The Biggest Loser: “The Skeptics™” Guy Chapman (guychapman @vGuyUK @SceptiGuy) – 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

“That’s a quote”

“That’s, that’s something coming in from, from GUY (CHAPMAN)


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

2/18/2013 – 5:31pm – Anna Capunay to GUY CHAPMAN: I’m going to politely ask you ONE MORE TIME to STOP ATTACKING my mothers life. THIS is NOW HARASSMENT

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




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
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
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”
DJTfor 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 ?”
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
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””
DJTWhy 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

When are YOU going to MAN UP ?

Still waiting for you to name the “open forum”, you twit

[1] – September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51



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
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
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”



[1] – Critiquing Wikipedia: Burzynski Clinic, Colorado Public Television (CPT12), and Public Broadcasting System (PBS):
[2] – Burzynski updates Scientific Publications page:
[3] – Critiquing: American Cancer Society – Antineoplaston Therapy:
[4] – University of Michigan, where is alum Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski’s Grapefruits ?:
“The Skeptics™” Colorado Public Television (CPT12) – PBS Facebook comment links:
Questioning “The Skeptics™” Colorado Public Television (CPT12) PBS Facebook comments with links:

“The Skeptics”-Tracking the Twits that Tweet

“The Skeptics” Twits Tweets on Twitter can be Tracked:
@BurzynskiMovie MOBILE:

Critiquing “Bad Argument Special: Inexpertly sown doubt”

Bad Argument Special: Inexpertly sown doubt

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

Wrong answer Sherlock

Read THIS:

Keir Liddle (Riddle Like) @endless_psych

this ones for you.

“You have, over the last few weeks

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

(yes in all caps)

and moan about a lack of citations or references.)

been in contact with many of the critics of Burzynski

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

Blogs the individual known to be “Factually-Challenged”

2/25/2013 – PDiddymus

My good friend Endless Psych claims:

“I answered all of your questions”

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

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

Where are your “facts”?

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

“E” = you
“M” = me

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

You = 93
Me = 82

My friend posts:

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

Prove it

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

Prove it

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

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

Prove it

And then he goes as far as to post:

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

Let us see what JJ actually posted, shall we ?

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

What does it really state?

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

JJ also states:

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

What did he really state?

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

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

My friend then posts:

“He has delivered this therapy for around thirty five years

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

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

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


And he posts:

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

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

And he at last posts:

“Where are Burzynskis results?”

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

2/25/2013 – PDiddymus

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

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

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

EP continues:

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

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

EP then foments:

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

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

Riddle Like

Which is why I posed the question to EP:

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

Or, he clearly could have posted what his intention was

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

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

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

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

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

Me: “FDA’s:”
2:47pm – 23 Feb 13

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

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

You: “No I am not” 9:47pm – 23 Feb 13

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

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

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

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

EP then continued:

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

I could say the same about yours

EP next posts:

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

Do not worry about me

I am still there

EP states:

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

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

EP rambles:

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

As were your posts without supporting links

EP states:

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

Uhhh, No. That would be you:

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

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

EP resumes with:

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

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

And EP rolls on:

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

You seem to “flip flop:”

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

And then 1 minute later you posted:

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

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

So: He IS, … or he ISN’T

You are the one who brought this up:

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

And I pointed out:

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

EP continues:

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

Where you conveniently ignore the 9/2011 UK publication again

EP resumes:

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

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

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

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

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

EP strides on:

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

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

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


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

So ?

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

Posts the person who stated:

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

Which turned out to be incorrect

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


I’m glad we agree” 2:19pm – 23 Feb 13

What was that, again ?

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

Well, so much for that

2/25/2013 – PDiddymus

My learned critic Endless Psych quotes me:

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

And then posts:

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

Yet he twatted:

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

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

He then quotes my:

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

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

He then posts:

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

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

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

did not work

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

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

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

EP then continues:

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


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

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

a preliminary report

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

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

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

3. 2007 Recent clinical trials in diffuse intrinsic brainstem glioma

Review Article

Cancer Therapy Vol 5, page 379
Cancer Therapy Vol 5, 379-390, 2007

Click to access 42._Burzynski,_379-390.pdf

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

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

EP also cites my post:

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

And proceeds with:

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

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

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

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


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

When the top of the document clearly has:

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

2/26/2013 – PDiddymus

EPic quotes what has been quoted before

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

“tu-quote fallacy”

“Look your posts are here now!”

Maybe the Scottish have some redeeming quality after all

Embarrass myself? Really? I think not

Sure it is “preliminary report”

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

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

Neither have I indicated that there are randomized controlled trials

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

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

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

“I shall explain again:”

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

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

Really ?

You: “Searching FDA website”

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

11:27pm – 22 Feb 13

5 minutes later:

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

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

Good one

Yeah, and I sent you:

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

See above


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

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

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

“disinformation,” and / or

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

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

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

Nice try, DetectAin’t


Some Burzynski critics keep posting about


but when I ask them:

Is hypernatremia common ?

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

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

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

hypernatremia in the U.S.:

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

And THAT is just ONE of them

“I have broken these down for you briefly below:

On the subject of publication:

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

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

Some of us have even blogged about them

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2/26/2013 – didymusjudasthomas

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

2/27/2013 – didymusjudasthomas

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

“On the subject of cost:

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

You are the one who misses the point

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

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

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

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

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

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

By comparison:

St. Jude:

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

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

Receives Federal Grants / Funds

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

FORBES: CEO – $742,718

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

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

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

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

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

“On side-effects:

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

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

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

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

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

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

So why is only ONE of those listed on the:

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

web-site ?

Adverse effects of antineoplaston therapy

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

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

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

Are you referring to that “alleged” study?

The one you provide no

reference(s), and / or

for ?

On reporting response rates:

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

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

Which is not the impression you get from reading Burzynskis materials

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

Did you just read what you blogged?

“Stable disease category is not recognized … ”

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

“Actually that pretty much address you entire posting style.

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

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

The 21st “Bore” and “Misinformation”

The 21st “Bore”

blogged about this post from Burzynski:
“Highly respected peer-reviewed journals are unlikely to accept interim results on clinical trials

We tried to submit such data, but were rejected

This is one of the reasons why we did not publish additional articles on clinical trials since 2006, because we decided to wait for the completion of the clinical trials which occurred just a few months ago

Since July 2012, we have prepared numerous manuscripts which describe the results of clinical trials, and we continue this process at present

These manuscripts are at various stages of peer review and submission to medical journals, and it is beyond our control when they will be published”

The 21st “Bore” then posts:

“Problematically for Burzynskis publishing ambitions the STABLE DISEASE category is not recognized by FDA as a measure of response”

Is this Burzynski critic posting “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)

Click to access ucm071590.pdf

TTP – Time to Progression
PFS – Progression-Free Survival

Time to Progression and Progression-Free Survival
TTP and PFS have served as primary endpoints for drug approval

The 21st “Bore” continues:

“I can think of no credible or prestigious journal that would publish data from clinical trials that reinvented the terminology of the field

For fear that in doing so those running the trial were trying to make their results look a lot more impressive

Well, I just proved that that was not the case

The 21st “Bore” proceeds

“The issue of publication remains central

If Burzynski wants to defend against his critics he has to publish and he has to explain, adequately and believably, why he has stubbornly and resolutely failed to do so thus far

It is this refusal to make evidence and data available … that … has lead me to the conclusion that this is a scandal of medical ethics and medical research”

Burzynski already provided the reason that the final results of the Phase II clinical trials were not yet published, so the only conclusion that I can reach is that this critic enjoys “beating the proverbial dead horse,” especially since the Declaration of Helsinki does NOT indicate WHEN final publication should take place

Click to access 17c.pdf


Click to access 79(4)373.pdf

PDF – History:

Click to access helsinki.pdf

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”

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”

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)

Click to access ucm071590.pdf

Oh where, oh where, has The 21st Floor gone? Oh where, oh where, can it be?