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
Let’s say you’re one of “The Skeptics,”(“The Burzynski Skeptics,”) don’t have a life (but doesn’t that go without saying?), enjoy associating yourself with known liars, cowards, ethically and intellectually challenged individuals, so you grab a newspaper(It’s doubtful that USA TODAY would qualify), and if you do NOT know what a “Newsie” is, go online and select an article which has a plethora of innuendo and allegations, compose a missive to your member in Congressassembled about the nothingness you just reviewed, just don’t piss yourself silly when you shoot that zinger off, because you’ve just sent something to your Congressperson, exhibiting what a whacky weed tobaccoday tripper you are, and a prime example of what “Rocky Mountain High” really will mean, starting January1st, 2014
Congratulations, Colorado
My only suggestion is that you add something like:
“Dear Congressperson Y,
I know your time is valuable, but please allow me to waste some of you and your staff’s, as well as provide you with “fodder” you can hang up on the bathroom wall and laugh about for days!
In the next weeks I will be contacting you about all of the “conspiracy theories” in Jesse Ventura’s book, including; but not limited to:
Area 51
Aliens The Denver International Airport
…
Smoke ’em if ya got ’em !
======================================
Letter to Congress
Dear CONGRESSPERSON’S NAME:
My name is _______ and I am one of your constituents
I am writing to you to request your urgent attention to a matter that involves the abuse of cancer patients, their families, and their communities
A few weeks ago, I wrote to you concerning the Houston cancer doctor Stanislaw Burzynski, and requested that you take action and look into how he was able to continue treating cancer patients for decades under the auspices of clinical trials with an unproven treatment he claims to have discovered, patented, manufactures, prescribes, and sells (at his in house pharmacy) at exorbitant prices
On Friday November 15, Dr. Burzynski was the subject of a front-page exposé in the USA Today
Additionally, since I last contacted your office, the FDA has released site inspection notes into the electronic FOIA reading room about Stanislaw Burzynski in his role as Principal Investigator (also included)
The findings were horrifying
Burzynski (as investigator, the subject of the inspection) “failed to comply with protocol requirements related to the primary outcome, therapeutic response […] for 67% of study subjects reviewed during the inspection.”
This means that several patients who were reported as “complete responses” did not meet the criteria defined in the investigational plan, as were patients who were reported as having a “partial response” and “stable disease.”
This means that his outcomes figures for these studies are inaccurate
Some patients admitted failed to meet the inclusion criteria for the study
Even though patients needed to have a physician back home to monitor their progress prior to enrolling in a trial, the FDA found a patient who began receiving treatment before a doctor had been found
The FDA told Burzynski:
“You failed to protect the rights, safety, and welfare of subjects under your care
Forty-eight (48) subjects experienced 102 investigational overdoses between January 1, 2005 and February 22, 2013, according to the [trial number redacted] List of Hospitalizations/SAE (serious adverse events) [redacted] Overdose [redacted]/Catheter Infection report
Overdose incidents have been reported to you [….]
There is no documentation to show that you have implemented corrective actions during this time period to ensure the safety and welfare of subjects.” [emphasis added]
It seems that these overdoses are related to the protocol, which requires family members to administer the drugs via programmable pump on their own
Further, patient records show that there were many more overdoses that were not included in the Hospitalization/SAE/Overdose list
The FDA reported:
“Your […] tumor measurements initially recorded on worksheets at baseline and on-study treatment […] studies for all study subjects were destroyed and are not available for FDA inspectional review.”
This is one of the most damning statements, as without any…not a single baseline measurement…there is no way to determine any actual effect of the antineoplaston treatment
This means that Burzynski’s studies–which by last account cost $30,000 to begin and $7000 a month to maintain–are unpublishable
It will be stunning if this finding alone were not investigated by legal authorities
Patients who had Grade 3 or 4 toxic effects were supposed to be removed from treatment
One patient had 3 Grade 3 events followed by 3 Grade 4 events
Another patient had 7 disqualifying toxic events before he was removed from the study
Burzynski did not report all adverse events as required by his study protocols
One patient had 12 events of hypernatremia (high sodium), none of which was reported
There are several similar patients
Some adverse events were not reported to the Burzynski Clinic IRB for years
For instance one patient had an adverse event in 1998 and the oversight board did not hear about it until 2005.)
The FDA observed that the informed consent document did not include a statement of extra costs that might be incurred
Specifically, some informed consent documents were signed days to weeks before billing agreements, and in a couple of cases no consent form could be found
The clinic was unable to account for its stock of the investigational drug, an act that would get any other research lab shut down
Sadly, a child, Josia Cotto, had to die from apparent sodium overload before this investigation could be carried out
Despite these findings, when interviewed by USA Today, Burzynski actually said of his former cancer patients:
“As for criticism from former patients, Burzynski says, ‘We see patients from various walks of life
We see great people
We see crooks
We have prostitutes
We have thieves
We have mafia bosses
We have Secret Service agents
Many people are coming to us, OK?
Not all of them are the greatest people in the world
And many of them would like to get money from us
They pretend they got sick and they would like to extort money from us.’”
I am asking you to help me understand what happened at the FDA to allow this man to conduct clinical trials and bankrupt patients in the process despite 10 years of alarming reviews by the FDA
I also ask you to support an investigation into this betrayal of over 8,000 patients and to push for legislation to prevent the most desperate patients from such unthinkable exploitation
I will be calling your office next week to touch base with you and I look forward to your response
Does anyone know SHARON HILL??? ——————————————————————
—————————————————————— no ?
NoNo ??
NO NEVER MATTER ——————————————————————
—————————————————————— NOT HARDLY !
If it’s “Doubtful News”, that’s a “Hint and a Half” that it’s “Doubtful” it’s “News” [1]
In fact, I first received confirmation that what flows down-Hill was definitely, NO doubtfully, NOT news, when she displayed her “propensity” for “density” on #Forbes [2] ——————————————————————
—————————————————————— “Orac”, “The Skeptics™” Dope-on-a-Rope Pope. claimed:
4/19/2013 – “also obsessively read anything posted about Eric Merola or Stanislaw Burzynski on any social media.” ——————————————————————
—————————————————————— 5/7/2013 – “If “Orac” was anywhere close to being 75% sure, I would have already reviewed “Doubtful News,” which received “free pub” on Forbes ——————————————————————
—————————————————————— “The Skeptics™” must have got into Liz Szabo’s ear, since she subsequently short-sheeted herself by being unable to answer her own question ——————————————————————
——————————————————————
Maybe Szabo shoulda asked the F.D.A. !! ——————————————————————
——————————————————————
All that Jerry Mosemak (@jmosemak), Connie Mosemak, and Mosemak Creative(@mosemakcreative) wanted to know was what Twitter thought of their Twerk ——————————————————————
—————————————————————— Bob Blaskiewicz, fresh off the AstroTurf campaign with “Orac’s”orifice, seemed ready to really be headed, right in to rectify on Liz’s ——————————————————————
—————————————————————— Liz, do you really want this anywhere around your backside ? ——————————————————————
—————————————————————— Bob-B obviously confused Liz Szabo with being a “journalist“, when she is a “reporter“
Ms. Szabo, is obviously NOT a“journalist”
—————————————————————— Liz Szabo(USA TODAY) – health reporter, medical reporter covering cancer, heart disease, pediatrics, public health, women’s health, kids/parenting, …
——————————————————————
The question is, how did a “reporter” like Liz Szabo, manage to get her name as the reporter“headlining”“The Skeptics™”“report,” instead of Robert Hanashiro?
Hanashiro had under his belt:
—————————————————————— 8/3/2011 – Urine test may help predict prostate cancer risk [4]
——————————————————————
The best Szabo could cite as support was:
—————————————————————— 3/19/2008 – “Prostate cancer treatments’ sexual, urinary side effects compared”[5]
——————————————————————
Exactly how didLiz Szabo“win” that “pissing contest”?
Even a monkey can report the news:
10/18/2013 – Monkeys ‘talk in turns’ [6]
If @LizSzabo wanted to do a REALarticle on “selling false hope to cancer patients”, then USA TODAY should have done an “investigation” on something like THIS: ====================================== 8/25/2010, Wednesday[7]
—————————————————————— Canadian Man Sentenced to 33 Months (2 years 9 months) in Prison for Selling Counterfeit Cancer Drugs Using the Internet
Hazim Gaber, 22, of Edmonton, Alberta, Canada sentenced in Phoenix, Arizona by U.S. District Court JudgeJames A. Teilborg
Ordered to pay $128,724($75,000fine$53,724in restitution)
Serve 3 years of supervised release following prison term for selling counterfeit cancer drugs using Internet
—————————————————————— 6/30/2009 – indicted by federal grand jury in Phoenix, Arizona: 5 counts of wire fraud for selling counterfeit cancer drugs through website DCAdvice.com
—————————————————————— 7/25/2009 – arrested Frankfurt, Germany
—————————————————————— 12/18/2009 – extradited to United States
—————————————————————— 5/2010 – plea hearing: admitted selling what he falsely claimed was experimental cancer drug sodium dichloroacetate, also known as DCA, to at least 65 victims (.10/2007 – 11/2007) in:
1. United States
2. Canada
3. United Kingdom
4. Belgium
5. the Netherlands
According to plea agreement, charged: $23.68 for 10grams of purported DCA $45.52 for 20grams
or $110.27 for 100grams
plus shipping
Admitted sent victims white powdery substance later determined through laboratory tests to contain:
1. dextrin
2. dextrose
3. lactose
4. starch Contained no DCA
According to court documents, along with counterfeit DCA, packages also contained fraudulent certificate of analysis from fictitious laboratory and instructions on how dilute and ingest bogus DCA
DCA is experimental cancer drug not yet approved by U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in United States
According to plea agreement knew that website DCAdvice.com contained false claims it was only legal supplier of DCA and falsely claimed it was associated with University of Alberta
According to information contained in plea agreement, DCA is odorless, colorless, inexpensive, relatively non-toxic experimental cancer drug highly sought by cancer patients
Doctor at University of Alberta in Canada published report in early 2007 summarizing results of study, which showed DCA caused regression in several cancers, including:
1. breast cancer
2. cancerous brain tumors
3. lung cancer
According to information contained in plea agreement, DCA cannot be prescribed by medical doctor in:
1. United States
or
2. Canada
since:
1. it is not approved for use in patients with cancer
2. nor is DCA available in pharmacies
As part of plea agreement, agreed to:
1. forfeit
or
2. cancel
any:
1. website
2. domain name
3. Internet services account
related to fraud scheme
“Hazim Gaber went from selling false hope to cancer patients to now spending 33 months in a U.S. prison,”
said Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of Criminal Division
“Criminals often seek to exploit the most vulnerable of victims – but offering fake, unapproved medication to cancer patients reaches a new low”
“Today’s sentence shows that cyber criminals who prey on the seriously ill cannot elude justice simply by committing crimes outside of our borders.”
“Gaber used the Internet to victimize people already suffering from the effects of cancer,”
said Dennis K. Burke, U.S. Attorney for District of Arizona
“Now he will go to prison for this bogus business and heartless fraud.”
“The FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office are committed to pursuing individuals who prey on those who are living with the affects of cancer,”
said Nathan Gray, Special Agent in Charge of FBI Phoenix Division
“Today’s sentencing illustrates international law enforcement partners working together to send a message not to use the Internet to perpetuate fraud, especially against those afflicted with a serious medical condition.”
Sentencing part of larger department-wide effort led by Department of Justice Task Force on Intellectual Property (IP Task Force)
Attorney General Eric Holder created IP Task Force to combat growing number of:
1. domestic
2. international
3. intellectual property crimes
protect:
1. health
2. safety
of American consumers
safeguard nation’s economic security against those who seek to profit illegally from American creativity, innovation and hard work
IP Task Force seeks to strengthen intellectual property rights protection through heightened:
1. civil enforcement
2. criminal enforcement
greater coordination among:
1. federal
2. state
3. local
law enforcement partners
increased focus on international enforcement efforts, including reinforcing relationships with key:
1. foreign partners
2. U.S. industry leaders
Announced:
1. Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of Criminal Division
2. U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke for District of Arizona
3. FBI Special Agent in Charge of Phoenix Field Office Nathan T. Gray
Case prosecuted by:
1. Trial Attorney Thomas S. Dougherty of Criminal Division’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section
2. Assistant U.S. Attorney Peter Sexton of U.S. Attorney’s Office for District of Arizona
Significant assistance provided by:
1. Alberta Justice Office of Special Prosecutions-Edmonton
2. Alberta Partnership Against Cross Border Fraud
3. Competition Bureau of Canada
4. Edmonton Police Service
5. Federal Trade Commission
6. U.S. Postal Inspection Service
Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs provided assistance in case
Case investigated by Phoenix FBI Cyber Squad
10-958 Criminal Division ====================================== 7/30/2013 – United States to Settle Cancer Research Grant Fraud [8]
—————————————————————— Northwestern University to Pay Nearly $3 Million to United States to Settle Cancer Research Grant Fraud Claims
$2.93 million – Northwestern University will pay United States to settle claims of cancer research grant fraud by former researcher and physician at university’sRobert H. Lurie Comprehensive Center for Cancer in Chicago
Agreed to settlement in federal False Claims Act lawsuit after government investigated claims made by former employee and whistleblower who will receive portion of settlement
Alledgedly allowed researcher, Dr. Charles L. Bennett, to submit false claims under research grants from National Institutes of Health
Settlement covers improper claimsDr. Bennett submitted for reimbursement from federal grants (1/1/2003 – 8/31/2010) for:
1. food
2. hotels
3. travel
4. other expenses
5. professional and consulting services
6. subcontracts
that benefited:
1. Dr. Bennett
2. family
3. friends
Allegations made in civil lawsuit filed under seal 2009 by Melissa Theis, (2007 and 2008) worked as purchasing coordinator in hematology and oncology at Northwestern’s Feinberg School of Medicine, will receive $498,100 in settlement proceeds
Suit named defendants:
1. Dr. Bennett
2. Dr. Steven T. Rosen
3. Lurie Cancer Center
4. Northwestern
Alleged defendants submitted false claims to United States when:
1. Dr. Bennett
2. Dr. Rosen
directed and authorized spending of grant funds on goods and services that did not meet applicable NIH and government grant guidelines
Government contends has certain civil claims against Northwestern arising out of Northwestern’s improper submission of claims to NIH for grant expenditures for items that were for personal benefit of:
1. Dr. Bennett
2. family
3. friends
incurred in connection with grants as to which he was principal investigator
Northwestern, fully cooperated during investigation, did not admit liability as part of settlement
Agreement releases university and all its affiliates and employees, other than Dr. Bennett, from claims made in whistleblower lawsuit
Northwestern agreed to pay settlement within 14 business days
Agreement covers allegations university submitted false claims to NIH for costs Dr. Bennett incurred on grant-funded research projects involving:
1. adverse drug-events
2. blood disorder known as thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura
3. multiple myeloma drugs
4. quality of care for cancer patients
Dr. Bennett allegedly billed federal grants for:
1. family trips
2. meals
3. hotels
for
1. himself
2. friends
and “consulting fees” for unqualified:
1. friends
2. family members
including:
1. brother
2. cousin
At Dr. Bennett’s request, Northwestern allegedly improperly subcontracted with various universities for services that were paid for by NIH grants
Allegations investigated by:
1. Federal Bureau of Investigation
2. National Institutes of Health
3. U.S. Attorney’s Office
4. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General
“Allowing researchers to use federal grant money to pay for personal travel, hotels, and meals, and to hire unqualified friends and relatives as ‘consultants’ violates the public’s trust,”
said Gary S. Shapiro, United States Attorney for Northern District of Illinois
“This settlement, combined with the willingness of insiders to report fraud, should help deter such misconduct, but when it doesn’t, federal grant recipients who allow the system to be manipulated should know that we will aggressively pursue all available legal remedies,”
he added
“The mismanagement or improper expenditure of grant funds is unacceptable and will not be tolerated,”
said Lamont Pugh III, Special Agent-in-Charge of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General – Chicago Region
“The OIG will continue to diligently investigate allegations of this nature to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being properly utilized.”
Cory B. Nelson, Special Agent-in-Charge of Chicago Office of Federal Bureau of Investigation said:
“The FBI takes allegations of fraud seriously, especially those allegations from insiders who are often in the best position to detect wrongdoing long before it would otherwise come to the attention of law enforcement.”
United States represented by:
Assistant U.S. Attorney Kurt N. Lindland
Under federal False Claims Act, defendants may be liable for triple amount of actual damages and civil penalties between $5,500 and $11,000 for each violation
Individual whistleblowers may be eligible to receive between 15 and 30 percent of amount of any recovery ====================================== Show EmorME the Money ! [9]
—————————————————————— 8/28/2013, Wednesday
$1.5 Million – Emory University False Claims Act Investigation
University Overbilled Medicare and Medicaid for Patients Enrolled in Clinical Trial Research at Emory’s Winship Cancer Institute
Settlement with Emory University
$1.5 million – agreed to pay to settle claims it violated False Claims Act by billing:
1. Medicaid
2. Medicare
for clinical trial services not permitted by:
1. Medicaid rules
2. Medicare rules
Providers generally not permitted to bill Medicare for medical care and services for which clinical trial sponsor agreed to pay
1. United States
2. State of Georgia
alleged Emory University billed:
1. Medicaid
2. Medicare
for services clinical trial sponsor agreed to pay
(and, in some cases, actually did pay, thereby resulting in Emory’sbeing paid twice for the same service)
Investigation of Emory University revealed institution’s clinical trial false billing and led to settlement
Civil settlement resolves lawsuit filed by Elizabeth Elliot under qui tam, whistleblower, provisions of False Claims Act
Ms. Elliot will receive share of settlement payment that resolves qui tam suit
United States Attorney’s Office for Northern District of Georgia
Attorney General Sam Olens announced reached settlement
“This settlement demonstrates our office’s continued commitment to protect crucial Medicare and Medicaid dollars,”
said United States Attorney Sally Quillian Yates
“Treatment of cancer is expensive, and Medicare and Medicaid dollars should be reserved for patients who need services that properly may be billed to these programs.”
“Our investigation of Emory University revealed the institution’s clinical trial false billing and led to today’s settlement,”
said Derrick L. Jackson, Special Agent in Charge of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General for Atlanta region
“Protecting Medicare — and taxpayer dollars — remains a top priority.”
Mark F. Giuliano, Special Agent in Charge, FBI Atlanta Field Office, stated:
“Federal funds, to include those of Medicare and Medicaid, are limited and are to be used as intended”
“The FBI will continue to play a role in enforcing federal law that governs the use of these much needed funds.”
Attorney General Sam Olens stated,
“Cancer research is paramount to saving and extending lives”
“However, strict rules govern the use of Georgia Medicaid dollars”
“My office takes seriously its obligation to ensure that these resources are used properly.”
Case investigated by:
1. Federal Bureau of Investigation
2. Georgia Medicaid Fraud Control Unit
3. United States Attorney’s Office for Northern District of Georgia
4. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Office of Inspector General
Civil settlement reached by Assistant United States Attorney Darcy F. Coty
For further information please contact U.S. Attorney’s Public Affairs Office at USAGAN.PressEmails@usdoj.gov
Internet address for HomePage for U.S. Attorney’s Office for Northern District of Georgia http://www.justice.gov/usao/gan.
Emory Settlement Agreement ====================================== 5/24/1993 – Court Testimony Of Nicholas Patronas, MD:
—————————————————————— Pg. 122
—————————————————————— “We have done– we have an experimental protocol at the NIH where we inject a chemotherapeutic agent through the carotid artery, the artery that goes to the brain, and we have three survivals with this technique, by providing massive amounts of chemotherapeutic drugs to the brain that harbors the tumor“
“And we destroy the tumor, but we destroy a large part of the brain as well, and the patients became severely handicapped, and a life that’s not worth living“
—————————————————————— Pg. 123
—————————————————————— “And so I have three cases with this particular experimental protocol which resulted in killing the tumor, but a large part of the healthy brain as well“
“So overall the protocol was abandoned and is not any more in effect because of the serious side effects that we witnessed”
—————————————————————— Nicholas J. Patronas National Institutes of Health(NIH) http://www.cc.nih.gov/drd/staff/nicholas_patronas.html
—————————————————————— Sharon Hill, you’re just a footnote to this article, because all you did was “cut-and-paste”, and try to pass off David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., FACS and Bob Blaskiewicz as “reliable sources”
You’ve gotta be kidding me !!!
—————————————————————— P.S. A fifth-grader can “cut-and-paste”
Liz Szabo’sUSA TODAY “killer cancer” article as interpreted by “Orac” made 3 claims [0]:
—————————————————————— “Conventional cancer treatment can also cause tumors to swell temporarily,”[1]
“due to”
“inflammation,” [2]
“A patient who isn’t familiar with this”
“phenomenon” [3]
“may assume her tumor is growing”
——————————————————————
The issue with citing these 3 studies is that each then needs to be reviewed to determine if they have any relevance to the patientsBurzynski has treated in the phase II clinical trials:
—————————————————————— [1] – 12/2009 – Pseudoprogression and pseudoresponse in the treatment of gliomas
—————————————————————— 1. Has Burzynskitreated patients with gliomas, brain tumours, or recurrent glioblastoma ?
—————————————————————— 2. Has Burzynski’spatients been treated with combined chemo-irradiation with temozolomide which may induce in 20-30% ?
—————————————————————— [2] – 5/2008 – Clinical features, mechanisms, and management of pseudoprogression in malignant gliomas
—————————————————————— 1. Has Burzynskitreated patients with glioblastoma ?
—————————————————————— 2. Have any of Burzynski’spatients been treated with temozolomide chemoradiotherapy ?
—————————————————————— 3. so-called pseudoprogression can occur in up to 20% of patients
—————————————————————— 4. can explain about 1/2 of 20%
—————————————————————— [3] – In support of this “phenomenon”, the article provides a link to a Canadian web-site which posits:
—————————————————————— “RT/TMZ is now widely practiced and the standard of care for appropriately selected patients, we are learning more about the consequences of RT/TMZ”
“One phenomena, termed Pseudo-Progression (psPD)…”
——————————————————————
The problem is that this only applies to “Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM)”, and the article provides NO proof whatsoever, that any of Burzynski’s “Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM)” patients have taken “RT/TMZ”
——————————————————————
Additionally, the sitecites the reference as:
Sanghera, Perry, Sahgal, et al., “Sunnybrook Health Sciences Odette Cancer Centre” (in press, Canadian Journal of Neuroscience)
(“In press” refers to journal articles which have been accepted for publication, but have not yet been published)
However, the journal article in question was published 1/2010, so it has NOT been “in press” for over 3 years and 7 months [4]
—————————————————————— GorskGeek stupidly suppositories:
—————————————————————— “It’s very heartening to see a story like this in a major news outlet, and I must congratulate Ms. Szabo for her thorough deconstruction of the phenomenon that is Stanislaw Burzynski“
—————————————————————— GorskGeek, just because a great portion of Liz Szabo’sUSA TODAYarticlequoted verbatim from The Skeptics™ play book, does NOT mean she was anymore successful at “deconstructing” Burzynski [5], anymore than you have NOT
—————————————————————— GorskGeek then regurgitates:
—————————————————————— “Remember how I said that Bob Blaskiewicz will want your help?”
I’ve made no secret of how much I dispute David H. Gorski, a la “Orac”, the “self-proclaimed”brain cancer doctor and brain cancer researcher who has been treating readers with an unproven, unapproved, NOT ordinarychemotherapeutic agent since Jesus just left Chicago, bound for Nawlins, seemingly Elaphe longissimaslithering around, under, over, and past all attempts to intestate him and shut him up
Along the way, GorskGeek has become a hero to the cancer hackery industry, touted as the man who can cure incurable insomnia that science-based medicine can’t, even though his treatment, insolence, allegedly pop tarts isolated from bloopers and Uranus that normally keep insomnia in check in healthy people, are by any reasonable definition NOT ordinary chemotherapy
Indeed, they are toxic, with a number of side effects reported, the most common and dangerous of which being life-threatening hyperactivity (elevated sugar levels in the blood)
All you have to do is to type GorsGeek’s name into the search box of this blog, and you’ll find copious documentation of the abuses of patience, science, and critical trials perpetrated by “Orac” and the cult of impersonality that has evolved around him
He’s even acquired his very own film perpougendist, a credulous fellow named Bob Blaskiewicz, who has made 2 astoundingly bad hackumentaries that are nothing more than unabashed hagiographies of the brave maverick doctor curing insolence where no one else can
They’re chock full of misinformation, pseudononsense, spin, and obvious emotional manipulation, and the 2nd one, at least, was very popular
For the longest time, I’ve been hoping that major mainstream news organizations would take this story on
—————————————————————— GorskGeekclaims:
“Now, thanks to Liz Szabo at USA Today, we know from her article Doctor accused of selling false hope to families [1]:
“Yet hypernatremia is one of antineoplastons’ most common side effects, known to doctors for two decades”
—————————————————————— GorskGeek, of course, does NOT care to mention the 2 hypernatremia studies that I listed in the 2nd of my 3 critiques on USA TODAY’s“hatchet job” of Burzynski[2], because, as he accuses others:
THEY DO NOT FIT HIS NARRATIVE
—————————————————————— GorskGeek continues:
—————————————————————— “showed a blood sodium level of 205 millimoles per liter, a level that is typically fatal“
“I was astounded to see that number“
“I’ve never, ever seen a sodium level that high“
“Typically, normal is typically between 135 and 145 mEq/L, with slight variations of that range depending on the lab”
“Burzynski’s excuse, which I’ve heard at various times as being due to an “improper blood draw” or as described above, is purest nonsense”
“Unless the technician spiked Josia’s sample with 3% saline or something like that, there’s no way to get the leve that high”
“Josia almost certainly died because of hypernatremia from antineoplaston therapy“
“To me, this is the biggest revelation of the story:”
“The story and identity of the child who was killed by Burzynski’s treatments“
——————————————————————
I did NOT know that GorskGeek was the Medical Examiner for the United States Food and Drug Administration
—————————————————————— GorskGeek is mistaken, as the “purest nonsense” is his nonsensical claim:
“I’ve never, ever seen a sodium level that high“
The reasonGorskGeek has:
“never, ever seen a sodium level that high”
is because he’s a “hack”, who’s more interested in churning out as many blogsplats as he can, rather than doing real“science-based medicine”research
As evidence of MY claim, I submit:
—————————————————————— 9/2004 – A Non-Fatal Case of Sodium Toxicity (Hypernatremia)
—————————————————————— “6 year old boy who was taken to the hospital following a seizure attack, and lab analyses revealed a serum sodium (Na+) levels of 234 mEq/L”
“A search of the boy’s house led to the discovery of rock salt in the cabinet and a container of table salt”
“Extrapolating from the serum sodium (Na+) level, it was estimated that the child had ingested approximately 4 tablespoons of rock salt, leading to the acute toxicity“
“A literature search revealed that the serum sodium (Na+) concentration in the present report was the highest documented level of sodium in a living person“
Non-Fatal 193-209 mEq/L have been reported previously [3]
——————————————————————
We also learn that—surprise! surprise!—GorskGeek is an enormous tool
(as opposed to having “an enormous tool” His cranium is too small to have “enormous tool”)
—————————————————————— GorskGeek then hacks:
—————————————————————— “Look at him dismiss his critics, particularly former patients, many of whom, let’s recall, have terminal cancer, many of whom are dead:”
“Burzynski dismisses criticism of his work, referring to his detractors as “hooligans” and “hired assassins.””
—————————————————————— GorskGeek, you are a “hooligan”, liar, lame, loser, et al.
—————————————————————— GorskGeek proceeds:
—————————————————————— “You know, whenever I hear Burzynski fans like Eric Merola accuse skeptics of attacking cancer patients, of accusing them of horrible things”
“I think I will throw this quote right back in their faces”
“Here’s Burzynski calling his patients prostitutes, thieves, and mafia bosses, and “not the greatest people in the world,” while accusing them of wanting to “extort money from us.””
—————————————————————— GorskGeek, LAME attempt at another LIE
Burzynski did NOT CALL his patients what YOU claim he called them
Let me repeat it for YOU, because I have the sneaking suspicion that YOU are “intellectually challenged”
BurzynskiSAID:
“We see patients from various walks of life”
“We see great people”
“We see crooks”
“We have prostitutes”
“We have thieves”
“We have mafia bosses”
“We have Secret Service agents”
“Many people are coming to us, OK?”
“Not all of them are the greatest people in the world”
—————————————————————— GorskGeek, just in case you did NOT learn this at the University of Michigan, there is a difference between SAYING“WE SEE” and / or “WE HAVE”, and CALLING someone something
Allow me to provide you with a great example
If I SAY that YOU are the BIGGEST POMPOUS ASS I’ve ever seen, and YOU are NOT a BIG POMPOUS ASS, then THAT is derogatory
However, if I CALL YOU the BIGGEST POMPOUS ASS that I have ever seen, because you really and truly are a BIG POMPOUS ASS; as you are, then THAT is NOT derogatory
—————————————————————— GorskGeek tries again:
—————————————————————— “Not surprisingly, he also liberally uses the Galileo gambit, but that’s not surprising, as he’s repeatedly made the hilariously arrogant and scientifically ignorant claim that he is a pioneer in genomic and personalized cancer therapy and that M.D. Anderson Cancer Center and other world-class cancer centers are “following his lead.””
“Indeed, he claimed to have invented the field 20 years ago”
“Sadly, his publication record does not support such grandiose claims“
—————————————————————— GorskGeek, how would you know ?
You proved that you weren’t smarter than a 5th grader when you could NOT find Burzynski’s1997 Antineoplastons, oncogenes and cancer [4]
—————————————————————— “Curious as to just what the heck Burzynski was talking about here, I searched PubMed for this alleged review article”
“I couldn’t find it on PubMed“
“Perhaps Burzynski proposed this “revolutionary” new idea in a peer-reviewed article that’s not indexed in PubMed, but if he did I couldn’t find it using Google and Google Scholar“[5]
So why should ANYONE believe that you were able to locate the rest of his publications
and review all of them?
Now THAT would be a “grandiose claim”
—————————————————————— GorskGeek was also the village “idiot savant” (minus the “savant”) who face planted:
“how Burzynski never explains which genes are targeted by antineoplastons … “[6]
GorskGeek must have fumed for days when he found I “fact-checked” his fluff and found it false: [7-8]
—————————————————————— GorskGeekhopes to wreak havoc when he harrumphs:
—————————————————————— “For instance, experts are saying the same things I’ve been saying for a couple of years now about Burzynski’s anecdotes of “miracle cures,” such as Hannah Bradley and Laura Hymas”
“The reasons for these anecdotes include:”
“Burzynski often relies on anecdotes, which don’t tell the full story”
“Burzynski’s therapies are unproven“
“Burzynski’s patients may have been misdiagnosed“
“Burzynski’s patients may have been cured by previous therapy“
“There’s a reason why I’ve spent so much time deconstructing Burzynski anecdotes, and it’s for all of those reasons plus that anecdotes are often interpreted incorrectly by patients without medical training”
“Even doctors who are not oncologists sometimes interpret such anecdotes incorrectly to indicate that the cancer therapy chosen is the therapy that cured the patient“
“It’s not just Burzynski patient anecdotes, but it’s any cancer cure anecdote“
“That’s why clinical trials are necessary to differentiate all these confounding effects from actual effects due to the treatment”
—————————————————————— GorskiGeek displays what an abject #FAIL he is, as the question he should be asking is:
Why is the Food and Drug Administration FORCING patients to #FAIL conventional treatments; such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy, before being allowed to utilize antineoplaston therapy ?
If the FDA was NOT doing this, then GorskGeek and the “so-called experts” would NOT have this crutch to fall back on
GorskGeek, please list all the other phase II clinical trials where the F.D.A. has done this, and please also explain what would you do if the FDA did this to YOUR clinical trials ?
I know this might require some “Grapefruits” on your part, but do try and see if you can find yours in order to pull this off, if you’re NOT the coward I think you are
And when you’re done with that, please try to explain away the case of Jessica Ressel-Doeden
GorskGeekwinds up for the pitch of bullshit
He ratchets back his right arm and rockets it right into his rectum, reaches ’round and pulls out this righteousness:
—————————————————————— “Not coincidentally, Hannah Bradley had surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation, and Laura Hymas had radiation and chemotherapy”
GorskGeek, Hannah Bradley NEVER had chemotherapy, unless you are now going to claim that by “chemotherapy” you meant antineoplastons [9]
Hannah specifically mentioned:
“Chemotherapy also mentioned but not strong enough for that” [10]
—————————————————————— GorskGeek:
“Even doctors who are not oncologists sometimes interpret such anecdotes incorrectly” ?
I think you meant, even breast cancer oncologist specialists who are NOT brain cancer oncology specialists interpret incorrectly, you JackASS
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 ?
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,
