Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski, Stanislaw R. Burzynski, Stanislaw Burzynski, Stan R. Burzynski, Stan Burzynski, S. R. BURZYNSKI, S. Burzynski, Arthur Burzynski, Hippocrates Hypocrite Hypocrites Critic Critics Critical HipoCritical
[WP:SOP]“Statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then. 7.”)
Due & undue weight: [3]
“The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant & should not be considered,”
[WP:NPOV]“History of NPOV:” (Content # 6, Note 3)
(Neutral Point of View)
—————————————————————— TRANSLATION: Wikipedia editors, YOUR OPINION IS NOT RELEVANT
—————————————————————— MEANING: It is meaningless to attempt to slather your biased OPINION all over Wikipedia like butter on Texas toast, since supposedly, we only care about verifiable FACTS
======================================
Wikipedia, what the problem is ?
Jimmy Donal Wales
Who ?
No, “The Who” is actually really British!
(as opposed to some “furreigner” who plops across the pond, wants to pound one of your pelts after a celebrity hunt, pops it in his bonnet, pip-pips about, and mounts it up on his rented wall along with what’s left of his balls)
I’m writing, of course, about “Jimbo,” the one who got away . . . Thankfully
The recipient of the write-up earlier this year in The New York Times[1] (Oh, pithy!!)
—————————————————————— Wales, who no longer runs the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia
“He applies his libertarian worldview to the Internet and has taken on institutions like the United States government“
——————————————————————
You must be bloody well rightjoking me
(joking me ? Quit jokin’ me !)
JimCrow’s ’bout as “libertarian” as Fidel Castrowith a gun in his hand and (f)lies between his teeth; from traveling with the windows down
Stephen Colbert shoulda seen that comin’ from a 8 mile away
Hey Stephen, Report’ THAT !!!
—————————————————————— “He grew up in Huntsville, Ala., the son of a teacher and a retail man“
——————————————————————
And obviously, he didn’t “learnt” well
I think a refund’s in order
And here’s your free school Insolence to go with it
Happy eat in’
It is claimed that “HE” spends time:
—————————————————————— “traveling the world giving talks on free speech and Internet freedom“
——————————————————————
seriously ?
Seriously ??
SERIOUSLY ???
Welcome to MizFitTV
What would “Jymboree” know about “free speech” and “Internet freedom,“ anyway ?
How many days did you serve your country in the United States military ?
Oh, you did NOT realize that while you were in San Diego, you could have signed that contract ?
After all, he’s no Vincent Kennedy McMahon” (“HE” knows where “HIS”GRAPEFRUITS are)
====================================== “B.D.F.L., or the Benevolent Dictator for Life”
——————————————————————
How ’bout:
Big Disappointing Fascist Loser ?
—————————————————————— “Argumentum ad Jimbonem” means dutifully following what Wales says, but there are even arguments about that”
—————————————————————— WP:NICETRY, but that’s “SHEEPLE”
—————————————————————— “One Wikipedia editor said, for instance, that Wales was no longer comfortable with the B.D.F.L. description”
—————————————————————— Jiminy Cricket!
Whazzamatta Jiminy?
Did “FASCIST” hit a bit too close to home ?
—————————————————————— “(There is, among some, a debate over what to call him)”
“Some users have also disputed the Latinized version of “Jimbo.”“
“(Should it be “Jimboni” or “Jimbini”?)”
—————————————————————— Can you smell what “The Rock” is cookin’ ?
La-La-La-La-Laaaaaaawwww, JIMBRONI !!!!!!!
Get ready, and bend over, ’cause I’m gonna shine this thing up, turn it sideways, and shove it straight up your Candy AstroTurf hatch
—————————————————————— Introduction (statement of principles) [WP:SOP]
“This is a statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then”
—————————————————————— (Or if you go by The New York Times article, [1] Jimbroni is the “co-founder” who tries to re-write history to make it appear that “HE” is the one-and-onlyFascist Founder ?)
——————————————————————
“I should point out that these are my principles, such that I am the final judge of them”
“This does not mean that I will not listen to you, but it does mean that at some ultimate, fundamental level, this is how Wikipedia will be run”
—————————————————————— No, actually, it DOES mean that he will NOT listen to you, as was the case when he ignored my 2/7/2013 appeal
In his defense, perhaps Kate Garvey has his balls
—————————————————————— Principles
1. “Wikipedia’s success to date is entirely a function of our open community”
“This community will continue to live and breathe and grow only so long as those of us who participate in it continue to Do The Right Thing”
“Doing The Right Thing takes many forms, but perhaps most central is the preservation of our shared vision for the neutral point of view policy and for a culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty”
——————————————————————
The problem with this Wacky Tobacky“We are the (Wiki) World”WikiWhOReD Wonderland Jimbroni’s living in, is that “HE” has NOT been Doing The Right Thing since “HE”abdicated “his”“neutral point of view policy” and “culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty,” to “The Skeptics”
“The Skeptics,” who serve as gatekeepers of the Burzynski Clinic article, and who cite Dr. David H. Gorski a/k/a “Orac” aka GorskGeekas if he were a “reliable source”
“The Skeptics,” who bring new meaning to the term“Wikipedia Zero”
“The Skeptics,” who are Intellectual Cowards like their falsegodGorski, the Closet Communist of Science-Based Medicine a/k/a Science-Basted Medicine aka Science-Based Mudicine(Spinning Bowel Movement), WikiWordsmith Wannabes, nut-jobbers, stale from their failure at the National Peanut Festival in Dothan, Alabama
——————————————————————
3. ““You can edit this page right now” is a core guiding check on everything that we do”
“We must respect this principle as sacred”
——————————————————————
Do the lies just dribble off your chin like phlegm?
You canNOT just go in and “edit” the Burzynski Clinic article “page right now”
That statement is pure, unadulteratedAlabamaB.S.
That’s NOT a “sacred principle,” it’s sacré “bull”
——————————————————————
7. “Anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity”
——————————————————————
Unfortunately, you do NOT practice what you preach, do you, HYPOCRITE ?
—————————————————————— “They should be encouraged constantly to present their problems in a constructive way”
——————————————————————
So that you can ignore the problem(s), right, Jimbroni ?
—————————————————————— “Anyone who just complains without foundation, refusing to join the discussion, should simply be rejected and ignored”
—————————————————————— THAT would automatically exclude all of “The Skeptics” now, wouldn’t it ?
——————————————————————
“We must not let the “squeaky wheel” be greased just for being a jerk”
—————————————————————— Jimbroni, why have you allowed “The Skeptics” to choose from their “squeaky” wheel-house bag o’ tricks, get all “greased” up and jerk” so many people around in such a big CIRCLE-JERK, for so long?
——————————————————————
8. “Diplomacy consists of combining honesty and politeness”
“Both are objectively valuable moral principles”
“Be honest with me, but don’t be mean to me”
“Don’t misrepresent my views for your own political ends, and I’ll treat you the same way”
—————————————————————— “Honesty” and “politeness” are really great “buzzwords,” Jimbroni, but they are as foreign to your “Skeptics,” as “moral principles”
——————————————————————
A great example of the questionable“honesty” and “moral principles” of one of your apparatchiks, was demonstrated 2/3/2013, 6:56, when I sent an arbitration appeale-mail to Wikipedia, advising, in part, that the e-mail listed on Wikipedia; as the one that blocked users should use, did NOT work, because there was NO “@” sign in it
There was a . (period) where the “@” sign belonged
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— 2/3/2013, 8:11 AM, Anthony (AGK) BASC wikiagk@gmail.com advised:
“Everything you have said in that e-mail demonstrates a misunderstanding or misreading of Wikipedia policy”
——————————————————————
——————————————————————
Check the “time” and “place” where you are, so that you, too, can advise, that according to Wikipedia, pointing out to them that the e-mail they advise people to use, DOES NOT WORK; because there is no “@” sign in it (instead, there’s a . (period)), translates into meaning:
—————————————————————— “Everything you have said in that e-mail demonstrates a misunderstanding or misreading of Wikipedia policy”
====================================== Core principles
Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset [WP:SR]
Wikipedia does not have its own views, or determine what is “correct”
——————————————————————
I wish I could LIE like that, but I have a conscience
====================================== 12/24/2012, Monday – 3:52 pm – 21:52 (UTC) –
“We are told that 2013 will be a big year, but apparently his plan is to release another bullshit movie not to publish useful research”
——————————————————————
Does anyone other than me NOT think it a “coinkydink” that some “Guy” on Wikipedia, going by the name “Guy”, using the same 2 words (“Bullshit movie”) as a “Guy” on Twitter ?
======================================
2. Founding principles:
“Neutrality is mandatory . . . “
—————————————————————— I call B.S.
“Neutrality is mandatory,”EXCEPT on the Burzynski Clinic article, controlled by “The Skeptics”
——————————————————————
4. “Ignore all rules (IAR):”
“Rules on Wikipedia are not fixed in stone”
——————————————————————
Especially when Jimbroni allows “The Skeptics”
to “dictator” the “rules”
——————————————————————
“The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule”
“The common purpose of building an encyclopedia trumps both”
“This means that any rule can be broken for a very good reason, if it ultimately helps to improve the encyclopedia”
——————————————————————
And “The Skeptics” are NOT required to provide ANY reason for having broken “any rule”
——————————————————————
“It doesn’t mean that anything can be done just by claiming IAR, or that discussion is not necessary to explain one’s decision”
——————————————————————
But do NOT expect Wikipedia to require anything from The Skeptics”
—————————————————————— Founding principles
1. “Neutral point of view (NPOV) as a mandatory editorial principle”
—————————————————————– EXCEPT when it comes to the Burzynski Clinic article
—————————————————————— 12/26/2012 – I attempted to get Wikipedia to reference the interview which Burzynski’s attorney, Richard (Rick) A. Jaffe, and Lola Quinlan’s attorney; who posted it on his web-site, had given: [4]
Please add re WP:NPOV that Burzynski’s attorney, Richard Jaffe has disputed Lola Quinlan’s claims:
“On February 1, 2012, Dr. Burzynski’s attorney, Richard Jaffe, disputed Lola Quinlan’s allegations on Houston’s KPRC News.”
Thank you very much.[[User: Didymus Judas Thomas 15:03, 12/26/2012 (UTC)
—————————————————————— So? [OR] Disputing it in the media probably means he doesn’t have a case. [/OR] In any case, a lawyer disputing the allegations against his client is not even news. — [[User: Arthur Rubin 15:24, 12/26/2012 (UTC)
Arthur Rubin, I’m not sure what relevance your above post has re WP:NPOV since the articleincludes statements from attorneys representing both sides
17:51, 12/27/2012 (UTC) Didymus Judas Thomas
====================================== 12/24/2012, Monday – 3:54 pm (21:54.UTC) – “What they mean is that nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it, which necessarily means that it’s not considered in the least promising.”
[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([User JzG/help|Help!])
“Nobody else is doing meaningful work on it” ?
Ignores independent research done in Poland, Russia, Korea, Egypt, Japan, & China which specifically reference SRB’s publications in their publications re antineoplastons & phenylacetylglutamine (PG); which is AS2-5, & includes phase III trials published in China & continued research being published in China 12/17/2012?
FACTS:
1. I pointed out to Wikipedia, a 12/17/2012 scientific publication re antineoplastons, which referenced Burzynski@ 22. (antineoplaston AS21)
2. 7 days after this scientific journal was published, Wikipedia’a“Guy (Help!’s) ”response, Monday, 12/24/2012 @ 3:54 pm, is to advise me:
“What they mean is that nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it, which necessarily means that it’s not considered in the least promising.”
Guy (Help!) 3:54 pm, 12/24/2012, Monday
3. So, Wikipedia’s, Guy (Help!), defines an event having been published7 days ago (12/17/2012 to 12/24/2012) as:
“…nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it…”
12/17/2012 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3524164
CDA-2 (cell differentiation agent 2), a URINARY preparation http://po.st/g71N8P
CDA-2 and its main component PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINE (PG or PAG)
Antineoplaston AS2-5 is PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINE (PAG or PG) http://redd.it/1dk974
Antineoplaston AS2-1 is a 4:1 mixture of phenylacetic acid (PA) and PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINE (PAG or PG)
Antineoplastons AS2-5 and AS2-1 are derived from Antineoplaston A10 BURZYNSKI Reference: 22.
antineoplaston AS21 http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0052117
====================================== 12/26/2012, Wednesday – 12:43 – “There is unlikely to be any dispassionate debate over ANPs while Burzynskicontinues with his unethical practices.”
25. ↵ Burzynski SR
Treatments for astrocytic tumors in children: current and emerging strategies
Paediatr Drugs. 2006;8:167-178 http://link.springer.com/article/10.2165%2F00148581-200608030-00003
Pediatric Drugs
May 2006, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 167-178
======================================
—————————————————————— Rhode Island Redattempts to get away with misquoting me:
——————————————————————
——————————————————————
“The other argument is that the secondary sources (i.e., respected cancer organizations, FDA, etc.) are not reliable because they are Burzynski’s “competitors”
[[User: Rhode Island Red]] 4:18 pm, Yesterday (UTC−6)
======================================
——————————————————————
What a Wipocrite (Wiki+Hypocrite)
Steve Pereira (SilkTork) is such a “WIPOCRITE,” that he claims:
—————————————————————— “the community were united that your contributions were biased”
——————————————————————
He conveniently; like a good little mini-Jimbroni would, ignores ALL of his fellow WIPOCRITES comments, which completely ignored:
—————————————————————— ([WP:SOP]“Statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then. 7.”)
Due & undue weight: [3]
“The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant & should not be considered,”
[WP:NPOV]“History of NPOV:” (Content # 6, Note 3)
(Neutral Point of View)
——————————————————————
1. 12/24/2012, Monday – 3:52 pm – 21:52 (UTC) – “We are told that 2013 will be a big year, but apparently his plan is to release another bullshit movie not to publish useful research”
——————————————————————
2. 12/24/2012, Monday – 3:54 pm (21:54.UTC) – “What they mean is that nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it, which necessarily means that it’s not considered in the least promising.”
——————————————————————
3. 12/26/2012, Wednesday – 12:43 – “There is unlikely to be any dispassionate debate over ANPs while Burzynskicontinues with his unethical practices.”
——————————————————————
4. 12/30/2012 8:58 “The world, right now, considers Burzynski to be at best unethical and at worst a quack…”?
——————————————————————
Am I NOT the only one convinced that “the community” was also “united” in something more than just their “goose-stepping ?
—————————————————————— Pereira, the imperfect‘pedia Pimp tries to Wow his readers by waxing WikiWhOReD, by ignoring that ALL the previous BIASED opinion B.S. that his fellow-Facist forged ahead with, and which Wikipediantic history says means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING (say it again) because it is their BIASED OPINION and is ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS, and it was as so much WikiLitter, well, he’s just facist-free speechless about that, as any Jimbroni AstroTurf Twerk should be
======================================
To show exactly what zealots these WikiPimps are, just absorb this exchange:
——————————————————————
“The Burzynski Clinic Article has:
“…a Mayo Clinic study found no benefit….”
But that was not what the study concluded
See below:
—————————————————————— “CONCLUSION:
Although we could not confirm any tumor regression in patients in this study, the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions about treatment efficacy.”
——————————————————————
In the interest of Neutrality, please remove the reference to Mayo entirely or change to;
—————————————————————— “…a Mayo Clinic study found that “the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions about treatment efficacy.”
——————————————————————
Thank you very much
Didymus Judas Thomas 21:12, 12/10/2012
——————————————————————
“How is “found no benefit” not a a fair and pithy description of the Mayo Clinic study’s summary?”
Alexbrn 21:24, 12/10/2012
—————————————————————— “I feel this should be changed under WP:NPOV because not every reader is going to understand the “Fair & Pithy” reason I was provided
I feel that the average reader reading this will read it as meaning a study was done & completed with the necessary # of people for an effective study, when that was not the conclusion as pointed out in my above post
Thank you very much.”
Didymus Judas Thomas 11:02, 12/18/2012
—————————————————————— NO RESPONSE
That’s right !
“NO RESPONSE” from the “mini-b”(a/k/a “mini-brain”), wannabe Fascists who are so zealous about using their alleged“Fair and Pithy” “found no benefit” WikiWhOReD; which they utilize in an effort to deceive those who are NOTsmarter than a fifth-grader
These WikiPimps are so certain of the righteousness of their evangelical cause, that they do NOT even have the “GRAPEFRUITS” to use what the study’s conclusions actually said, and let the chips fall where they may
There are a lot of “chips” falling at Wikipedia
“BULL CHIPS”
JIMBRONI, you’re no Maggie Thatcher
You can’t even wear her pants
—————————————————————— Margaret Thatcher: “The Iron Lady”
Jimbroni: “No iron in the pants”
—————————————————————— Jimbroni’s list of Facist, mini-Hitler, Monty Pythonesque Women’s underwear wearing Wannabes on Wikipediantic:
These mini-b’s went so far as to allege all sorts of sockpuppetry
Wikipediantic, why don’t you list all the dates and times I was supposedly doing all of these activities; and don’t forget to include all the time I spent blogging, on Twitter, making comments on articles, etc., and once you have all that data compiled, explain how one individual could do all that in a 24-hour day
That’s right Wikipediantic
I’m challenging you to put up or shut up your cornholio
David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., FACS “Check My Facts”Hack “Orac”, finally ends his 11/15/2013 diatribe of Dr. Burzynski by USA TODAY’sLiz Szabo, Michael Stravato, Jerry Mosemak, and Robert Hanashiro, with:
—————————————————————— “The concluding section of the story tells us why we need to try:”
“No one told Josia’s parents about any of this”
“Not Burzynski”
“Not the FDA”
“Jose and Niasia Cotto had no idea that their son’s death prompted an investigation by the FDA, until they were contacted by USA TODAY”
“The Cottos had long believed that Burzynski could have cured their son if only they had taken Josia to see him first, before giving him radiation and chemotherapy”
“They had even hoped to launch a non-profit, A Life for Josia Foundation, to help other children with cancer gain access to Burzynski’s treatment“
“Now, they don’t know what to think”
——————————————————————
So what good did Gorski do here, if any ?
1. He offers no opinion as to if he thinks Burzynski should have been responsible for advisingJose and Niasia Cotto that Josia Cotto’sdeath prompted an investigation by the FDA
2. He offers no opinion as to if he thinks the FDA should have been responsible for advisingJose and Niasia Cotto that Josia Cotto’sdeath prompted an investigation
3. He offers no opinion as to if he thinks Burzynski could have cured Jose and Niasia Cotto’s son, Josia Cotto’s if only they had been able to take Josia to Burzynski first
4. He offers no opinion as to what he thinks about the FDA requiring Josia Cotto to receive radiation and chemotherapy, and them failingJosia, before he was able to utilize antineoplaston therapy
Gorski might as well NOT even be here if all he’s going to do is repost the same thing USA TODAY published, yet “say” absolutely NOTHING
Personally, I think it’s has to do with what was said during the JulyTAM 2013 twaddle, when the female panelist made a comment about “people without BALLS”
——————————————————————
Since I have mine, here’s what I think:
1. If there was a moral or legal duty to advise Jose and Niasia Cotto that the passing of Josiaprompted an investigation by the FDA, then it was the FDA’s responsibility
2. I think that if the FDA was NOT requiring patients like Josia Cotto to 1st be failed by conventional treatments like surgery, radiation, and / or chemotherapy, there is a chance that Burzynski’santineoplaston therapy could be more effective because of:
======================================
What USA TODAY, Liz Szabo, Michael Stravato, Jerry Mosemak, and Robert HanashiroDID NOT TELL YOU ABOUT:
—————————————————————— 12/2002 Burzynski interview [3]
—————————————————————— INTRAVENOUS
—————————————————————— 1. Treatment require strong commitment from patients as must be infused with Antineoplastons for many weeks or months ?
—————————————————————— 2. Perhaps 15% of patients taking intravenous infusions of Antineoplastons
—————————————————————— 3. Patients who have most advanced type of cancer will require heavy dosages
—————————————————————— 4. When give large dosages intravenously, have to watch fluid balance…and electrolyte balance
—————————————————————— 5. Intravenous infusion can deliver equivalent of 3,000 tablets a day
—————————————————————— ORAL – CAPSULES OR TABLETS
—————————————————————— 1. Most patients taking oral formulations
—————————————————————— 2. Capsules or tablets
—————————————————————— 3. Limitation of how much medicine can take by mouth
—————————————————————— 4. 50 or 60 tablets a day pretty much all you can take by mouth
—————————————————————— 5. When give orally, see practically no side effects at all
—————————————————————— 6. Patients may develop skin rash, which may last for day or two
—————————————————————— 7. Don’t see any delayed toxicity once treatment stops
—————————————————————— 8. Everything practically goes back to normal within day or two
—————————————————————— 9. Doesn’t even come close to adverse reactions that experience with chemotherapy
—————————————————————— FDA requirements
—————————————————————— 1. Most patients who come to us have received prior heavy radiation therapy, or chemotherapy
—————————————————————— 2. Usually die from complications from these treatments
—————————————————————— 3. Those who survive longest are patients who previously did not receive radiation therapy or chemotherapy
—————————————————————— 4. Longest survivor in this category is now reaching 15 years from time of diagnosis; and she’s in perfect health
—————————————————————— 12/10/1997 [4]
—————————————————————— 1. In addition to original family of Antineoplaston compounds
(the “Parental Generation”)
—————————————————————— 2. Development of 2nd generation of Antineoplastons
In cell culture experiments 2nd generation Antineoplastons developed have been shown to be at least
Thousand times more potent then Parental Generation
—————————————————————— 3. 3rd generation structurally altered Antineoplaston believe will exhibit markedly improved anticancer activity in human cancer cell lines resistant to
Parental Generation
————————————————————— 12/2000 Egypt antineoplaston study [5]
—————————————————————— 4 newpiperidinedioneA10 analogssynthesized and tested on human breast cancer cell line against prototype A10 and anti cancer drug tamoxifen and DNA binding capacity of compounds evaluated against A10
—————————————————————— “3B” and “3D” were several-fold more potent antiproliferative agents than A10 and tamoxifen and had significantly higher capacity to bind DNA than A10
————————————————————— 10/1/2001 Egypt antineoplaston study [5]
—————————————————————— Structural characterization of new antineoplaston (ANP) representatives
——————————————————————
Combination heat with pH modification had virtually no effect on obtained peaks, attesting to stability and purity of compounds
—————————————————————— One had superior affinity to DNA than
prototype ANP-A10
======================================
So, what do we know from this interview with Burzynskifrom over a decade ago, his 12/10/1997 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing and the antineoplaston research from Egypt ?
—————————————————————— 1. Oral (capsule and tablets): PRACTICALLY NO SIDE EFFECTS at all
—————————————————————— 2. Those who survive longest are patients who previously did NOT receive radiation therapy or chemotherapy
—————————————————————— 3. 2nd generation of Antineoplastons have been shown to be at least a THOUSAND TIMES MORE POTENT then Parental Generation
—————————————————————— 4. 3rd generation structurally altered Antineoplaston believe will exhibit markedly improved anticancer activity in human cancer cell lines resistant to Parental Generation
—————————————————————— 5. The research from Egypt shows promising results for binding to DNA
——————————————————————
I doubt Dr. Gorski will be blogging about the above, anytime soon, as it
DOES NOT FIT HIS NARRATIVE
====================================== 2000 – Thomas Navarro [3]
——————————————————————
What happened to Donna and Jim Navarro when they chose Burzynski’streatment over orthodox treatments ?
—————————————————————— 4 year oldThomas Navarrodiagnosed with medulloblastoma
—————————————————————— Operated on
—————————————————————— Tumor removed
—————————————————————— Scheduled for radiation therapy
—————————————————————— Parents knew he’d be damaged by radiation therapy
——————————————————————
Nobody his age survives this type of tumor anyway after radiation therapy
——————————————————————
Why they decided to go to Burzynski Clinic
—————————————————————— Could NOT treat him because FDA requires failure of radiation therapy for such patients
—————————————————————— Parents decided NOT to take any treatment
—————————————————————— Burzynski asked FDA several times to allow administration of Antineoplastons, because already had successful treatments for some other children without any prior radiation
—————————————————————— 5/2001 – developed numerous tumors
—————————————————————— Burzynski suggested to parents they should go for at least chemotherapy
——————————————————————
Went for chemotherapy to one of best centers in the country, Beth Israel Hospital in New York
—————————————————————— Chemotherapy was successful, but he almost died from it
—————————————————————— Severly affected his bone marrow
——————————————————————
Phone call from Thomas’s father telling Burzynski doctors thinking they won’t do anything else for him and Thomas will die within a week because of severe suppression of bone marrow
—————————————————————— Burzynski encouraged father to do whatever possible because such patients may turn around
—————————————————————— He turned around
——————————————————————
About month or two later developed 15 tumors in brain and spinal cord
——————————————————————
When close to death, nothing available, FDA called and allowed Burzynski to treat Thomas
—————————————————————— Treated Thomas
—————————————————————— Survived 6 months
—————————————————————— Tumors had substantially decreased
—————————————————————— 11/2001 – ultimately died from pneumonia
——————————————————————
Perhaps professor and chairman of oncology at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, Jan Buckner, professor and head of the division of bioethics at NYU Langone Medical Center, Arthur Caplan, chair of the Children’s Oncology Group, an NCI-supported research network that conducts clinical trials in pediatric cancer, pediatric oncologist and professor of pediatrics and pharmacology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Peter Adamson, David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., FACS, a/k/a GorskGeek, and “Orac”, ALL think that the 15 tumors Thomas Navarro had in his brain and spinal cord, which had substantially decreased under Burzynski’s antineoplaston therapy, were because of Pseudoprogression a/k/a Pseudo-Progression (psPD) and / or pseudoresponse, caused by chemotherapy ?
Is this what they mean by:
“In reality, the tumor was just returning to its previous size” ?
====================================== Dustin Kunnari [3]
——————————————————————
At 2 ½ years old, Dustin Kunnari had brain surgery
—————————————————————— Surgery removed only 75% of tumor
——————————————————————
Dustin’s parents, Mariann and Jack, were told Dustinwould only live 6 months
——————————————————————
Chemotherapy and radiation may extend life slightly, but at very high cost in quality of life with very serious side effects
——————————————————————
Mariann and Jack decided to look into alternatives
——————————————————————
Found out about Antineoplastons
——————————————————————
After only 6 weeks of intravenous treatment, MRI showed he was cancer free
—————————————————————— One year later another tumor appeared on MRI
——————————————————————
By this time Dr. Burzynski had developed more concentrated form of Antineoplastons
—————————————————————— After 5 months tumor was gone
——————————————————————
remained cancer free ever since
—————————————————————— Age 7 – taken off Antineoplastons
——————————————————————
To further complicate matters, oncologist kept threatening parents with a court proceeding to take Dustin away and force him to take Chemotherapy/Radiation treatment
——————————————————————
This continued for a year, even after success with Antineoplastons
—————————————————————— Age 12 at time of 12/2002 interview
——————————————————————
Perhaps professor and chairman of oncology at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, Jan Buckner, professor and head of the division of bioethics at NYU Langone Medical Center, Arthur Caplan, chair of the Children’s Oncology Group, an NCI-supported research network that conducts clinical trials in pediatric cancer, pediatric oncologist and professor of pediatrics and pharmacology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Peter Adamson, David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., FACS, a/k/a GorskGeek, and “Orac”, ALL think that the tumor David Kunnari had, which disappeared under Burzynski’s antineoplaston therapy, were because of Pseudoprogression a/k/a Pseudo-Progression (psPD) and / or pseudoresponse, caused by surgery ?
Is this what they mean by:
“In reality, the tumor was just returning to its previous size” ?
====================================== Paul Leverett [3]
—————————————————————— 5/1999 – diagnosed with glioblastoma multiforme grade 4 brain stem tumor
—————————————————————— Prognosis was would probably be dead before end of 1999
——————————————————————
Orthodox medicine gave him no hope of survival
—————————————————————— Given maximum amount of radiation was capable of receiving
——————————————————————
Slowed tumors growth slightly, but didn’t alter prospects for survival at all
——————————————————————
After research on Internet learned about Dr. Burzynski’sAntineoplastons
—————————————————————— 9/1999 – began taking Antineoplastons intravenously, administered by wife Jennie
——————————————————————
After 6 weeks tumor had grown by only 2 %, Glioblastoma’s normally double in size every 2 weeks
—————————————————————— 12/2000 – PET scan confirmed complete remission
——————————————————————
Stayed on Antineoplastonsuntil 8/2001 to ensure tumor wouldn’t reoccur
——————————————————————
Just under 20% tumor necrosis remaining in brain stem, which is probably scar tissue
——————————————————————
Oncologist (at MD Anderson, Houston) initially wanted to show scan’s to his hospitals (MD Anderson) tumor review board
——————————————————————
for whaever reason, refused further contact and didn’t go ahead with it
——————————————————————
Perhaps professor and chairman of oncology at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, Jan Buckner, professor and head of the division of bioethics at NYU Langone Medical Center, Arthur Caplan, chair of the Children’s Oncology Group, an NCI-supported research network that conducts clinical trials in pediatric cancer, pediatric oncologist and professor of pediatrics and pharmacology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Peter Adamson, David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., FACS, a/k/a GorskGeek, and “Orac”, ALL think that the glioblastoma multiforme grade 4 brain stem tumor Paul Leverett had, which disappeared under Burzynski’s antineoplaston therapy, were because of Pseudoprogression a/k/a Pseudo-Progression (psPD) and / or pseudoresponse, caused by radiation ?
Is this what they mean by:
“In reality, the tumor was just returning to its previous size” ?
====================================== Crystin Schiff [3]
—————————————————————–
Ric and Paula Schiff about torture their daughter Crystin had to endure during chemotherapy/radiation treatment
—————————————————————– Diagnosed with perhaps most malignant tumor known, rhabdoid tumor of the brain
—————————————————————–
Historically, there was no case of such a tumor ever having long response to chemotherapy or radiation therapy
—————————————————————–
Received extremely heavy doses of radiation therapy and chemotherapy, because nobody expected she would live longer than year or so
—————————————————————–
Was terribly damaged with this
—————————————————————–
Responded very well to Antineoplastons
—————————————————————– Complete response
—————————————————————— Died from pneumonia
—————————————————————— Immune system was wiped out, so when she aspirated some food, she died from it
—————————————————————– Autopsy revealed didn’t have any sign of malignancy
—————————————————————–
Particularly despicable story, because when Ric Schiff asked Dr. Michael Prados, then head of neuro-oncology at University of California at San Francisco Medical Center (UCSF), if he knew of any other treatment besides chemotherapy/radiation for Crystin’s brain tumor, Prados replied in the negative
But a few years before, he had sent you 14 letters documenting effectiveness of Antineoplastons on Jeff Keller, another patient with brain cancer
Is this true?
Yes, Jeff Keller had extremely malignant brain tumor
had high-grade glioma of the brain; failed radiation therapy and additional treatments
responded extremely well to our treatment
was one of patients whose case was presented to NCI
there was no doubt about his response
Dr. Prados knew about it
If he was dealing with hopeless tumor like Crystin Schiff, why didn’t he call us?
Do you know why Prados did not tell them about Keller’ssuccess with your treatment?
It’s hard for me to tell
It happens that Dr. Prados and Dr. Friedman, who became boss of FDA, came from same medical school
they work closely together, and perhaps there is something to do with general action against us
It would be inconvenient for Dr. Prados to say that treatment works if FDA was trying to get rid of us and when his friend was Commissioner of FDA at that time
Perhaps that’s the connection….
—————————————————————–
Perhaps professor and chairman of oncology at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, Jan Buckner, professor and head of the division of bioethics at NYU Langone Medical Center, Arthur Caplan, chair of the Children’s Oncology Group, an NCI-supported research network that conducts clinical trials in pediatric cancer, pediatric oncologist and professor of pediatrics and pharmacology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Peter Adamson, David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., FACS, a/k/a GorskGeek, and “Orac”, ALL think that the rhabdoid tumor of the brain Crystin Schiff had, which disappeared under Burzynski’s antineoplaston therapy, were because of Pseudoprogression a/k/a Pseudo-Progression (psPD) and / or pseudoresponse, caused by chemo and radiation ?
Gentlemen, I start your Insolence 😇
—————————————————————— (1:30) [1]
——————————————————————
The “motto” of “The Amazing (Not so Much) Meeting” is “Fighting Fakers,” which is apropos, since I doubt that “Orac” the “Check my Facts” Hack of Dr. David H. Gorski, grasps the irony, that when I read some of his blog articles, you could easily switch his name with the name of some individual he is flogging, and the proverbial shoe fits, and:
—————————————————————— (1:40)
—————————————————————— “This is a guy who sometimes fools even, you know, physicians”
—————————————————————— (I couldn’t have said it better, myself) 😊
—————————————————————— (2:47)
——————————————————————
He states:
“There is a long segment about “The Skeptics”“
(applause) 😝
—————————————————————— (4:25)
—————————————————————— “His lawyer wrote a book”
“About a half of it is about Burzynski“[4]
—————————————————————— 6:00
—————————————————————— Gorski mentions that Burzynski noticed that there were higher levels of these chemicals in healthy people, than people with cancer
——————————————————————
Whereas, Burzynski is on record as having said [5]:
” . . . healthy people have abundance of these chemicals in blood Cancer patients have varied to none“
I did NOT know before now, that GorskGeek thinks that “none” is a “level” 😶
——————————————————————
He continues:
AS2.1 – which is a chemical called phenylacetic acid, which is a byproduct of metabolism that turns into phenylacetylglutamine by the liver
A10 – soluble is basically the same thing
It breaks down to PAG
—————————————————————— WOW !
I thought it was: AS2 – 1 😊
They are “basically the same thing” ? 😳
What does Burzynski say ? [6]
Phenylacetylglutaminate (PG) and Phenylacetate (PN) are metabolites of Phenylbutyrate (PB) and are constituents of antineoplaston AS2-1
PG and PN are naturally occurring in human body as result of metabolism of phenylalanine in liver and kidneys
formulation of antineoplaston AS2-1 is 4:1 mixture of synthetic PN and PG
A10 is 4:1 mixture of PG and iso-PG
That does NOT look like “basically the same thing” to me 😛
—————————————————————— (6:50)
—————————————————————— Gorski founders on:
“And these are substances which were actually studied in the ’50’s and ’60’s and not found to be particularly, um, promising, but, he didn’t know that then”
—————————————————————— GorskGeek has #FAILED miserably to prove that on his blogs [7] 😄
—————————————————————— (8:00)
—————————————————————— Gorski comments about Burzynski’s “animal testing,” “species specific” claims:
“There are ways of getting around that”
——————————————————————
But Gorski, again, has #FAILED miserably to prove it [8] 😅
—————————————————————— (12:00)
—————————————————————— Gorski makes lame excuses about the NCI phase II clinical trial [9] 😖
—————————————————————— (12:50)
—————————————————————— Gorski claims Burzynski was indicted for insurance fraud in the 1997 case 😱
—————————————————————— GorskGeek, care to try and prove that one also ? [10] 😃
—————————————————————— (14:25)
—————————————————————— Gorski then states that out of 61 trials on clinicaltrials . gov, “most” are “closed or unknown”
—————————————————————— GorskGeek #FAILED again 😁
At the time it was:
1 – Not Yet Recruiting
(OPEN)(Phase 3) 1 – COMPLETED
2 – WITHDRAWN
(Withdrawn due to slow enrollment)
7 – WITHDRAWN
(This study has been withdrawn prior to enrollment) (9=WITHDRAWN)
10 – Recruiting (10=OPEN)
40 – Active, not recruiting – (40=CLOSED)
61 =TOTAL
—————————————————————— (15:20)
—————————————————————— Gorski attempts to go all “legal eagle”:
“Listen to Burzynski’s lawyer!”
“You listen to Burzynski’s lawyer; and, and I swear I don’t understand, like why Burzynski would let him, let his lawyer say stuff this damning in his own book, but he does”
“So, get a load of some of these quotes, referring to one of the clinical trials, he says:”
“It was a joke”
“. . . there could not be any possibility of meaningful data coming out of the so-called clinical trial, it was all an artifice, that, you know, designed so that they could continue giving the treatment“
“The FDA wanted all of his patients to be on an IND, so, that’s what we did”
—————————————————————— Gorski, attorney Rick Jaffe is an American, living in America NOT the formerly communist Poland
He can say whatever he wants
GorskGeek is NOT a lawyer 😓
And there’s an excellent reason why
Nor is he schooled in the proper usage of the English language
FACT:
” . . . the so-called clinical trial . . .”
Anyhuman being with a modicum of intelligence about the English language, understands that the term “clinical trial” is singular, i.e. one
Burzynski’s lawyer is obviously referring to the CAN-1 clinical trial mentioned in Burzynski’s 11/25/1997 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing [11]
One trial that is retrospective is CAN-1 Clinical Trial
—————————————————————— CAN-1 PHASE II STUDY OF ANTINEOPLASTONS A10 AND AS2-1 IN
PATIENTS WITH REFRACTORY MALIGNANCIES
133 patients
—————————————————————— Clinical trial of patients treated by Dr. Burzynski through 2/23/1996
FDA has indicated it will not accept data generated by this trial since it was not a wholly prospective one
—————————————————————— Gorski continues his trend of #FAILURES when he mentions the additional types of treatments that Burzynski was offering, but he #FAILED to mention [12] 😂
—————————————————————— ” … in 1997, his medical practice was expanded to include traditional cancer treatment options such as chemotherapy, gene targeted therapy, immunotherapy and hormonal therapy in response to FDA requirements that cancer patients utilize more traditional cancer treatment options in order to be eligible to participate in the Company’s Antineoplaston clinical trials”
—————————————————————— (18:20)
—————————————————————— Gorski addresses the case of Tori Moreno
—————————————————————— Kim Moreno states:
“We originally were at Miller’s Children at Long Beach Memorial and then went to City of Hope“
“We also sent her MRI’s to Dr. Fred Epstein in New York to be looked at”
Gorski suggests that 3 different opinions could have misdiagnosed Tori Moreno
You can read an interview with Tori’s mother [13]
—————————————————————— (19:45)
—————————————————————— Gorski goes on to mention Burzynski patients going to Texas Children’s Hospital with hypernatremia issues
—————————————————————— Gorski, do you mean this ? [14]
The changing pattern of hypernatremia in hospitalized children
Department of Pediatrics, Texas Children’s Hospital, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
—————————————————————— (20:00)
—————————————————————— Gorski mangles the case of Hannah Bradley, who had a grade 3 anaplastic astrocytoma brain tumor
GorskGeek makes excuses like “spontaneous remission”, but then provides no citation, reference, or link to a case of such a tumor having spontaneously exhibited remission [15]
—————————————————————— (20:40)
—————————————————————— Gorski states that antineoplastons are chemotherapy
—————————————————————— No, Gorski, antineoplaston are:
“…an unapproved drug, not ordinary “chemotherapy“[16] 😣
—————————————————————— (21:53)
—————————————————————— Gorski claims in regard to Burzynski’s personalized gene-targeted therapy:
” . . . gives to the patient without regard for synergistic toxicity“
“Boom, there you go”
—————————————————————— Gorski’s #FAIL rate continues, as Burzynski has stated that phase 2 and 3 publications are reviewed as part of this process [17]
Gorski, “BOOM, THERE YOU GO” ッ
—————————————————————— Gorski, you should hire out to the Democratic Party as their mascot, because you must be the biggest pompous ASS I’ve ever seen 😜
Gorski, my advice: don’t quit your day job, HACK 😷
——————————————————————
The #TAM2013 audience then has to suffer through 22:36 of the blatherskite of Robert J. (don’t call me Bobby) “Bob” Blaskiewicz Blatherskitewicz [2]
He blathers about the “dozen,” “17,” “16 dead,” “pancreatic cancer,” “Joseph, who was alive but died well within the life expectancy given his diagnosis,” “Joann, who was alive but died within a year of starting therapy,” “Irene S., who was dead within month,” “Maxine, who was already dead,” the “103 in 2011,” “63 in mid-June,” “17 on original 1999 site,” “about 3 added a year,” the “about 50 stories,” “1/10th of patient names gathered,” “Amelia S. – 7, tumor breaking up,” “Chase,” “Cody – 1994, 20 years ago, 2 visits, 6 weeks treatment breaking up,” “David,” “Janet, 3 – 5 yrs., oncologist, now dead, ovarian cancer,” “Pete took video down,” “8,000 patients,” “probable ischemic necrosis,” “13 yr. old, getting worse getting better, vomited – Marlene, nurse,” “Rory died 2005,” “Supatra, swelling, last wed., brain tumor,” “Side-effect, 2%, sodium load,” “Andrea, U.S. News and World Report, 30% chance recovery, glioblastoma, ANP in luggage, died on plane,” “Cathy wanted to be on ANP, Greg Burzynski, found out only brain tumor,” “Denise D. breast cancer,” and finally:
—————————————————————— (18:45)
—————————————————————— ” … and light as many fires under his butt as we can“
——————————————————————
Mentions Rick Jaffe’s book Galileo’s Lawyer
IT’S ALL ABOUT THE PATIENTS [4]
——————————————————————
All you need to know about Blaskiewicz is:
“White man speak with forked tongue” [18]
——————————————————————
The 3rd video is a panel discussion, which includes “man-crush” tag-team [3]
Robert Blaskiewicz and David Gorski
—————————————————————— (8:00)
—————————————————————— Bob says:
“Yeah, I’m not that type of doctor“
—————————————————————— Bob, the correct answer for you, is:
“I’m NOT a doctor” QUACK
—————————————————————— (13:05)
—————————————————————— Gorski gabs that he’s a:
“Game of Thrones Geek”
——————————————————————
I just knew I was right, GorskGeek [19]
—————————————————————— (14:00)
——————————————————————
The only female panelist mentions “bureaucrats”, “wimps”, and “people without balls”
—————————————————————— 2 out of 3 ain’t bad
She describes the Bob and David show to a T
—————————————————————— (15:00)
——————————————————————
The claim is made that a Burzynski physician appeared on the Burzynski Facebook page announcing results
—————————————————————— (16:00)
—————————————————————— Gorski #whines that the Texas Medical Board wasn’t successful in shutting Burzynski down because of “politics”
—————————————————————— LAUGHABLE
—————————————————————— (20:55)
—————————————————————— Gorski gives his usual excuse:
“He’s not an oncologist”
—————————————————————— GorskiGeek, that claim is as dead as apparently, quite a number of your brain cells [15]
—————————————————————— (34:40)
——————————————————————
Audience members are given the opportunity to speak, and this is the garbage served up:
—————————————————————— “Hi, this is Susan
Ah, don’t forget to mention that Wikipedia has been a major battlefield
We’ve had 23,000 views to the clinic’s page this last month, also rebutr . . .”
—————————————————————— “Control the flow of information”
—————————————————————— Gorski pipes up:
“What she said”
—————————————————————— (35:20)
—————————————————————— Blatherskitewicz chimes in:
“When it comes to Wikipedia can I just mention that is, that is, that that is so effective that Wikipedia was singled out in the most recent Burzynski movie“
—————————————————————— Gorski chirps:
“Yes”
—————————————————————— Bob yacks:
“as being controlled by evil skeptics“
—————————————————————— Gorski ejaculates:
“No, seriously”
—————————————————————— Bob bleats:
“No”
(applause)
—————————————————————— “You have to unleash the evil hoards of skeptics“
“Wahahaha” 👿
—————————————————————— Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski on Wikipedia:
“Simply don’t pay attention to it, because it, it’s not true”
“You won’t be able to, do any, clinical research which we do, without convincing evidence, especially when you have the most powerful agency in the government which is against you“
“So they would love to find something which is wrong with what we are doing”
“Ah, so the fact that they’ve, um, agreed that what we have has value, and they allow us to do phase 3 clinical trials it means that we are right”
“Because, uh, uh, nobody who didn’t have any, concrete evidence that it works, would be able to go as far”
“So whatever Wikipedia says, well, I don’t care for them“
Apparatchiks [20]
====================================== REFERENCES:
====================================== [1] – David Gorski – Why We Fight (Part I): Stanislaw Burzynski Versus Science-Based Medicine – TAM 2013 11/8/2013 (22:44)
——————————————————————
====================================== [2] – Robert Blaskiewicz – Why We Fight (Part II): It’s All About The Patients – TAM 2013 11/8/2013 (22:36)
——————————————————————
====================================== [3] – Medical Cranks And Quacks
TAM 2013 JREF
11/8/2013 (42:42)
——————————————————————
====================================== [4] – “Galileo’s Lawyer”Richard A. Jaffe, Esq.
—————————————————————— http://www.richardjaffe.com
====================================== [5] – 11/9/2013 – Pete Cohen chats with Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski:
—————————————————————— https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/09/pete-cohen-chats-with-dr-stanislaw-burzynski/
====================================== [6] – 6/2012 – Journal of Cancer Therapy, 2012, 3, 192-200 doi:10.4236/jct.2012.33028 Published Online June 2012, Pg. 192
——————————————————————
====================================== Pete talks with Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski
—————————————————————— December 2011 (1:02:30)
======================================
How did you kind of get into this, into this field in the 1st place ?
Uh well, it was a coincidence, ’cause obviously I made discovery of new chemicals, peptides which is in blood, and I noticed that they were deficient in patients with cancer, and there was a curiosity, why there was such deficiency, and I was interested what these peptides that I discovered, are doing in the body
So the connection with cancer was quite obvious
He, healthy people have abundance of these chemicals in blood Cancer patients have varied to none
So could be that cancer is another deficiency disease
So
So when you found this out
Yes. Mhmm ?
how did you feel ?
I mean, did you not just want to shout from the rooftops, and could you believe that you’d actually discovered something ?
Not yet
Of course I was skeptical, and I found something that was interesting, but obviously, it was just the very beginning and when I shared this news uh with some other guys, who are obviously much older than me, who, other guys who were professors, who ever, so (laugh) they began to laugh so much they almost died from laughing
Ok ?
That (laughing)
Wow, this guy would like to kill cancer
Forget it
Ok ?
That’s just not going to happen
What are you doing ?
Yes sir (laugh)
Well how did that affect you ?
Well it didn’t affect me too much because I knew that uh the science uh requires uh some successes and uh setbacks and I felt, well I still would like to know, what these peptides can do, and I would like to know what they can do, not only regarding cancer but in various aspects of body function
For instance, the activity of the heart, the activity of the uh uh G.I. tract
Whatever
Ok
I needed to expand this knowledge
Suddenly I found some like 119 new peptide fractions
Nobody ever heard of them
So I wanted to know
What do they do ?
And when I was in Poland I couldn’t have really do any further testing, because I didn’t have such possibility to require different group of people who would do the testing, and simply by working in the biochemistry laboratory I did not have such capacity, and obviously the budget for doing uh research was extremely small
Besides, I was continuously harassed by the communists and they were sending me to, eh, the military, so I couldn’t do much
I still did whatever I could
Then I came to U.S.
Oh so you came to U.S.
What, what year was that ?
It was 1970
I heard you came with not very much money in your pocket
Uh well it was better than where I came first to the U.K., because when I came first to U.K., I came practically with nothing, and uh, when I went to British uh Medical Student Association, they were going to give me 7 pounds for one month stay in U.K. (laughing)
You were supposed to get this money in Poland
Yeah
(laughing) Sorry about that
So ultimately they decided to give me 7 pounds, and obviously at that time it was a lot of money, so with 7 pounds I was able to survive a month
(laughing) Good luck (laughing)
But in U.S., I was allowed by the communist government to $15, which again, was equivalent probably to 7 pounds, whatever (laughing)
So you came here with $15
I smuggled another 10
Yeah
So the proper balance was like
So what
So what did you do when you got here ?
Well, ehhh, when I arrived I was uh, uh, uh, trying to get ahold of my relatives
My uncle that lived in Bronx
Yeah
And uh I officially came to visit him and uh I was expecting him to see me at the airport, and surely enough he came to the airport but uh at the time he was an elderly man
He was close to 80, and eh, he probably went to a different part of Kennedy airport, so he couldn’t find me
So I was stuck in the airport
This was Holiday
This was 4th of uh September, which was a Labor Day, and so I couldn’t get uh uh to his apartment
So finally I spent most of this money for the cab, the taxi rides to his apartment
Some, like $13 worth
You had $2 left
Ye, Yeah
Plus the $10
Sure
Well, so then I stay uh I, I was obviously in the family’s, I couldn’t
Yeah
I, I don’t need to worry about it
So obviously I had a food and lodging, and uh, still I was trying to get hold of some of the people whom I knew were doing the research in the area, whi, which I was interested
Mhmm
which was peptide research, and uh trying to see if I can advance my research
And then I thought, well, if I go back to Poland, I didn’t expect to stay
And in the meantime uh my job at the university in Poland was terminated, and I wondered they needed my position for the woman who was the wife of the 3rd Secretary of the communist party
Finally when I was terminated from my job, uh, there was no need for me to go back, because I would not be able to find job anywhere in Poland, because obviously everything was controlled by communist
So that I decided to stay and to look for the possible, possibility for me to find a job in the U.S.
And wha, what job did you find ?
Um
So you were in New York ?
Yes, I was very active, of course since I was involved in the research
I knew the key people who were involved in peptide research
There were not many of them, but at least there was one good team in New York and Columbia
Um, there was another one at, uh, Cleveland Clinic, and there was another one in Houston, and so, uh, I check with all of them and, uh, the place in New York was unavailable because they hired, um, somebody, um, about a week before I came
Uh but uh, uh, I was invited to the interview to Houston
I was surprised but uh, prepared for my trip and I arrived to Houston and had interview with a professor at Baylor College of Medicine and he gave me the employment, and so it was relatively simple
And then what were you doing on like a day-to-day basis ?
Uh, well, uh, when I arrived to Houston I uh, obviously received a job
I received the job as “Research Associate,” and um, obviously this was associated with a reasonable salary, but the salary was paid once a month, so I had to think, what do I do for the 1st half of the month, because I came in the middle of the month, and didn’t have any money (laughing: both), but some good people loaned me some money so I, I have enough money to rent the apartment, and finally after I got my pay, I was able to do quite well, and I was able to advance, uh, in peptide research
So were you able to do your own research or
Absolutely. Absolutely
that they wanted you to do ?
Absolutely, and uh, I was quite lucky to join the team of the famous professor Professor George H
er, uh, who was initially professor of Sorbonne in Paris
Then in World War II he emigrated to U.K. and he was professor at Oxford, and so finally he came to U.S., and, uh, he put together the peptide research team
He needed people who know how to do analysis of peptides, so that’s why he hired me
And uh I uh told him that I have my own project, which is peptides, and if you wouldn’t mind that I do some research of mind, and he agreed
So basically this was gentleman agreement that I will spend 50% of my time working for him, and spend 50% time, working in my area
Uh, the equipment and the instruments were the same, so it wasn’t too difficult
And then you, and then when you had something to show then, when. when you had even more of something to show them, how was that received, because you see, I’ve really got something here ?
Ah
I think I’ve got something here
Absolutely, it was received with great curiosity, and, um, and obviously he needed people who could use, the cutting edge, uh, methods for peptide analysis, and that’s what I knew about, but I couldn’t use this for him because I didn’t have funds to do it, but I knew exactly what needs to be done, and on the other hand, uh, this was great surrounding because just across the corridor, another team receive a Nobel Prize for working on peptides
The only problem is, uh, one of these researchers uh was of Polish origin who received Nobel Prize for peptides (laughing)
Yeah
began, uh, fighting with the other one and finally his job was terminated because he punched (laughing)
Punched him ?
the other guy in the nose (laughing)
Yeah
Huh
So, but the good thing about it is that ultimately I inherited uh, their equipment
Yeah
for peptide research, so
Wow. So that must have been like a, like, a, a child in a sweet shop
Absolutely, so was a great coincidence so
So then you were really able to, to, to, to look at it in more detail, and ?
Absolutely, so then of course I was really out of work uh, and the team of Dr. Unger, and also, uh, I was spending a lot of time, uh, progressing in my research, which was very important uh, of course it means long hours uh, ’cause of, uh, 8 hours I would spending working for Dr. Unger and probably not 8 hours until midnight working on my uh, project, but uh, I enjoy it
In the meantime I need to prepare for exams because I wanted to have a license
So I was lucky because uh, within 3 months I was able to pass exams to uh, to naturalize my diploma, and then uh, just, uh, the day, on the eve of my birthday, on January 22nd, President Nixon had a speech in which he promised American people that by 200th anniversary of America, they would have a cancer cure, and no limits would be set on the funding
So then I thought, well, if that’s the case, perhaps I should apply for the grant also, and I did
It was crazy idea because I could barely understand when the people were talking to me (laughing: both)
Well I decided to put together grant application, in to the National Cancer Institute, and include the project on the peptides which I discovered, and I was surprised when this was approved
So then in uh 1971 I get approved as Principle Investigator, to do the project, which included eh, the top people from M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, and from Baylor College of Medicine, um, and I was supervising this
I was at that time 28 years old, but I was supervising the guys who were famous, and who were some like 60 years old (laughing)
Wow
and so the money was coming to me from the National Cancer Institute, and I was uh daily uh, running the project, sharing, obviously with the guys from M.D. Anderson, so, and going ahead with the research, so
and of course at that time I was disappointed to have to (work ?) with M.D. Anderson and Baylor, and then I could move independently what I was doing
So at what point were you actually, able to start testing on people
Mmm
It took a long time because
I mean you couldn’t wait, right ?
Yeah it took a long time because obviously um, initially you have to go through a lot of pre-clinical testing
The 1st time it was uh, around the beginning of ’77, yeah
So then we began phase I clinical trials, and this phase I clinical trials were approved by one of the very good hospitals in Houston, which is part of the hospital chain American Medical International, and they interviewed my project and their Institutional Review Board approved it for clinical trials
Well then I did my 1st clinical trials, phase I clinical trial, with a medication that I am not using at this moment because we made further progress of course, at a hospital, and this hospital at that time was called Twelve Oaks Hospital
At this time it’s called River Oak Hospital
Yep
Yes
And then, at what, at what, was there a time where you realized: This is actually working ?
Well, now this was in 1977, and (laughing) surprisingly, uh, uh, perhaps one of the 1st successful case where you can really, document a clear-cut improvement by doing the scan before and after
It shows tremendous decrease of uh, uh, tumors which corresponded to colon cancer which spread to the liver
(This guy was ?)
(laughing)
(?)
(laughing)
And uh, his case was so interesting, that when I sent it for press, the editors decided to put us on the cover, of the journal, the scan
Yeah
They decided to put on the cover of Science, showing the tumor before, and, after the treatment
Eh, so this was uh , obviously
And then what happened ?
Didn’t that m kinda, didn’t word spread like wildfire and people, more and more people want to come and see you ?
Ah, Absolutely, well the 1st excitement occurred, basically what the President Nixon promised ok
That he would deliver
Yeah
cancer cure uh, by ’70, uh 6, 1976, and we did, ok, and we did deliver cancer cure
Yeah
by 1976, 1977 ok, and um, the um, main uh event was the presentation of uh our theory on our research, on perhaps one of the largest uh scientific (congress ? conference ?) in America, involved 19,000 uh, researchers attended
Eh this was annual meeting of the Federation of the Societies of Experimental Medicine and Biology
It happened that at that time it was in Anaheim, California
Uh, I sent uh, uh, the abstract of my presentation, and I was simply, patiently waiting until this would be shown, which was in ’76
In June ’76 right before 4th of July, and uh, I was surprised when they notified me that um, my abstract was selected out of one of few, which was in great interest of the news media, like Associated Press, for instance, and then when I did my presentation, then Associated Press decided to make a release of this, and then you can read about it in newspapers all over the world
In uh, (laughing) distant places like Buenos Aries, receiving CBS newspaper clips from all corners of the world
And what was that like for you ?
I mean, how did that feel, just to see that your name was, all over the world ?
This was the 2nd time, what (?) this happened to me, because 1st time it made such news, by working on brain peptides with Professor Unger; this was around ’72, and suddenly, this wasn’t so much of my
Yeah, but still it was your (interest ?)
involvement, but I was working together with Professor Unger, and we made a great news, by discovery of, certain peptide in the brain, and then it spread all over the world, and then again, uh, uh, CBS
What was that like ?
I mean, how did you feel when you saw ?
Well, uh, it was surprising because uh suddenly we got uh news people coming, and the TVs from various countries, especially from Europe, for instance, from variety of corners, like from Europe, from New Zealand, from Brazil
You name it ok ?
Eh, so there was a great excitement about it, but 1st time that this excitement happened was, is around ’72, uh, really, eh, is typically what happened after such excitement, is the ? iation ?)
ok
Yeah (laugh)
Well, uh, (laughing) the uh, establishment is and this um will attack you and will try to destroy you
Did you know that was going to happen before ?
I knew it would because in Poland, uh, my father’s, uh, gave me the book of um MIT Professor, uh, Thomas Kuhn
(here’s a guy ? try to translate to (?)
(laughing)
(?) yeah
Yeah, probably
(laughing) sure
and then uh, this was uh, the book which was titled eh, Structures of Scientific Revolutions
It happens that this book was translated to Polish language as couple of years after it was printed, in U.S.; which was around uh, I think 19 uh, 64 probably, ok
So then I read the book, and the book shows uh, how, eh, the paradigm shift occurs, ok, and the, it never fails
It always goes through the same stages
1st it’s short period of excitement, and the a long time of harassment and persecution, and then finally the brief period when uh, uh, if you survive, then uh, the other people say
well it’s obvious
We always knew (laughing) that this
Yeah
was going to happen, ok ?
So I knew what was going to happen, uh, but uh, it was hard for me to believe it uh that, uh, in the 20th century, 21st century it could happen, ok, but then uh, when uh, I began going through this, it was like going to some uh, unpleasant disease
You read about it in the books and
Yeah (?)
then uh, you finding one symptom after another, and it affects you
Yeah
and you know that it could be deadly,
(?) survive
Well you could have ended up in prison, right ?
Yeah
(?)
You may die before uh, you be able to do anything
Mhmm
So the advice of the author of the book, was that you have to start early to make some medical discovery, because you probably have years of harassment in front of you, and probably the best chance that uh, you get accepted if you live longer than your opponent, because some guys will never accept you (laughing)
Yeah
until they die
So that’s what happened
Well then, of course, I witnessed what happened with Professor Unger
Yeah, he made the great news, and obviously I contributed to what he had, but he was uh, my boss, and then obviously I did not much, suffer much from retaliation, but he did, ok
So there was retaliation, and uh, they accused him of everything possible, uh, finally causing for him to move from Houston to Memphis, Tennessee, eh, zzz, about year later he died
So unfortunately his research was never brought to the time when it was accepted, ok
It was great research, ok, and if had really to more resource and time I can bring this to be accepted, because this isn’t a completely different field
This is brain function, memory, and peptides working in the brain
But at that time unfortunately the project was killed, which is great loss for humanity, eh, ’cause the discoverer passed away, and the product was gone together with him
It can be still resurrected, and I think it will be
Eh, so then, for me, eh, it meant only advancement, unfortunately, because, uh, when uh, uh, he was stripped from the funds, I received funding from the National Cancer agency funding from the university, and I was able to support him, because he was stripped of his grants and funds
So he was able to move forward with his research, but finally when he moved, I inherited very large laboratories
My laboratory was located in 3 buildings
So the lab space and uh, uh, some prime location, in the medical school
So then I did very well, then, of course, the publicity occurred, and this publicity was centered around me, not around both of us
Yeah
at that time, in ’76, and then again there was about 1/2 a year when there was a great enthusiasm, uh, good wishes, whatever, and after that, a retaliation occurred, ok
So then obviously
Mhmm
And what was, what, what was at the heart of the retaliation ?
Uh, well,
The fact that their people didn’t want this to come to the fore ?
Initially there was some overtures to take away the discovery from me, and uh, for instance, uh, uh, uh, Baylor College congratulated me
I received diploma, so suddenly became superstar, ok (laughing)
Yeah
and then, of course, uh, the wise people, the business people from the university said: “Look, probably we should talk now about patents, we should talk about pharmaceutical companies, we should try to, somehow, put this to motion,” ok, and that’s what we did
So then uh, we talked to some of the best lawyers in the country
Of course, uh, the university uh, are in control of this
There were visits of uh, pharmaceutical companies
I remember one of them came from the research center in U.K., from High uh, Wycombe , and this was so (encouraging that ?) was very interested, what we do
But then uh, the intention was just to take uh, my, uh, in, invention away from me, and obviously
Mhmm
I would have very little to, to, do to promote this, to develop this any further
So I thought about it and I felt that I’m not going to do it
There then uh, I was offered to join the mainstream cancer research at Baylor cancer medicine, and obviously uh, I would receive much better title, of professor
Yeah
and obviously there would be much better equipped laboratory, but again eh, they wanted me to, completely quit private practice of medicine, ’cause at the same time I was practicing medicine, which many researchers were doing
I was working at Baylor College and then I was practicing medicine uh, outside Baylor College, in the group of the other doctors
So in this way I had some independence, because obviously, I could always practice medicine (laughing)
And did you always want to keep your independence,
Yes
and did you know that was always a good thing ?
That’s right, that’s right
Because I, I did not want to be uh, at the mercy of the university or the government
Uh, but I still wanted to stay in academic surrounding, because obviously I came from a family which has great tradition of academic careers
So that’s something which obviously my father was always telling me that I should be really staying in the university, ok
Eh, uh, uh, but finally I decided that I was not going to accept this offer because uh, why should I resign from my private practice
Mmm
It didn’t hurt my research in any way
So I decided to continue, and uh, then that’s when the retaliation occurred, and uh, I was (crazy ?), harassed, and attacked, and finally
And how were you harassed ?
I mean, letters or (peop ?)
Mmm, well, as I could do the research for such a long time, because really, this was some like 7 years at the university, because uh, very few people in the university knew what I was doing, because I was only responding to the National Cancer Institute, and uh, I was not part of the mainstream cancer research center
What happened is that uh, (laugh) I was employed by the Department of Anesthesiology, which obviously, on the surface has nothing to do with cancer, but, who cares ?
I was receiving grants from the National Cancer Institute, and so Anethesiology was a very wealthy department, and they had a lot of space, but they were doing very little research
So they wanted to do some type of research, and uh, the chairman of the department was supportive of my doing cancer research
So basically I conducted uh, Anethesiology
laboratory into cancer, into cancer research laboratory, and very few people knew about it
They learn about it
when uh, the Associated Press (laughing) broke the news
So then uh, the retaliation happened
Mhmm
and then they wanted me to join the mainstream, but obviously I was enjoying very much (laughing) working, in peace and tranquility, and responding only to the National Cancer Institute
So then uh, what happened at that time was that uh, obviously Dr. Unger, moved to another university, and um, uh, the chairman of the department uh, his uh, uh, employment was terminated, because it uh, he was involved in uh, the war between 2 superstars of (the ?)
One of Dr. DeBakey
and the other one was Dr. Cooley
They were 2 famous, eh, eh, cardiovascular surgeons, who were competing with each other
Ehhh, Dr., eh, the chairman of the department, was on the side of Dr. Cooley, but the boss of, uh, Baylor College was Dr. DeBakey
So after Dr., Dr. DeBakey
learned that, uh, the sympathy of Chairman of the Department; which was Dr. Cooley, his job was terminated
So then they, took another man; very old, professor, who was already retired, to be the chairman of the department
They, he knew nothing about, any type of research (laugh), especially cancer research, and, uh, once I decided to not join the mainstream, Baylor Research Center, eh, the people who are in charge of Baylor Research Center, they put a pressure, on the new chairman of the department, and they frightened him, saying look, you are, uh, in a charge of anesthesiology, but here’s a guy doing cancer research, eh, and see this was a great, uh, like liability to you, and pretty soon he may be sued, uh, without knowing what he’s doing
Ok
So then, uh, they, they, um, brainwashed the old man, and he decided to strip me, slowly from my laboratories, eh, and, and, harass me
Ok, uh, ultimately, he sent me the letter that, uh, in which he informed me that he does not see any connection between, uh, my research and anesthesiology; which was obvious, eh, but obviously I was doing the research which made the university famous, more or less
Yeah
So then one thing to another, and I decided, no, I am not going to work with, in this environment anymore, and I decided to do, try to do on my own, to start my own laboratory
So that’s what happened
Ok
And then you did that ?
You had your own, laboratory ?
Yes, and then I decided, this was just the beginning of 1977, and, uh, e, we put together a laboratory; of course I already had private practice, and, uh, I was still working
In your private practice
Yes
you were still seeing patients ?
Absolutely, absolutely
Seeing any results ?
Yeah, seeing patients, getting results
I began phase I clinical trials
Mhmm
in the hospital where I was seeing patients
I had patients at that time, in about 2 or 3 different hospitals, uh, but the hospital, where I get permission to do clinical trials, was a most supportive, and that’s why I did it this way, and, uh, obviously it was necessary for me to build from scratch, the laboratory, the research laboratory
I decided that I just, uh, I just, uh, make some funds in, our private practice, and at that time, of course, this was just, um, general (?) private practice, internal medicine private practice, em, and, uh, the funds which I produced in private practice I can use to, put together the laboratory, and that’s what we did
Ok
Step by step we build the laboratory, and we expanded our private practice
So basically, I switch from the government and then I found it best to fund the research, just privately funded research, which nothing unusual, thhh, some like 50 years before everyone was doing it
Everyone is doing this
Yes, and there’s still some people, especially in the U.K., who are doing this
Ok
Yeah
Um, the most of the discoveries were made through the, sss, through the research that was funded, by the researchers
Mhmm
There are also some, wealthy people who donated the money to do it
So only after World War II, this was, um, the system was created where, the researchers became, um, really became the slaves so, the government
Mhmm
and pharmaceutical companies, and new companies, and if they do not receive the money, they couldn’t do anything
This way I could have independence, and, uh, do whatever I want
Yes
So at what point did it get to where, action was taken against you, and you knew that you were going to have to go to court ?
The action, um, um, started very soon, and the, and began at the lowest level, which is like, county level, and then you go obviously
Mhmm
higher as you move along, and when, uh, I was leaving, uh, the university, the chairman promised me that (laugh) when I leave, uh, the obviously, quote, unquote, “They will bust my ass”
Ok ?
Yeah
(laughing)
When leaving the university
When I was leaving the university ?
Yeah
Yes
And, uh, he promised me that, uh, they will trigger the action from Harris County’s Medical Society; which is probably the lowest level of harassment and just, the somewhat prestigious society if you are are a good doctor practicing medicine, in Harris County, where Houston is, then you should be a member of the Harris County Medical Society
Uh, if you are not a member of Harris County Medical Socity they won’t grant you privileges to see patients in hospital
So this was important to be a member of the Harris County Medical Society because I was practicing medicine
Why do you think
Why do you think they wanted to stop you ?
Why did’d they wanted me to stop ?
Yeah
Well, probably just for the heck of it
I don’t know
(Laughing: both)
Ok
Well do you think they were threatened by you ?
Well, I doubt it
Their probably some type of revenge
Ehhh, since I didn’t yield to their harassment, and I decided to do whatever I was doing, and decide to do it on my own
Mhmm
and they felt, well, let’s try to kick his behind if we can
Ok
Yeah
Well I don’t think I was, uh, causing any threat to them at all, because this was really, large institution
So it escalated ?
Yes
Just starting at the lowest level
It was, eh, unpleasant because they were dragging me to like, holy inquisition proceeding, explain what I was doing, and basically they’re trying to force me to stop what I was doing by using various ways
Obviously they didn’t have any, uh, reason to do it because, uh, my clinical research; which I was doing in the most, done under the supervision of, Institutional Review Board, and before I started anything I asked, uh, I retained medical lawyers, and I asked them to check, if I can, uh, for instance, do the research to use medicine, and use it, in a patient, and they
checked with this, State authorities, Federal authorities, and at that time it was perfectly alright
So I was doing, everything, legally
So, they really couldn’t do much, but, they were harassing me, asking for me to give them a lot of documents, whatever, and suddenly, all of it stopped
It stopped because they were exposed by news media
Yeah
So, when the article was written about it, they disappeared from, the horizon, and then they never, harass me since then (laugh)
Yeah
I think it’s, lasted probably for, 2 or 3 years, and then it was gone, so
And then, and then how did that end up ?
How did you end up going to court for the 1st time then ?
Oh well, so obviously there was no, uh, issue of going to court at that time, it was only the issue that, I might not be a member of, uh
But you might not have been able to practice medicine
the medical society, and then I would not be able to see patients in the hospital
Ok
So this was deliberate, ok, and at that time, m, most of my patients were treated in the hospital, because I didn’t have yet the system to use treatment outside the hospital, like for instance the pumps that we are using now
They did not exist at that time
So it was necessary to use I.V. posts
Mhmm
and, uh, and heavy pump, heavy treatment
So then, uh, so this was, uh, it started around ’78, it continued for a couple of years, and then nothing happened after that
I was visited by, um, FDA people, but we have pretty constructive meeting
They didn’t bother me, and, uh, the next attack occurred in a 1983, and this was by, uh, Food and Drug Administration
So, suddenly I was sued, and, um, they really wanted to put me out of business
Ok
They didn’t just want to put you out of business
I mean, they wanted you, they wanted you to go to prison
No, in ni, 1983, they wanted me out of business
Right, just out of business
Yeah
Don’t want you practicing
Shut down, what I am doing, and they did it, secretly (laugh)
Most of this actions occurred around, uh, just before say Passover, and Easter
Ok
Yeah
Every year
It never failed
Ok (laughing), a, and a usually they were attacking, uh, uh
Someone
No, no
For instance it happened for instance I was away, and, uh, they were filing papers in court, like, um, around 5 p.m. on Thursday, ok, and Friday was day off, because was big Friday, Good Friday
Ok
So then, obviously, um, they then
realized I’d be away because I participated in some T.V. program, and they want to do it while I was away, but, uh, it so happens that
a one of the friendly lawyers was in court at the time, and he overheard whatever they were doing, ok (laughing),they were going for injunction, ok, and so then, uh, I would be stopped immediately
I wouldn’t be able to do much, ok, until the judge would reverse it, but, uh, he read about it and he prepared immediately temporary restraining order, and filed at the same time (laughs)
Yeah
So then, uh, I could practice without any interruptions, but, uh, then, of course,
So do you think of all the people that were trying to stop you
Yeah
Do you think any of those people actually, really, genuinely believed that you were causing harm to people
Hmmm
or do you think that they were just stopping you because ?
I think some stupid people,was at the lower level, like, uh, uh, some lower level FDA agents, they didn’t know what they were doing
They were manipulated, ok, but the guys who above, they knew very well (laughs) that, I was right
They knew what they were doing
Absolutely
They knew you were doing something
Absolutely, yes
groundbreaking
They knew very well, and that’s the reason why they attack me
Ok
Yeah
It’s obvious
So this 1st encounter, was relatively brief
Uh, we went to court, which was Federal court, and the judge, uh, would rule in our favor, and the judge, uh, uh, in the verdict, uh, cleared me from any, of the charges, and, uh, I found that I could, uh, I could treat anybody, by using my methods, but I cannot really, uh, sell medications outside the State of Texas, and that’s what I was not doing anyway
So really,
the judge
affirmed what I was doing
Right
That I’m free to use my invention, and treat people in the State of Texas, which made, of course, the government, uh, people furious, and they threatened the judge
They send the judge a letter saying that, if the judge will not rule their way, then they will go after me with criminal investigation, uh, with seizures, uh, eh, grand jury investigation
That’s what they did as the next step
When was the next step ?
How many years later was that ?
Well again, there was some like couple of years when it was relative quiet
Of course, in order to be, eh, in, eh, in order to do what I was doing, it was necessary for me to have inspection, by the inspectors, approved by the FDA, who
check our manufacturing facility, and, ah, certify that what ever we do, we do right, and there are no discrepancies
So this was obviously something, very difficult, because obviously we knew that the FDA inspectors
will always find something wrong, you know
Yeah
So these agents are trained to always find something wrong, but anyway, at inspection, uh, found we are doing everything perfect
Ok (laughs)
So we were able to pass the inspection
Uh, we are in full compliance with what is called good manufacturing practices, and then everything was quite until about 3 years later when, uh, there was a raid on our clinic by the FDA, and seizure of, ah, medical records, and then there was another, uh, obviously, ah, another, uh, part of the war began, and then, uh, we file a lawsuit against FDA, and, uh, as a result the judge forced the FDA to give back some, of the documents, and permit us to, uh, be able to copy the rest of the documents, and so then, uh, FDA began a grand jury process, and, uh, there was some, like 4 different grand juries, uh, ah, which did not find me, guilty of anything, and then finally 5th grand jury was able to indict me, which was in ’95
Ok
So when you were, when you were going to court; because I remember seeing in the
Yeah
Burzynski, the movie
Yes
I remember seeing in the photographs
Yeah
around here
Sure
there were lots and lots of people outside there (?)
Yeah
What was that like to see that ?
Oh well, ah, this was, uh, going for ever, going to court, and obviously I was going before this grand jury investigation, whatever, but ultimately, their lawsuit, uh, the trial began, in, ah, January of ’96, and, uh, it took a number of months
Ok
So I was going to court almost every day, and the people realized what was going on, and they were giving us a lot of support
So then you can see people outside the court
What was that like to see your patients ?
Well it was, ah, it was, ah, very good, uh, uh, show of (laughs)
Yeah
patient solidarity
They wanted obviously, to help us, and they knew that, uh, they have the power, and, uh, they knew that they were fighting for their lives
Ok ?
So they, uh, were dedicated people
It wasn’t easy because this was winter, and it was raining, and so it was cold weather, but obviously
Were you prepared to, to face what you could have faced, you know, that you actually could have gone to prison ?
Sure, yes
I, I knew, but I was, convinced that I am going to win
So, should I, obviously, statistically it was, uh, highly unlikely, but, uh (laugh)
Do you think that this will stop one day ?
That people will just get off your back, and (laugh)
(laughs)
you know
(?)
and can see what you’ve done
(?)
and, and see that there’s really something there
Absolutely
This is just the (?)
Absolutely, absolutely
I
That’s what I was convinced was going, to happen, and, uh, I was convinced that we are going to win, with FDA
Good, ’cause I mean, anyone does any research
Yeah
you know
I had this on here
Yeah, sure
which I’m sure you’ve seen, like on Wikipedia
Yeah
and what it says
That there’s no convincing evidence
Yeah, sure
that a randomized controlled trial has, you know
That your work, that, that there’s nothing there
Yeah
What’s that like when you come across that stuff
Do you just not read it, and just
So (laughs)
Simply don’t pay attention to it, because it, it’s not true
Ok
Yeah
You won’t be able to, do any, clinical research which we do, without convincing evidence, especially when you have the most powerful agency in the government which is against you
They’re against you, but you’ve been working with them for, for
Yes, so since 1997
Yes, but you see
Yeah
Obviously they didn’t have any sympathy to us because they lost
So they would love to find something which is wrong with what we are doing
They would love to prove that the treatment doesn’t
Yeah
So this is, very difficult
Ah, so the fact that they’ve, um, agreed that what we have has value, and they allow us to do phase 3 clinical trials, it means that we are right
Ok ?
Yeah
Because, uh, uh, nobody who didn’t have any, concrete evidence that it works, would be able to go as far
Ok
Yeah
So whatever Wikipedia says, well, I don’t care for them (laughing)
Ok, so, we, we talked a little bit about, what you, where you’ve come from, and what you’ve been through
As far as your treatment, um, to cancer, and this I’m very interested in, and why you don’t think high doses of chemotherapy is, is particularly helpful for the body, and what
Well it is generally wrong approach
It can help, some patients, wi, with a rare form of cancer, but only, eh, in limited capacity
Those who, are quote, unquote “cured”, usually die later on from adverse reactions, of chronic adverse reactions from chemotherapy or radiation, or they develop secondary cancer
So certainly, there is, this is not such a cure which you have in mind, that, use the treatment, patient recovers and lives normal life
Such cure does not exist for patients who are taking chemotherapy or radiation
They will always suffer, some problems
Either from cancer, or radiation, chemotherapy, and there is only small minority of patients who have advanced cancer who can, have long term responses
So obviously, this is unacceptable treatment
Of course, it was important at certain stage of development, but now, of course, uh, when we know more about cancer, it’s becoming, uh, unacceptable, and I think it will disappear, from the surface of the earth, in another 10 years, or 15 years, and, uh, in the medical textbook, this will be described as strange period of time, when people were using some barbaric treatment
Ok
Mmm
You have a number of different ways of treating cancer
So, one of them is the antineoplastons
Yes
This, this, this is the peptides
Mhmm
The, the this is the thing that my partner is on at the moment
Sure
in the clinical trial, and, uh, you’ve had some real great success
Mhmm
using that
Right ?
Yes
But you also have
Mhmm
another way, of, of, of treating, which is, using, it’s using some sort of chemotherapy, but in low doses
Well, um, um, whatever we are using we are using treatment which works on the genes
Antineoplastonswork on the genes, and they work on about 100 different genes
So what are they doing to the genes ?
Well, they work as molecular switches
They turn off the genes which are causing cancer, and turn on the genes which are fighting cancer
So, that’s what they do, and they produce this in about 100 different genes
It’s not enough, to control all cancer
Actually you can control some cancers, but not all of them, because you may have, numerous genes involved, in cancer
Well, for instance, in average case of breast cancer may have 50 abnormal genes involved
Uh, in, uh, like grade 3 brain tumors, for instance, anaplastic astrocytoma you might 80, or might be 100, but if, uh, you go to highly malignant tumors like, glioblastoma, you have, probably about 550
Eh, if you don’t cover such a spectrum of genes, you won’t, you’re not going to have good results
So that’s why, we know from the very beginning that we have some limitations
We can help some patients but not all of them, because, they have involvement of different genes which are causing, their cancer
So then you can still have these patients who are combining the treatmentof antineoplastons,with different medications which are in existence, which work on different genes, and this includes also some chemotherapy drugs, which are available
Eh, so this means that, um, for the patients for whom we, cannot use antineoplastons, because they are not in clinical trials, then we are using combination treatment, which consists of medication which already, approved as prescription medications, and, uh, by using the right combination by knowing which genes we need to attack, we get much better results
Now this also includes chemotherapy, but we never use, high-dose chemotherapy If necessary, we use low-dose chemotherapy, and when you use low-dose chemotherapy you don’t have, uh, toxicity, which is, bad
We use this for patients continuously, without much problem
So, so one of the main reasons of using low-dose chemotherapy is to try and keep your immune system strong, as well ?
No, to try to quickly decrease the size of the tumor, in combination with the other medications
We can use, for instance, low-dose chemotherapy and another medication which will increase activity,of chemotherapy, and as a result, you can have, as good, uh, uh, decrease of the tumor, with the low-doses
when you use heavy-dose
Well, there’s nothing unusual about it
For instance, uh, many doctors are using medications which are quite toxic
Mmm
And they, if they use the dosages, it’s helpful to the patient
The question is, what dosage will you use ?
If you use the dosages which are not toxic, it may still help the results, for instance, eh, the medication which was introduced, in mid, uh, 18th century for a particle for heart failure, in U.K. by Dr. Withering, which was digitalis extract
Obviously it was highly toxic medication
It can kill people, in dosages much smaller than chemotherapy, but if you use the right dosage, it can help people
It was helping people for over 200 years
So those are the question
What kind of dosage do you use, and what combination do you use, and then, it can be useful
How did work that out then ?
I mean, how did you work out
Mhmm
that using small dosages of chemotherapy, could be effective ?
Uh, well, uh, it’s not only based on, uh, our research, it’s based on the research of the other, doctors
There are numerous publications on the subject, and in many cases the low-dosages can be used more effective than high-dosages, and, uh, on the other hand, by doing genetic testing, we can identify, which, uh, medications are the best for the patient
‘Cause you use
(?)
’cause you use a lab, in Phoenix
Right ?
Correct, yes
And, and how did you find out about them ?
Um, how did you ?
Yeah
Well, uh, uh, frankly speaking (laughs), 1st time I find about it by, treating patients who’s referred to us by one of the best oncologists in the country
He was usually treating some movie stars (laughs)
Yeah
and I found that this patient had, uh, genetic testing done, and I got interested in this, and I found about this laboratory
It was some time ago, but anyway, while we were doing genetic testing before, but, uh, we didn’t use this laboratory yet, we did it, through some other laboratories, and such testing was much, much simpler
So, we are using such testing, for a number of years, but in the capacity we are using now, this is really the last 2 to 3 years
So what happens is someone’s, bit of their tissue gets sent off to this lab ?
Yeah, the tissue is sent to the laboratory, and, uh, they do, testing on the entire genome of 24,000 genes
They identify the abnormal genes, and they go in-depth, by studying what happened to these genes?
Are they mutated ?
Are they amplified ?
And then from this, we have, a lot of information, and ultimately we like to know, which medications we can use to treat genes
What we are doing, we are treating genes, rather than, the tumor, as such
Mhmm
And, uh, if you identify all the genes that are involved, and find out which medications we can use, we can have very good results
And that’s what you found ?
That’s right
So in some case you’re treating people that might have a certain type of cancer
Yes, mhmm
with a drug that was designed for a different type of cancer
Uh, that’s right, because we are treating the genes, and, uh, if you find out that, this particular patient has, uh, an abnormal gene, which is not typical for this cancer but we have medication
Hmmm
that works on this gene, that’s what we use
So I would imagine that to treat, uh, that to treat people, this way, is obviously the future
Everyone’s different
Everyone’s genetics are d, d, different
That’s right
genetic markers, but to treat them that way, would require a bit more work
That’s, uh, obviously (laughs) (a life’s ?) work
Uh, uh, we’ll, like, uh, not just simply for, eh, uh, 4 different types of lung cancer
Yeah
Maybe 100,000 different types of lung cancer, each with, different, uh, genetic signature, ok, and once you identify this, then you can treat, such patients logically, and have good results, and if you do it on the scale of, uh, the entire country, this would, uh, give you much better results, and, uh, great savings, because
Mmm
you won’t use expensive medications for everybody, but perhaps for 10% of the population, and then for this 10% of population is going to work
Yeah
Which means that these people will avoid disability
They won’t spend time in the hospital
Uh, they will have short course of treatment, and then they go back to work
So the government would understand, uh, that’s something that can give them a lot of savings
I think they will go for it
Eh, gene testing, eh, at this time is still, uh, relatively expensive
It’s covered by, uh, the insurance of the United States, but for people outside, may cost 5500 euros, for instance, but I think it will be substantially less expensive in the near future
I think it will be below $1,000 for complete testing
So for running the test, uh, uh, eh, and, uh, finding out which treatment, has the best chance, you can save, 100’s of 1,000’s of dollars for individual patients
Yeah, but obviously pharmaceutical companies probably wouldn’t be too happy about that
No, no
People aren’t going to be taking their medications anymore
Well obviously be mostly happy that they can sell a lot of medications, but some of them are beginning to pay the attention, because they have to, because if they don’t, their competitors, will pay the attention
Mmm
Obviously, they would like to have, possibly, the best possible results, in clinical trials, so now they begin to screen population of patients for clinical trials, and do some limited, genetic testing, but, so, of course, they do it, uh, for the better of clinical trials so have best results
Yeah
Doesn’t mean that they’ll do, do it when they sell medicine, to millions of people commercially
They may forget about mentioning this medicine works the best for
Yes
this population of patient (laughs)
So what’s your, your vision ?
Wha, wha, what do you, striving to achieve ?
Well what I am trying to achieve is to introduce the way we treat patients, in, in various countries in the world, and, uh, what this would accomplish is, 1st of all, much better results of the treatment, much simpler treatment where perhaps only 1% of patient would need hospitalization, which would, uh, result in great savings
Uh, the treatment, uh, will be done for shorter period of time
For instance, few months to get rid of the tumors, then, uh, perhaps a year, to stabilize the results, and then go back, working and living, ok, without cancer
This, uh, genetic, genomic testing would be absolutely done for every patient who will come for treatment, to identify, what is the best treatment combination indication
So that’s what I would like to foresee, and then, of course, um, immediately, you substantially reduce, the expenditures for medical
For instance, if, you assume that in the mid, medium-sized country, will spend, for instance, a billion dollar, for, socialized medical treatment which will coincide with hospitalization
Ok
Uh, then, uh, most of the cost is for hospitalization, and services necessary for keeping the patient in hospital, then treating adverse reactions, which are, occurring because of the poor selection of medications
Eh, then if you switch to the outpatient treatment because you use medications which are not going to give such bad, side-effects, because you select this medication based on genomic testing, ok, and then immediately instead of a billion dollars a year, you cut down your expenditures to about $100,000
Yeah
100 million dollars
Ok ?
Probably slash it 10 times
Ok ?
And then people will be happy because, ah, the don’t need to stay in the hospital for a long time
They have less adverse reactions
They can go to back to work, much sooner
Ok
So that’s what I, can foresee as, the treatmentin the future
Not really hospital-based treatment
Mhmm
for patients, and most hospitalization is required because of adverse reactions from chemotherapy, radiation, but outpatient treatment, much easier treatment, also medication given in tablet forms, for instince
And that’s what you’re doing here, right ?
I mean
Correct, yes correct
Usually in hospital, only, perhaps, for, one or two percent of patients, and, we would like to avoid it because when the patient goes to the hospital, he can pick up, some in-opportunistic infection, and then we are talking about more problem
Of course, I believe detection of cancer will be very important, because you don’t want to, uh, have a patient who is so advanced that he is fighting for, life, and he needs to be in the hospital
Ok
Yeah
If you had diagnosis in the early stages, then the patient does not need hospitalization
He can be treated very easily, then go back to work
So that’s the issue
And of course prevention is another important issue to us
To identify, changes in the body, which may indicate that the patient has already, early stages of cancer, also based on genetic tests, and get rid of this by using, behavior modification, by using proper diet, by using supplements, whatever, even without any medications
So, you’re obviously very passionate about what you do
Right ?
That, that’s my question about that
Well, I think it can help s, people in a great way, and, uh,
Well it can, I mean
Yeah
You have had so many su
Yes
I mean, I was talking to my girlfriend
Yeah
the other day,
Yeah
I mean, people, you know, you hear people say, this is a scam, and I was thinking, well the, if it is a scam
Yeah
it has to be one of the biggest scams ever
(laughing)
because all you’ve gotta do, is look on the walls
Yeah
and you look at those photographs
Yeah
Perhaps, this won’t surprise you
I’ve spoken to some oncologists just in the U.K., and they say, all of these people that you have helped, they either ever had cancer in the 1st place
Mhmm
or they were misdiagnosed
Yeah
or, uh, they went into spontaneous remission
Yeah, well
or they, it was the chemotherapy or radiation
These people, they don’t know what they do
They never, have never seen our results, and obviously they can’t believe that something like this could happen, but suddenly (laughs), in this room we are in now, we have some of
the top experts in the country, like people from FDA, who are expert oncologists, specialists
They’re working with you
Oh, they came here to inspect what we have
Yeah
They look at every scan of the people who are in clinical trials, and they decided that we have very good results
And is that stuff going to be published at some point ?
Ah, yes, we are publi, we are preparing this for publication, but, uh, obviously, in order to have the right results, you need, time, and most of our clinical trials began, approximately 10 years ago
So then we, if you would like to know what happen after, 10 years with these people
Mhmm
then you need to have a little time
So now we are preparing a number of, uh, publications, uh, and so this year we should have a number of publications, which will show final results
So far we didn’t have, final results, so were only interim reports, during the course of clinical trials
And with, uh, with brain tumors; because obviously, that’s an area that you’ve had
Yeah
huge suc, success rate
Yeah
What, why has that, do you think, as opposed to the other, types ?
Because that’s where we selected
Mhmm
We wanted to have something difficult
Ok (laughs)
Yeah
Because, uh, for the same reason that you mentioned
If you’d had something easier then, the doctors could say: “Well, this cancer usually disappears in its own”
And they are right
Some cancers may disappear on its own, in some higher percent than the others
Mhmm
But you know, brain tumors, you read, they never disappear on their own
Yeah
So that’s why we, decided to select such type of malignancies which are the most difficult
So what’s that been like when you’ve seen, I mean, I’ve seen obviously Jodi Fenton’s story
Yeah
Whe, whe, when you see these people’s
Yes
uh, scans
Yeah
and you see that that tumor has shrunk
Yeah
or broken down
Yeah
wha, what does that feel like ? (laughing)
Well, we see this all the time
(?) it just happens almost every day
Even today that we saw the patient, uh, who has pancreatic cancer, and after a few months of treatment it’s practically gone, and she is the wife of a doctor (laughs)
They came together, and that’s, that’s what we see practically every day
Ok
That must give you great strength to
Absolutely
continue
Absolutely, yes
So that’s something which is gratifying (laughs)
Yeah
What do you think the future is as far as drugs for cancer are concerned ?
I believe that, we are still at a very early stages of development in this area, but the future will be, with medications which are, highly specific, they will work on the genes that are involved in cancer
So, they will not harm normal part of the body, and, du, du, how to combine this medications will be established by, the special software, which will guide the doctors how to use proper medication for individual patient
I think this will be the, um, treatment that will be designed for, individual patient, and such design, it is not necessary to be done by the doctor
I think it should be, uh, certain computerized system which will put together, the best possible treatment plan, for a patient; which obviously needs to be checked and approved by the doctor
So I believe that this will be the future of medicine for the next, say, 40, and 50 years, coming up with better and better medications, which will be genomic switches, which will turn off, the cancerous process by regulating the genes which are involved; they simply will bring, the activity of these genes to normal levels, and finally, the new generation of medication which should work on cancerous stem cells, and, the medications which can kill cancerous stem cells without, uh, producing any harm to normal stem cells
So this will be the clue for, long-term control of cancer, because if you don’t eliminate, cancerous stem cells then the cancer will come back
Yeah
And that’s why chemotherapy, usually is unable to control cancer for a long time because, it’s pretty much powerless, ah, uh, regarding action on cancerous stem cells
But then after that, I think that we will make another, jump, and there will be, uh, procedures that will based on biophysics
Mmm
and by trying to get rid of, uh, the cancer and some of the diseases by effecting the body by using various, uh, wipes, which will be like magnetic wipes, it will be some other types of wipes, but using proper frequencies to, normalize all the cells in the body to normalize the activity of the genes
I think this will be a
Mmm
probably the next, uh, say 50 years of, uh, the end of this century when such (?)
So no one’s getting funding really, unless they’re doing it privately to,
being able to, isn’t that being able to research these areas, because funding really comes from pharmaceutical companies ?
Ah, well, most of this funding is from pharmaceutical companies, and also it is coming from the National Cancer Institute but, I think it’s regulated behind the scenes by the pharmaceutical companies
Eh, but they are still some researchers who are trying to do it on their own
Very few of them
I think there’s articles, in the Science magazine, some time ago which was talking about, uh, few of these researchers who are still trying to do, research on their own, and, I think, uh, I think there were probably some 4 or 5 of them in U.K. (laugh)
Yeah
still involved in research on their own
So what ah, what about the role of the mind ?
Do you think that, if someone has cancer and they wanna be well, do you think the way that someone thinks is important ?
Absolutely, that’s very important because, this, uh, can be translated, ah, to various biochemicals which can influence cancer
So obviously this is very important but, the question is how to, ah, direct this in the proper way
Ok
How to quantify this
So that’s something that should be done in the future
And nutrition as well
Yes, absolutely, yes
Why all have a lot of important chemicals in nutrition which can effectuate cancer, but regarding the mind you have to translate, uh, for instance, biophysical factors, in the brain, into biochemical factors, and certainly, that’s what the body’s doing all the time, but how to mobilize it, that’s a different story
Yeah
So if someone wants, if someone came to the Burzynski Clinic, wh, wh, what could they expect, to happen here?
Well 1st of all, we would like to give a selection, and we don’t want the people who we cannot treat to come
Uh, at this time we rather avoid, uh, patients in early stages of cancer, because with such patients, uh, what is used is standard of care treatment, and we prefer to refer them to, ah, different doctors
So we prefer to treat it once cancer patient, because, uh, they cannot be helped by the other doctors, and, uh, when they come to our clinic, we try to find out 1st, see if we can really help them or not, and, uh, once they come to the clinic, in most of the cases we can try to, help them, of course, and, uh, we put together, the personalized treatment plan, which is (?)
But all of those go through you
You look at every single one of those
Yes
I’m seeing every patient, who’s coming, if I’m
Yeah
if I’m around here, but, after that all the patients are really assigned to different senior physician and they’re responsible for daily care of patient here
How many people do you have, working here now ?
About 150 people here, yes
And you started with, well, just one (?)
Eh, I think really when we moved from Baylor College I had about 7 people at that time
Yeah
Yes, because, some of these doctors who are working together at Baylor College decided to leave together with me, including my wife, because she was also working at Baylor College
Yeah
Ok
Thank you
You’re welcome
My pleasure
Thank you so much
Thank you very much
Ok
======================================
Gorski wants to play in the kitchen, but he can’t take the heat
2/18/2013, Gorski posted his 1st book report on Hannah Bradley
Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski’s cancer “success” stories [1]
The year 2012 was rung out and the year 2013 was rung in by news that “Orac” Check-My-Facts-Hack, propagandist for “brave maverick doctor” Dr. David H. Gorski, who claims that sugar doesn’t feed cancer [2], is releasing a sequel to his wildly successful hackumentary (in “The Skeptics™” underground, that is) “How Stanislaw Burzynski became Burzynski the Brave Maverick Doctor, part 1” [3] 😃
In fact, the sequel is coming out on BFD (Blogs For Dummies) on …, well …, just any day now ! 😳
I somehow doubt that GorsKon will send me a screenerBFD to review, but I did review the 4blogettes he posted on Science Based Medicine; home of: “Our only goal is to promote high standards of science in medicine” [4], and National Geographic’s(#NatGeo)Science blogs, because it easily falls into a genre that I like to refer to as medical propaganda posts, which are almost always made in support of dubious blogs re medical treatments 😊
Gorhac’s mostly lame jokes about proposed titles aside (e.g., Burzynski II:”“Pathetic Googleloo, Burzynski II:”This Time It’s Pee-Reviewed, or even Burzynski II: FAQ Harder), it’s very clear that in the wake of his decision to drop his “[I]f I had screwed up, I would have admitted it” [5]claim re Burzynski on a technicality, and his very own spin doctor named “BOrac, are planning on a huge publicity blitz, in which @gorskon will be portrayed as, yes, a “brave maverick doctor” whom “They” (as in the BPG (Burzynski Patient Group), 3’s company, and the Don’t Mess with Texas Board of Education, a.k.a “DJT”) tried to keep down but failed because he has The Natural Cure For Rancor“Two Turntables and a Mr. Microphone” 😝
I come back to this again because Gorac’s strategy for Burzynski II, as I pointed out, is going to involve “conversion stories” of “The Skeptics™” who didn’t believe in @oracknows magic “[I]f I had screwed up, I would have admitted it”, but do now, after Bob ‘n Weave Blaskiewicz proclaimed during the 9/28/2013 “Burzynski Discussion” Google+ Hangout:“I think that professionally he would make, he he he would follow-up on these things” (2:01:00)[6], claims that he’s 75% sure of the identity of someone who has been critical of his work (like me) [7], and, of course, sucky stories 😜
“DOHrac’s” 4 posts consists of four elements:
Bias, MisDisInformation, (anecdotes), including “EOrac’s” “sucky stories”, contrasted with a rehash of “conspiracy theories” from his “review” of the first movie about the “cancer destablishment” trying to suppress common sense with pseudononsense 😄
Never mind that, even if he were FDA-approved, he would be in the same class as “The Skeptics™” that are disdained on social media as being more for hyper-“bull” than anything else because they have been giving B.S. for a long time ☺
He states: “One notes that Burzynski’s protocol requires at least 18 months of near-continuous infusion of high doses of his antineoplastons“
Does Gorski provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support his claim ?
no
“mOResmACk” reminds me of Pink
That would be the Pink in Pink Floyd, singing: “We don’t need no edumacation”, because he’s like the churlish schoolboy so intent on getting on to make his 2nd mud pie, that he pulls a wanker on the 1st one
Maybe he should learn how to do real “cancer research” like I posted 8/21/2013 [8]
——————————————————————
10/2004 (Pg. 384) 4.3 months – median duration of administration
——————————————————————
11/2010 (Pg. iv72) 4.4 months – median duration of treatment
——————————————————————
10/2006 (Pg. 466) 4 1/2 months – median duration of i.v. ANP
——————————————————————
3/2006 (Pg. 40) 5 months – median duration of antineoplaston administration
——————————————————————
10/2004 (Pg. 428) 5.2 months – administered median
——————————————————————
12/2009 (Pg. 951) 5.4 months – median duration of treatment (ST)
——————————————————————
12/2009 (Pg. 951) 5.6 months – median duration of treatment (SE)
——————————————————————
10/2004 (Pg. 427) 5.7 months – average duration of ANP
——————————————————————
10/2008 (Pg. 821) 5.7 months – median duration of treatment
—————————————————————— 2003 (Pgs. 91 + 96) 6 months – median duration of treatment
——————————————————————
12/2008 (Pg. 1067) 6.5 months – median duration of treatment
——————————————————————
10/2003 (Pg. 358) 9.5 months – median duration of IV ANP
——————————————————————
7/2005 (Pg. 300) 9 1/2 months – median duration of administration
—————————————————————— 2004 (Pgs. 315 + 320) 16 months (1 year 4 months) average duration of intravenous ANP
——————————————————————
6/2008 (Pg. 450) 16.5 months (1 year 4.5 months) – median
——————————————————————
2004 (Pg. 320)
19 months – average duration of oral ANP
——————————————————————
6/2005 (Pgs. 168 + 170)
20 months (1 year 8 months) administered average duration
——————————————————————
10/2003 (Pg. 358)
28.6 months (2 years 4.6 months) – median duration of po ANP
After obtaining at least minor response (SD), the treatment continued with po ANP
——————————————————————
9/2004 (Pg. 257)
655 consecutive days – administration of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 with the exception of a few short interruptions
—————————————————————— Gorski continues:
“Attacks on skeptics and critics of Burzynski“
“If you don’t believe me, just read question #12 in Merola’s FAQ, in which he states,
“You will notice the ‘anti-Burzynski’ bloggers refuse to do that or adhere to reputable sources”
—————————————————————— Gorski, you did NOT even provide any “source” for your “claim” that:
” … Burzynski’s protocol requires at least 18 months of near-continuous infusion of high doses of his antineoplastons“
—————————————————————— Gorski adds:
“You might say, they are preying on desperate cancer patients and families of cancer patients by carelessly misleading their readers about Burzynski and his invention.””
—————————————————————— Gorski, let’s check and see where else YOU are “carelessly misleading” your “readers”
One marvels at your amazing level of protestation ッ
However, every movie needs a villain, and it doesn’t take “sidekick” abilities to guess why “The Skeptics™” are portrayed as villains
—————————————————————— Gorski gratuitously gabs on:
“Merola also direly accuses and threatens,
“In the worst case scenarios, some bloggers intentionally publish fabricated information to their readers in an attempt to curb new patients from going to the Burzynski Clinic“
“I can hardly wait”
—————————————————————— Gorski, did you mean to “intentionally publish fabricated information” ? 😮
—————————————————————— “Neither can, I bet, a fair number of lawyers“
—————————————————————— Gorski, who’s your lawyer ?
—————————————————————— Gorski plods onward:
“An attempt to reframe Burzynski’s enormous bills for his antineoplaston therapy and criticism that he’s making clinical trial subjects pay to be in his clinical trials”
—————————————————————— Gorski, BITE ME 🙂
Does Gorski provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support his claim ?
——————————————————————
CHEMOTHERAPY: 9/24/2012 – hospitals routinely marking up prices on cancer drugs 2 to 10 times over cost
Some markups far higher
nearly $4,500 for 240-milligram dose of irinotecan to treat colon or rectal cancer average sales price: less than $60
about $19,000 1-gram dose of rituximab to treat lymphoma and leukemia roughly 3 times average sales price
about $680 50 milligrams of cisplatin markup: more than 50 times average sales price
Avastin, about $90,000 a year http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/09/24/3549634/prices-soar-as-hospitals-dominate.html
——————————————————————
5/14/2012 – Oral anti-cancer medications generally considered pharmacy benefit
Instead of co-payment plan members often pay % of cost — up to 50% in some cases — with no annual out-of-pocket limit
drugs expensive often costing 10s of 1,000s of $s a year http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-05-14/national/35457286_1_lung-cancer-drug-drugs-work-multiple-myeloma-patients
——————————————————————
RADIATION: 1/4/2013 – new study most comprehensive cost analysis ever, compared costs and outcomes associated with various types of treatment for all forms of disease, ranged from $19,901 for robot-assisted prostatectomy to treat low-risk disease, $50,276 for combined radiation therapy for high-risk disease http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2013/01/13370/how-prostate-cancer-therapies-compare-cost-and-effectiveness
——————————————————————
3/15/2012 – Using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data, 26,163 women with localized breast cancer had undergone surgery and radiation 2001 to 2005
found Medicare billing for IMRT increased 0.9% diagnosed 2001 to 11.2% diagnosed 2005
average cost radiation treatment during 1st year $7,179 for non-IMRT $15,230 with IMRT
billing for IMRT more than 5 times higher in regions across nation where local Medicare coverage determinations favorable to IMRT compared to regions where unfavorable
“The new claim is that Burzynski isn’t making patients pay for his antineoplastons (see question #13 in Merola’s FAQ), just for “clinical management” (as if that weren’t incredibly transparent) Vindication”
—————————————————————— Gorski, “NEW CLAIM” ?
2/4/2013 my post #180 on YOUR blog addressed this “new claim” by referencing a 3/12/1996 note before you posted your article 2/18/2013 [9]
—————————————————————— 3/12/1996: 2nd – 4th paragraphs (2/4/2013 post #180)
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— Gorski, makes an excuse:
“The last time I discussed Merola’s forthcoming movie, I mentioned that he had contacted me in December and asked me to appear as a Burzynski critic“
“After consultation with skeptics with more media savvy than I, not to mention the PR department at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute (whom I thought it wise to give fair warning that one of their faculty might be featured as evil incarnate in a new documentary and to give the background on what it’s all about, in case there were press inquiries), I politely declined“
—————————————————————— Gorski is like fetid HOT AIR, all words and NO action
—————————————————————— Gorski fumes:
“While going on and on about how he thinks most of us have “good motives” and how we want to be the white knight riding in to save patients from quackery (a desire he somehow manages to convey with clear dismissiveness and contempt), Merola turns immediately around to claim that we don’t know what we’re talking about and we don’t read the literature“
—————————————————————— Gorski, YOU really “don’t know what” you’re “talking about” and I’m just getting warmed up 🙂
—————————————————————— Gorski has smoke coming out his ears:
“This, of course, is complete nonsense, as I’ve read many of Burzynski’s papers (such as they are), delved into ClinicalTrials.gov to look at his clinical trials, examined the plausibility of his claims from a scientific standpoint, and examined the literature from others, both on antineoplastons and related topics”
“I’ve dissected Burzynski’s claims for antineoplastons based on science, assessed his “personalized, gene-targeted cancer therapy” claims and found them wanting, and pointed out how what he is peddling isn’t really anything new at all (more on that later), all based on my knowledge, skills, and understanding of cancer as a breast cancer surgeon and researcher”
“No doubt that’s why Merola needs to discredit me“
—————————————————————— Gorski, Eric Merola does NOT need “to discredit” you
YOU have already done a yeoman’s job of discrediting yourself [10] 🙂
—————————————————————— Gorski posits:
“Other bloggers who have been critical of Burzynski might or might not have my scientific background, but they’ve delved just as deeply into his claims and the evidence for them, and, as I have, they’ve found them highly overinflated and largely not based in science”
—————————————————————— Gorski, unfortunately, is NOT able to name these “[o]ther bloggers”
—————————————————————— Gorski deposits:
“They’ve also taken on aspects of the Burzynski phenomenon, such what I consider to be his questionable ethics and finding out what happened to a lot of patients who trusted Burzynski, far better than I have”
“Merola’s dismissal of Burzynski’s critics is, quite frankly, insulting to them and to me.”
—————————————————————— Gorski fails to mention the very “questionable ethics” of his intrepid research bud Bob [11]
—————————————————————— Gorski rants:
“I don’t know what sort of attacks on the UK bloggers who produce the bulk of the skeptical blog posts about Burzynski are coming in Burzynski II, but when it comes to me no doubt Merola is referring to this bit of yellow journalism in 2010 from an antivaccine propagandist named Jake Crosby, entitled David Gorski’s Financial Pharma Ties:”
“What He Didn’t Tell You”
——————————————————————
Does Gorski provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support his claim that it’s:
“UK bloggers who produce the bulk of the skeptical blog posts about Burzynski” ?
“What He Didn’t Tell You” ?
NO
—————————————————————— Gorski blots:
“Predictable and tiresome attacks aside, Pete and Hannah’s video made me curious about the specific success stories that Merola will focus on as “proof” that Burzynski is on to something; so I decided I should look into their stories”
“On the surface to those not familiar with cancer they do look like success stories”
“If one digs deeper, the true story is a lot murkier”
—————————————————————— Doctor “G” omits, that once “one digs deeper”, HIS“story is a lot murkier”
—————————————————————— Gorski A.D.D.s:
“More importantly, as I will show, even if they really are success stories—which is not at all clear—they do not constitute convincing evidence of the general efficacy of Burzynski’s antineoplastons, nor do they justify what I consider to be Burzynski’s highly unethical behavior.”
—————————————————————— More importantly, as I will show, is what I consider to be Gorski’s highly unethical behavior
—————————————————————— Gorski flails away:
“I will start with Hannah Bradley’s story because I’ve watched the entire 40 minute video Hannah’s Anecdote (whose title is even more appropriate than perhaps Pete Cohen imagined when he made it)”
“The documentary ends triumphantly several months after the events portrayed during the bulk of the film with Hannah apparently having had a complete response to Burzynski’s antineoplaston therapy:”
——————————————————————
Let me just first say something before I begin my usual analysis
I love these reviews 😘
I really do
Yes, it’s true that GorsGeek can be a bit annoying with his seeming desire to validate everything he flogs about some perceived “offender,”as being applicable to him, but I want GorskGeek and “HOrac” to be able to live a long and full life together, growing old in each other’s company
I really do
In fact, I’d love to hang with these two and maybe buy them a pint or two at their local pub (except that it’s pointed out multiple times that GOrackGeek should no longer drink alcohol)
“Such is not my intent, but what are skeptics supposed to do?”
“Shy away from undertaking a dispassionate analysis of patient anecdotes used to promote dubious cancer therapies for fear of what patients will say?”
—————————————————————— Gorski, it might actually help IF you knew how to do a proper “dispassionate analysis” 😐
—————————————————————— Gorski cites from the Team Hannah blog
“Hannah’s treatment options are very limited and her life expectancy is for this type of tumour is normally around 18 months and this is why I started a mission to find people who had the same condition and are still alive today”
“I managed to track down a number of these people to speak to them.”
“In his movie, Pete points out that these people all led back to Burzynski“
Gorski interjects:
“Of course, as I’ve said before, dead patients don’t produce testimonials for alternative cancer cures“
——————————————————————
One wonders why Gorski even makes this comment as the number of patients Pete contacted re Burzynski’s “alternative cancer” cure, were obviously NOT dead 😮
—————————————————————— Gorski segues on to:
“Not long after they appear at the Burzynski Clinic, they meet with doctors there who tell them that Hannah’s most recent MRI scan showed progression of her tumor (around 8:30 in the movie)”
“Now, I’m not a radiologist, much less a neuroradiologist, but I wondered at all the enhancement on the superficial area of the brain, just under where her neurosurgeon must have raised the bone flap to remove what he could of the tumor“
“One wonders if much of the remaining enhancement could be still post-surgical and post-radiation change“
“Certainly, the tumor is cystic-appearing, and after surgery such cysts would likely shrink and be reabsorbed even if the tumor were to keep growing”
—————————————————————— Gorski, if you were NOT in a such a rush to post your blog article “ad homineming” Josh Duhamel, you could have taken the time to do proper “cancer research” and maybe listen to the 9/24/2012 @YouTube video of Pete Cohen talking with Neurosurgeon (Consultant) Juan F. Martinez-Canca (20:31)
After all, HE is an actual NEUROSURGEON
——————————————————————
——————————————————————
Or you could read the transcript I made of the video [12]
——————————————————————
Or you could have contacted him and asked questions http://www.neurokonsilia.com/About-Us.html
—————————————————————— Gorski tangents:
“Be that as it may, there were a number of things I found very interesting in this video”
“First, I notice that nowhere was there anything mentioned about enrolling Hannah on a clinical trial“
—————————————————————— Gorski, if you had let Hannah know you were going to do your article about her, she might have churned her 4/4/2013 article out faster just for you, where she advises:
“Luckily I was able to take part in a phase 2 clinical trial in Texas, USA”[13]
—————————————————————— Gorski stupefies:
“Given what a thorough videographer Pete obviously is, I find this omission very curious”
“Certainly, given how much detail he’s used in this video and in his vlogs I’d expect that if the subject of clinical trials was mentioned he would have included it”
—————————————————————— Gorski, if you were NOT so busy “getting the popcorn” as you “watched the entire 40 minute video Hannah’s Anecdote”, you might have actually noticed at (7:14):
—————————————————————— 12/12/2011 – Day 2 – Monday
Meeting with Dr. Yi and Dr. Greg Burzynski at Burzynski Clinic
—————————————————————— Dr. Greg Burzynski – “We have permission to start you on the antineoplastons”
“Mhmm”
Dr. Greg Burzynski – “which as you know are in the final stages of drug approval”
“Yeah”
Dr. Greg Burzynski – “Dr. Yi is the oncologist on this case”
—————————————————————— Gorski, did you SEE THAT ?
An ONCOLOGIST at the Burzynski Clinic, working with Burzynski
(No wonder you left that out !)
—————————————————————— Gorski ejects:
“The other thing that struck me was just how much Burzynski is full of it when he advertises antineoplastons as not being chemotherapy and, more importantly, as being nontoxic“
“At least a third of the video consisted of the difficulties that Hannah had with her treatment, including high fevers, a trip to the emergency room, and multiple times when the antineoplaston treatment was stopped“
“She routinely developed fevers to 102° F, and in one scene her fever reached 103.9° F“
“She felt miserable, nauseated and weak“
“I’ve seen chemotherapy patients suffer less”
—————————————————————— Gorski whines:
“I’ve seen chemotherapy patients suffer less”, but this is purely “anecdotal”
“At least a third of the video consisted of the difficulties that Hannah had with her treatment”
Let’s do the math, shall we ?
——————————————————————
In America (48 days)
12/11/2011 (Sunday) – 1/27/2012 (Friday)
[4:52 – 35:43]
—————————————————————— Burzynski Clinic 47 days – (7 weeks)
12/12/2011 (Monday) – 1/26/2012 (Thursday)
[5:37 – 35:43]
—————————————————————— 12/13/2011 (Tuesday) Day 3
after catheter – Hickman line surgery
(painful / really painful) [10:30]
—————————————————————— 12/14/2011 (Wednesday) Day 4
(feeling wrecked / absolutely wrecked) [10:52]
—————————————————————— 12/24/2011 (Saturday) Day 14
fever
bad breathing
uncontrollable chills couldn’t stop shivering all Saturday night [18:10]
—————————————————————— 12/25/2011 (Sunday) Day 15
fever
flu symptoms
bad breathing
headache
in bed
absolutely exhausted
little bit of swelling back of head [18:10]
—————————————————————— 12/27/2011 (Tuesday) Day 17
temp 102
temp down / up [19:04]
—————————————————————— 12/28/2011 (Wednesday) Day 18
exhausted
close to breaking / cracking [19:04]
—————————————————————— 12/29/2011 (Thursday) Day 19
hospital – E.R.
“I’m at my wits end”
“I don’t feel I can take anymore” [20:07]
—————————————————————— 12/30/2011 (Friday) Day 20
last week up & down
fever
chills
shaking
viral infection
bacterial infection
had to go to E.R. [20:22]
—————————————————————— 12/31/2011 (Saturday) Day 21
fever in middle of night
flu-like symptoms
temp 102 [21:53]
—————————————————————— 1/1/2012 (Sunday) Day 22
feel drunky
felt like completely drunk
double vision
Nurse said anti-seizure drug she hadn’t taken before
bit shaky [22:34]
—————————————————————— 1/15/2012 (Sunday) Day 36
antibiotics 1st day [24:33]
—————————————————————— 1/16/2012 (Monday) Day 37
over 102 Monday night
antibiotics 2nd day [25:24]
—————————————————————— 1/17/2012 (Tuesday) Day 38
fever
temp 101.8
throat infection
antibiotics been on 3 days [25:24]
—————————————————————— 1/20/2012 (Friday) Day 41
fever 104 (103.9) Friday night [26:54]
—————————————————————— 1/21/2012 (Saturday) Day 42
temp up to 104 (103.9)
Dr. on-call – Ibuprofen
102.5
yesterday afternoon (blood) rash ? [27:50]
—————————————————————— 1/23/2012 (Monday) Day 44
some itch [28:35] ======================================
47 days – Burzynski Clinic 31 days – treatmentNOTmentioned 16 days – treatment mentioned ====================================== 12/25/2011 (Sunday) Day 15 off ANP [18:10]
—————————————————————— 12/27/2011 (Tuesday) Day 17 back on ANP off ANP – temp 102
temp down / up [19:04]
—————————————————————— 12/28/2011 (Wednesday) Day 18 on ANP much smaller dose [19:04]
—————————————————————— 12/29/2011 (Thursday) Day 19
hospital – E.R. [20:07]
—————————————————————— 12/30/2011 (Friday) Day 20
last week up & down off on off on off ANP [20:22]
—————————————————————— 12/31/2011 (Saturday) Day 21
temp 102 [21:53]
—————————————————————— 1/15/2012 (Sunday) Day 36
antibiotics 1st day [24:33]
—————————————————————— 1/16/2012 (Monday) Day 37
over 102 Monday night
antibiotics 2nd day [25:24]
—————————————————————— 1/17/2012 (Tuesday) Day 38
temp 101.8 off ANP (If 102 take off ANP)
antibiotics been on 3 days [25:24]
—————————————————————— 1/20/2012 (Friday) Day 41
fever 104 (103.9) Friday night [26:54]
—————————————————————— 1/21/2012 (Saturday) Day 42 off ANP – temp up to 104 (103.9)
102.5 [27:50] ====================================== 5 – off ANP
May have beenoff ANP5 to 6 days out of 47? ====================================== 12/27/2011 (Tuesday) Day 17
temp 102
temp down / up [19:04]
—————————————————————— 12/29/2011 (Thursday) Day 19
hospital – E.R. [20:07]
—————————————————————— 12/31/2011 (Saturday) Day 21
temp 102 – in middle of night [21:53]
—————————————————————— 1/16/2012 (Monday) Day 37
temp over 102 Monday night
antibiotics 2nd day [25:24]
—————————————————————— 1/17/2012 (Tuesday) Day 38
temp 101.8
antibiotics been on 3 days [25:24]
—————————————————————— 1/20/2012 (Friday) Day 41
temp 104 (103.9) Friday night [26:54]
—————————————————————— 1/21/2012 (Saturday) Day 42
102.5 [27:50] ====================================== 6 days – temperature mentioned
temp 102 – temp down / up – 12/27/2011 102 in middle of night – 12/31/2011 102+ Monday night – 1/16/2012 temp 101.8 – 1/17/2012 104 (103.9) Friday night – 1/20/2012 102.5 – 1/21/2012 ====================================== Gorski scatterbrains on:
“I was also very puzzled at how the Burzynski Clinic could allow a cancer patient to linger with a fever of 102° F and sometimes higher, accompanied by shaking chills, in a temporary lodging without admitting her to the hospital“
——————————————————————
Does Gorski provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support his claim ?
“It’s not clear what sort of workup was done to evaluate Hannah either, what her white blood cell count was, or what her other labs were“
“Did they draw blood cultures?”
“Did they get urinalyses and cultures?”
“Did they do chest X-rays to rule out pneumonia?”
—————————————————————— Gorski, maybe you should have asked Wayne Dolcefino
Or maybe you should have gone to the Burzynski Clinic
Oh, wait
You think you know everything and could NOT learn anything by going there 😅
—————————————————————— Gorski at least gets one thing correct:
“It’s all very unclear, other than that she apparently was given some antibiotics at some point”
—————————————————————— 1/15/2012 Monday Day 36 antibiotics 1st day
—————————————————————— 1/16/2012 Tuesday Day 37 antibiotics 2nd day
—————————————————————— 1/17/2012 (Tuesday) Day 38 antibiotics been on 3 days
—————————————————————— Gorski wonders:
“Did she have the flu, given her flu-like symptoms, or was this due to her antineoplaston therapy?“
—————————————————————— Gorski, why not “speculate” like “The Skeptics™” usually do ?
—————————————————————— 12/24/2011 (Saturday) Day 14 fever
bad breathing
shivering all night
—————————————————————— 12/25/2011 (Sunday) Day 15 flu symptoms
breathing
headache
uncontrollable chills couldn’t stop off ANP absolutely exhausted
in bed
little bit of swelling back of head
—————————————————————— 12/27/2011 (Tuesday) Day 17 back on ANP temp 102 – off ANP temp down / up
—————————————————————— 12/28/2011 (Wednesday) Day 18 on ANP much smaller dose exhausted – close to breaking / cracking
—————————————————————— 12/29/2011 (Thursday) Day 19 hospital – E.R.
—————————————————————— 12/30/2011 (Friday) Day 20 last week up & down off on off on off fever
chills
shaking
viral infection
bacterial infection
—————————————————————— 12/31/2011 (Saturday) Day 21 temp 102 – fever in middle of night
Dr. SRB thinks flu-like symptoms or tumor actually breaking down
—————————————————————— 1/16/2012 (Monday) Day 37 temp 102+ Monday night
—————————————————————— 1/17/2012 (Tuesday) Day 38 throat infection temp 101.8 – fever – off ANP antibiotics been on 3 days
—————————————————————— 1/20/2012 (Friday) Day 41 104 (103.9) – fever – Friday night
—————————————————————— 1/21/2012 (Saturday) Day 42 temp up to 104
Dr. on-call – Ibuprofen 102.5 – off ANP yesterday afternoon rash
—————————————————————— Gorski ponders:
“The reaction of the clinic staff (i.e., rather blasé, even though at one point Hannah clearly demonstrates a change in mental status, appearing “drunk” and complaining of double-vision) made me wonder if this sort of problem was a common occurrence”
—————————————————————— Gorski, what’s the matter ?
Did you grab another handful of popcorn ?
—————————————————————— 1/1/2012 (Sunday) Day 22Burzynski Clinic feel drunky
felt like completely drunk
double vision
bit shaky Nurse said anti-seizure drug she hadn’t taken before [22:34]
—————————————————————— Gorski, what are some of the side-effects of “anti-seizure” medications ?
dizziness
double-vision
drowsiness
imbalance
loss of coordination
Problems with motor skills
Problems with tasks requiring sustained performance
nausea
slurred speech
staggering
mental disturbances
serious mood changes
—————————————————————— http://umm.edu/health/medical/reports/articles/epilepsy
—————————————————————— Gorski continues his assault on the popcorn:
“At another point, Pete and Hannah come to believe that the fevers might have been due to the tumor breaking down, which strikes me as implausible”
—————————————————————— Gorski, if it “strikes” you “as implausible”, then why did you ask, above ?
“Did she have the flu, given her flu-like symptoms, or was this due to her antineoplaston therapy?“
—————————————————————— 12/31/2011 (Saturday) Day 21 temp 102 – fever in middle of night Dr. SRB thinks flu-like symptoms OR tumor actually breaking down [21:53]
—————————————————————— Gorski blunders along:
“Later, she develops an extensive rash“
—————————————————————— 1/23/2012 (Monday) Day 44 Pete sent pic to Dr. SRB who gave name from pic and Pete verified [28:35]
—————————————————————— Gorski bumbles onward:
“It’s difficult to tell for sure what it is at the resolution of the video, but it looks like erythema multiforme, which is generally an allergic rash”
“What’s the most likely cause of such a rash?”
“Guess”
“Erythema multiforme is usually a drug reaction”
—————————————————————— Gorski, what can cause “Erythema multiforme” ?
“Does this mean that Burzynski’s antineoplaston treatment worked for Hannah?“
“Sadly, the answer is:”
“Not necessarily”
“It might have”
“It might not have”
“Why do I say this?”
“First, she didn’t have much residual disease after surgery and radiotherapy, and in fact it’s hard to tell how much is tumor and how much is postop and radiation effect“
—————————————————————— Gorski, I think it’s safe to say that neurosurgeon Dr. Martinez knows much better than you and your speculation
—————————————————————— Gorski
“Second, the median survival for anaplastic astrocytoma (which is a form of glioma) is around 2 to 3 years, and with different types of radiation therapy five year survival is around 15% or even higher”
—————————————————————— Gorski provides a link to a site which advises [14]:
High-grade tumors grow rapidly and can easily spread through the brain“
High-grade tumors are much more aggressive and require very intensive therapy
All patients with high-grade astrocytomas receive both radiation therapy and chemotherapy regardless of age
Prognosis is poor in this group of patients
—————————————————————— Gorski’s 2nd linked source advises [15]:
These highly aggressive tumors often occur in young adults and typically recur or progress to a grade 4 glioblastoma within several years of diagnosis, despite treatment with surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy
Tumor more resistant to therapy and patients have shorter median survival of only 2 to 3 years
—————————————————————— Gorski’s 3rd link [16] showcases his lame research as one has to read through almost the entire article to find the reference, which directs the reader to yet another publication [17]:
Gorski FAILS to advise the reader that the 2002 study is titled:
“Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) for previously untreated malignant gliomas“
Hannah Bradley’s WAS previously treated
Gorski also FAILS to advise the reader if this study included patients with grade 3 or 4 tumors
—————————————————————— Gorski claims:
“Thus, long term survival for patients with astrocytomas is not so rare that Hannah’s survival is so unlikely that the most reasonable assumption has to be that it was Burzynski’s treatment that saved her”
—————————————————————— Gorski, nice claim, but you did NOT really prove it
—————————————————————— Gorski suspects:
“More likely, Hannah is a fortunate outlier, although it’s hard for me to say even that because, at only two years out from her initial diagnosis, she’s only just reached the lower end of the range of reported median survival times for her disease”
—————————————————————— Gorski, the operative word is “outLIER”
Gorski then goes all “conspiracy theory” about a supposed “cryptic Facebook post”, a “vlog entry no longer exists”, “Hannah and Pete supposedly being “evasive”, “using vague terms”, a “little blip”, and “lack of new scans”
Next, little green “popcorn munchin'” men 👽
—————————————————————— 3/4/2013 Gorski drops “conspiracy theory, part II” on an unsuspecting audience [19]:
Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski’s cancer “success” stories update: Why is the release of the Burzynski sequel being delayed?
It’s no secret that I happen to NOT be on several mailing lists of “The Skeptics™”whose dedication to science is—shall we say?—questionable
As I delved deeper, I learned that Gorski’s evidence for the “questioning” of the anticancer efficacy of “antineoplaston therapy” doesn’t hold up; that his “questioning” of “personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy” is anything but; and that he’s an orphan now in what appears to me to be a strategy to bypass restrictions on his use of proper “cancer research “
The CliffsNotes version for those who don’t want to read Gorsack’s previous lengthy post is that he claims Hannah’s tumor, an astrocytoma (which is a form of glioma) did indeed appear to regress, but that regression can likely be explained by the surgery and radiation therapy that she had
Even then, however, he claims it would not be evidence that the antineoplastons saved her because there are occasional complete remissions in this tumor type, and long term survivors, although uncommon, are not so uncommon that Hannah must be evidence that antineoplastons are so miraculously effective that they saved her when conventional medicine could not
Gorski’s claims are anecdotal, as he failed miserably to provide the necessary citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support his claims
Gorski claims:
“I try very hard not to cross that line, and I think I’ve been successful, for instance, here”
But I proved again, above, how he fails and fails again with his “amateurish” attempts at proper “cancer research”
Similarly, Gorski realizes that it is very effective to appeal to emotions and cast Burzynski’s as heartless
Gorski inserts other Burzynski patients into his posts about Pete and Hannah
—————————————————————— GORSKI FAIL #1 – “One notes that Burzynski’s protocol requires at least 18 months of near-continuous infusion of high doses of his antineoplastons“
—————————————————————— GORSKI FAIL #2 – “The new claim is that Burzynski isn’t making patients pay for his antineoplastons (see question #13 in Merola’s FAQ), just for “clinical management” (as if that weren’t incredibly transparent) Vindication”
—————————————————————— GORSKI FAIL #3 – “First, I notice that nowhere was there anything mentioned about enrolling Hannah on a clinical trial“
—————————————————————— GORSKI FAIL #4 – “Certainly, given how much detail he’s used in this video and in his vlogs I’d expect that if the subject of clinical trials was mentioned he would have included it“
—————————————————————— GORSKI FAIL #5 – “The reaction of the clinic staff (i.e., rather blasé, even though at one point Hannah clearly demonstrates a change in mental status, appearing “drunk”and complaining of double-vision) made me wonder if this sort of problem was a common occurrence”
—————————————————————— GORSKI FAIL #6 – Well, I could add more … 🙂
——————————————————————
My apologies to the following co-authors if you ever had to check the “cancer research” of one: Gorski D., Gorski DH, D H Gorski,
[1] – September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
====================================== BB – Bob Blaskiewicz
—————————————————————— DJT – Didymus Judas Thomas
====================================== 0:47:00
—————————————————————— BB – “Ummm, o-kay”
“Uh, I want to turn this over to the people who are watching”
“Um, I want to give them a a chance to address you as well”
“Uhmmm, hi everyone”
—————————————————————— 0:48:00
—————————————————————— 0:53:00
—————————————————————— BB – “A every time that I and and and and, and David (James @StortSkeptic the Skeptic Canary) points this out, that um, you you know you’re not going to speculate about the the FDA but then at every turn you’re invoking the FDA as being obstructionist“
—————————————————————— 0:54:02
—————————————————————— BB – “I, I just find that to be contradictory and and self-defeating“
====================================== DJT – Bob, exactly where did I invoke “the FDA as being obstructionist” ?
====================================== 1:02:00
—————————————————————— BB – “Um, it’s it’s it’s not the FDA’s, but you understand it’s not the FDA’s job to tell someone that their drug doesn’t work“
—————————————————————— 1:03:00
—————————————————————— BB – “it’s it’s it’s up to Burzynski“
“It’s up to Burzynski to show that his drug does work”
“And it’s always been his burden of proof“
“He’s the one that’s been claiming this miracle cancer cure, forever”
====================================== DJT – Bob, Burzynski showed and proved what he needed to prove to the FDA in order to do phase 2 clinical trials, 9/3/2004 – FDA granted “orphan drug designation” (“ODD”) for Antineoplastons (A10 & AS2-1 Antineoplaston) for treatment of patients with brain stem glioma, .10/30/2008 – FDA granted “orphan drug designation” (“ODD”) for Antineoplastons (A10 and AS2-1 Antineoplaston) for treatment of gliomas, and FDA approved phase 3 [1-2]
Oh, and Bob, exactly when did Burzynski 1st claim “this miracle cancer cure” ?
====================================== 1:04:02
—————————————————————— BB – “Um, that we’d love to see, however we can’t see, however we can’t see it because of proti protri proprietary uh protections that the FDA is giving to Burzynski, right ?”
“They’re not sharing his trial designs because they are his trial designs, right ?”
“That the makeup of his drug that he’s distributing are his, uh design, and his intellectual property“
“So the FDA is protecting him, uh from outside scrutiny“
====================================== DJT – Bob, you make it sound like it’s part of some grand “conspiracy” between Burzynski and the FDA to keep information from “The Skeptics™” [3]
——————————————————————
21CFR601
Subpart F–Confidentiality of Information
Sec. 601.50
Confidentiality of data and information in an investigational new drug notice for a biological product
(a) The existence of an IND notice for a biological product will not be disclosed by the Food and Drug Administration unless it has previously been publicly disclosed or acknowledged
====================================== BB – “While you may imagine that that, that that the FDA is is somehow antagonistic toward him“
“They’ve given him every opportunity, over 60 opportunities to prove himself worth uh their confidence and hasn’t“
====================================== DJT – Bob, that certainly explains the 9/3/2004 and .10/30/2008 ODD’s and phase 3 clinical trial approvals by the FDA – NOT [1-2]
====================================== 1:05:00
—————————————————————— 1:42:00
—————————————————————— BB – “I don’t, the thing is though that, that that’s a inver, shifting the burden of proof off of Burzynski”
“Burzynski has to prove them wrong, has to prove him right”
“The FDA is not there to say this doesn’t work”
====================================== DJT – Bob, who initiated and put into place the clinical trial hold ?
Burzynski ?
FDA ?
Both ?
====================================== 1:43:30
—————————————————————— BB – “So, I mean, honestly, um, saying “Well, when the F, FDA tells you that it doesn’t work, the FDA’s never gonna say that because that’s not their job“
—————————————————————— 1:44:00
—————————————————————— BB – “That’s not an option, because they’re never gonna do it“
“They relinquish, a lot of authority, over to Burzynski, and his Institutional Review Board, which, I would mention, has failed 3 reviews in a row” ====================================== Bob, where are the “final reports” for those “3 reviews” ? ====================================== BB – “Right ?”
“It is Burzynski’s job to be convincing”
“It is not our uh, uh, it it it he hasn’t produced in decades“
“In decades”
“In hundreds and hundreds of patients, who’ve payed to be on this”
“Hell, we’d we’d we’d like a prelim, well when you’re talking about something that is so difficult as brainstem glioma, that type of thing gets, really does in the publishing stream get fast-tracked there”
====================================== DJT – Bob, Burzynski has provided numerous phase 2 clinical trial preliminary reports, which our #fave oncologist has chosen to ignore [4]
====================================== BB – “they test it”
“Yeah, and they they they want uh, that was evidence of fast-tracking is what, that rejection was uh e was very quickly“
====================================== DJT – Bob, have you checked The Lancet Oncology [5] to see what was so much more important than Burzynski’s “phase 2 clinical trial Progression-Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS) re patients 8 – 16 years after diagnosis, results” [6] and the Japanese antineoplaston study ? [7]
====================================== BB – “So, how long will it be before Burzynski doesn’t publish, that you decide that uh perhaps he’s he‘s, doesn’t have the goods ?“
“Um, so, uh, uh again, the FDA is not the arbiter of this“
“It’s ultimately Burzynski”
“You’ve been speculating about what the FDA’s motivation are like crazy”
“Why not speculate about Burzynski a little bit”
====================================== DJT – Well, how have I been speculating ?
====================================== 1:46:00
—————————————————————— BB – “Well actually I’m not even asking you to speculate about Burzynski, I’m only asking you to tell me, how long would it take, uh how, for him to go unpublished like this, um, for this long, before you would doubt it ?” ====================================== DJT – Note how, above, without proving it, Bob claimed “at every turn you’re invoking the FDA as being obstructionist”, and now, directly above, again, without proving it, Bob claims “You’ve been speculating about what the FDA’s motivation are like crazy” —————————————————————— DJT – what the journals keep saying, in response
====================================== BB – “What ?”
====================================== DJT – You know, are they going to give The Lancet response, like they did in 2 hours and such, saying, “Well, we think your message would be best heard elsewhere,”or they gonna gonna give The Lancet response of, “Well, we don’t have room in our publication this time, well, because we’re full up, so, try and pick another place”?
====================================== BB – “But these but but but that doesn’t have any bearing on“
“That doesn’t”
“Oh I’m not asking you how long, how long, would it take you for you to start doubting whether or not he has the goods ?“
“How long would it take ?”
“It’s a it’s a it’s a question that should be answered by a number uh uh months ?“
“Years ?”
“How long ?”
“It’s been 15 years already”
====================================== DJT – Well, you like to jump up and down with the “15 year” quote, but then again I always get back to, Hey, it’s when, when the report, when the clinical trial is done
—————————————————————— 1:47:06
—————————————————————— DJT – Not that he’s been practicing medicine medicine for 36 years, or whatever, it’s when the clin, clinical trial was done
====================================== BB – “I could push it back to 36 years”
“He hasn’t shown that it works for 36 years”
“I can do that”
“I was being nice” ====================================== DJT – Note how Bob acts like he’s been hit with “The Stupid Stick”
If he wants to go back “36 years”, I can refer back to 1991 (11/15/1991) – Michael J. Hawkins, M.D., Chief, Investigational Drug Branch, Department of Health &Human Services (HHS), Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Cancer Institute (NCI), sent a 1 page Memorandum Re:
Antineoplaston to Decision Network, which advised, in part:
“It was the opinion of the site visit team that antitumor activity was documented in this best case series and that the conduct of Phase II trials was indicated to determine the response rate”[8] —————————————————————— DJT – The FDA A believes there is evidence of efficacy
====================================== BB – “Perhaps based on bad phase 2”
====================================== DJT – Well, we don’t know that
We don’t have the Freedom of Information Act information —————————————————————— DJT – Remember, Bob is the one who told me during the 9/28/2013 Google+ Burzynski Discussion Hangout:
“You’re you’re you’re assuming”
“You’re you’re you’re assuming that”
“You’re assuming that”
“Um, I’m not assuming that”
“There is a correct answer here”
“You don’t know”
“You don’t know”
“You need to look into it”
“Alright ?”
“Before you dismiss it you have to look into it”
“Everytime somebody throws uh uh something to me, I have to look into it”
“That’s just, it’s my responsibility as a reader”
“T t and what I would honestly expect and hope, is that you would be honest about this, to yourself, and and and that’s the thing we don’t, we often don’t realize that we’re not being honest with ourself“
“I try to fight against it, constantly”
Bob just ASSUMED that the FDA approved phase 3 clinical trials for Burzynski “Perhaps based on bad phase 2”, but tells me NOT to ASSUME ? ====================================== BB – “He withdrew”
“He withdrew the the phase 3 clinical trial”
“I that before recruiting,
although I’ve seen lots of people say they were on a phase 3 clinical trial“
“I wonder how that happened”
====================================== DJT – Well, we know what happened in the movie because Eric particularly covered that when they tried to get what, what, was it 200 or 300 something institutions to take on a phase 3, and they refused
====================================== 1:48:01
—————————————————————— BB – “Uh did do do you think that if they thought that he was a real doctor that they all would have refused like that ?“
====================================== DJT – Well, Eric gave the reasons that they said they would not take a particular uh phase 3
And so using that excuse that you you just gave there, I’m not even gonna buy that one, because that’s not one of the reasons —————————————————————— Note how Bob pulls out the old “if they thought that he was a real doctor” line ?
Is Bob now claiming that Burzynski is NOT even a “real doctor” ? ====================================== BB – “He’s changed things”
====================================== DJT – Eric said they gave
====================================== BB – “That The Lancet is a top-tier journal like New England Journal of Medicine“
“It’s basically be, besieged by uh 100′s of people submitting their, their, their reports”
“Um, it’s just, you know, let’s say he, someone has such a thin publishing record as Burzynski does, do you think that it’s likely that he will ever get in a top-tier journal ?“
“What about the the Public Library of Science?”
“It’s not the only journal there”
“What about BMC Cancer ?”
“There’s lots of places that he can go”
====================================== DJT – We’ll I’m
====================================== BB – “Um, and he doesn’t seem to to have evailed himself of that, as far as I can tell“
“And I would know because he’d get rejected, or he’d be crowing, you know”
—————————————————————— 1:49:02
—————————————————————— BB – “Either way, he’s gonna tell us what happens”
“He told us what happened with The Lancet, you know”
“I don’t have any evidence that suggests to me that he’s even trying” ====================================== Note how Bob refers to Burzynski’s numerous publications as “such a thin publishing record”
Bob, do I need to count all of these for you ? [9] —————————————————————— DJT – Well, I’m, I’m sure that they’re going to keep you appraised just like they have in the past, just like Eric has done in the past
So
I mean, we’ll see what happens with the Japanese study [7]
====================================== BB – “So let’s go back to this”
“How long will it take ?”
“How long will it take before you, the Japanese study’s interesting too because we should be able to find that in the Japanese science databases, and we can find, we can’t find it at all“
“We can’t find it anywhere”
“And, and those are in English, so it’s not a language problem“
“We can’t find that anywhere”
“We’ve asked”
“We asked Rick Schiff, for, for that study”
“And, and it hasn’t come to us“
“He is now I believe on the Board of Directors, over there”
—————————————————————— 1:50:00
—————————————————————— BB – “He should have access to this”
“We can’t get it”
====================================== Bob, did you ask:
1. Annals of Oncology 2010;21:viii221 ?
2. European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), Colorectal cancer, Abstract: 3558, May 17, 2010 ?
3. Colorectal Cancer Association of Canada, COLORECTAL CANCER RESEARCH, Month Ending June 19, 2009
11. Antineoplaston Therapy Doubles 5-Year Survival Rate Following Curative Resection of Hepatic Mets (May 27/09) pg. 5 of 20 ?
4. Kurume University School of Medicine (Japan) Department of Surgery ?
5. Hideaki Tsuda ? [7]
====================================== BB – “How how long will it take before you recognize that, nothing is forthcoming ?”
“How long would that take ?”
====================================== DJT – Well that’s like me asking “How long is it going to take for y’all’s, y’all‘s Skeptics to respond to my questions ?”
Because y’all haven’t been forthcoming
====================================== BB – “Well, I mean, were talking about a blog here“
“We’re talking about life”
“No, we’re talking about a blogger’s feelings in that case“
“In in this case we’re talking about, 1,000′s of patients, over the course of of of generations, you know”
“This is important stuff”
“This is not eh eh equating what’s happening to to patients with what’s happening to you is is completely off-kilter as far as I can tell“
“It’s nothing”
“It’s nothing like you not getting to say something on my web-site”
“You know”
“This is they they have thrown in with Burzynski, and they’ve trusted him, and he’s produced nothing“
“Nothing of substance”
—————————————————————— 1:51:00
—————————————————————— BB – “Nothing that that has made all of that um, uh, n nothing th th th that uh his peers would take seriously”
“The other thing that that that strikes me now is that, you know, you you you you keep saying that, well Eric is going to to share things with you”
“Does it ever concern you eh uh eh occur to you that Eric might not be reliable ?” ====================================== Bob, do you want to have a contest to determine which of you is more “reliable” ? ====================================== DJT – Well, he gave you The Lancet information and he posted the e-mail in the movie, and Josephine Jones posted a copy of it [6]
====================================== BB – “He then, and then he”
“And then he he, you know, the the the the dialogue that sprung up around that was, well see, he’s never going to get to get published”
“Well you’re just setting yourself up for wish fulfillment”
“You want him to be, persecuted, so you are ecstatic when he doesn’t get to publish, which is unfortunate for all the cancer patients, who really thought that one day, all the studies were going to be published”
—————————————————————— 1:52:00
====================================== DJT – Well, y’all are free to, you know, claim that all you want, because I don’t always agree with Eric, and uh, he’s free to express his opinion
====================================== BB – “Where has Eric been wrong ?”
====================================== DJT – Well I don’t necessarily believe, what Eric would say about, you know, The Lancet that refused to publish the 2nd one, for the reasons he stated, and which y’all have commented on, including Gorski
You know, I don’t necessarily agree with that
I am more agreeable to y’all, saying that, you know, they’re busy, they’ve got other things to do, but I’m kind of still laughing at their 1st response which he showed in the movie about how they felt about, you know his results would be better in some other publication
I thought that was kind of a ridiculous response to give someone
====================================== BB – “It’s it’s it’s it’s a form letter“
“You know”
“They’re just saying, “No thanks””
““Thanks, but no thanks” is what they were saying, in the most generic way possible”
“Like I said, they’re besieged by researchers trying to publish“
—————————————————————— 1:53:05
====================================== DJT – Well you would think that if its a form letter they would use the same form that they used the 2nd time
You know, they didn’t use the same wording that they used the 1st time
I would have think that, you know, their 2nd comment
====================================== BB – “So, so, possibly”
“So possibly what you are saying is that they in fact have read it, and after having read it they’ve rejected it”
“Is that what you’re saying ?”
“Because that’s what peer-review is”
====================================== DJT – Nah, I’m not saying that they did that all
I’m just sayin’, you know, that they gave, 2 different responses, and I would think that the 2nd one they gave
====================================== BB – “Do you know it was the same editor, that it came from the same desk ?”
“You can’t make that assumption that that the form letter will be the same form letter every time”
“I mean you just can’t“
“I mean in in some ways we have a lot of non-information that you’re filling in, with what you expect, as as opposed to what’s actually really there, and I I I just think you’re putting too much uh stock in one uh, uh, in in in in this uh the publication kerfuffle“
—————————————————————— 1:54:16
—————————————————————— BB – “Um”
====================================== DJT – Well I find it funny, something along the lines of, you know, “We believe your message would be received better elsewhere, you know
I don’t see that as a normal response, a scientific publication would send to someone trying to publish something
I mean, to me that sounds, like, if you’re doing that, and you’re The Lancet Oncology, maybe you need to set some different procedures in place, ‘cuz you would think that with such a great scientific peer-reviewed magazine, that they would have structured things in as far as how they do their operations
====================================== BB – “Well, not necessarily“
“I’ve been in any # of professional groups where the organization is just not optimal, and publications certainly th there are all sorts of pressures from all sorts of different places”
—————————————————————— 1:55:08
—————————————————————— BB – “I I have no problems whatsoever with seeing that this might not be completely uh um uh streamlining uniform processes as possible“
“The fact that it’s not uniform, doesn’t have anything to do with Burzynski not publishing, not producing good data”
“Not just going to a, you know, god, even if, even if, let’s put it this way, even if he went to a pay to play type publication where you have to pay in order to get your manuscript accepted; and he has the money to do this, it wouldn’t take that much, and he were to put out a good protocol, and he were to show us his data, and he would make his, his his stuff accessible to us, then we could validate it, then we could look at it and say, “Yeah, this is good,” or “No, this is the problem, you have to go back and you have to fix this””
“Right ?”
“So we really, every time we talk about the letter that he got, yeah that doesn’t have much to do with anything, really”
—————————————————————— 1:56:02
—————————————————————— BB – “We wanna see the frickin’ data”
“And if he had a cure for some cancers that otherwise don’t have reliable treatments, he has an obligation to get that out there anyway he can“
“And if if peer-review doesn’t, you know, play a, if peer-review can’t do it, you know, isn’t fast enough for him, then he should take it to the web, and he should send copies out to every pediatric, uh, you know, oncologist that there is“
“That’s the way to do it”
====================================== DJT – Well, I’m sure, I’m sure Gorski would have a comment about that, as he’s commented previously about how he thinks uh Burzynskishould publish
====================================== 1:57:10
—————————————————————— BB – “It’s the, it’s the data itself“
“If if Burzynski is is, is confident in his data, he will put it out there“
“Right ?”
“One way or the other”
====================================== DJT – Like I said before
Like I said before on my blog, you know, even if Burzynski publishes his phase 2 information, Gorski can just jump up and down and say, “Well, that just shows evidence of efficacy, you know, it’s not phase 3, so it doesn’t really prove it”
—————————————————————— 1:58:04
—————————————————————— DJT – So then he can go on, you know, for however many years he wants to
====================================== 2:01:00
—————————————————————— BB – “Um, almost no treatment goes out without trials“
“Massive amounts of data are required” ====================================== Bob, do you think that’s the 2.5 million pages of clinical trial data that Fabio said Burzynski sent to the FDA ? [10] ====================================== 2:02:00
—————————————————————— BB – “Uh, in in in that sense, you know, uh all the the the, you know, kind of back-peddling and and and trying to defend him is is going to, not going to help his case at all“
====================================== Bob, exactly where did I exhibit any “kind of back-peddling” ?
====================================== 2:03:03
——————————————————————
BB – “You are, honestly as far as I can tell you are doing the um, you know, you’re you’re ah throwing up uh, uh, uh, you’re giving me another uh invisible dragon in the garage, um”
====================================== DJT – Well y’all, y’all can call things what y’all want
I mean, y’all can give these, fallacy arguments and all that garbage that y’all like, because that’s what y’all like to talk about instead of dealing with the issues
I mean, Gorski doesn’t want to deal with the issues
====================================== 2:04:11
—————————————————————— BB – “Okay, so”
“What you’re telling me is that you trust the FDA to to be able to tell you when he’s not doing, good science, but also that you don’t trust the FDA”
“Do you see an inherent conflict there ?”
====================================== DJT – How did I say I, I didn’t trust them ?
====================================== BB – “Well, when I, whenever I would ask about, like, why would these trials aren’t happening uh and, you know, you say well the the FDA’s arranged it“
“The FDA’s in control”
“They sign off on these things”
“But they’re they’re they’re they’re at the same that they’re, they’re trustworthy they’re also not trustworthy depending on what you need for the particular argument at the time“
—————————————————————— 2:05:12
—————————————————————— BB – “You’re suggesting that they’re untrustworthy”
====================================== DJT – No, I’m just sayin’ that I’ve raised questions and none of The Skeptics wanna to uh talk about ‘em [11]
====================================== BB – “Do you know that the FDA pulled out of the prosecution ?”
“Did you know that the FDA pulled out of the prosecution um of his criminal case, because they were backing a researcher ?” ====================================== Bob, would that “researcher” be Dvorit D. Samid, who was in Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business (Part I) ? —————————————————————— DJT – Well, we know a lot stuff they did, but that still doesn’t impress me that they pulled out of the prosecution
I mean
====================================== BB – “Yeah, the the the it wasn’t the FDA who was pressing charges, it was a Federal prosecutor“
====================================== DJT – Right
====================================== BB – “Right”
“And and, they declined to provide information that the prosecution needed“
“That’s important”
“That that that’s really important“
“That he has been given the benefit of the doubt, and he has come up wanting, for decades now”
====================================== DJT – Well I find it interesting a lot of this uh, a lot of these letters that were provided between, you know, the government and Burzynski, when the uh phase 2 study was going on, at the behest of the NCI
You know, anybody who reads that stuff knows, that when you just ignore the person that’s been doing, do treating their patients for 20 something years, or close to 20 years, and you change the protocol without his approval, and you don’t use the drugs in the manner that he knows works
====================================== 2:10:15
—————————————————————— BB – “One of the interesting things about Doubting Thomas that I think you should definitely consider for yourself, is that at some point, when faced with the real opportunity to prove or disprove his assertions, he doubted himself”
“And that’s important”
“And that’s where you’re falling short in the analogy”
====================================== DJT – Well, I think The Skeptics, Skeptics are falling short because, you know, they don’t own up to
====================================== BB – “I’ve laid out exactly what it would take for me to turn on a fucking dime”
“I have, I have made it abundantly clear what I need“
“Gorski has made it abundantly clear”
“Everybody else, Guy, and David, and Josephine Jones, uh, the Morgans, all of them have made it abundantly clear, what it would take to change our minds, and you’ve never done that”
—————————————————————— 2:11:02
—————————————————————— BB – “And even in this, this was an opportunity to do that“
“To come up with a basis for understanding, where it’s like, you know what, If we can show this, you know, if we can show a this guy, that, that, there, that his standards are not being met, then, you know, we could possibly have some sort of ongoing dialogue after this”
====================================== DJT – So I can say that since the Mayo Clinic (Correction: M.D. Anderson) finished their study in 2006, and it took them until 2013, to actually publish it, then I can say, well, Burzynski finished his in 2009, which was 3 years later, which would give Burzynski until 2016
====================================== BB – “Why wasn’t that study”
====================================== DJT – for me to make up my mind (laughing)
====================================== BB – “Why wasn’t that, that that that, still . . again, it it doesn’t seem really to to approach the the the, main question here“
“You know, um . . what are the standards that you have that it isn’t, what are your standards to show that it isn’t efficacious ?“
—————————————————————— 2:12:05
====================================== DJT – Well I can say, well I’m going to have to wait, the same amount of time I had to wait for Mayo (Correction: M.D. Anderson) to publish their study; which was from 2006 to 2013
====================================== BB – “Why was the Mayo”
“Why was the Mayo (Correction: M.D. Anderson) study delayed ?” ====================================== Note how Bob ASSUMES that the publishing of the final results of the M.D. Anderson study were delayed —————————————————————— DJT – How do you know it was delayed ?
====================================== BB – “Well you said you had so many years before you finish it and go in”
====================================== DJT – I mean, has anybody
====================================== BB – “Why, why did it take so long ?“
====================================== DJT – done a review of when a clinical trial is studied, and completed, and how long it took the people to publish it ?
You know
If they could point to me a study that’s done that, and say, well here’s the high end, here’s the low end of the spectrum, here’s the middle
====================================== BB – “I have something for you, okay ?”
“Send me that”
“Could you send me that study the way that it was published because um, just just send me the final study, um, to my e-mail address”
====================================== DJT – Sure
====================================== BB – “Um, because, I can ask that question of those researchers, why was this study in this time, and what happened in-between”
—————————————————————— 2:13:03
—————————————————————— BB – “Why did it take so long for it, for it to come out”
====================================== DJT – Sure, but that’s not gonna, you know like, answer an overall question of, you know, somebody did a comparative study of all clinical trials, and, when they were finished, and at, and when the study was actually published afterwards
You know, that’s only gonna be one, particular clinical study
====================================== BB – “Right”
“Um, but it it would, perhaps, answer the question; because you’re using it as an example on the basis of which to dismiss criticism, whether or not, uh, it is the standard, and therefor you’re allowed to accept that Burzynski hasn’t published until 2016, or, um, it’s an anomaly, which is also a possibility, that most stuff comes out more quickly“
====================================== DJT – Well, we know that the Declaration of Helsinki doesn’t even give a standard saying, “You must publish within x amount of years,” you know ?
So, I’ve yet to find a Skeptic who posted something that said, “Here are the standards, published here”
====================================== 2:14:07
—————————————————————— BB – “I I, yeah, the other thing that David James points out is you know, why 2016 when he’s had 36 years already ?“
====================================== DJT – Again, we get back to, when the clinical trial is finished, not when Burzynski started
====================================== BB – “Treating people”
====================================== DJT – I mean, you would expect to find a results to be published after, the final results are in
====================================== BB – “You would expect the Burzynski Patient Group to be a lot bigger after 36 years, and in fact is
====================================== DJT – You would expect some people would want to have confidentiality, and maybe not want to be included
====================================== BB – “So, if you’re unsure about this stuff, if you’re unsure about the the time to publication, why are you defending it so hard, other than saying, “I don’t know, I really need to”
====================================== DJT – Why am I unsure ?
====================================== BB – “Uh about the
====================================== DJT – (laughing) I just gave you an example
====================================== BB – “The reasons, the reasons for which that he’s, no, why are you defending him so hard, when you’re unsure ?
—————————————————————— 2:15:02
====================================== DJT – Oh, who said I was unsure ?
I just gave you an example
—————————————————————— Note how Bob ASSUMES that I’m “unsure” when I had the same answer since 0:32:07 [12]
——————————————————————
All comments by Professor Robert J. (Bob) Blaskiewicz of University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire “fame” should be considered as likely LIES until such time as he keeps his word to respond on this blog, to criticism of him on this blog
—————————————————————— “I hope somebody is writing all this down out there, so that we can go back and look at these claims later, right ?”
——————————————————————
1:19:00
—————————————————————— Seriously, Bob ?
Do you really think one of “The Skeptics™” was going to write all this down, when none of them showed that they had written down much of anything of much note about Burzynski 2 when they attended the screenings ? 🙂
—————————————————————— *Some words may or may not be missing, but it doesn’t take away from the final result
I will be adding separate critiques that break this down into manageable parts, but wanted to have entire video comments altogether here
——————————————————————
(0:04:38)
—————————————————————— Are you there ?
——————————————————————
Yes
—————————————————————— Okay, we might as well get started if were going to do this
——————————————————————
Okay
——————————————————————
(0:05:00)
—————————————————————— Alright, so ummm I guess we can start with uhhh bit of a conversation [0]
Uhhh
You’ve been on the Burzynski Hashtag for a long time – what’s you’re motivation ?
——————————————————————
Well as I put in my about page, I agreed with the juror that he was neither guilty or innocent [8]
So, so since I see all this opposition by these Skeptics, and I see that the they’re getting all of their facts straight
(Freudian sarcasm slip)
I decided to take the position of being a Skeptic Skeptic
In other words I am skeptical of Skeptics who do not fact-check their information before they post it on social media
—————————————————————— Okay
——————————————————————
And since I see ahhh y’all pretty much trying to take over the net with y’all’s information I decided to come back and correct all the false information that was being put out by other Skeptics
—————————————————————— So what information have Skeptics posted that they uhhh that they missed that demonstrates that Burzynski’s uhhh treatments are effective ?
——————————————————————
(0:06:00)
—————————————————————— What, what have we missed ?
——————————————————————
Well the major issue is that the FDA’s own information says if phase 3 trials are approved – phase 2 trials is to see if there’s evidence of effectiveness
And so if phase 3 trials are approved, that means you’ve provided evidence of effectiveness
That’s the FDA’s own information – I have that clearly on my blog [9]
Also the FDA has given Burzynski uhhh Orphan Drug Designation in 2004 for uhhh brainstem glioma and then in 2009 for all gliomas [10]
So that must mean that there is evidence of effectiveness, otherwise I don’t think they would be doing that
0:07:00
—————————————————————— Well okay, uh one of the issues that Skeptics have with Burzynski is that in order to, let’s 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 that’s gone nowhere
In fact, it was withdrawn this I think within the last week
It doesn’t 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
——————————————————————
(0:08:00)
—————————————————————— 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 it’s like you’ve lowered the bar for for evidence in a way that that you know oncologists don’t
——————————————————————
Well the issue is he was given 2 phase 3 trials that we know of
One was on uh Clinical Trials . gov – the one about eye cancer
—————————————————————— The the
——————————————————————
The vision cancer
—————————————————————— Right
——————————————————————
And then the other one was not posted on there, but then again the FDA has said, and I posted this on my blog because I specifically contacted and asked them and they said we don’t post all clinical trials on our web-site [11]
—————————————————————— (Correction: NCI)
——————————————————————
And so he obviously had that other one about brainstem glioma, that he was trying to get started [12]
But the other issue is that Skeptics have posted on there that he could not get that accelerated approval until he had published a phase 2 trial and that is exactly not the case because other drugs have been given accelerated approval before their results were published in phase 2 clinical trial publications, cuz, so that question remains as well [13]
(0:09:00)
——————————————————————
9:13
—————————————————————— So, do you think that there is a uh uh conspiracy to keep Burzynski from publishing ?
——————————————————————
Well, what we do know is that in the movie, Merola showed that one page rejection from The Lancet
—————————————————————— Right
——————————————————————
where Burzynski was trying to show his results from like 8 to 16 years, and they said we think your uh publication would be seen best elsewhere, or some ridiculous statement like that
And so, I thought that funny of The Lancet[14]
Of course, I understand their 2nd response, which came out, which Eric posted on his Facebook page, y’all, that y’all have talked about – that, you know, they’re busy, they get a lot of
submissions
——————————————————————
(0:10:00)
——————————————————————
I understand that, so obviously he would have to look for a different publication for both of those, things he’s trying to get published
—————————————————————— Clarification: Burzynski and Tsuda
—————————————————————— 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, they’ll never publish us
——————————————————————
(0:11:00)
—————————————————————— 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 wasn’t indicated in the in the rejection letter in order to uh claim that it is is to go beyond the evidence which again we’re 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 don’t understand exactly what you’re trying to do with it
Could you kind of clarify that for us because it’s uhhh long and it’s it’s intense and there’s a lot of emotion behind it but we don’t understand exactly, what it’s supposed to mean
——————————————————————
(0:12:00)
——————————————————————
Well a lot of the time I’m making fun of y’all’s favorite oncologist, the way he words his blogs, and uhmmm I cite specifically from the FDA, from from the National Cancer Institute, from these other scientific sources, from scientific publications
I give people specific information so they can fact-check me, unlike a lot of The Skeptics who just go out there and say things and publish things on social media, they provide no back-up for their uhhh sayings
And so when I critique an oncologist or any other Skeptic I always provide source material so people can always fact-check me and I specifically said that people should fact-check everything ummm that the oncologist should say because he has, I’ve proven him to be frequently incorrect about his information and misleading
——————————————————————
(0:13:00)
——————————————————————
And so I’ve tried to add those things and allow people to search, on specific things like publications, or what I posted about The Lancet, or specifically about The Skeptics, or specifically about the oncologist
So whenever I see something posted new on Twitter, by y’all, sometimes I’ll check it out and sometimes I won’t, and sometimes I’ll comment on it
—————————————————————— Alright, ah have you read The Other Burzynski Patient Group ?
——————————————————————
I was, on there just yesterday to see some more of your post on there [15]
—————————————————————— So, ahmmm what is your response say to the story of Amelia Saunders ?
——————————————————————
Well the thing is, when you accepted this hangout, I published my newest blog article and I specifically listed all the information I had critiqued from you previously including Amelia, and I posted the specific Twitter responses by BurzynskiMovie; which is probably Eric, to your issues with Amelia, and he disagrees with what the oncologist posted, and so I pretty much let his Twitter responses stand to what the oncologist said [2]
——————————————————————
0:14:24
—————————————————————— Okay, what part of, what did I get wrong ?
——————————————————————
Well I also did a critique of the newspaper story that was put out about Amelia in the U.K. [16]
And they had 2, 2 patients that were dealt with
And
—————————————————————— Uh was that Amelia and Luna ?
——————————————————————
I believe, yes
—————————————————————— Luna was the other one, correct[17]
——————————————————————
And one of the patients, Burzynski has specifically published in one of his scientific publications that maximum dosage is not reached for a month
——————————————————————
0:15:00
——————————————————————
So if someone, so if someone only goes in there and has treatment for a month, they’re not even, you know, they’re finally going to reach the uh maximum dosage [18]
And I think that was maybe the case with Luna, I think she was only there for a month
Oh, I, you’re 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 wasn’t 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 don’t need to reach full dosage ’cause 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 won’t react well to swelling, right, and and wont react well to pressure, so we were wondering, if in fact you don’t have to reach the full dosage in order to have uh severe side effects
——————————————————————
(0:16:00)
—————————————————————— Ummm, you know maybe you haven’t reached a therapeutic dose level, but that doesn’t mean that it didn’t 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
——————————————————————
0:17:00
—————————————————————— I mean, ummm, so that’s, 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 that’s not true
——————————————————————
Well my only thing is, uh, we know that sometimes he will go to a maximum dosage, or you know, the suggested dosage, but he will back down off it, in fact in the uh adverse effects you mentioned those are specifically adverse effects mentioned in his publications, and when that happens normally they will subside within 24 to 48 hours is what it says once you take them off the treatment and let, you know, those conditions take care of themselves, and then you will slowly raise the medication again [19]
0:18:33
——————————————————————
So, you know, it just didn’t tell, if only one month of treatment was enough to even start to do anything for her [20]
—————————————————————— 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
——————————————————————
0:19:11
—————————————————————— 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 that’s 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 it’s dying on the inside
And when you see something like a 5th of the patients who we’ve been able to to document, reporting this excitedly, we get extremely concerned about what’s happening
——————————————————————
0:20:02
—————————————————————— Uhmmm, what part of that is not absolutely terrifying to you
——————————————————————
Well the thing is, the FDA has approved phase 3 <strong[12]and also given them the Orphan Drug Designation, which means they should have some knowledge about what’s going on, I would think [10]
Plus we don’t know for sure, we’ve heard about, ummm, some of the things supposedly the oncologist has talked about, which is cutting off the blood flow, to the tumor, which is something that some uhhh drugs can do, and I think that’s one of the things Burzynski has tried to do, ah he’s specifically mentioned it in his personalized treatment
But I don’t know for sure if it’s also something that’s done with the ANP’s in just the clinical trials environment
——————————————————————
0:20:02
——————————————————————
So, that could be a possibility
—————————————————————— Well, the the yeah I’ve 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 that’s been, that’s been floated and research has been done on uh and might even be promising and uh what he’s 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, what’s the word I’m looking for, uhm uh, replacement therapy
Uh and there isn’t 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
——————————————————————
Well
—————————————————————— Why isn’t he, you know, you understand that these doctors, ummm like nothing is true or false because a doctor says it is true or false
——————————————————————
0:22:26
—————————————————————— Uhmmm it’s it’s 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 else’s families are you you imagine what an oncologist sees in that office over the course of of a year and there’s going to be unimaginable suffering
I’m sure that they’re 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
——————————————————————
0:23:10
—————————————————————— 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
——————————————————————
Well what I find interesting about these other doctors is like like the doctors mentioned in the movie and BBC Panorama’s report and in some of these newspaper articles where they are mentioned again is that these doctors never do a review of Burzynski’s scientific publications and including our favorite oncologist who refuses to do so [20]
Oh yeah he says he’s read everything but uh you know he claims that he’s uhmmm reviewed, reviewed uh Burzynski’s personalized gene targeted therapy but he, but then just a few months ago he admitted, you know, I don’t know where Burzynski says which genes are targeted by antineoplastons [22]
And I pointed out which specific publications that Burzynski published, publications which specifically mention which genes are targeted by antineoplastons, and I said how can you claim that you’ve read and reviewed every Burzynski publication and you didn’t know which genes are targeted by antineoplastons when that’s specifically in the publications ? [10]
To me that tells me that you do not know how antineoplastons work be because you just admitted you don’t know which genes Burzynski talks about
I mean that’s just funny as heck to me that he would say that
——————————————————————
0:25:07
—————————————————————— 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 that’s
——————————————————————
Well I’ve, I’ve got it on my blog
Uhm
I mean I can forward it to you at some point
—————————————————————— That would be good
Uhmmm
——————————————————————
But I agree with you about I don’t remember seeing anything about antineoplastons cutting off the blood flow to the, you know the blood brain barrier for sure either
—————————————————————— Well, yeah that’s a, that’s 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 I’ve learned from from working uh with others on the Burzynski Patient Group is what’s it like to be a cancer patient, only by proxy, man I couldn’t imagine really going through this myself, and, you know I’d hate to see my family go through this
——————————————————————
0:26:22
—————————————————————— That these people are at what could be described as a low point, they’re 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 they’re there uhm uhhh but, you know that it’s an, it’s an extremely grim prognosis
Uhhh and I worry that when they’re in that desperate state and especially let’s 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
——————————————————————
27:16
—————————————————————— What protections are in place for patients as far as that these kids are and and their parents are protected
——————————————————————
0:27:30
——————————————————————
Well I think i know the point that you’re getting at uhhh about the IRB’s and all that good stuff
All I can say is that, you know the FDA can come in with any amount of investigators and say that you did this or that but you have the opportunity to respond, and so they can pretty much say anything, it’s only when the final report comes out that you can take that to the bank
And so all this speculation about what a investigative team may say about the clinic is, to me just like someone going into a lawsuit and saying so-and-so did this, you know, can you prove that, you know, did so-and-so do that [23]
——————————————————————
0:28:09
——————————————————————
So it’s the same thing with the FDA, these um little reports, the final report is what counts, and so, also what I find interesting is some of Burzynski’s publications specifically said, you know this particular uh clinical trial, the IRB was agreed upon by the FDA [24]
Well if if the FDA agreed upon it, you know, then some questions should arise about exactly what did the FDA agree upon
What would we find out from a Freedom of Information Act request on that ?
And, and what I also found interesting is when I did research on other clinical trials for brainstem glioma I found, you know, all these other science based medicine studies where 374 children had died in their studies [25]
——————————————————————
0:29:00
——————————————————————
And what I found interesting is back in 1999, they reported on a clinical trial, they had better results then all these clinical trials afterwards [18]
—————————————————————— Who had the better results ?
——————————————————————
Well, I would have to find you one, there were like 3
—————————————————————— Okay
——————————————————————
There were like 3 major ones that Burzynski has mentioned in his publications to cross-reference his trials versus their trials as far as the results
And so, I, there was one back in 1999 that had better results than a lot of these clinical trials that come afterwards
So when we talk about, you know, what’s really right for the patients well we can see that the drug companies want to test their drugs through clinical trials and, you know, and if your kid dies, well, unfortunately the kid dies
Even though we showed better results in 1999 with a different type of treatment, you would have thought that maybe they would have poured more investment into that particular treatment but that’s not necessarily how the clinical trial system works
——————————————————————
0:30:00
—————————————————————— 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
——————————————————————
0:31:00
—————————————————————— Ummm, do you have any sense of when these trials are going to be published ?
——————————————————————
Well here’s my point, I mean, y’all probably get a better sense from, ummm, Hymas, about what’s going on with that
—————————————————————— From Laura ?
——————————————————————
From her uh fiancé, or husband, whatever his status happens to be right now (laugh)
—————————————————————— Right
——————————————————————
And uh also from Ric, uh they’re more closer to Burzynski than I am, because I have never met Burzynski, I have never e-mailed Burzynski, uhmmm never talked to Burzynski, never met him, blah blah blah
Uh, my sense is that since 1996 when the FDA talked about antineoplastons, that specific FDA Commissioner that was in charge at the time, he set out 7 major points about how there was going to be less people required and there was going to be less paperwork, there was going to be less stringent things about Partial Response [26]
——————————————————————
0:32:07
——————————————————————
And so, to me, the FDA is the final source to go to when people want to complain about how long their trials have lasted uh because the FDA is bottom line, you know, in charge of that
And
—————————————————————— When you, when you think about a major, sorry, go ahead
——————————————————————
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 [27]
So, just think
Burzynski’s 1st trial we know that finished in 2009
So we would still have more years to go before he caught up to M.D. Anderson as far as publishing
So for him to actually be trying to publish stuff now and The Lancet not publishing because they have other stuff to do, put in there, that’s understandable
——————————————————————
0:33:03
——————————————————————
So, we know that he’s trying to publish, uh but they’re going to keep it close to the vest obviously, from, from how they do their things, and where they’re trying to publish
And plus, like I’ve said before
—————————————————————— Yeah, right, uh
——————————————————————
We’ve still got the accelerated approval thing that’s out there, you know, like the FDA’s given Temodar and, and Avastin, and another drug, whereas they’re not doing the same thing for antineoplastons, eve even though for all intents and purposes from what we know, antineoplastons have had better success rates than Temodar and Avastin when they were approved [13]
—————————————————————— Antineoplastons has a better rate ?
——————————————————————
Well from the information that’s been published in certain um publications
—————————————————————— Right
——————————————————————
And in, and in not only Burzynski’s but elsewhere in, in newspapers or articles, or such like that
—————————————————————— Right, one of the things that that there there are 2 points to be made here
Uhm, the 1st one is that major pharmaceutical companies that are getting this accelerated approval have a track record of producing results which Burzynski does not have
Secondly, when it comes to ummm the rates of antineoplastons, how can we possibly say without a single published trial he, that he has an improved rate over Temodar or anything like that, and that’s exactly what would show to us whether or not his rate is better, the the types of publications that he’s done, that look really good on paper, ummm, to the to the, the common persons eye are these case series where he goes through and picks out people who have happened to have survived
——————————————————————
0:34:47
—————————————————————— But what that doesn’t tell us is whether or not the antineoplaston had anything to do with it
What you need to do is go and separate the background noise, the random weird rare but very real survive, unexpected survivals that occur, and separate those, uhhh, from any effect of antineoplaston, he’s never done that
——————————————————————
0:35:10
——————————————————————
Well what I found interesting is when the FDA approved these other 1 or 2 drugs, some of them specifically said that, uhhh, some of these drugs had, you know, better survivability or they showed no better rate than any previous treatment but we’re approving it anyway [13]
Basically that’s what the publication said and I published this on my blog in an article specifically about, you know, those 2 or 3 drugs that the FDA approved for brainstem or brain related cancers [28]
And so, you know, I’m not going to buy that argument about that, about that specific thing
—————————————————————— But if you think about that, I mean that if it does have a a an improvement rate above uh other treatments
——————————————————————
0:36:03
—————————————————————— That still has an improvement rate, you know, that, that would give another option to people, ummm, even if in the aggregate their rates aren’t better
It might work on some individuals tumors rather than on, you know, you you it it is it taken as a, as a lump but extend life by uh quality of life for 3 months or something um in some cases but, you know, it it still has an effect, a real effect, and deserves to be out there
——————————————————————
Well one of these newspaper articles specifically said, you know, Avastin would maybe keep you alive for maybe 4 more months
So, you know, take that [2]
—————————————————————— That’s a long time when someone is dying
——————————————————————
Well, we can wonder if some of Burzynski’s results are the same, otherwise why would the FDA say, you know, give the ODD [10], why would the FDA give the phase 3 approval [12]
——————————————————————
0:37:02
——————————————————————
Plus I don’t buy some of these doctors coming out and saying stuff, they have the opportunity just like the other doctors in Egypt [29], in Russia [30], in Germany, in, in Poland [31], in China [32 – 33], in Taiwan [34] that have done antineoplaston studies, I’m like, these people can do antineoplaston studies so what’s the excuse for all these other doctors who say that they supposedly can’t do them
You know, the information’s out there and
—————————————————————— Well, one of
——————————————————————
and like these other doctors can do it
—————————————————————— 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, we kind of know that that’s a fact [35]
—————————————————————— Clarification: NIH, NCI, and the Investigators
—————————————————————— Well, if if you think about it though, um, the, the proposed action as I understand it of the antineoplaston is that it’s 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, I’ve 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 Burzynski’s patients are carrying
Um in in some ways that that sodium load is uh leading people to constantly drinking up to I’ve seen 12 liters of water a day
——————————————————————
0:39:11
—————————————————————— That’s not necessary for other deacetylase 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 ?
——————————————————————
Well what we know from 1996 from Burzynski’s own information that he’s published, is that not only does he have the original parent antineoplastons, but he’s developed 2nd and 3rd generations, but he can’t just stop in the middle of his clinical trial and use the 2nd and 3rd generations which may be better [36]
(Clarification: 1997)
He can't uh use these other types of um antineoplastons that other researchers, researchers like Egypt [29], or Japan [37] have found um that may be better because he can’t just switch in the middle of the clinical trial
——————————————————————
0:40:04
——————————————————————
Now if he, if the FDA approves his product, well then, maybe he can roll out the 2nd and 3rd generation and these other types of antineoplastons that may be less harsh, but that’s all he’s got to work on and that takes us back to the FDA, having control over the entire process, as far as the paperwork, how many people are in the trials, etcetera
—————————————————————— Well that sss I believe that that’s 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[38]
——————————————————————
Right
—————————————————————— ah he has asked everything that Burzynski does looks sort of like the behaviors of pseudo-science
——————————————————————
0:40:56
—————————————————————— So what we’re 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 doesn’t 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
——————————————————————
0:41:32
—————————————————————— Another thing that that’s 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 there’s 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, there’s something that he asks for a a huge payment up front
——————————————————————
0:42:33
—————————————————————— That’s something that’s been warned against for generations of uh by anti-quack um uh crusaders if if they’re asking for everything up front, then be afraid
Ummm, another thing is that uh the kind of cult that’s 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
——————————————————————
0:43:15
—————————————————————— 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
That’s a manikin world-view of black and white
——————————————————————
0:43:30
—————————————————————— Um, these are all huge red flags, that you’re dealing with a quack
Um, why hasn’t Burzynski done anything to change that ?
——————————————————————
Well I find it interesting that you talk about the cost, because I’ve done a lot of research about the cost, and I was just looking at the cost again this morning, and put it into that particular blog article I was talking about, that I did for this particular program [39]
And, um
——————————————————————
0:44:00
——————————————————————
The thing that’s funny is that people can say, ohhh Burzynski charges a lot, but the fact is, so does chemo, radiation, and some of these newspaper articles that have been published, and specifically in the movie, Burzynski 2, one of the people mentioned how much someone was paying for standard treatment
And I noticed our
—————————————————————— Right
——————————————————————
favorite oncologist didn’t comment about that in his movie review [40]
—————————————————————— Well, there, this is important
This is really important though
Wha, when she’s talking about, that’s Luna Pettiguine’s 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 that’s calculated is, is the hospital only expects to get a fraction, a tiny fraction of that back from the insurance companies, and that’s 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
——————————————————————
0:45:01
—————————————————————— 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
——————————————————————
Well what I find interesting, you know, I’m not sure how people think he’s supposed to pay for the clinical trials, you know, if he’s supposed to go into debt, millions of dollars
—————————————————————— He has a a an enormous house that’s 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 don’t think he’d be able to get one, I don’t think he’s shown uh that he can carry off a uh a research program responsibly
——————————————————————
0:46:08
—————————————————————— Uhmmm
——————————————————————
I find that funny considering the FDA approved phase 3, has given him ODD for brainstem glioma and also also all gliomas [12]
You know, that’s kind of ridiculous [10]
And the people
—————————————————————— Well
——————————————————————
gettin’ off about his house, well who cares ?
They don’t know where his money came for that particular source
—————————————————————— (Clarification: “They don’t know the particular source where his money came from for that house”)
—————————————————————— 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 ?
——————————————————————
Well, you know, when you have good tax lawyers your tax lawyers will tell you how to structure things, and everybody in America has the right to structure their taxes in a manner that effectively serves them according to our Supreme Court
So, if you have a tax lawyer who tells you, hey this is the best way to do it, to save money, well, you may do that uh based upon your lawyer’s advice
——————————————————————
0:47:00
——————————————————————
So, maybe Burzynski has taken his tax lawyers advice, just like I’m sure he’s taken Richard Jaffe’s ad advice (laugh), which has proved well, for him
—————————————————————— Right
——————————————————————
You know, you know
That’s another thing
—————————————————————— 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, let’s, let’s wait for for that to roll in, and I do wait to go back to the, the the, the and let’s 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 ?
——————————————————————
0:48:00
——————————————————————
Well I guess we could ask, you know, Ben and Laura Hymas [41]
What was their experience, you know ?
Did they have, did she have to drink uh a lot of water because she was thirsty ?
You know, did she have to drink a lot of water due to the high sodium ?
—————————————————————— Well that’s just a known side-effect, your going to know that going in, but we actually have people say
——————————————————————
So I would ask her about her personal experience instead of saying, you know, instead of quoting some of these other people
—————————————————————— 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 don’t make it don’t 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 Burzynski’s favor to only look at the positive outcomes, and to have no sense of how other people’s diseases progressed, right, you’re 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 it’s a healing crisis or it’s progression of the disease
Or other people say it’s breaking up in the middle, hurrah
——————————————————————
0:49:20
—————————————————————— No, it’s actually a tumor that’s growing
That record there, that’s 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 ?
——————————————————————
Well we all know the FDA is in charge of this, and so hopefully they know what’s going on
—————————————————————— Are they feeding these people their stories ?
Are they feeding these people their stories
——————————————————————
No, I’m sure the FDA can look at the records because Burzynski sent them 2.5 million pages according to our friend Fabio [42]
0:50:00
——————————————————————
And uh, you know just something the doctors who came in and did the little ol’ one day, 6 patient records, where they reviewed all the records and slides, and MRI’s, etcetera, you know they can do the same thing, the FDA can do the same thing with all these patients [35]
(Clarification: 7)
And see the same MRI’s and scans, etcetera
I mean, we, we know that with all these 374 children I mentioned dying in other science-based medicine clinical trials [25]
I mean, they, FDA probably went through all their records
And, so, all these people didn’t look good either but, you know, the FDA still gave approval to Avastin and Te Temodar even though a lot of people died in their clinical trials [25]
—————————————————————— Okay I’m going to go back, I want to point something else out to you
Um, I have to, I don’t remember the exact patient so I have to go back to my web-site to take a look at it
Um
——————————————————————
0:51:00
—————————————————————— Because we are, because we’re on a Google+ stream that that’s a lot of data it takes awhile to bring up my, my site
Let me
Uhmmm
——————————————————————
I mean, we could agree that since Burzynski’s publication says that it’s going to take a month to get up to required dosage, and so we know, the tumor can still grow, like he said, up to 50%, he specifically acknowledges that in his publication, so, we know that can happen [43]
——————————————————————
0:51:35
—————————————————————— Well, that seems to give him an instant out, no matter what happens
That turns his claims into something that’s unfalsifiable
If I could give you an example of what unfalsifiable is
Um, and I’ll I’ll draw an uh, uh, case, uh hypothetical case of um uh proposed by Carl Sagan as the invisible dragon in your garage
——————————————————————
0:52:00
—————————————————————— If you say you have have a dragon in your garage, um, you know, you should be able to go over and verify that there’s a dragon in the garage
So let’s say we go over to Carl Sagan’s garage and, you know
Well, I don’t see anything
Well it’s an invisible dragon
Well okay, well then, let’s uh spray paint it
Well, it’s incorporeal
Well, uh, let’s measure for the heat of the breath
Well it’s heatless flame that it breathes
And, you know, okay, well then we’ll put flour down on the ground to see that it’s it it’s standing there
And, oh no it’s ah it’s floating
Well, you know, at some point, when you can’t falsify something
When you cannot, even in principle, prove something false, it’s indistinguishable from something that’s not there
And that kind of out, that oh well the tumor can keep on growing
Th (laugh) that that that’s an invisible dragon, as far as I can tell
——————————————————————
0:53:00
——————————————————————
Well we know from his own publications, he says he can’t just go in and start giving the maximum dose, or recommended dose right off the bat because a particular condition will occur, and he specifically mentions, in the publications what that condition is, I don’t remember it right off the top of my head [20]
But then again, his 2nd generation, his 3rd generation, his other form of antineoplastons that may work in the future, if approved, well those could possibly (not) have the same uh adverse effects that the current parent generation have [36]
But we don’t know, and like I said the FDA I’m sure knows because they have all the records, we don’t have them, and so unlike our favorite oncologist I’m not going to speculate, about what the FDA knows and I do not know
—————————————————————— 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
——————————————————————
0:54:02
—————————————————————— I, I just find that to be contradictory and and self-defeating
Um, let me see
——————————————————————
Well we know they stopped this particular trial, supposedly because a patient died
So what’s the hold-up ?
I mean, hopefully they’ve done an autopsy
What was found
—————————————————————— Well, that’s not necessarily true
——————————————————————
No
—————————————————————— I mean uh when it when it comes to the case um I’ve i’ve 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 Burzynski’s benefit if there were other cases, I’m 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
——————————————————————
0:55:08
—————————————————————— Um, it’s 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 didn’t involve them ultimately somehow being responsible for it, right?
So, it it it doesn’t seem to me that necessarily an autopsy would be um a a done deal
Um, let me see
——————————————————————
And we don’t have a final report from the FDA on what the findings were
—————————————————————— No we don’t 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
——————————————————————
0:56:00
—————————————————————— Uh, and, I guess I’ll
It should be in Amelia’s I I, I packed Amelia’s story with all the stories, um, that I could find um in what we’d 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
——————————————————————
0:57:10
—————————————————————— 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 S’s 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 G’s story
And then lastly and and the worst uh thing that we’ve seen, the patients report that Burzynski himself told Chase uh Sammut
——————————————————————
0:58:00
—————————————————————— The exact same thing
Um, and that was a
Have you read Chase’s story
——————————————————————
I don’t remember specifically
Possibly not
—————————————————————— 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, he’s still on the, uh, we’ll I don’t actually, I can’t say that, I don’t 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 we’ve been able to find that patients have been reporting this for decades
——————————————————————
0:59:20
—————————————————————— At some point, you would think that a doctor would realize that perhaps what these patients are walking away with is inaccurate
Why hasn’t that changed ?
——————————————————————
Well he’s using the same 1st generation drug
—————————————————————— E wel that that that that’s not it
This is this is like the 2nd day of oncology class, that that’s what the tumor looks like
People are reporting that the tumor is no longer growing, um, or that the growing has slowed after they’ve started
Well, okay
There, there is an explanation for that, and why you can’t take that as necessarily being evidence of efficacy
——————————————————————
1:00:00
—————————————————————— Ah, the tumor grows exponentially while the resources are available to it, but then it reaches a point where it’s 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 we’re talking about, and his patients don’t leave his office, knowing these facts, for decades
This doesn’t have anything to do with the, do with the drug
This this
——————————————————————
Well I’m sure a lot of people leave the doctors office not knowing things (laugh), for decades
—————————————————————— But, but when it’s, this treatment is working or this is not evidence that the treatment is working
That’s pretty basic
I mean we’re not, we’re not talking about deacetylase inhibitors or anything like that were you’d really need to know something about
This is, whether or not, you’re getting the outcome that you want
——————————————————————
1:01:00
—————————————————————— This is the whole reason for going
And it has nothing to do with the with the with the drugs
——————————————————————
Well we know the contin, the tumors can uh continue to grow for awhile, at least, and certain effects that they probably would
—————————————————————— Which is, which is like which we just pointed out was a was an invisible dragon
——————————————————————
Well I’m sure, I mean, it’s going to continue to grow, in any other clinical trial too, for a certain awhile
I mean like
—————————————————————— you’re you’re you’re assuming
You’re you’re you’re assuming that
You’re assuming that
Um, I’m not assuming that
——————————————————————
Well we know that all these other kids died in these science-based medicine trials, and, you know, we can assume that that was the case there too [25]
——————————————————————
1:02:00
—————————————————————— 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 you’re wrong
——————————————————————
The FDA not giving him phase 3 approval [12], the FDA not giving him ODD designation [10]
—————————————————————— So you’re saying because the Orphan Drug Designation and the face that there’s a phase 3, therefor it works ?
——————————————————————
And showing that, and showing the FDA that there’s evidence of effectiveness [11]
—————————————————————— So what you’re saying is there’s nothing that would convince you now, that it doesn’t work
——————————————————————
Not until the FDA says it doesn’t work
—————————————————————— O-kay
Um, it’s it’s it’s not the FDA’s, but you understand it’s not the FDA’s job to tell someone that their drug doesn’t work
——————————————————————
Well they seem to be doing a good job of it
——————————————————————
1:03:00
—————————————————————— it’s it’s it’s up to Burzynski
It’s up to Burzynski to show that his drug does work
And it’s always been his burden of proof
He’s the one that’s been claiming this miracle cancer cure, forever
——————————————————————
Well I’m sure, I’m sure they wouldn’t have done things if they didn’t see some evidence that it was working
—————————————————————— Um, I don’t know if you’ve read Jaffe’s book
——————————————————————
No I haven’t read it [44]
—————————————————————— There seems to have been a lot going on there you really should look at it because it’s it’s it’s 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 don’t know why the phase 3 trial was approved
I don’t know that we’ve seen even the phase 1 trials, we don’t know why he’s getting a phase 3
And there’s a real story in that, we think
——————————————————————
1:04:02
—————————————————————— Um, that we’d love to see, however we can’t see, however we can’t see it because of proti protri proprietary uh protections that the FDA is giving to Burzynski, right ?
They’re not sharing his trial designs because they are his trial designs, right?
That the makeup of his drug that he’s distributing are his, uh design, and his intellectual property
So the FDA is protecting him, uh from outside scrutiny
While you may imagine that that, that that the FDA is is somehow antagonistic toward him
They’ve given him every opportunity, over 60 opportunities to prove himself worth uh their confidence and hasn’t
Um, but I definitely recommend that you look at Jaffe’s book and you will see, I think, um that um it’s called um, uh Galileo’s
——————————————————————
1:05:00
——————————————————————
I know what it’s called [44]
—————————————————————— You know what it’s 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, isn’t necessarily having anything to do with the efficacy of the drug
That comes across very clearly
Um, you, you mentioned it yourself, he he’s done well to listen to Jaffe’s advice, right ?
——————————————————————
Right
—————————————————————— So, there there’s a lot to that
Um, uh, but yeah, let me go back to the Twitter feed
Um
——————————————————————
Well I’m just gonna say, you know, the F, the FDA doing what they’ve done, since they approved those 72 initial trials, pretty much speaks for itself [45]
I mean they’ve had every opportunity to shut this down, since then
—————————————————————— Well it sounds to me like they’re they’re not um, the the the you know, they’ve put the clinical hold on now because they now have evidence that somebody may have died because of the treatment
——————————————————————
1:06:06
—————————————————————— Um, I don’t 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
——————————————————————
No, I’m just concentrating on what we’re doing
—————————————————————— Okay
I’m doing, I’m doing the 2 things at once and it’s um, ok ok well it’s well ok I can’t I can’t 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
——————————————————————
1:07:16
—————————————————————— 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 I’d 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 doesn’t 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
——————————————————————
1:08:03
—————————————————————— That seems, if it works, if his drug genuinely works, and he hasn’t 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 there’s 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 (@SceptiGuy), 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
——————————————————————
1:09:07
—————————————————————— Do you think that that could possibly have anything to do with why we’re not seeing the phase 3 advance
——————————————————————
Well #1 I don’t think the one with brainstem glioma where they wanted to use radiation with ANP was really the right way to go, I mean he’s already proven that uh he seems to have better results without [12]
—————————————————————— He’s claimed
——————————————————————
first starting radiation [20]
—————————————————————— He’s claimed
That’s a different thing altogether
And in fact
——————————————————————
Yeah but the thing is radi, I, the FDA was not saying, ok, one study, one side of the study we’re only going to use ANP, in the other side of the study we’re going to use radiation and and ANP like like they would normally do
No, they wanted to make him use radiation in both sides of the study [20]
—————————————————————— Well, you understand why they do that, because in order to, it’s
——————————————————————
They don’t do that with other drugs [13]
—————————————————————— No, they do do this with other drugs, well, it depends on the type
——————————————————————
1:10:01
—————————————————————— Some drugs it’s 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 I don’t buy anything Guy Chapman sells, considering his past record [46]
—————————————————————— Well, ok
It doesn’t matter where
——————————————————————
(laughing)
—————————————————————— It doesn’t matter where it comes from uh, um
——————————————————————
Well his theories are suspect, anything he hands out, let me tell ya [47]
—————————————————————— So-kay, um that would be shooting the messenger as opposed to dealing with the question, but
——————————————————————
But the question may be bogus, because of where the messenger has been bogus a lot of times before (laugh) [48]
——————————————————————
1:11:04
—————————————————————— the idea, the best, well, the best, well in that case the best response is “I don’t know”
——————————————————————
Well I’m just gonna say what I think about Chapman because he’s proven himself, many times to be questionable
I don’t see him on my blog responding to my criticism [7]
—————————————————————— There’s something that that we don’t know, you’re coming, honestly we didn’t 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 it’s the organization is not apparent to the readers
Um, and um according to
——————————————————————
That’s like, that’s like saying that Gorski’s web-site is disorganized, his blog is like anti vaccine one day, Burzynski the next, blah blah blah
—————————————————————— No, that is tied together
——————————————————————
1:12:00
——————————————————————
(laughing)
—————————————————————— But let me, we know that that the the, the central concern is Burzynski
Ah, the source of this ah of of those #’s that I just gave you, Chapman has just updated me and he says um that it is, and I’ll go back to the, the ADR research . com issues in clinical research, so it’s the question, Bay Clinical uh Research and Clinical Development,a white paper called “Why do so many phase 3 clinical trials fail ?”
Uh, it’s prepared by Anistazios Retzios, Ph.D
Is Anistazios Retzios reliable ?
There is a correct here
——————————————————————
Well how would I know ?
I don’t have
—————————————————————— Exactly
That’s the right answer
You don’t know
You don’t know
You need to look into it
Alright ?
Before you dismiss it you have to look into it
——————————————————————
1:13:00
—————————————————————— Everytime somebody throws uh uh something to me, I have to look into it
That’s just, it’s my responsibility as a reader
Um
——————————————————————
Well you didn’t when I tried to get you to do stuff the 1st time, did ya ? [2]
—————————————————————— What, what stuff would you like
——————————————————————
(laughing)
—————————————————————— What stuff would you like me to do ?
I generally, I don’t read your blog
——————————————————————
Well I, the most, the mostly, excuse me, the most recent article I posted on there is the one about this particular conversation, where I went through all your comments that you had posted, and my response to them
And so I tried to consolidate everything into one, particular article
—————————————————————— Uh um, alright
——————————————————————
And that’s the newest article [2]
—————————————————————— Okay, I’ll look at that, and I will respond to it once I’ve taken a look at that, okay ?
Um, and I’ll respond on your web-site
Um, seems only fair
Um, one question I’d wondered, what is the Didymus Judas Thomas reference to
——————————————————————
1:14:00
——————————————————————
Well I thought that was pretty funny because doing biblical research, you come upon, Didymus Judas Thomas, or he’s all, also known by other names
He’s basically The Skeptic
And so, like I said, I consider myself to be Skeptic of The Skeptics
—————————————————————— Oh, so this is the Doubting Thomas
——————————————————————
I thought it was apropos
Of course
—————————————————————— This is the Doubting Thomas
——————————————————————
I’m doubting The Skeptics
Exactly
—————————————————————— 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 ?
——————————————————————
Exactly
—————————————————————— Okay
Alright
That that, I didn’t, I didn’t realize that he was also, that that was the same guy
So, it’s it’s 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, “Look, bring it on”
——————————————————————
1:15:08
—————————————————————— Check out these wounds
But he’s never done that
Instead he he he wants us to just take the words of of of of his apostles
I don’t necessarily trust his apostles
I don’t think that they’re unbiased
(laughing)
I wanna see the data
I wanna see the the wounds in his hands and the the mark on his side
——————————————————————
Well I like how The Skeptics say, you know, all of Burzynski’s successes over the years are anecdotal and uh I consider on the same way that everything negative about Burzynski is anecdotal
—————————————————————— Oh, hey when when we talk about The Other Burzynski Patient Group, I don’t make any pretensions to make that my site proves anything
I I I really don’t
It’s not my job to prove anything
It’s Burzynski’s job
It is a researchers job to prove these things
——————————————————————
1:16:00
——————————————————————
Well my point is he’s proven them to the FDA because they’re the ones
—————————————————————— 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
——————————————————————
Could be, but I would have to read, read the
—————————————————————— 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 that’s the thing we don’t, we often don’t realize that we’re not being honest with ourself
I try to fight against it, constantly
But, um, uh but the way that you’d earlier phrased your uh your response to “could you possibly be proved wrong ?”, . . really did exclude other possibilities of of of of yourself being wrong
So if the FDA
——————————————————————
Well when it comes to Guy Chapman, yeah
—————————————————————— Well I’m 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 hasn’t approved a phase 3
——————————————————————
1:17:03
—————————————————————— Well, ok
Let’s let’s back, let’s 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
——————————————————————
You still there ?
—————————————————————— Yeah, hello, yeah, you’re back
——————————————————————
Yeah, something cut off there for awhile
—————————————————————— 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
——————————————————————
1:18:00
——————————————————————
Well I would certainly look at that, but then again I would also look at the FDA granting him Orphan Drug Designation [10]
—————————————————————— Uh um could you send me that link, the, the, um . me see
I’m 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 ?
——————————————————————
Orphan Drug for brainstem glioma and all gliomas [10]
—————————————————————— Is it sodium phenylbutyrate or is it the the versions of the drug, the AS10 stuff or A1 or whatever it’s called ?
——————————————————————
Right, it’s both AS10 AS2-1 and AS
—————————————————————— Clarification: A10 and AS2-1
—————————————————————— Okay, that’s what has Orphan Drug status
Alright, I’ll 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 ?
——————————————————————
1:19:00
—————————————————————— So, oh, um
Do you have any questions for me ?
I’ve spent a lot of times asking questions of you
——————————————————————
Well not really, since you mentioned that you’d go in and look at my most recent article, anything you show in there or any reply you give is going to cover, what we’ve gone over
And so we can re debate it there
—————————————————————— 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
That’s 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 it’s on the record, is that I am taking exactly no money from anyone for this, and have gotten nothin’ but grief from a lot of people, even people who (laugh), 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, that’s 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
——————————————————————
1:22:02
—————————————————————— 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, he’s 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 didn’t take down his on-line review of Burzynski, uh, had his a picture of his house sent to him, clearly the message being, “We know where you live kid,” 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 doesn’t have a law degree so he’s misrepresenting himself
——————————————————————
1:23:15
—————————————————————— Um, but all of this, was done, to critics
Do you think that is deserved ?
Do you think that that is right ?
——————————————————————
Well I’ve specifically stated on my blog that Marc Stephens uh obviously didn’t know what he was doing and went about it the wrong way
My position was he should of bou, got around it, gone about it the way I did, which is, I blog, and show where Rhys is wrong [49], I blog and show where Gorski is wrong [40], I blog and show where you are wrong [2], or Josephine Jones [50], or Guy Chapman [7], etcetera
And, eh, y’all have every opportunity to come on my blog, and I’ve had very few takers, uh, one claiming to be from Wikipedia, who I shot down [51]
——————————————————————
1:24:04
——————————————————————
And hasn’t come back
So, you know, I am welcome to anybody trying to come on my blog, and prove what I posted is wrong, and debate anything
Unlike some of The Skeptics I don’t block people on my blog
—————————————————————— Mhmm
——————————————————————
I don’t give lame reasons for blocking people on my blog because I’m an American and I actually believe in “Free Speech”
—————————————————————— Well to be fair
It it it doesn’t strike me as necessarily a “Free Speech” issue, you know
——————————————————————
Well to me it is when Forbes removes all my comments, in response to Skeptics some, and I showed this from screen-shots
You know, stuff like that [52]
—————————————————————— Was it down-voted ?
——————————————————————
Oh no
—————————————————————— No
——————————————————————
It wasn’t down-voted
—————————————————————— Mhmm
——————————————————————
They, I mean I’ve got screen-shots of where my comments were there, between other people’s comments, and uh, and they just decided to remove all my comments, and I blogged specifically about, you know, what they did and, uh, Gorski’s good friend and pal who authored that particular article
—————————————————————— Mhmm
——————————————————————
So I, I like how The Skeptics run things, you know
——————————————————————
1:25:14
—————————————————————— 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 we’re mostly scientific enthusiasts, there’s 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
——————————————————————
1:26:00
—————————————————————— 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 (laughter), we’re allowed to to let whoever we want into our sandbox if we, you know, uh if we want
——————————————————————
Well I think that people who really believe in “Free Speech,” and when it’s done rationally, I mean, Gorski would never, really respond to any of my questions, so I [53]
—————————————————————— Did he, did he leave them up ?
Did he leave them up ?
——————————————————————
Well I know that he specifically removed a review I did uh of his review of Burzynski I on his web, on his blog
But he’s pretty much left a lot of my comments up that I’ve seen
Uh, but he never really responded to my questions about, what he based his beliefs upon
——————————————————————
1:27:00
—————————————————————— Right, um, do you think that he is required to answer you
——————————————————————
Well I would think, if you’re going to base your position on a certain thing, and then you can’t back it up with scientific literature, uh, you should answer, maybe not specifically to me, but answer the question
Answer to your readers
—————————————————————— Right
——————————————————————
You know, I can tell his readers come on my blog because it shows that they come on my blog
—————————————————————— Mhmm
Um so a a question uh why were why do you have so many Twitter and Wikipedia sock-puppets
——————————————————————
Well the reason I have so many Twitter things is because, obviously, some of The Skeptics will be on there lying about some tweet I sent, and so Wikipedia, excuse me Twitter will do a little ol’, do their little, hey we’re going to block your account while we do blah blah blah, and I’m not gonna waste my time, going through their little review process, I’ll just create another uh Twitter address because, like, you know, if you read the Twitter information you can have a ridiculous amount of uh Twitter I.D.’s, and I’ll just use another Twitter I.D. and continue on
——————————————————————
1:28:15
——————————————————————
And so Wikipedia can say what they want, because I’ve only ever used one I.P., I’ve only got on there during one time, and when they finally said hey, you know, we’re not gonna uh grant your appeal, I completely left their web-site alone, so all that stuff [54]
—————————————————————— Wikipedia
You left Wikipedia
——————————————————————
that they post [55]
Yep [56]
So all that garbage that they posted about me, about how I supposedly got on-line, on these other articles is just entirely B.S. [57]
—————————————————————— Mhmm
Um a
——————————————————————
And if they can prove otherwise, I’d sure like to see it [58]
—————————————————————— Uh We have uh a response from David James, everyone uh gave you a fair shout
You were a spammer plain and simple
You couldn’t, you couldn’t
work out your questions
——————————————————————
But that’s what y’all always say
That’s what y’all like to say, about everything
—————————————————————— Twitter does not
Twitter does not block people for for arguing
Only for spamming and policy violations
——————————————————————
1:29:05
——————————————————————
Yeah I’m sure that’s what they like to say
I mean, you can report an e-mail, or report a twit, and they’ll block it
But um they’ll never come back and say, and this is why we blocked you, for this particular twit, for this particular reason
—————————————————————— 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
——————————————————————
Wikipedia is a joke [59]
—————————————————————— Um, Wikipedia, do you know why um they’ve locked the Burzynski page ?
——————————————————————
Oh sure, I’m sure, that’s no problem [60]
I don’t have any problem with them locking that [61]
You know, I could tell when I was on there, and when Merola was on there, because he had a different I.P. address than me, I could tell they were his questions because of the way they were formed [62]
——————————————————————
1:30:04
——————————————————————
So I said, well they’re not answering his questions, I’ll just take on that role, and uh ask his questions and ask further questions, and they didn’t wanna deal with it, you know [63]
—————————————————————— Did you notice the part where he threatened, did you notice the part where he threatened to expose Wikipedia
——————————————————————
Expose them for what ?
For doing what they do, which is basically provide false information and one-sided information ? [64]
—————————————————————— We have to, well, they they uh are looking that it’s not one-sided information they want to show
Like they discuss, there is controversy about this guy
——————————————————————
Oh, please
They get on there and they say hey, Lola Quinlan fi
