Are you there ?
Okay, we might as well get started if were going to do this
Alright, so ummm I guess we can start with uhhh bit of a conversation
Uhhh
Youβve been on the Burzynski Hashtag for a long time β whatβs youβre motivation ?
Okay
So what information have Skeptics posted that they uhhh that they missed that demonstrates that Burzynskiβs uhhh treatments are effective ?
What, what have we missed ?
Well okay, uh one of the issues that Skeptics have with Burzynski is that in order to, letβs say, elevate uh the profile of his drug, in order to make sure that everybody who needs it can get, is to complete a phase 3 uh trial uh he started uh I believe was it just the one, right ?
Uhmmm, and thatβs gone nowhere
In fact, it was withdrawn this I think within the last week
It doesnβt look like its going to happen, and this is, you know, for all the the phase 1 and phase 2 trials, those are very preliminary trials
Uhmmm, the phase 3 is is will be the gold standard, and also the bare minimum that that the larger medical community will accept uhhh as evidence, so itβs like youβve lowered the bar for for evidence in a way that that you know oncologists donβt
The the
Right
So, do you think that there is a uh uh conspiracy to keep Burzynski from publishing ?
Right
Right
So, uhmmm, as far as I understand it The Lancet, uhhh the the question of The Lancet publication ehhh is par for the course, that most people are, when they get a speedy rejection from a uh uh, uh journal, are actually uh grateful, because that means there allowed to go ahead and submit their material to another journal more quickly and get it out there
Uhm, but the reaction that we saw on the side of the Burzynski camp was that, see, theyβll never publish us
Uhm, which is, eg, taken as far as I can tell as evidence of a conspiracy or that his name is is poison uh I mean, I think it is, but uhmmm, that wasnβt indicated in the in the rejection letter in order to uh claim that it is is to go beyond the evidence which again weβre not really willing to do
So, uhmmm what is the the ration the the something that I think a lot of of a lot of The Skeptics have been curious about when it comes to your your your blog and your behavior on-line uhhh is that that that, that the format of your blog does not make sense to us, we donβt understand exactly what youβre trying to do with it
Could you kind of clarify that for us because itβs uhhh long and itβs itβs intense and thereβs a lot of emotion behind it but we donβt understand exactly, what itβs supposed to mean
Alright, ah have you read The Other Burzynski Patient Group ?
So, ahmmm what is your response say to the story of Amelia Saunders ?
Okay, what part of, what did I get wrong ?
Uh was that Amelia and Luna ?
Luna was the other one, correct
Oh, I, youβre talking, oh this is one of the very 1st ones that we did on the, on the site
Uhmmm, oh, her name is, her name escapes me at the moment
Um, but she wasnβt there for for very long but uh her condition deteriorated very rapidly
Uhmmm, and one of the questions that we had, we raised, is is, you know, you you donβt need to reach full dosage βcause the the full dosage for these ANP seem to be pretty high, at least the sodium load that that that patients are asked to to carry, or required to carry if they they go on it
And we wondered if the sodium load was ah to great for someone who has a brain tumor, I mean uh, you know uh sodium load will increase your blood pressure, and these people have extra things in their brains that probably wonβt react well to swelling, right, and and wont react well to pressure, so we were wondering, if in fact you donβt have to reach the full dosage in order to have uh severe side effects
Ummm, you know maybe you havenβt reached a therapeutic dose level, but that doesnβt mean that it didnβt have an effect on her
And you can clearly tell, that, you know in the videos, well at least the videos before the family took it down, that she was lethargic and a little bit out of it, she uh the the difference in her conscious state was no noticeable for anyone to see
Ummm, to, you know where she had been up and about to in her bed kind of slurring and and, and and and, in fact just disoriented, just looked like someone had taken the piss out of her
I mean, ummm, so thatβs, that one, ummm, you know the critique that, reaching therapeutic levels and having a biological effect on someone are are clearly different things in her case
Uhmmm, now I never went on you know on to say ummm that uh she had uh reached therapeutic levels
Uhmmm, I I think as far as I went was that she went, she paid her $30,000 dollars and then she died
Uhmmm, and and and what part of thatβs not true
Okay, so, um, going back to Amelia, um, some of the the most um I think the most serious charges is that we see a uh repeatedly in his uh uh stories of his patients, um those are all cited, those are all backed uh by, you know, um at least as good as anything the Burzynski Patient Group has ever done
Uhmmm, something that we see over and over are patients reporting over and over that signs of getting worse are signs if getting better
Um, in particular a, uh report thatβs very common from from patients is that the center of their solid tumors are breaking up
One of the problems that we we we see is that that is more frequently a sign of ischemic necrosis that the tumor has outgrown its blood supply and that itβs dying on the inside
And when you see something like a 5th of the patients who weβve been able to to document, reporting this excitedly, we get extremely concerned about whatβs happening
Uhmmm, what part of that is not absolutely terrifying to you
Well, the the yeah Iβve never seen anyone say that the purpose of the antineoplastons is to cause uhhh, you know, to restrict the blood flow to the tumor and and and uh cause it to die that way, which is certainly one therapeutic approach thatβs been, thatβs been floated and research has been done on uh and might even be promising and uh what heβs saying is that cancer is caused by a lack of antineoplastons in the system and that basically what he is doing is antineoplaston uh uh supplement therapy uh rath, whatβs the word Iβm looking for, uhm uh, replacement therapy
Uh and there isnβt a doctor on the planet, uh not a medical specialist on the planet, who, I, who has identified at at as a contributing factor as a contributor to cancer or antineo or lack of antineoplastons
So
Why isnβt he, you know, you understand that these doctors, ummm like nothing is true or false because a doctor says it is true or false
Uhmmm itβs itβs it but when the entire medical community uhhh who are des are desperately are are every bit as tired of seeing patients die uhmmm and seeing patients suffer or as anyone elseβs families are you you imagine what an oncologist sees in that office over the course of of a year and thereβs going to be unimaginable suffering
Iβm sure that theyβre tired of that
And that they would, you know, that if there was the slightest hint that antineoplaston deficiency was a cause of cancer that it would make it into the literature, with or without Burzynski
Uhhh ummm, why should we trust him when he has uh the sole uh the only person who had identified antineoplastons as a contributor to cancer when he is the sole manufacturer of the of the therapy uh when he is the uh sole prescriber of the therapy and when he is, where the sole distributor of the therapy from his pharmacy
Heβs read everything
I think
Can you go ahead and send me that link that that I saw in the chat that you had uh posted a couple of times in the chat
Could you send me that link, to that publication
I can give you a minute to to go find it if thatβs
That would be good
Uhmmm
Well, yeah thatβs a, thatβs you know one of the major problems that this this cancer has is the location is such a pain to get to
Uhm, and often when we are talking about these cancers, the thing that gets me over and over and over, and this is something that Iβve learned from from working uh with others on the Burzynski Patient Group is whatβs it like to be a cancer patient, only by proxy, man I couldnβt imagine really going through this myself, and, you know Iβd hate to see my family go through this
That these people are at what could be described as a low point, theyβre um uhhh, you get a diagnosis of uh brainstem glioma the prognosis is very bad
Uhmmm, there are only a few cases of people recovering from that, I mean theyβre there uhm uhhh but, you know that itβs an, itβs an extremely grim prognosis
Uhhh and I worry that when theyβre in that desperate state and especially letβs talk about the children, you have these kids who are uh you know 2 and 3 and have had this, you know uh awful diagnosis and the parents are willing to do literally anything to keep their kids alive
What protections are in place for patients as far as that these kids are and and their parents are protected
Who had the better results ?
Okay
Hmmm, yeah, the, Guy Chapman has just um uh tossed in a a, a comment
I guess uh that there are a lot of people who wanna talk to you (laughter)
Uh, Guy Chapman has just jumped in and said it looks like you forgot the phase 3 trial is withdrawn and none of the phase 2 trials were published
Uhmmm, this, this is not a minor thing for for for Skeptics
This, this is exactly what will convince us to get on board the Burzynski train is the publication of these trials
But even the preliminary trials, one has been finished, and none has been published in its entirety for over 15 years
When you consider that this is a, as you just pointed out, this is a a cancer, the, especially the brainstem gliomas
That these cancers uh the cases resolved fairly quickly, we know what the outcome are fairly quickly
Ummm, do you have any sense of when these trials are going to be published ?
From Laura ?
Right
When you, when you think about a major, sorry, go ahead
Yeah, right, uh
Antineoplastons has a better rate ?
Right
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 thatβs exactly what would show to us whether or not his rate is better, the the types of publications that heβs 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
But what that doesnβt 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, heβs never done that
But if you think about that, I mean that if it does have a a an improvement rate above uh other treatments
That still has an improvement rate, you know, that, that would give another option to people, ummm, even if in the aggregate their rates arenβt 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
Thatβs a long time when someone is dying
Well, one of
One of the problems that that doctors have in in this country when it comes to doing ummm antineoplastons studies to verify any any effect that uh Burzynski has uhhh I i think back to the one where people say well that the FDA sabotaged his trials, and
Well, if if you think about it though, um, the, the proposed action as I understand it of the antineoplaston is that itβs a deacetylase inhibitor, which slightly unspools DNA, that allows uh, which would allow uh proteins to get into a pair of damaged DNA
And we have drugs that do that which carry a much lower sodium load
Uh, um, it, that would have a therapeutic effect on and that the risks outweigh the possible benefits of using this one particular drug
Um, Iβve seen any number of people looking at um, if you look at the Luna ah Pettiguine uh uh story on The Other Burzynski Patient Group um you see that the doctor is absolutely horrified by the insane sodium load that that Burzynskiβs patients are carrying
Um in in some ways that that sodium load is uh leading people to constantly drinking up to Iβve seen 12 liters of water a day
Thatβs not necessary for other deactsylace inhibitors
Um the, why would you prefer that to to another drug if it did essentially the same thing, that didnt have this massive side effect ?
thats not necessary for other deactsylace inhibitors
Well that sss I believe that thatβs proposed by the researchers, the design trial, you know they they sign off on it but that is is, is up to uh Burzynski uh my uh David James @StortSkeptic on the
ah he has asked everything that Burzynski does looks sort of like the behaviors of pseudo-science
So what weβre saying uhhh he does uh uhhh Burzynski like for instance like I said he has vertically integrated, ah, he controls all parts from identification to the creation of the drug uh to the diagnosing uh well he doesnβt do the diagnosing but he does um um prescribe and distribute, he does all that vertically, which is actually something that snake oil salesmen do
Another thing that thatβs a red flag in Skeptic circles is that his one compound seems to be a sort of panacea for all sorts of different types of, of of cancers, um where we know that cancer has a a varied uh, uh, ideology and and the uh panaceas are are are to be and a variety of different types of causes um, in fact in any one tumor you would, you could say that these, these tumors are are completely uh heterogenous
The idea that thereβs gonna be one knockout, it seems rather unrealistic
Um, additionally he charges immense amounts of money for this drug, um, even though the components cost pennies
Um, on top of that, um, thereβs something that he asks for a a huge payment up front
Thatβs something thatβs been warned against for generations of uh by anti-quack um uh crusaders if if theyβre asking for everything up front, then be afraid
Ummm, another thing is that uh the kind of cult thatβs sprung up around Burzynski, uh, one that is immune to uh criticism, reason, and pits people who are doing standard cancer research, as enemies, um, creating a black and white version of the world where there are good people and there are bad people
There are people who are fighting the disease, and then there are people who are really helping the disease
I mean, if you look at the, the new web-site by the Burzynski patients fighting back group, they say support the cure not the cancer
Thatβs a manikin world-view of black and white
Um, these are all huge red flags, that youβre dealing with a quack
Um, why hasnβt Burzynski done anything to change that ?
Right
Well, there, this is important
This is really important though
Wha, when sheβs talking about, thatβs Luna Pettiguineβs mother, is is talking about the costs there
Uhmmm, you, when someone is not insured in in this country,
Ahm, the, the the base cost that thatβs calculated is, is the hospital only expects to get a fraction, a tiny fraction of that back from the insurance companies, and thatβs why the costs are so inflated
Um, usually, when a patient is self-pay there is a self-pay price which is a more reasonable price
Additionally, all of those therapies, have demonstrated efficacy, and if Burzynski were to demonstrate his efficacy, $30,000 dollars to start on a life-saving treatment for a child would be a steal, and he would earn every nickel of it
Um, so, those arguments hold very little weight with us
He has a a an enormous house thatβs valued in the tens of millions of dollars, he could do that if if the other, the other thing he could do, and this, we would love to see him do this, wousa, would be apply to Federal grant
That, that would be amazing, if he could get a grant to study this stuff
But, you know, um, I I donβt think heβd be able to get one, I donβt think heβs shown uh that he can carry off a uh a research program responsibly
Uhmmm
Well
Oh he, have you noticed the the, the thing on his web-site where if you make a donation to the clinic it goes directly to him ?
Right
You know, you know
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
Uhmmm, so, um, letβs, letβs wait for for that to roll in, and I do wait to go back to the, the the, the and letβs be very specific about this, the the things that you see on The Other Burzynski Patent Group, a patient reporting that um uh getting worse is getting better
How do you explain that ?
Well thatβs just a known side-effect, your going to know that going in, but we actually have people say
Are there, why why why not, these people, see this is the thing though
The reason that site was started was because the people that donβt make it donβt have a voice
And when you, when you whittle away, when you only look at the at the, the positive outcomes, which is exactly in Burzynskiβs favor to only look at the positive outcomes, and to have no sense of how other peopleβs diseases progressed, right, youβre gonna get a skewed and inaccurate version of the efficacy of this particular drug
Now lets lets lets go back and not talk about Laura, lets talk about these patients who report symptoms of getting worse, as if they were signs of getting better
Some people say that oh itβs a healing crisis or itβs progression of the disease
Or other people say itβs breaking up in the middle, hurrah
No, itβs actually a tumor thatβs growing
That record there, thatβs being left by patients, whose stories are every bit as important as the as the stories of the patients who have lived, are painting a completely different picture
How do you explain that ?
Are they feeding these people their stories ?
Are they feeding these people their stories
Okay Iβm going to go back, I want to point something else out to you
Um, I have to, I donβt remember the exact patient so I have to go back to my web-site to take a look at it
Um
Because we are, because weβre on a Google+ stream that thatβs a lot of data it takes awhile to bring up my, my site
Let me
Uhmmm
Well, that seems to give him an instant out, no matter what happens
That turns his claims into something thatβs unfalsifiable
If I could give you an example of what unfalsifiable is
Um, and Iβll Iβll draw an uh, uh, case, uh hypothetical case of um uh proposed by Carl Sagan as the invisible dragon in your garage
If you say you have have a dragon in your garage, um, you know, you should be able to go over and verify that thereβs a dragon in the garage
So letβs say we go over to Carl Saganβs garage and, you know
Well, I donβt see anything
Well itβs an invisible dragon
Well okay, well then, letβs uh spray paint it
Well, itβs incorporeal
Well, uh, letβs measure for the heat of the breath
Well itβs heatless flame that it breathes
And, you know, okay, well then weβll put flour down on the ground to see that itβs it itβs standing there
And, oh no itβs ah itβs floating
Well, you know, at some point, when you canβt falsify something
When you cannot, even in principle, prove something false, itβs indistinguishable from something thatβs not there
And that kind of out, that oh well the tumor can keep on growing
Th (laugh) that that thatβs an invisible dragon, as far as I can tell
A every time that I and and and and , and David points this out, that um, you you know your not going to speculate about the the FDA but then at every turn your invoking the FDA as being obstructionist
I, I just find that to be contradictory and and self-defeating
Um, let me see
Well, thatβs not necessarily true
I mean uh when it when it comes to the case um Iβve iβve talked to oncologists about this
And when it comes to uh for instance in in this case it sounds like it was a pediatric patient who was dying, ummm, who had died, ummm, the,
the 1st inclination is to ascribe the death to, um, to the tumor, which actually, would be to Burzynskiβs benefit if there were other cases, Iβm not saying there were, but if there were other cases where this type of complication arose, and it was ascribed to the tumor they might well not do it, uh, do an autopsy
Um, itβs ah as you could imagine it could be very difficult for the families to do that especially when they have ooh ah, a possibility of what, you know, led to the ultimate demise, that didnβt involve them ultimately somehow being responsible for it, right ?
So, it it it doesnβt seem to me that necessarily an autopsy would be um a a done deal
Um, let me see
No we donβt and it would be irresponsible to completely speculate on on, on, the outcome of that uh, uh, uh, individual patient, I am still scrolling through looking for this story that I wanted to talk about
Uh, and, I guess Iβll
It should be in Ameliaβs I I, I packed Ameliaβs story with all the stories, um, that I could find um in what weβd written up already
Um
Hold on a sec
She is a cute kid though
Um, alright
Now, our favorite oncologist (laugh), as you keep putting it, um, uh, with with the Amelia story, um, uh, was able to correctly determine that the Saunders family, had a, did not understand the significance of this cyst that had opened up in, uh, that had opened up in the center of the tumor, in fact they were ecstatic
They were delighted
Um, the family, of Haley, um, S, also
Uh, the the family of Haley S., also, had the same reading given to them
Um, the same diagnosis uh same prognosis was to, was given to Justin B in 2006
A similar cyst in Lesley Sβs story uh ah, was in 2006
Um, and that kept her on uh treatment for a a another month so that could be another $7,000 some odd dollars
We same thing in the, in the case of, uh, Samantha T in 2005
We see it again as far back as 1994, in Cody Gβs story
And then lastly and and the worst uh thing that weβve seen, the patients report that Burzynski himself told Chase uh Sammut
The exact same thing
Um, and that was a
Have you read Chaseβs story
It would stick with you, because that case is grotesque
The parents, uh, there was even a uh, uh, a fight over whether or not the parents should be allowed to continue treating this kid
He was basically lying, uh, in a uh uh brain dead uh for all intents and purposes, uh, in a in a coma uh without possibility of reversal, in his parents living room for months
Um, eh, all the while, heβs still on the, uh, well I donβt actually, I canβt say that, I donβt exactly know if he was on the treatment the whole time
Um, but, we do have this pattern, that is there, of people believing, that this particular pattern is, uh, progress, a a is not progression of disease but is is inducement to to stay on, um, eh, and this has been going on for decades
Eh, eh just based on what weβve been able to find that patients have been reporting this for decades
At some point, you would think that a doctor would realize that perhaps what these patients are walking away with is inaccurate
Why hasnβt that changed ?
E wel that that that thatβs not it
This is this is like the 2nd day of oncology class, that thatβs what the tumor looks like
People are reporting that the tumor is no longer growing, um, or that the growing has slowed after theyβve started
Well, okay
There, there is an explanation for that, and why you canβt take that as necessarily being evidence of efficacy
Ah, the tumor grows exponentially while the resources are available to it, but then it reaches a point where itβs a self-limited growth, so it, the time between uh doublings in size decreases logarithmically
Um, so this is, this is like basic tumor physiology that weβre talking about, and his patients donβt leave his office, knowing these facts, for decades
This doesnβt have anything to do with the, do with the drug
This this
But, but when itβs, this treatment is working or this is not evidence that the treatment is working
Thatβs pretty basic
I mean weβre not, weβre not talking about deactsylace inhibitors or anything like that were youβd really need to know something about
This is, whether or not, youβre getting the outcome that you want
This is the whole reason for going
And it has nothing to do with the with the with the drugs
Which is, which is like which we just pointed out was a was an invisible dragon
youβre youβre youβre assuming
Youβre youβre youβre assuming that
Youβre assuming that
Um, Iβm not assuming that
Ultimately it would, but whether or not it it it had a genuine therapeutic effect is a different matter all together
Um, this, what would, what would convince you that youβre wrong
So youβre saying because the Orphan Drug Designation and the face that thereβs a phase 3, therefor it works ?
So what youβre saying is thereβs nothing that would convince you now, that it doesnβt work
O-kay
Um, itβs itβs itβs not the FDAβs, but you understand itβs not the FDAβs job to tell someone that their drug doesnβt work
itβs itβs itβs up to Burzynski
Itβs up to Burzynski to show that his drug does work
And itβs always been his burden of proof
Heβs the one thatβs been claiming this miracle cancer cure, forever
Um, I donβt know if youβve read Jaffeβs book
There seems to have been a lot going on there you really should look at it because itβs itβs itβs kind of revealing
Um, that that that it seems that there was a lot of political pressure applied to the FDA which may have been, uh, uh, have influenced the way in which these these trials were approved
I I would say that it is a genuine con uh uh bit of confusion on the parts of Skeptics
We donβt know why the phase 3 trial was approved
I donβt know that weβve seen even the phase 1 trials, we donβt know why heβs getting a phase 3
And thereβs a real story in that, we think
Um, that weβd love to see, however we canβt see, however we canβt see it because of proti protri proprietary uh protections that the FDA is giving to Burzynski, right ?
Theyβre not sharing his trial designs because they are his trial designs, right?
That the makeup of his drug that heβs distributing are his, uh design, and his intellectual property
So the FDA is protecting him, uh from outside scrutiny
While you may imagine that that, that that the FDA is is somehow antagonistic toward him
Theyβve given him every opportunity, over 60 opportunities to prove himself worth uh their confidence and hasnβt
Um, but I definitely recommend that you look at Jaffeβs book and you will see, I think, um that um itβs called um, uh Galileoβs
You know what itβs called, okay, yeah
Um, definitely look at that
Um, you, you will see, the ways in which, the way that we got to this point, isnβt necessarily having anything to do with the efficacy of the drug
That comes across very clearly
Um, you, you mentioned it yourself, he heβs done well to listen to Jaffeβs advice, right ?
So, there thereβs a lot to that
Um, uh, but yeah, let me go back to the Twitter feed
Um
Well it sounds to me like theyβre theyβre not um, the the the you know, theyβve put the clinical hold on now because they now have evidence that somebody may have died because of the treatment
Um, I donβt know what the state of that is right now
Um, uh, oh my gosh, um, let me see
Someone has just sent me a, a ah a link to, are you following the Hashtag, as this is going on
Okay
Iβm doing, Iβm doing the 2 things at once and itβs um, ok ok well itβs well ok I canβt I canβt go in and read that right now
Um, I would, ok let me tell you exactly what it will take, for me to come around and promote Burzynski
Um, for me, he needs to get a publication in a uh, yeah, uh uh uh publication in a peer-reviewed journal, a respected peer-reviewed journal, not like the the Journal of Medical Hypothesis or things we just made up
Um, something, you know, a a good, respectable journal that oncologists would read, that research oncologists would read
I would need an completely independent group to replicate his findings, and then Iβd be all for it
I would say that right now, the business model that the Burzynski Clinic seems to depend on, as best as I can tell from an outsider, that, um, uh, that it depends on people paying money up front
It doesnβt depend on him developing and taking away a viable drug, that he can market to the entire world
His business model as best I can tell, is to keep it in house
That seems, if it works, if his drug genuinely works, and he hasnβt sent it along to mass approval, where he gets, for a couple of years at least, you know, exclusive rights to produce and sell this stuff, for one of the most intractable diseases, uh that man eh can can can, you know, can get, um, that suggests to me that thereβs something else going on here
Now, someone has just sent a a note, uh that he has failed 3 different Institutional Review Board audits; this is Guy Chapman, uh no other institution has a 3 for 3 fail, according to to Guy iye he knows no other one
Um, that 45% of phase 3 clinical trials fail due to deficient phase 2 design
Um, he has an approved phase 3, but phase 2 was deficient so phase 3 fails
Do you think that that could possibly have anything to do with why weβre not seeing the phase 3 advance
Heβs claimed
Heβs claimed
Thatβs a different thing altogether
And in fact
Well, you understand why they do that, because in order to, itβs
No, they do do this with other drugs, well, it depends on the type
Some drugs itβs ethical to give something completely questionable, what they want to make sure that they at least get the standard care, you know which includes radiation
Um, and radiation does seem to extend life, reduce the size of some tumors some times
Um, do you concede, that in order to have a phase 3, you do not need to have a successful phase 2 ?
When 45% of phase 3 fail because they have a deficient phase 2 design, do you concede that ?
Well, ok
It doesnβt matter where
It doesnβt matter where it comes from uh, um
So-kay, um that would be shooting the messenger as opposed to dealing with the question, but
the idea, the best, well, the best, well in that case the best response is βI donβt knowβ
Thereβs something that that we donβt know, youβre coming, honestly we didnβt know what to expect when we talked to you
We, were looking at the design, of your web-site and wondering whether or not we would be able to get a a coherent sentence out of you, because the web-site is disorganized, uh
Um, at at at at least itβs the organization is not apparent to the readers
Um, and um according to
No, that is tied together
But let me, we know that that the the, the central concern is Burzynski
Ah, the source of this ah of of those #βs that I just gave you, Chapman has just updated me and he says um that it is, and Iβll go back to the, the ADR research . com issues in clinical research, so itβs the question, Bay Clinical uh Research and Clinical Development, a white paper called βWhy do so many pase 3 clinical trials fail ?
Uh, itβs prepared by Anastassios Retzios, Ph.D
Is Anastassios Retzios reliable ?
There is a correct here
Exactly
Thatβs the right answer
You donβt know
You donβt 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
Thatβs just, itβs my responsibility as a reader
Um
What, what stuff would you like
What stuff would you like me to do ?
I generally, I donβt read your blog
Uh um, alright
Okay, Iβll look at that, and I will respond to it once Iβve taken a look at that, okay ?
Um, and Iβll respond on your web-site
Um, seems only fair
Um, one question Iβd wondered, what is the Didymus Judas Thomas reference to
Oh, so this is the Doubting Thomas
This is the Doubting Thomas
Okay, so this is the one, you show me the, you put your your, the, your hand inside the wound
You know, Jesus says, basically, ok, bring it on, check me out, right ?
Okay
Alright
That that, I didnβt, I didnβt realize that he was also, that that was the same guy
So, itβs itβs the Doubting Thomas
Um, what we would say, um, is that if Burzynski is the savior that he claims to be, that he should, open up his trials, he should open up his uh research uh protocols um and just say, βLook, bring it onβ
Check out these wounds
But heβs never done that
Instead he he he wants us to just take the words of of of of his apostles
I donβt necessarily trust his apostles
I donβt think that theyβre unbiased
I wanna see the data
I wanna see the the wounds in his hands and the the mark on his side
Oh, hey when when we talk about The Other Burzynski Patient Group, I donβt make any pretensions to make that my site proves anything
I I I really donβt
Itβs not my job to prove anything
Itβs Burzynskiβs job
It is a researchers job to prove these things
But we just pointed out, we just pointed out, that the FDA, often approves, phase 3 trials, based on flawed phase 2 clinical trials
That is therefor a real possibility in this case
Yes you would
T t and what I would honestly expect and hope, is that you would be honest about this, to yourself, and and and thatβs the thing we donβt, we often donβt realize that weβre not being honest with ourself
I try to fight against it, constantly
But, um, uh but the way that youβd earlier phrased your uh your response to βcould you possibly be proved wrong ?β, . . really did exclude other possibilities of of of of yourself being wrong
So if the FDA
Well Iβm not talking about the Guy Chapman
What you off, when I asked you, yourself, you know, what would prove you wrong, you said that the FDA hasnβt approved a phase 3
Well, ok
Letβs letβs back, letβs back up
What would the FDA, what happens if the FDA occasionally op op opposes, approves uh phase 3 trials, based on bad phase 2 trials
Would that be, would that cause any doubt in your mind ?
About the efficacy of ANP
Yeah, hello, yeah, youβre back
Yeah Google+ is a little wonky sometimes
But, would, does, if you were to learn, that sometimes phase 3 trials, uh, are approved, and failed, based on flawed phase 2, would, would that make you reconsider your position of the phase 3 being evidence that it works
Uh um could you send me that link, the, the, um . me see
Iβm just looking at other things that are coming in on the Hashtag right now
Um, so the ANP is Orphan Drug status but is it Orphan Drug for glioma ?
Is it sodium phenylbutyrate or is it the the versions of the drug, the AS10 stuff or A1 or whatever itβs called ?
Okay, thatβs what has Orphan Drug status
Alright, Iβll look into that
I hope somebody is writing all this down out there, so that we can go back and look at these claims later, right ?
So, oh, um
Do you have any questions for me ?
Iβve spent a lot of times asking questions of you
Mhmm
Guy Chapman, throws up the the, the comment, permission to investigate is not evidence of anything other than evidence of a valid protocol, not a uh, evidence of efficacy, in and of itself
Thatβs another comment
Um, alright then, this is your chance t, there are lots of people have lots of questions about me out there
Uh, about what my motivations are and such
I might as well put that out on the table just so itβs on the record, is that I am taking exactly no money from anyone for this, and have gotten nothinβ but grief from a lot of people, even people who, even people who support me have given me grief for this
Um, just so that you know, um, there have been, some of the things that have happened, oh, this is an important point too
Um, that when we have criticized this, uh, a # of us, especially Gorski, uh myself, uh Rhys Morgan, uh, um, and and uh Popehat, the the lawyer, blog, uh, um, who else was on there, um, oh, the Merritts, uh, t, uh Wayne Merritt, and his family, people have been critical of of of Burzynski have faced retaliation for opposing him ah and intimidation, and including, um, I had my uh a couple weeks before Christmas my, my, the Chancellor of my University was contacted via e-mail, and uh Eric Merola said that I had been um, uh, been spreading mis truths about Burzynski, that I had been a be, on my my show um had said things that were demonstratively untrue, and he also said that the drug was FDA approved, which it, you know, thatβs not right
But um, he said that he was gonna do, talk about me in his new movie, in, uh, relat, in millions of homes, um, and he wanted to get a statement from the University
The University of course ignored him, and immediately let me know that I was going to get smeared
Um, I consulted my lawyer and uh uh, you know, the best course of action was figured out, and um uh a Gorski has had his accreditation board contacted, heβs had his bosses contacted, Rhys Morgan received threats of liable suits from somebody who had been hired, by the clinic, to clean up his on-line reputation if he didnβt take down his on-line review of Burzynski, uh, had his a picture of his house sent to him, clearly the message being, βWe know where you live kid,β uh, Wayne Merritt; a pancreatic cancer patient, this is something that, that people generally, do not recover from, like generally, die from, received phone calls at home, from, this individual, threatening him with lawsuits; he doesnβt have a law degree so heβs misrepresenting himself
Um, but all of this, was done, to critics
Do you think that is deserved ?
Do you think that that is right ?
Mhmm
Well to be fair
It it it doesnβt strike me as necessarily a βFree Speechβ issue, you know
Was it down-voted ?
No
Mhmm
Mhmm
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, this is the one thing that that all Skeptics I think um are uh respect critical thinking, um, and um respect scientific uh a we weβre mostly scientific enthusiasts, thereβs some Skeptics who are not um, uh, you know oh u space nerds, or whatever who are um just sc scholars and the humanities but for the most part we all respect scientific consensus and we respect scientific method and have an enthusiasm for living in the real world, this is something that like all of us us are about
And to that end, sometimes that influence is how we run, is how we decide to run our personal web-sites
Um, uh, that whether or not we want our, to give a platform to people who disagree with us, um, you know, uh, when we do, uh . . it it is our sandbox, you know, right ?
This, this, weβre allowed to to let whoever we want into our sandbox if we, you know, uh if we want
Did he, did he leave them up ?
Did he leave them up ?
Right, um, do you think that he is required to answer you
Right
Mhmm
Um so a a question uh why were why do you have so many Twitter and Wikipedia sock-puppets
Wikipedia
You left Wikipedia
Mhmm
Um a
Uh We have uh a response from David James, everyone uh gave you a fair shout
You were a spammer plain and simple
You couldnβt, you couldnβt
work out your questions
Twitter does not
Twitter does not block people for for arguing
Only for spamming and policy violations
Mhmm
Okay
Um, let me see
Each new account was blocked for additional violations of policies
Um, this is a uh uh referring to the Wikipedia rules too
Um, so
Um, Wikipedia, do you know why um theyβve locked the Burzynski page ?
Did you notice the part where he threatened, did you notice the part where he threatened to expose Wikipedia
We have to, well, they they uh are looking that itβs not one-sided information they want to show
Like they discuss, there is controversy about this guy
Yeah, Jaffeβs on there
Jaffeβs on there
uh well you could add that if you hadnβt gotten blocked
Okay
Um, so, who are you
Sheβs gotten threats
So we donβt know who you are
Like, she has suffered at the hands of some really mess, and sheβs also, you have to realize sheβs in the U.K, where libel laws are very lax at this point
Thatβs changing, ah, but uh, the the legitimate criticism, there is a big case last, me maybe 2 years ago of Simon Singh, talking about an alternative therapy, and, um, he was just saying that thereβs no evidence for it but itβs promoted by um chiropractors, or something, or something like that
And he got slapped with a libel suit that cost him several years of his life and a lot of money
Um, so, there are several reasons why someone in the U.K. might uh be uh reticent to use their real name um, uh, and legitimate reasons
Um, in the U.S., Iβm not sure that there is
Iβve been using my real name for a long time now
Um, you know, Gorski blogs under his real name, and is critical of uh, uh, also, letβs face it, everyone know, knows who βOracβ is
Um, how do we know that you donβt work for the clinic ?
Mhm
Well see, one of the the problems is, Ju, I donβt know if you were around for the BurzynskiSaves thing
Did you ever see that account ?
Mhmm
Right
Oh no, I mean you have a right to do that but but I Iβve found that posting under a pseudonym diminishes my credibility
Um, so, . . the quote was uh um, uh, βHappily promotes bogus therapies,β was Simon Singhβs quote that got him sued
Um, but Josephine Jones does it to, quote βprotect her familyβ
Um
So thereβs that
Um, are you afraid for youβre family ?
Um, you donβt see that there would be anything to gain from, from going on-record ?
Um I I havenβt, Iβve never, honestly, Iβve never seen a Skeptic actually go after a person individually
Um, you know, uh, you, unless they were doing colossal harm to people
Um, to to focus on an, uh, letβs say, call someoneβs work for um, yeah
Cite one example, of a Skeptic making shit for a Burzynski shill or anyone else in real life
Thatβs a quote
Thatβs, thatβs something coming in from, from Guy
Like had anyone ever contacted Sheila Herron, or has anyone to to um, go after her job, or go after um, you know, my brother has gotten stuff from people
He didnβt tell me because he didnβt want to upset me, but my brother gets things from Burzynski supporters that are violent and threatening
I get letters telling me that I suck cancerβs dick
Um, I Iβve all sorts of things um, and I just, Iβve never seen that, that intrusion into real life on the part of uh, um, uh, Skeptics
Iβve never seen them doing that type of of of stuff
Iβve never seen them threatening bogus lawsuits
Um, and I I I wonder there, if there is some sort of, what do you think accounts for that, that difference?
Mhmm
Mhmm
Iβve Iβve Iβve shown up on, you know, as you, as you might, I imagine you moni, you monitor the Hashtag, right ?
Okay
Um, which is, which is your right
Um, uh, but every so often I jump in and say, you know, this movie has some flaws in it
You know, thatβs something I say rather frequently
Um, and I invite people, if theyβre interested, to take a look at a couple of links
I donβt, I, youβll notice that I no longer force people to like, βWell how do you explain this ?,β because that doesnβt seem to be very persuasive, or work at all
Ah, only people who are open minded to having their mind changed, those are the only ones I want to talk to
So I give them a choice
Kind of like Morpheus in The Matrix really
Um, b, that was a joke for me
Um, um anyway
Um, but, it it I, honestly, I would encourage you to go on-record, um, but I have, less than nothing invested in that, so, um
Uh, whatβs next for you
Well what happens
Well what happens if he doesnβt understand what youβre saying ?
I mean one of the
I mean seriously
Well, one of the problems I think that a lot of Skeptics have had, in in back channel discussions about this is that we donβt understand exactly what youβre saying
We certainly donβt understand why youβre so attached to him if youβve never had any uh, you know, close dealing with uh, uh, with Burzynski
We donβt really understand that
Actually, especially when you consider, that all the information that weβve put forward, that weβve backed up with statements from uh, you know, uh, it, it, the statements that we have from from patients saying that you know, weβve weβve, we were told that, no thatβs not exactly, they put it usually that but that that we believe that getting worse is getting better
Like how could someone continue to defend someone, when we pile up all of these different, you know, sources, saying the same thing ?
It it is, it is beyond us and we wonder if thereβs absolutely anything that we could say that would convince you otherwise
But, I mean, but that means
Everything on The Other Other Burzynski Patient Group is referenced
It goes
Thereβs very little on
thehoustoncancerquack
Thereβs very little on
thehoustoncancerquack in the 1st place
Eh, right
The they both go to the same place
Uh un but, you know, we, the thing that that totally befuddles us, and is just endlessly frustrating, is like how many more examples, of patients believing that getting worse is getting better, and itβs not us saying it, itβs the patients saying it
And how many more of those patients do we need to to give you before you will like reconsider that perhaps you might be wrong ?
I donβt, the thing is though that, that thatβs 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 doesnβt work
The evidence would be
The evidence
The evidence would be phase 2 trials
And ev the evidence would be a completed and published phase 3 trial
Thatβs not forthcoming
The phase 3
You donβt know that heβs trying
Heβd start completing these trials
And he would, he would be soliciting um, uh, lots of um, uh, you know, you know heβd be putting out papers constantly um and if the the British Medical Journal exampleβs anything uh representative of how Burzynski works, heβd immediately tell everyone that his heβs being . . blackballed by the, by the journal, even when itβs just a courtesy that he gets a a rejection
So, I mean, honestly, um, saying βWell, when the F, FDA tells you that it doesnβt work, the FDAβs never gonna say that because thatβs not their job
So, given that what would, how many more patients do we have to show you before you consider that you may be wrong ?
Thatβs not an option, because theyβre 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
Right ?
It is Burzynskiβs job to be convincing
It is not our uh, uh, it it it he hasnβt produced in decades
In decades
In hundreds and hundreds of patients, whoβve payed to be on this
Hell, weβd weβd weβd like a prelim, well when youβre 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
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
Um, so, uh, uh again, the FDA is not the arbiter of this
Itβs ultimately Burzynski
So, how long will it be before Burzynski doesnβt publish, that you decide that uh perhaps heβs heβs, doesnβt have the goods ?
Youβve been speculating about what the FDAβs motivation are like crazy
Why not speculate about Burzynski a little bit
Well actually Iβm not even asking you to speculate about Burzynski, Iβm 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 ?
What ?
But these but but but that doesnβt have any bearing on
That doesnβt
Oh Iβm 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 ?
Itβs a itβs a itβs a question that should be answered by a number uh uh months ?
Years ?
How long ?
Itβs been 15 years already
I could push it back to 36 years
He hasnβt shown that it works for 36 years
I can do that
I was being nice
Perhaps based on bad phase 2
He withdrew
He withdrew the the phase 3 clinical trial
I that before recruiting,
although Iβve seen lots of people say they were on a phase 3 clinical trial
I wonder how that happened
Uh did do do you think that if they thought that he was a real doctor that they all would have refused like that ?
Heβs changed things
That The Lancet is a top-tier journal like New England Journal of Medicine
Itβs basically be, besieged by uh 100β²s of people submitting their, their, their reports
Um, itβs just, you know, letβs say he, someone has such a thin publishing record as Burzynski does, do you think that itβs likely that he will ever get in a top-tier journal ?
What about the the Public Library of Science ?
Itβs not the only journal there
What about BMC Cancer ?
Thereβs lots of places that he can go
Um, and he doesnβt seem to to have evailed himself of that, as far as I can tell
And I would know because heβd get rejected, or heβd be crowing, you know
Either way, heβs gonna tell us what happens
He told us what happened with The Lancet, you know
I donβt have any evidence that suggests to me that heβs even trying
So letβs go back to this
How long will it take ?
How long will it take before you, the Japanese studyβs interesting too because we should be able to find that in the Japanese science databases, and we can find, we canβt find it at all
We canβt find it anywhere
And, and those are in English, so itβs not a language problem
We canβt find that anywhere
Weβve asked
We asked Rick Schiff, for, for that study
And, and it hasnβt come to us
He is now I believe on the Board of Directors, over there
He should have access to this
We canβt get it
How how long will it take before you recognize that, nothing is forthcoming ?
How long would that take ?
Well, I mean, were talking about a blog here
Weβre talking about life
No, weβre talking about a bloggerβs feelings in that case
In in this case weβren talking about, 1,000β²s of patients, over the course of of of generations, you know
This is important stuff
This is not eh eh equating whatβs happening to to patients with whatβs happening to you is is completely off-kilter as far as I can tell
Itβs nothing
Itβs nothing like you not getting to say something on my web-site
You know
This is they they have thrown in with Burzynski, and theyβve trusted him, and heβs produced nothing
Nothing of substance
Nothing thas 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 ?
He then, and then he
And then he he, you know, the the the the dialogue that sprung up around that was, well see, heβs never going to get to get published
Well youβre just setting yourself up for wish fulfillment
You want him to be, persecuted, so you are ecstatic when he doesnβt 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
Where has Eric been wrong ?
Itβs itβs itβs itβs a form letter
You know
Theyβre just saying, βNo thanksβ
βThanks, but no thanksβ is what they were saying, in the most generic way possible
Like I said, theyβre besieged by researchers trying to publish
So, so, possibly
So possibly what you are saying is that they in fact have read it, and after having read it theyβve rejected it
Is that what youβre saying ?
Because thatβs what peer-review is
Do you know it was the same editor, that it came from the same desk ?
You canβt make that assumption that that the form letter will be the same form letter every time
I mean you just canβt
I mean in in some ways we have a lot of non-information that youβre filling in, with what you expect, as as opposed to whatβs actually really there, and I I I just think youβre putting too much uh stock in one uh, uh, in in in in this uh the publication kerfuffle
Um
Well, not necessarily
Iβve 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
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 itβs not uniform, doesnβt have anything to do with Burzynski not publishing, not producing good data
Not just going to a, you know, god, even if, even if, letβs 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 wouldnβt 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, βYeah, this is good,β or βNo, this is the problem, you have to go back and you have to fix thisβ
Right ?
So we really, every time we talk about the letter that he got, yeah that doesnβt have much to do with anything, really
We wanna see the frickinβ data
And if he had a cure for some cancers that otherwise donβt have reliable treatments, he has an obligation to get that out there anyway he can
And if if peer-review doesnβt, you know, play a, if peer-review canβt do it, you know, isnβt 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
Thatβs the way to do it
Oh I, I I I certainly donβt think that he would put a lot of stock in it, but I, I, I know Dave Gorski enough, he wants this to work
He has patients who are dying, you know
And if if if letβs say that that Burzynski could get ah his gene-targeted therapy to work on breast cancer patients in in a reliable way, that would be, such a help to these people, that that Gorskiβs trying to help
And, it it it doesnβt make sense, I mean, there, some of the best um, one of the the most important developments in medical history, was the development of of just washing your hands uh uh before uh uh going in and delivering a baby
Right ?
The guy who did it, was a colossal jerk, but it still worked and itβs the standard now
Right ?
Um, yea, it doesnβt matter now whether or not Burz, whether or not Gorski agrees with how Burzynski publishes
Itβs the, itβs 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
But he is a, the thing is, the thing is, you thing you have to understand is Gorski, Gorski is a genuine expert, in matters re re regarding on oncology studies
I mean, he has a
He, Heβs able to convince people, heβs able to convince people, on the strength of his record, to give him money to carry out research
People who know what theyβre talking about
To give him money to carry out his research
Right ?
Well what about all the other physicians, um, going back long before the Burzynski thing broke on-line
Of all these patients, with whom they have long-established relationships, and then doctors essentially after years, of treating these patients, basically saying, βI canβt work with you anymore if you go to Burzynskiβ
What about that ?
Di, are all of these doctors just as biased ?
Did he get burned at some point ?
We donβt know
Yeah, well, you wouldnβt expect Eric Merola to say that he got, that a doctor got burned
Would you ?
But he, he doesnβt have, he hasnβt given us his data
Heβs given, heβs given, heβs given case studies
Heβs done
Okay
Except for a ph, completed phase 3 clinical trial
Yeah
One of the things, one of the things that Iβve noticed going through these um, well, well there there is that
Uh, Guy Chapman, βItβs a blog, not a peer-reviewed publicationβ
Um, almost no treatment goes out without trials
Massive amounts of data are required
Um, so, it it is kind of, slightly disingenuous to hold uh Gorski to the same . . standard that you would, it on his blog
I think that professionally he would make, he he he would follow-up on these things, but u what Iβve noticed when you you mention these other people who are working with with Burzynski as co-investigators, the co- investigators donβt seem to have access to these, to these records
Um, you know, when they have to, when a patient has to, and often you have someone like a pediatrician, uh, signing on um uh to eh eh to work with with, uh and arrange care for patients when theyβre out of state, away from Burzynski
Um, itβs itβs itβs often not an oncologist
Itβs accurate to say that B Burzynski is not a board s uh certified oncologist
Itβs accurate to say that no trial has been completed and fully published
Um, yeah itβs um, it it it if, all of the arguing on behalf of Burzynski doesnβt give him a single phase 3
It doesnβt give him um a uh uh of of a completed and and published phase 2
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
You are, honestly as far as I can tell you are doing the um, you know, youβre youβre ah throwing up uh, uh, uh, youβre giving me another uh invisible dragon in the garage, um
What is the issue were not talking about
Yeah, but they
But they have track records that support the idea that you should trust them
Okay, so
What youβre telling me is that you trust the FDA to to be able to tell you when heβs not doing, good science, but also that you donβt trust the FDA
Do you see an inherent conflict there ?
Well, when I, whenever I would ask about, like, why would these trials arenβt happening uh and, you know, you say well the the FDAβs arranged it
The FDAβs in control
They sign off on these things
But theyβre theyβre theyβre theyβre at the same that theyβre, theyβre trustworthy theyβre also not trustworthy depending on what you need for the particular argument at the time
Youβre suggesting that theyβre untrustworthy
I I would say that the the FDA has given Burzynski every opportunity for decades
Every opportunity
When he didnβt have r r really, he got special treatment as far as I can tell
Uh, the, Iβm rather stunned every morning I wake up and donβt see in the paper, that that place has has been closed down
I, I really am
Uh, so, you know, that one doesnβt really fly with me either
Um
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 ?
Yeah, the the the it wasnβt the FDA who was pressing charges, it was a Federal prosecutor
Right
And and, they declined to provide information that the prosecution needed
Thatβs important
That that thatβs really important
That he has been given the benefit of the doubt, and he has come up wanting, for decades now
The, no, claims works
He claims works
One of the things I think
One of the things that I think is happening here
One of the things I think is happening here, is that lots of people have worked with Burzynski and then have stopped working with B Burzynski
Uh, you know, uh lots of uh uh uh these partnerships do not seem to work out in the end
I often wonder, if the uh, the way that these things are, are are playing out, because itβs s so reliable that theyβre, that these partnerships are going to fail, I I wonder if th they are designed in such a way, that for instance, um a, uh, a a partner would be uncomfortable working
with him
Or um or that the specifications for what it takes to enter one of these trials is so high, that nobody will ever enter the trials
I mean, I wonder if they are, what, especially, like why hasnβt Burzynski left the country ?
Thatβs what I want to know
Exactly
If he was so, if he was s so persecuted and really cares about getting his treatment out to the world, why wouldnβt he ?
Theyβre, theyβre lots of things going on here
David James has pointed this out, that a lot of questions Iβm asking are not going answered
βI still donβt know how long it would take before you would have any doubts about Burzynskiβ
βI still have no idea, how often we can see patients reporting that signs of getting worse are getting better, before you would change your mindβ
Iβve made it very clear that he just needs to have a completed study published and replicated before I support his right to go out and charge people what heβs charging for these, for these drugs, and Iβm Iβm just not seeing that here with you, and I I wonder what could come from, and donβt worry I will go to your site and I will comment on on on what youβve run
Um, but, you know, I I I I itβs hard for Skeptics to imagine, what could be gained from engaging with you, if there seems to be no conceivable way, that we can, one, get a straight answer for, how many patients will have to report that getting worse is getting better before you starting doubting your opinion, or, uh, how many uh, uh, how many years does this have to go on before you decide that, βNo, we probably just canβt produce the goodsβ
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 thatβs important
And thatβs where youβre falling short in the analogy
Iβve 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 youβve never done that
And even in this, this was an opportunity to do that
To come up with a basis for understanding, where itβs 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
Why wasnβt that study
Why wasnβt that , that that that, still . . again, it it doesnβt seem really to to approach the the the, main question here
You know, um . . what are the standards that you have that it isnβt, what are your standards to show that it isnβt efficacious ?
Why was the Mayo
Why was the Mayo study delayed ?
Well you said you had so many years before you finish it and go in
Why, why did it take so long ?
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
Um, because, I can ask that question of those researchers, why was this study in this time, and what happened in-between
Why did it take so long for it, for it to come out
Right
Um, but it it would, perhaps, answer the question; because youβre using it as an example on the basis of which to dismiss criticism, whether or not, uh, it is the standard, and therefor youβre allowed to accept that Burzynski hasnβt published until 2016, or, um, itβs an anomaly, which is also a possibility, that most stuff comes out more quickly
I I, yeah, the other thing that David James points out is, you know, why 2016 when heβs had 36 years already ?
Treating people
You would expect the Burzynski Patient Group to be a lot bigger after 36 years, and in fact is
So, if youβre unsure about this stuff, if youβre unsure about the the time to publication, why are you defending it so hard, other than saying, βI donβt know, I really need toβ
Uh about the
The reasons, the reasons for which that heβs, no, why are you defending him so hard, when youβre unsure ?
Iβve backed-up everything that
Every time that Iβve tried
and then other people
Way back
It is about
It is about as efficacious
Yeah, Iβve, and and I based that on a a a that type of thing
You, you, you can read that how you want, right ?
There
He does have the accent though
Right ?
No
Alright ?
No, but listen, like, it it itβs not, it, we we donβt understand why you defend himself so hard, when there is such a paucity of of of information out there
Um
Even if itβs true or false you, honestly though
Even if itβs true or false, in in that particular instance, you know, eh letβs just say that youβre right
Gorski gets that point completely wrong
It has no bearing on whether or not, ANP works
Thatβs a Red Herring
Youβre just focusing on this, on this little niggly stuff, where the real question, is does it work ?
Are patients getting better at a better rate then not
or otherwise ?
Weβre were talking about whether or not thereβs evidence to suggest it works
The FDA, see thatβs the thing
You, the FDA are are, you know, you invest them with, weβre just, weβre just circling around again
Uh um, alright
Well, this has gone on for rather a, longer than I thought it would
Um, I, uh, wanna thank you for coming on here
I wasnβt sure that you would actually do it
Um, Iβm glad that you did
Iβm glad that we talked
Um, I will look at your web-site, and we will, uh, we, uh, you, oh make sure that I I go to your blog and and I talk there
Um
Please do
And I will look at those
Maybe not in the next few days; Iβve got a lot going on but
Alright
Um
I donβt think he is
I donβt think heβs afraid
I just think heβs got a lot going on
He is act, a full-time surgical oncologist and researcher
He does have insane am, he has to pick and choose his battles
And if, if if he saw that we were going to ultimately be circling around our same arguments again and again; kind of like weβve done here, um, he uh, you, he doesnβt have time for that, I donβt think
Alright
I I would ask that you to to go back over The The Other Burzynski Patient Group and take their stories seriously, because they deserve at least the same amount of consideration that the survivors do
Thatβs my
Thatβs my kids, okay
Well, Thanks for much for talking
I greatly appreciate it
Alright
Take it easy
Didymus Judas Thomas' Hipocritical Oath Blog 