite surprised that you’ve been mum about this particular Homeopathy publication on PubMed?
Cell Biochem Funct. 2013 Feb 13. doi: 10.1002/cbf.2960
[Epub ahead of print]
Stimulation of natural killer cells for homoeopathic complexes: An in vitro and in vivo pilot study in advanced cancer patients.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23408699/
1. Mark McAndrew citing Dr. David H. (“Orac”) Gorski’s Respectful Insolence blog
2. Mark McAndrew citing Dr. David H. (“Orac”) Gorski’s Respectful Insolence blog
3. Mark McAndrew citing Dr. David H. (“Orac”) Gorski’s Respectful Insolence blog
4. Mark McAndrew citing Dr. David H. (“Orac”) Gorski’s Respectful Insolence blog
1. lilady, R.N. citing Dr. David H. (“Orac”) Gorski’s Respectful Insolence blog
2. lilady, R.N. citing Dr. David H. (“Orac”) Gorski’s Respectful Insolence blog
Margaret Hardman citing Dr. David H. (“Orac”) Gorski’s Respectful Insolence blog
David Doran citing Dr. David H. (“Orac”) Gorski’s Respectful Insolence blog
=====================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – I Feel Empowered, In Control Of My Body: Four Women On Fighting Cancer With Alternative Therapies:
——————————————————————
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10383724/I-feel-empowered-in-control-of-my-body-four-women-on-fighting-cancer-with-alternative-therapies.html
======================================
[2] – Forbes Learns a Lesson, but Not the Right One: Censorship and Bias re: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/05/forbes-learns-a-lesson-but-not-the-right-one-censorship-and-bias-re-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/
======================================
[3] –
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/10/22/four-misleading-cancer-testimonials-and-reverse-balance/
======================================
FDA Accelerated Approval: September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
======================================
BB – Bob Blaskiewicz ——————————————————————
DJT – Didymus Judas Thomas
======================================
0:29:00
——————————————————————
BB – “Who had the better results ?” [1]
——————————————————————
DJT – Well, I would have to find you one, there were like 3
——————————————————————
BB – “Okay”
——————————————————————
DJT – There were like 3 major ones that Burzynski has mentioned in his publications to cross-reference his trials versus their trials as far as the results [2]
======================================
radiation therapy and chemotherapy with cisplatin
(Mandell et al.) (6/1992 – 10/1997) [65]
——————————————————————
Low dose thalidomide and temodar
(Phuphanich, et al.) [66]
——————————————————————
recurrent Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM) with newest forms of Chemotherapy
(Prados et al.) [67]
======================================
DJT – And so, I, there was one back in 1999 that had better results than a lot of these clinical trials that come afterwards [3]
So when we talk about, you know, what’s really right for the patients well we can see that the drug companies want to test their drugs through clinical trials and, you know, and if your kid dies, well, unfortunately the kid dies
Even though we showed better results in 1999 with a different type of treatment, you would have thought that maybe they would have poured more investment into that particular treatment but that’s not necessarily how the clinical trial system works
——————————————————————
0:30:00
——————————————————————
0:32:07
——————————————————————
BB – “When you, when you think about a major, sorry, go ahead”
——————————————————————
0:33:03
——————————————————————
DJT – And plus, like I’ve said before
——————————————————————
BB – “Yeah, right, uh”
——————————————————————
DJT – We’ve still got the accelerated approval thing that’s out there, you know, like the FDA’s given Temodar and, and Avastin, and another drug, whereas they’re not doing the same thing for antineoplastons, eve even though for all intents and purposes from what we know, antineoplastons have had better success rates than Temodar and Avastin when they were approved
——————————————————————
BB – “Antineoplastons has a better rate ?”
——————————————————————
DJT – Well from the information that’s been published in certain um publications
——————————————————————
BB – “Right”
——————————————————————
DJT – And in, and in not only Burzynski’s but elsewhere in, in newspapers or articles, or such like that
——————————————————————
BB – “Right, one of the things that that there there are 2 points to be made here”
“Uhm, the 1st one is that major pharmaceutical companies that are getting this accelerated approval have a track record of producing results which Burzynski does not have“
“Secondly, when it comes to ummm the rates of antineoplastons, how can we possibly say without a single published trial he, that he has an improved rate over Temodar or anything like that, and that’s exactly what would show to us whether or not his rate is better, the the types of publications that he’s done, that look really good on paper, ummm, to the to the, the common persons eye are these case series where he goes through and picks out people who have happened to have survived”
——————————————————————
0:34:47
——————————————————————
BB – “But what that doesn’t tell us is whether or not the antineoplaston had anything to do with it”
“What you need to do is go and separate the background noise, the random weird rare but very real survive, unexpected survivals that occur, and separate those, uhhh, from any effect of antineoplaston, he’s never done that”
——————————————————————
0:35:10
——————————————————————
DJT – Well what I found interesting is when the FDA approved these other 1 or 2 drugs, some of them specifically said that, uhhh, some of these drugs had, you know, (no) better survivability or they showed no better rate than any previous treatment but we’re approving it anyway
Basically that’s what the publication said and I published this on my blog in an article specifically about, you know, those 2 or 3 drugs that the FDA approved for brainstem or brain related cancers
And so, you know, I’m not going to buy that argument about that, about that specific thing [4-6]
======================================
Temodar (Temozolomide):
======================================
1/1999 – Temozolomide received accelerated approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treatment of ANAPLASTIC ASTROCYTOMA (brain cancer) patients
——————————————————————
At time of approval, NO RESULTS were available from randomized controlled trials in refractory ANAPLASTIC ASTROCYTOMA that show clinical benefit such as improvement in disease-related symptoms or prolonged survival
======================================
1/1999 – Was the United States Food and Drug Administration’s accelerated approval based on the PUBLISHED FINAL RESULTS OF A PHASE II (2) CLINICAL TRIAL?
======================================
NO
1/1999 – FDA Accelerated Approval
9/1999 – Phase 2 publication
12/2000 – publication
======================================
9/1999 – Multicenter phase II trial of temozolomide in patients with ANAPLASTIC ASTROCYTOMA or anaplastic oligoastrocytoma at first relapse
Temodal Brain Tumor Group
All investigators concurred that a 6-month end point was appropriate in the GBM setting because, at that time,
most patients failed to respond to the drug
University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
======================================
12/2000 – Temozolomide and ANAPLASTIC ASTROCYTOMA:
new indication
NO CLEAR PROOF OF EFFICACY
——————————————————————
NO BETTER THAN SURVIVAL BEFORE THE INTRODUCTION OF temozolomide
======================================
2004 – Supratentorial high-grade ASTROCYTOMA and DIFFUSE BRAINSTEM GLIOMA:
two challenges for the pediatric oncologist
The addition of chemotherapy seems to improve the survival of a subset of these children, particularly those with glioblastoma multiforme
2-year survival rates remain poor for children with supratentorial neoplasms, ranging from 10%-30%
Less than 10% of children with diffuse brainstem gliomas survive 2 years
Despite aggressive treatment approach, outcome for children with these tumors remains poor; long-term survival rates range from <10%to 30% for most supratentorial tumors and are <10% for diffuse brainstem gliomas
Division of Neuro-Oncology, Department of Hematology-Oncology, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA
======================================
1/1/2005 (11/24/2004) – Role of temozolomide after radiotherapy for newly diagnosed diffuse BRAINSTEM GLIOMA in children:
results of a multiinstitutional study (SJHG-98)
Department of Hematology-Oncology, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA
——————————————————————
administration of temozolomide after RT DIDN’T ALTER POOR PROGNOSIS associated with newly diagnosed diffuse BRAINSTEM GLIOMA in children
All (33) patients died of disease progression (median survival, 12 months)
estimated 1-year survival rate was 48%
======================================
Avastin (Bevacizumab):
======================================
5/6/2009 – U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval of Avastin (bevacizumab) for people with GLIOBLASTOMA (brain cancer) with progressive disease following prior therapy
Currently, NO DATA available from randomized controlled trials demonstrating improvement in disease-related symptoms or increased survival with Avastin in GLIOBLASTOMA
——————————————————————
5/6/2009 – Was the United States Food and Drug Administration’s accelerated approval based on the PUBLISHED FINAL RESULTS OF A PHASE II (2) CLINICAL TRIAL?
——————————————————————
.2/10/2009 – 1st arm Phase 2 publication
5/6/2009 – FDA Accelerated Approval
1/1/2010 – 2nd arm publication
The answer is: The 1st arm of the phase 2 clinical trial was published .2/10/2009, before the 5/6/2009 FDA approval, and the 2nd arm was published 1/1/2010, after the FDA approval
——————————————————————
Study NCI 06-C-0064E
All patients had documented disease progression after receiving temozolomide and radiation therapy
Efficacy of Avastin in GLIOBLASTOMA that progressed following prior therapy supported by another study that used same response assessment criteria as AVF3708g
======================================
Afinitor (Everolimus):
======================================
Afinitor (ubependymal giant cell ASTROCYTOMA (SEGA) brain tumor)
——————————————————————
10/29/2010 – FDA granted accelerated approval for Afinitor (Novartis) after single Phase 2 study of only 28 patients
——————————————————————
none of their tumors went away completely
======================================
10/29/2010 – Was the United States Food and Drug Administration’s accelerated approval based on the PUBLISHED FINAL RESULTS OF A PHASE II (2) CLINICAL TRIAL?
——————————————————————
NO
10/29/2010 – FDA Accelerated Approval
10/12/2011 – publication
——————————————————————
10/12/2011 (8/1/2011) – Everolimus tablets for patients with
subependymal giant cell ASTROCYTOMA
======================================
BB – “But if you think about that, I mean that if it does have a a an improvement rate above uh other treatments”
——————————————————————
0:36:03
——————————————————————
BB – “That still has an improvement rate, you know, that, that would give another option to people, ummm, even if in the aggregate their rates aren’t better”
“It might work on some individuals tumors rather than on, you know, you you it it is it taken as a, as a lump but extend life by uh quality of life for 3 months or something um in some cases but, you know, it it still has an effect, a real effect, and deserves to be out there”
——————————————————————
DJT – Well one of these newspaper articles specifically said, you know, Avastin would maybe keep you alive for maybe 4 more months
So, you know, take that
——————————————————————
BB – “That’s a long time when someone is dying”
——————————————————————
0:37:02
——————————————————————
See [3]
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/04/september-28-2013-the-skeptics-burzynski-discussion-by-bob-blaskiewicz-21951/
======================================
[2] – Review Articles on Clinical Trials:
1. 3/2004
INTEGRATIVE CANCER THERAPIES
The Present State of Antineoplaston Research
Integrative Cancer Therapies 2004;3:47-58
Volume 3, No. 1, March 2004
DOI: 10.1177/1534735-403261964
——————————————————————
======================================
[3] – Critiquing https://theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/24/critiquing-httpstheotherburzynskipatientgroup-wordpress-com/
======================================
[4] – Burzynski: Why has the FDA NOT granted Accelerated Approval for Antineoplastons A10 (Atengenal) and AS2-1 (Astugenal) ?:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/burzynski-why-has-the-fda-not-granted-accelerated-approval-for-antineoplastons-a10-astengenal-and-as2-1-astugenal/
======================================
[5] – Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, quickly realized that David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS is NOT doing something wrong when he LIES about Burzynski:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/wayne-state-university-detroit-michigan-quickly-realized-that-david-h-gorski-md-phd-facs-is-not-doing-something-wrong-when-he-lies-about-burzynski/
======================================
[6] – Orac’s “Oracolyte” Narad proves he has the research skilz of his “god”:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/oracs-oracolyte-narad-proves-he-has-the-research-skilz-of-his-god/
======================================
The Invisible Dragon in your Garage: September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
BB – Bob Blaskiewicz
——————————————————————
DJT – Didymus Judas Thomas
======================================
0:51:35
——————————————————————
BB – “Well, that seems to give him an instant out, no matter what happens”
“That turns his claims into something that’s unfalsifiable”
“If I could give you an example of what unfalsifiable is”
“Um, and I’ll I’ll draw an uh, uh, case, uh hypothetical case of um uh proposed by Carl Sagan as the invisible dragon in your garage”
——————————————————————
0:52:00
——————————————————————
BB – “If you say you have have a dragon in your garage, um, you know, you should be able to go over and verify that there’s a dragon in the garage”
“So let’s say we go over to Carl Sagan’s garage and, you know”
“Well, I don’t see anything”
“Well it’s an invisible dragon”
“Well okay, well then, let’s uh spray paint it“
“Well, it’s incorporeal”
“Well, uh, let’s measure for the heat of the breath”
“Well it’s heatless flame that it breathes”
“And, you know, okay, well then we’ll put flour down on the ground to see that it’s it it’s standing there”
“And, oh no it’s ah it’s floating”
“Well, you know, at some point, when you can’t falsify something”
“When you cannot, even in principle, prove something false, it’s indistinguishable from something that’s not there”
“And that kind of out, that oh well the tumor can keep on growing”
“Th” (laugh) “that that that’s an invisible dragon, as far as I can tell”
——————————————————————
0:53:00
——————————————————————
DJT – Bob, what the problem is ?
Do you NOT know how to prove there’s an “invisible dragon in Carl Sagan’s garage” ?
You FEED IT
I’ve heard they consider “The Skeptics™” to be a “delicacy”
(Sung to “The Adam’s Family” theme)
They’re smelly and they’re Stinky
They’re nothing like a Twinkie
They’re full of deceit, doom, and Doubt
They like to scream and Shout
They wouldn’t have it any other Way
That’s why DragonBall Z Pee Pee is here to Stay
18+
P.S. If that doesn’t work, blow the garage up
Problem solved
======================================
September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/04/september-28-2013-the-skeptics-burzynski-discussion-by-bob-blaskiewicz-21951/
======================================
United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA): September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
[1] – September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
======================================
BB – Bob Blaskiewicz
——————————————————————
DJT – Didymus Judas Thomas
======================================
0:47:00
——————————————————————
BB – “Ummm, o-kay”
“Uh, I want to turn this over to the people who are watching”
“Um, I want to give them a a chance to address you as well”
“Uhmmm, hi everyone”
——————————————————————
0:48:00
——————————————————————
0:53:00
——————————————————————
BB – “A every time that I and and and and, and David (James @StortSkeptic the Skeptic Canary) points this out, that um, you you know you’re not going to speculate about the the FDA but then at every turn you’re invoking the FDA as being obstructionist“
——————————————————————
0:54:02
——————————————————————
BB – “I, I just find that to be contradictory and and self-defeating“
======================================
DJT – Bob, exactly where did I invoke “the FDA as being obstructionist” ?
======================================
1:02:00
——————————————————————
BB – “Um, it’s it’s it’s not the FDA’s, but you understand it’s not the FDA’s job to tell someone that their drug doesn’t work“
——————————————————————
1:03:00
——————————————————————
BB – “it’s it’s it’s up to Burzynski“
“It’s up to Burzynski to show that his drug does work”
“And it’s always been his burden of proof“
“He’s the one that’s been claiming this miracle cancer cure, forever”
======================================
DJT – Bob, Burzynski showed and proved what he needed to prove to the FDA in order to do phase 2 clinical trials, 9/3/2004 – FDA granted “orphan drug designation” (“ODD”) for Antineoplastons (A10 & AS2-1 Antineoplaston) for treatment of patients with brain stem glioma, .10/30/2008 – FDA granted “orphan drug designation” (“ODD”) for Antineoplastons (A10 and AS2-1 Antineoplaston) for treatment of gliomas, and FDA approved phase 3 [1-2]
Oh, and Bob, exactly when did Burzynski 1st claim “this miracle cancer cure” ?
======================================
1:04:02
——————————————————————
BB – “Um, that we’d love to see, however we can’t see, however we can’t see it because of proti protri proprietary uh protections that the FDA is giving to Burzynski, right ?”
“They’re not sharing his trial designs because they are his trial designs, right ?”
“That the makeup of his drug that he’s distributing are his, uh design, and his intellectual property“
“So the FDA is protecting him, uh from outside scrutiny“
======================================
DJT – Bob, you make it sound like it’s part of some grand “conspiracy” between Burzynski and the FDA to keep information from “The Skeptics™” [3]
——————————————————————
21CFR601
Subpart F–Confidentiality of Information
Sec. 601.50
Confidentiality of data and information in an investigational new drug notice for a biological product
(a) The existence of an IND notice for a biological product will not be disclosed by the Food and Drug Administration unless it has previously been publicly disclosed or acknowledged
======================================
BB – “While you may imagine that that, that that the FDA is is somehow antagonistic toward him“
“They’ve given him every opportunity, over 60 opportunities to prove himself worth uh their confidence and hasn’t“
======================================
DJT – Bob, that certainly explains the 9/3/2004 and .10/30/2008 ODD’s and phase 3 clinical trial approvals by the FDA – NOT [1-2]
======================================
1:05:00
——————————————————————
1:42:00
——————————————————————
BB – “I don’t, the thing is though that, that that’s a inver, shifting the burden of proof off of Burzynski”
“Burzynski has to prove them wrong, has to prove him right”
“The FDA is not there to say this doesn’t work”
======================================
DJT – Bob, who initiated and put into place the clinical trial hold ?
Burzynski ?
FDA ?
Both ?
======================================
1:43:30
——————————————————————
BB – “So, I mean, honestly, um, saying “Well, when the F, FDA tells you that it doesn’t work, the FDA’s never gonna say that because that’s not their job“
——————————————————————
1:44:00
——————————————————————
BB – “That’s not an option, because they’re never gonna do it“
“They relinquish, a lot of authority, over to Burzynski, and his Institutional Review Board, which, I would mention, has failed 3 reviews in a row”
======================================
Bob, where are the “final reports” for those “3 reviews” ?
======================================
BB – “Right ?”
“It is Burzynski’s job to be convincing”
“It is not our uh, uh, it it it he hasn’t produced in decades“
“In decades”
“In hundreds and hundreds of patients, who’ve payed to be on this”
“Hell, we’d we’d we’d like a prelim, well when you’re talking about something that is so difficult as brainstem glioma, that type of thing gets, really does in the publishing stream get fast-tracked there”
======================================
DJT – Bob, Burzynski has provided numerous phase 2 clinical trial preliminary reports, which our #fave oncologist has chosen to ignore [4]
======================================
BB – “they test it”
“Yeah, and they they they want uh, that was evidence of fast-tracking is what, that rejection was uh e was very quickly“
======================================
DJT – Bob, have you checked The Lancet Oncology [5] to see what was so much more important than Burzynski’s “phase 2 clinical trial Progression-Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS) re patients 8 – 16 years after diagnosis, results” [6] and the Japanese antineoplaston study ? [7]
======================================
BB – “So, how long will it be before Burzynski doesn’t publish, that you decide that uh perhaps he’s he‘s, doesn’t have the goods ?“
“Um, so, uh, uh again, the FDA is not the arbiter of this“
“It’s ultimately Burzynski”
“You’ve been speculating about what the FDA’s motivation are like crazy”
“Why not speculate about Burzynski a little bit”
======================================
DJT – Well, how have I been speculating ?
======================================
1:46:00
——————————————————————
BB – “Well actually I’m not even asking you to speculate about Burzynski, I’m only asking you to tell me, how long would it take, uh how, for him to go unpublished like this, um, for this long, before you would doubt it ?”
======================================
DJT – Note how, above, without proving it, Bob claimed “at every turn you’re invoking the FDA as being obstructionist”, and now, directly above, again, without proving it, Bob claims “You’ve been speculating about what the FDA’s motivation are like crazy”
——————————————————————
DJT – what the journals keep saying, in response
======================================
BB – “What ?”
======================================
DJT – You know, are they going to give The Lancet response, like they did in 2 hours and such, saying, “Well, we think your message would be best heard elsewhere,” or they gonna gonna give The Lancet response of, “Well, we don’t have room in our publication this time, well, because we’re full up, so, try and pick another place” ?
======================================
BB – “But these but but but that doesn’t have any bearing on“
“That doesn’t”
“Oh I’m not asking you how long, how long, would it take you for you to start doubting whether or not he has the goods ?“
“How long would it take ?”
“It’s a it’s a it’s a question that should be answered by a number uh uh months ?“
“Years ?”
“How long ?”
“It’s been 15 years already”
======================================
DJT – Well, you like to jump up and down with the “15 year” quote, but then again I always get back to, Hey, it’s when, when the report, when the clinical trial is done
——————————————————————
1:47:06
——————————————————————
DJT – Not that he’s been practicing medicine medicine for 36 years, or whatever, it’s when the clin, clinical trial was done
======================================
BB – “I could push it back to 36 years”
“He hasn’t shown that it works for 36 years”
“I can do that”
“I was being nice”
======================================
DJT – Note how Bob acts like he’s been hit with “The Stupid Stick”
If he wants to go back “36 years”, I can refer back to 1991 (11/15/1991) – Michael J. Hawkins, M.D., Chief, Investigational Drug Branch, Department of Health &Human Services (HHS), Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Cancer Institute (NCI), sent a 1 page Memorandum Re:
Antineoplaston to Decision Network, which advised, in part:
“It was the opinion of the site visit team that antitumor activity was documented in this best case series and that the conduct of Phase II trials was indicated to determine the response rate” [8]
——————————————————————
DJT – The FDA A believes there is evidence of efficacy
======================================
BB – “Perhaps based on bad phase 2”
======================================
DJT – Well, we don’t know that
We don’t have the Freedom of Information Act information
——————————————————————
DJT – Remember, Bob is the one who told me during the 9/28/2013 Google+ Burzynski Discussion Hangout:
“You’re you’re you’re assuming”
“You’re you’re you’re assuming that”
“You’re assuming that”
“Um, I’m not assuming that”
“There is a correct answer here”
“You don’t know”
“You don’t know”
“You need to look into it”
“Alright ?”
“Before you dismiss it you have to look into it”
“Everytime somebody throws uh uh something to me,
I have to look into it”
“That’s just, it’s my responsibility as a reader”
“T t and what I would honestly expect and hope, is that you would be honest about this, to yourself, and and and that’s the thing we don’t, we often don’t realize that we’re not being honest with ourself“
“I try to fight against it, constantly”
Bob just ASSUMED that the FDA approved phase 3 clinical trials for Burzynski “Perhaps based on bad phase 2”, but tells me NOT to ASSUME ?
======================================
BB – “He withdrew”
“He withdrew the the phase 3 clinical trial”
“I that before recruiting,
although I’ve seen lots of people say they were on a phase 3 clinical trial“
“I wonder how that happened”
======================================
DJT – Well, we know what happened in the movie because Eric particularly covered that when they tried to get what, what, was it 200 or 300 something institutions to take on a phase 3, and they refused
======================================
1:48:01
——————————————————————
BB – “Uh did do do you think that if they thought that he was a real doctor that they all would have refused like that ?“
======================================
DJT – Well, Eric gave the reasons that they said they would not take a particular uh phase 3
And so using that excuse that you you just gave there, I’m not even gonna buy that one, because that’s not one of the reasons
——————————————————————
Note how Bob pulls out the old “if they thought that he was a real doctor” line ?
Is Bob now claiming that Burzynski is NOT even a “real doctor” ?
======================================
BB – “He’s changed things”
======================================
DJT – Eric said they gave
======================================
BB – “That The Lancet is a top-tier journal like New England Journal of Medicine“
“It’s basically be, besieged by uh 100′s of people submitting their, their, their reports”
“Um, it’s just, you know, let’s say he, someone has such a thin publishing record as Burzynski does, do you think that it’s likely that he will ever get in a top-tier journal ?“
“What about the the Public Library of Science?”
“It’s not the only journal there”
“What about BMC Cancer ?”
“There’s lots of places that he can go”
======================================
DJT – We’ll I’m
======================================
BB – “Um, and he doesn’t seem to to have evailed himself of that, as far as I can tell“
“And I would know because he’d get rejected, or he’d be crowing, you know”
——————————————————————
1:49:02
——————————————————————
BB – “Either way, he’s gonna tell us what happens”
“He told us what happened with The Lancet, you know”
“I don’t have any evidence that suggests to me that he’s even trying”
======================================
Note how Bob refers to Burzynski’s numerous publications as “such a thin publishing record”
Bob, do I need to count all of these for you ? [9]
——————————————————————
DJT – Well, I’m, I’m sure that they’re going to keep you appraised just like they have in the past, just like Eric has done in the past
So
I mean, we’ll see what happens with the Japanese study [7]
======================================
BB – “So let’s go back to this”
“How long will it take ?”
“How long will it take before you, the Japanese study’s interesting too because we should be able to find that in the Japanese science databases, and we can find, we can’t find it at all“
“We can’t find it anywhere”
“And, and those are in English, so it’s not a language problem“
“We can’t find that anywhere”
“We’ve asked”
“We asked Rick Schiff, for, for that study”
“And, and it hasn’t come to us“
“He is now I believe on the Board of Directors, over there”
——————————————————————
1:50:00
——————————————————————
BB – “He should have access to this”
“We can’t get it”
======================================
Bob, did you ask:
1. Annals of Oncology 2010;21:viii221 ?
2. European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), Colorectal cancer, Abstract: 3558, May 17, 2010 ?
3. Colorectal Cancer Association of Canada, COLORECTAL CANCER RESEARCH, Month Ending June 19, 2009
11. Antineoplaston Therapy Doubles 5-Year Survival Rate Following Curative Resection of Hepatic Mets (May 27/09) pg. 5 of 20 ?
4. Kurume University School of Medicine (Japan) Department of Surgery ?
5. Hideaki Tsuda ? [7]
======================================
BB – “How how long will it take before you recognize that, nothing is forthcoming ?”
“How long would that take ?”
======================================
DJT – Well that’s like me asking “How long is it going to take for y’all’s, y’all‘s Skeptics to respond to my questions ?”
Because y’all haven’t been forthcoming
======================================
BB – “Well, I mean, were talking about a blog here“
“We’re talking about life”
“No, we’re talking about a blogger’s feelings in that case“
“In in this case we’re talking about, 1,000′s of patients, over the course of of of generations, you know”
“This is important stuff”
“This is not eh eh equating what’s happening to to patients with what’s happening to you is is completely off-kilter as far as I can tell“
“It’s nothing”
“It’s nothing like you not getting to say something on my web-site”
“You know”
“This is they they have thrown in with Burzynski, and they’ve trusted him, and he’s produced nothing“
“Nothing of substance”
——————————————————————
1:51:00
——————————————————————
BB – “Nothing that that has made all of that um, uh, n nothing th th th that uh his peers would take seriously”
“The other thing that that that strikes me now is that, you know, you you you you keep saying that, well Eric is going to to share things with you”
“Does it ever concern you eh uh eh occur to you that Eric might not be reliable ?”
======================================
Bob, do you want to have a contest to determine which of you is more “reliable” ?
======================================
DJT – Well, he gave you The Lancet information and he posted the e-mail in the movie, and Josephine Jones posted a copy of it [6]
======================================
BB – “He then, and then he”
“And then he he, you know, the the the the dialogue that sprung up around that was, well see, he’s never going to get to get published”
“Well you’re just setting yourself up for wish fulfillment”
“You want him to be, persecuted, so you are ecstatic when he doesn’t get to publish, which is unfortunate for all the cancer patients, who really thought that one day, all the studies were going to be published”
——————————————————————
1:52:00
======================================
DJT – Well, y’all are free to, you know, claim that all you want, because I don’t always agree with Eric, and uh, he’s free to express his opinion
======================================
BB – “Where has Eric been wrong ?”
======================================
DJT – Well I don’t necessarily believe, what Eric would say about, you know, The Lancet that refused to publish the 2nd one, for the reasons he stated, and which y’all have commented on, including Gorski
You know, I don’t necessarily agree with that
I am more agreeable to y’all, saying that, you know, they’re busy, they’ve got other things to do, but I’m kind of still laughing at their 1st response which he showed in the movie about how they felt about, you know his results would be better in some other publication
I thought that was kind of a ridiculous response to give someone
======================================
BB – “It’s it’s it’s it’s a form letter“
“You know”
“They’re just saying, “No thanks””
““Thanks, but no thanks” is what they were saying, in the most generic way possible”
“Like I said, they’re besieged by researchers trying to publish“
——————————————————————
1:53:05
======================================
DJT – Well you would think that if its a form letter they would use the same form that they used the 2nd time
You know, they didn’t use the same wording that they used the 1st time
I would have think that, you know, their 2nd comment
======================================
BB – “So, so, possibly”
“So possibly what you are saying is that they in fact have read it, and after having read it they’ve rejected it”
“Is that what you’re saying ?”
“Because that’s what peer-review is”
======================================
DJT – Nah, I’m not saying that they did that all
I’m just sayin’, you know, that they gave, 2 different responses, and I would think that the 2nd one they gave
======================================
BB – “Do you know it was the same editor, that it came from the same desk ?”
“You can’t make that assumption that that the form letter will be the same form letter every time”
“I mean you just can’t“
“I mean in in some ways we have a lot of non-information that you’re filling in, with what you expect, as as opposed to what’s actually really there, and I I I just think you’re putting too much uh stock in one uh, uh, in in in in this uh the publication kerfuffle“
——————————————————————
1:54:16
——————————————————————
BB – “Um”
======================================
DJT – Well I find it funny, something along the lines of, you know, “We believe your message would be received better elsewhere, you know
I don’t see that as a normal response, a scientific publication would send to someone trying to publish something
I mean, to me that sounds, like, if you’re doing that, and you’re The Lancet Oncology, maybe you need to set some different procedures in place, ‘cuz you would think that with such a great scientific peer-reviewed magazine, that they would have structured things in as far as how they do their operations
======================================
BB – “Well, not necessarily“
“I’ve been in any # of professional groups where the organization is just not optimal, and publications certainly th there are all sorts of pressures from all sorts of different places”
——————————————————————
1:55:08
——————————————————————
BB – “I I have no problems whatsoever with seeing that this might not be completely uh um uh streamlining uniform processes as possible“
“The fact that it’s not uniform, doesn’t have anything to do with Burzynski not publishing, not producing good data”
“Not just going to a, you know, god, even if, even if, let’s put it this way, even if he went to a pay to play type publication where you have to pay in order to get your manuscript accepted; and he has the money to do this, it wouldn’t take that much, and he were to put out a good protocol, and he were to show us his data, and he would make his, his his stuff accessible to us, then we could validate it, then we could look at it and say, “Yeah, this is good,” or “No, this is the problem, you have to go back and you have to fix this””
“Right ?”
“So we really, every time we talk about the letter that he got, yeah that doesn’t have much to do with anything, really”
——————————————————————
1:56:02
——————————————————————
BB – “We wanna see the frickin’ data”
“And if he had a cure for some cancers that otherwise don’t have reliable treatments, he has an obligation to get that out there anyway he can“
“And if if peer-review doesn’t, you know, play a, if peer-review can’t do it, you know, isn’t fast enough for him, then he should take it to the web, and he should send copies out to every pediatric, uh, you know, oncologist that there is“
“That’s the way to do it”
======================================
DJT – Well, I’m sure, I’m sure Gorski would have a comment about that, as he’s commented previously about how he thinks uh Burzynskishould publish
======================================
1:57:10
——————————————————————
BB – “It’s the, it’s the data itself“
“If if Burzynski is is, is confident in his data, he will put it out there“
“Right ?”
“One way or the other”
======================================
DJT – Like I said before
Like I said before on my blog, you know, even if Burzynski publishes his phase 2 information, Gorski can just jump up and down and say, “Well, that just shows evidence of efficacy, you know, it’s not phase 3,
so it doesn’t really prove it”
——————————————————————
1:58:04
——————————————————————
DJT – So then he can go on, you know, for however many years he wants to
======================================
2:01:00
——————————————————————
BB – “Um, almost no treatment goes out without trials“
“Massive amounts of data are required”
======================================
Bob, do you think that’s the 2.5 million pages of clinical trial data that Fabio said Burzynski sent to the FDA ? [10]
======================================
2:02:00
——————————————————————
BB – “Uh, in in in that sense, you know, uh all the the the, you know, kind of back-peddling and and and trying to defend him is is going to, not going to help his case at all“
======================================
Bob, exactly where did I exhibit any “kind of back-peddling” ?
======================================
2:03:03
——————————————————————
BB – “You are, honestly as far as I can tell you are doing the um, you know, you’re you’re ah throwing up uh, uh, uh, you’re giving me another uh invisible dragon in the garage, um”
======================================
DJT – Well y’all, y’all can call things what y’all want
I mean, y’all can give these, fallacy arguments and all that garbage that y’all like, because that’s what y’all like to talk about instead of dealing with the issues
I mean, Gorski doesn’t want to deal with the issues
======================================
2:04:11
——————————————————————
BB – “Okay, so”
“What you’re telling me is that you trust the FDA to to be able to tell you when he’s not doing, good science, but also that you don’t trust the FDA”
“Do you see an inherent conflict there ?”
======================================
DJT – How did I say I, I didn’t trust them ?
======================================
BB – “Well, when I, whenever I would ask about, like, why would these trials aren’t happening uh and, you know, you say well the the FDA’s arranged it“
“The FDA’s in control”
“They sign off on these things”
“But they’re they’re they’re they’re at the same that they’re, they’re trustworthy they’re also not trustworthy depending on what you need for the particular argument at the time“
——————————————————————
2:05:12
——————————————————————
BB – “You’re suggesting that they’re untrustworthy”
======================================
DJT – No, I’m just sayin’ that I’ve raised questions and none of The Skeptics wanna to uh talk about ‘em [11]
======================================
BB – “Do you know that the FDA pulled out of the prosecution ?”
“Did you know that the FDA pulled out of the prosecution um of his criminal case, because they were backing a researcher ?”
======================================
Bob, would that “researcher” be Dvorit D. Samid, who was in Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business (Part I) ?
——————————————————————
DJT – Well, we know a lot stuff they did, but that still doesn’t impress me that they pulled out of the prosecution
I mean
======================================
BB – “Yeah, the the the it wasn’t the FDA who was pressing charges, it was a Federal prosecutor“
======================================
DJT – Right
======================================
BB – “Right”
“And and, they declined to provide information that the prosecution needed“
“That’s important”
“That that that’s really important“
“That he has been given the benefit of the doubt, and he has come up wanting, for decades now”
======================================
DJT – Well I find it interesting a lot of this uh, a lot of these letters that were provided between, you know, the government and Burzynski, when the uh phase 2 study was going on, at the behest of the NCI
You know, anybody who reads that stuff knows, that when you just ignore the person that’s been doing, do treating their patients for 20 something years, or close to 20 years, and you change the protocol without his approval, and you don’t use the drugs in the manner that he knows works
======================================
2:10:15
——————————————————————
BB – “One of the interesting things about Doubting Thomas that I think you should definitely consider for yourself, is that at some point, when faced with the real opportunity to prove or disprove his assertions, he doubted himself”
“And that’s important”
“And that’s where you’re falling short in the analogy”
======================================
DJT – Well, I think The Skeptics, Skeptics are falling short because, you know, they don’t own up to
======================================
BB – “I’ve laid out exactly what it would take for me to turn on a fucking dime”
“I have, I have made it abundantly clear what I need“
“Gorski has made it abundantly clear”
“Everybody else, Guy, and David, and Josephine Jones, uh, the Morgans, all of them have made it abundantly clear, what it would take to change our minds, and you’ve never done that”
——————————————————————
2:11:02
——————————————————————
BB – “And even in this, this was an opportunity to do that“
“To come up with a basis for understanding, where it’s like, you know what, If we can show this, you know, if we can show a this guy, that, that, there, that his standards are not being met, then, you know, we could possibly have some sort of ongoing dialogue after this”
======================================
DJT – So I can say that since the Mayo Clinic (Correction: M.D. Anderson) finished their study in 2006, and it took them until 2013, to actually publish it, then I can say, well, Burzynski finished his in 2009, which was 3 years later, which would give Burzynski until 2016
======================================
BB – “Why wasn’t that study”
======================================
DJT – for me to make up my mind (laughing)
======================================
BB – “Why wasn’t that, that that that, still . . again, it it doesn’t seem really to to approach the the the, main question here“
“You know, um . . what are the standards that you have that it isn’t, what are your standards to show that it isn’t efficacious ?“
——————————————————————
2:12:05
======================================
DJT – Well I can say, well I’m going to have to wait, the same amount of time I had to wait for Mayo (Correction: M.D. Anderson) to publish their study; which was from 2006 to 2013
======================================
BB – “Why was the Mayo”
“Why was the Mayo (Correction: M.D. Anderson) study delayed ?”
======================================
Note how Bob ASSUMES that the publishing of the final results of the M.D. Anderson study were delayed
——————————————————————
DJT – How do you know it was delayed ?
======================================
BB – “Well you said you had so many years before you finish it and go in”
======================================
DJT – I mean, has anybody
======================================
BB – “Why, why did it take so long ?“
======================================
DJT – done a review of when a clinical trial is studied, and completed, and how long it took the people to publish it ?
You know
If they could point to me a study that’s done that, and say, well here’s the high end, here’s the low end of the spectrum, here’s the middle
======================================
BB – “I have something for you, okay ?”
“Send me that”
“Could you send me that study the way that it was published because um, just just send me the final study, um, to my e-mail address”
======================================
DJT – Sure
======================================
BB – “Um, because, I can ask that question of those researchers, why was this study in this time, and what happened in-between”
——————————————————————
2:13:03
——————————————————————
BB – “Why did it take so long for it, for it to come out”
======================================
DJT – Sure, but that’s not gonna, you know like, answer an overall question of, you know, somebody did a comparative study of all clinical trials, and, when they were finished, and at, and when the study was actually published afterwards
You know, that’s only gonna be one, particular clinical study
======================================
BB – “Right”
“Um, but it it would, perhaps, answer the question; because you’re using it as an example on the basis of which to dismiss criticism, whether or not, uh, it is the standard, and therefor you’re allowed to accept that Burzynski hasn’t published until 2016, or, um, it’s an anomaly, which is also a possibility, that most stuff comes out more quickly“
======================================
DJT – Well, we know that the Declaration of Helsinki doesn’t even give a standard saying, “You must publish within x amount of years,” you know ?
So, I’ve yet to find a Skeptic who posted something that said, “Here are the standards, published here”
======================================
2:14:07
——————————————————————
BB – “I I, yeah, the other thing that David James points out is you know, why 2016 when he’s had 36 years already ?“
======================================
DJT – Again, we get back to, when the clinical trial is finished, not when Burzynski started
======================================
BB – “Treating people”
======================================
DJT – I mean, you would expect to find a results to be published after, the final results are in
======================================
BB – “You would expect the Burzynski Patient Group to be a lot bigger after 36 years, and in fact is
======================================
DJT – You would expect some people would want to have confidentiality, and maybe not want to be included
======================================
BB – “So, if you’re unsure about this stuff, if you’re unsure about the the time to publication, why are you defending it so hard, other than saying, “I don’t know, I really need to”
======================================
DJT – Why am I unsure ?
======================================
BB – “Uh about the
======================================
DJT – (laughing) I just gave you an example
======================================
BB – “The reasons, the reasons for which that he’s, no, why are you defending him so hard, when you’re unsure ?
——————————————————————
2:15:02
======================================
DJT – Oh, who said I was unsure ?
I just gave you an example
——————————————————————
Note how Bob ASSUMES that I’m “unsure” when I had the same answer since 0:32:07 [12]
Bob, who approves “Accelerated Approval” ?
1. FDA ?
2. A peer-reviewed scientific journal ?
3. The Skeptics™ ?
Bob, It’s your unlucky [13]
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/04/september-28-2013-the-skeptics-burzynski-discussion-by-bob-blaskiewicz-21951/
======================================
[2] – FDA grants Orphan Drug Designation (ODD) for A10 and AS2-1:
——————————————————————
Click to access PressRelease_12022008_BZYR(2).pdf
——————————————————————
josephinejones (@_JosephineJones), D Nile ist http://josephinejones.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/happy-birthday-dr-burzynski-and-goodbye-antineoplastons/comment-page-1/#comment-8921
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/23/josephinejones-_josephinejones-d-nile-ist-httpjosephinejones-wordpress-com20130123happy-birthday-dr-burzynski-and-goodbye-antineoplastonscomment-page-1comment-8921/
======================================
[3] – The Skeptics @Majikthyse reveals madjik research skilz:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/26/the-skeptics-majikthyse-reveals-madjik-research-skilz/
======================================
[4] – Critiquing David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/critiquing-david-h-gorski-md-phd-facs-www-sciencebasedmedicine-orgeditorial-staffdavid-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
======================================
[5] – The Lancet Oncology
——————————————————————
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/onlinefirst
——————————————————————
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/issue/current
======================================
[6] – FINALLY, one of “The Skeptics™” has the “Balls” to do what even Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski would NOT do:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/12/finally-one-of-the-skeptics-has-the-balls-to-do-what-even-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-would-not-do/
======================================
[7] – Burzynski – The Antineoplaston Randomized Japan Phase II Clinical Trial Study:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/burzynski-the-antineoplaston-randomized-japan-phase-ii-clinical-trial-study/
======================================
[8] – Critiquing: National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) CancerNet “fact sheet”:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/critiquing-national-cancer-institute-nci-at-the-national-institutes-of-health-nih-cancernet/
======================================
[9] – Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski Publications:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/stanislaw-rajmund-burzynski-publications/
======================================
[10] – Critiquing: In which the latest movie about Stanislaw Burzynski “cancer cure” is reviewed…with Insolence:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/critiquing-in-which-the-latest-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-cure-is-reviewed-with-insolence-2/
======================================
[11] – QUESTIONS the Critics and Cynics, “The Skeptics™” do NOT want to ANSWER:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/23/questions-the-critics-and-cynics-the-skeptics-do-not-want-to-answer/
======================================
[12] – The Biggest Loser: “The Skeptics™” Guy Chapman (guychapman @vGuyUK @SceptiGuy) http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg/ – September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/the-biggest-loser-the-skeptics-guy-chapman-guychapman-vguyuk-sceptiguy-httpwww-chapmancentral-co-ukblahg-september-28-2013-the-skeptics/
======================================
[13] – Burzynski: Why has the FDA NOT granted Accelerated Approval for Antineoplastons A10 (Atengenal) and AS2-1 (Astugenal) ?:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/burzynski-why-has-the-fda-not-granted-accelerated-approval-for-antineoplastons-a10-astengenal-and-as2-1-astugenal/
======================================
The Biggest Loser: “The Skeptics™” Guy Chapman (guychapman @vGuyUK @SceptiGuy) http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg/ – September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
[1] – September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
======================================
“CITE ONE EXAMPLE, of a SKEPTIC MAKING SHIT for a BURZYNSKI shill OR ANYONE ELSE in REAL LIFE”
“That’s a quote”
“That’s, that’s something coming in from, from GUY (CHAPMAN)“
——————————————————————
1:36:00
======================================
2/18/2013 – 5:00pm – Anna Capunay to GUY CHAPMAN: You also should JUST LEAVE ME ALONE
======================================
======================================
2/18/2013 – 5:04pm – Anna Capunay: #SKEPTICS LEAVE ME ALONE
======================================
======================================
2/18/2013 – 5:21pm – Anna Capunay to GUY CHAPMAN: I’m going to politely ask that you STOP ATTACKING my mothers health
======================================
======================================
2/18/2013 – 5:23pm – Anna Capunay to GUY CHAPMAN: Again, I will politely ask that you STOP ATTACKING my mothers health
======================================
</a
======================================
2/18/2013 – 5:31pm – BurzynskiSaves to Anna Capunay and GUY CHAPMAN: @annacapunay appears to me (& all watching) this troll @SceptiGuy popped up to ATTACK after you announced good results of your mom
======================================
======================================
2/18/2013 – 5:47pm – Anna Capunay to GUY CHAPMAN: I really don’t know how many times I have to ask you to please STOP the HARASSMENT
======================================
======================================
2/21/2013 – 8:29pm – Anna Capunay to GUY CHAPMAN: I’d really appreciate if you’d STOP HARASSING ME and my choices. Please STOP HATING the fact that my mother is alive
======================================
======================================
2/21/2013 – 8:31pm – Anna Capunay to GUY CHAPMAN: Please STOP HARASSING ME and please STOP HATING that my mother is alive
======================================
======================================
2/21/2013 – 8:32pm – Anna Capunay to GUY CHAPMAN: HARASSMENT IS SERIOUS and I’d appreciate if you’d STOP TRYING to BULLY ME
======================================
======================================
2/21/2013 – 8:55pm – Anna Capunay to GUY CHAPMAN: I think guy needs a girlfriend or something cause HARASSMENT is OUT OF CONTROL
======================================
======================================
2/22/2013 – 5:06am – Anna Capunay to GUY CHAPMAN: Then do yourself a favor and STOP TWEETING ME. It’s as simple as that YOU MASOCHIST
======================================
======================================
2/22/2013 – 8:10am – Anna Capunay retweeted to GUY CHAPMAN: #Burzynski isn’t making the claim here. It’s @annacapunay saying that mom’s life was saved. STOP HATING. AWFUL
======================================
======================================
After reading the above Tweets, IT’S READILY APPARENT WHO HAS “DEMONSTRATED THAT HE’s STUCK in a WORLD of MASSIVE COGNITIVE DISSONANCE”
======================================
======================================
We ALL KNOW WHO “HAS DUG HIMSELF INTO A DEEP HOLE”
======================================
What do you NOT understand about THIS, High School Science Teacher ?
======================================
[1] – September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
======================================
DJT – Didymus Judas Thomas
——————————————————————
BB – Bob Blaskiewicz
======================================
0:32:07
——————————————————————
DJT – And my other point is that, uhmmm, when these trials finish, as I’ve pointed out on my blog, M.D. Anderson finished a trial in 2006 and didn’t publish the results electronically until January of this year
So, just think
Burzynski’s 1st trial we know that finished in 2009
So we would still have more years to go before he caught up to M.D. Anderson as far as publishing
So for him to actually be trying to publish stuff now and The Lancet not publishing because they have other stuff to do, put in there, that’s understandable
——————————————————————
0:33:03
——————————————————————
1:44:00
——————————————————————
DJT – So I can say that since the Mayo Clinic (Correction: M.D. Anderson) finished their study in 2006, and it took them until 2013, to actually publish it, then I can say, well, Burzynski finished his in 2009, which was 3 years later, which would give Burzynski until 2016
——————————————————————
1:46:00
——————————————————————
2:11:02
——————————————————————
BB – “Why wasn’t that study”
——————————————————————
DJT – for me to make up my mind (laughing)
——————————————————————
BB – “Why wasn’t that, that that that, still . . again, it it doesn’t seem really to to approach the the the, main question here”
“You know, um . . what are the standards that you have that it isn’t, what are your standards to show that it isn’t efficacious ?”
——————————————————————
2:12:05
——————————————————————
DJT – Well I can say, well I’m going to have to wait, the same amount of time I had to wait for Mayo (Clarification: M.D. Anderson) to publish their study; which was from 2006 to 2013
——————————————————————
2:14:07
——————————————————————
BB – “So, if you’re unsure about this stuff, if you’re unsure about the the time to publication, why are you defending it so hard, other than saying, “I don’t know, I really need to””
——————————————————————
DJT – Why am I unsure ?
——————————————————————
BB – “Uh about the”
—————————————————————
DJT – (laughing) I just gave you an example
——————————————————————
BB – “The reasons, the reasons for which that he’s, no, why are you defending him so hard, when you’re unsure ?”
——————————————————————
DJT – Oh, who said I was unsure ?
I just gave you an example
——————————————————————
2:15:02
——————————————————————
======================================
When are YOU going to MAN UP ?
======================================
======================================
Still waiting for you to name the “open forum”, you twit
======================================
======================================
#EPIC SKEPTIC #FAIL
======================================
======================================
[1] – September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/04/september-28-2013-the-skeptics-burzynski-discussion-by-bob-blaskiewicz-21951/
======================================
[2]
——————————————————————
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg/
=============================
Didymus Judas Thomas' Hipocritical Oath Blog 