Tag Archives: “Amelia Saunders”

September 28, 2013 “The Skepticsā„¢” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz ā€“ 2:19:51

Posted on by
Reply

20131005-081923.jpg
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
“I hope somebody is writing all this down out there, so that we can go back and look at these claims later, right ?”
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:19:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Seriously, Bob ?

Do you really think one of “The Skepticsā„¢” 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 ? šŸ™‚
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
*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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
(0:04:38)
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Are you there ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Yes
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Okay, we might as well get started if were going to do this
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Okay
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
(0:05:00)
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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 ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Okay
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
So what information have Skeptics posted that they uhhh that they missed that demonstrates that Burzynski’s uhhh treatments are effective ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
(0:06:00)
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
What, what have we missed ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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

20131015-191618.jpg

20131015-192120.jpg
0:07:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
(0:08:00)
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
The the
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
The vision cancer
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Right
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
(Correction: NCI)
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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]

20131015-194711.jpg

20131015-195054.jpg
(0:09:00)
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
9:13
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
So, do you think that there is a uh uh conspiracy to keep Burzynski from publishing ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well, what we do know is that in the movie, Merola showed that one page rejection from The Lancet
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Right
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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]

20130930-164002.jpg
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
(0:10:00)
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Clarification: Burzynski and Tsuda
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
(0:11:00)
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
(0:12:00)
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
(0:13:00)
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Alright, ah have you read The Other Burzynski Patient Group ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
I was, on there just yesterday to see some more of your post on there [15]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
So, ahmmm what is your response say to the story of Amelia Saunders ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
0:14:24
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Okay, what part of, what did I get wrong ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Uh was that Amelia and Luna ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
I believe, yes
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Luna was the other one, correct [17]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
And one of the patients, Burzynski has specifically published in one of his scientific publications that maximum dosage is not reached for a month
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
0:15:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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]

20131015-200045.jpg
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
(0:16:00)
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
0:17:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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]

20131015-201656.jpg
0:18:33
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
0:19:11
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
0:20:02
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Uhmmm, what part of that is not absolutely terrifying to you
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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 donā€™t know for sure if itā€™s also something thatā€™s done with the ANPā€™s in just the clinical trials environment
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
0:20:02
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
So, that could be a possibility
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
0:22:26
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
0:23:10
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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]

Uhhh [21]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
0:24:10
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
He’s read everything

I think
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”

20131015-211323.jpg

20131015-213924.jpg
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]

20131015-205255.jpg
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
0:25:07
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well I’ve, I’ve got it on my blog

Uhm

I mean I can forward it to you at some point
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
That would be good

Uhmmm
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
0:26:22
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
27:16
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
What protections are in place for patients as far as that these kids are and and their parents are protected
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
0:27:30
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
0:28:09
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
0:29:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Who had the better results ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well, I would have to find you one, there were like 3
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Okay
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
0:30:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
0:31:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Ummm, do you have any sense of when these trials are going to be published ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well here’s my point, I mean, y’all probably get a better sense from, ummm, Hymas, about what’s going on with that
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
From Laura ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
From her uh fiancƩ, or husband, whatever his status happens to be right now (laugh)
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Right
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
0:32:07
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
When you, when you think about a major, sorry, go ahead
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
0:33:03
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Yeah, right, uh
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Antineoplastons has a better rate ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well from the information that’s been published in certain um publications
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Right
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
And in, and in not only Burzynski’s but elsewhere in, in newspapers or articles, or such like that
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
0:34:47
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
0:35:10
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
But if you think about that, I mean that if it does have a a an improvement rate above uh other treatments
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
0:36:03
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
That’s a long time when someone is dying
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
0:37:02
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well, one of
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
and like these other doctors can do it
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well, we kind of know that that’s a fact [35]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Clarification: NIH, NCI, and the Investigators
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
0:39:11
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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 ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
0:40:04
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Right
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
ah he has asked everything that Burzynski does looks sort of like the behaviors of pseudo-science
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
0:40:56
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
0:41:32
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
0:42:33
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
0:43:15
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
0:43:30
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Um, these are all huge red flags, that you’re dealing with a quack

Um, why hasn’t Burzynski done anything to change that ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
0:44:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Right
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
favorite oncologist didn’t comment about that in his movie review [40]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
0:45:01
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
0:46:08
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Uhmmm
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
gettin’ off about his house, well who cares ?

They don’t know where his money came for that particular source
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
(Clarification: “They don’t know the particular source where his money came from for that house”)
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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 ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
0:47:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Right
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
You know, you know

That’s another thing
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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 ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
0:48:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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 ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well that’s just a known side-effect, your going to know that going in, but we actually have people say
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
So I would ask her about her personal experience instead of saying, you know, instead of quoting some of these other people
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
0:49:20
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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 ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well we all know the FDA is in charge of this, and so hopefully they know what’s going on
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Are they feeding these people their stories ?

Are they feeding these people their stories
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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]

20131015-215557.jpg
0:50:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
0:51:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
0:51:35
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
0:52:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
0:53:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
0:54:02
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
I, I just find that to be contradictory and and self-defeating

Um, let me see
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well, that’s not necessarily true
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
No
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
0:55:08
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
And we don’t have a final report from the FDA on what the findings were
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
0:56:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
0:57:10
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
0:58:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
The exact same thing

Um, and that was a

Have you read Chase’s story
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
I don’t remember specifically

Possibly not
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
0:59:20
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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 ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well he’s using the same 1st generation drug
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:00:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well I’m sure a lot of people leave the doctors office not knowing things (laugh), for decades
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:01:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
This is the whole reason for going

And it has nothing to do with the with the with the drugs
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well we know the contin, the tumors can uh continue to grow for awhile, at least, and certain effects that they probably would
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Which is, which is like which we just pointed out was a was an invisible dragon
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:02:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
The FDA not giving him phase 3 approval [12], the FDA not giving him ODD designation [10]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
So you’re saying because the Orphan Drug Designation and the face that there’s a phase 3, therefor it works ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
And showing that, and showing the FDA that there’s evidence of effectiveness [11]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
So what you’re saying is there’s nothing that would convince you now, that it doesn’t work
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Not until the FDA says it doesn’t work
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well they seem to be doing a good job of it
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:03:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well I’m sure, I’m sure they wouldn’t have done things if they didn’t see some evidence that it was working
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Um, I don’t know if you’ve read Jaffe’s book
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
No I haven’t read it [44]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:04:02
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:05:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
I know what it’s called [44]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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 ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Right
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
So, there there’s a lot to that

Um, uh, but yeah, let me go back to the Twitter feed

Um
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:06:06
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
No, I’m just concentrating on what we’re doing
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:07:16
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:08:03
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:09:07
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Do you think that that could possibly have anything to do with why we’re not seeing the phase 3 advance
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
He’s claimed
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
first starting radiation [20]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
He’s claimed

That’s a different thing altogether

And in fact
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well, you understand why they do that, because in order to, it’s
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
They don’t do that with other drugs [13]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
No, they do do this with other drugs, well, it depends on the type
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:10:01
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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 ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well I don’t buy anything Guy Chapman sells, considering his past record [46]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well, ok

It doesn’t matter where
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
(laughing)
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
It doesn’t matter where it comes from uh, um
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well his theories are suspect, anything he hands out, let me tell ya [47]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
So-kay, um that would be shooting the messenger as opposed to dealing with the question, but
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
But the question may be bogus, because of where the messenger has been bogus a lot of times before (laugh) [48]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:11:04
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
the idea, the best, well, the best, well in that case the best response is “I don’t know”
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
No, that is tied together
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:12:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
(laughing)
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well how would I know ?

I don’t have
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:13:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well you didn’t when I tried to get you to do stuff the 1st time, did ya ? [2]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
What, what stuff would you like
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
(laughing)
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
What stuff would you like me to do ?

I generally, I don’t read your blog
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Uh um, alright
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
And that’s the newest article [2]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:14:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Oh, so this is the Doubting Thomas
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
I thought it was apropos

Of course
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
This is the Doubting Thomas
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
I’m doubting The Skeptics

Exactly
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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 ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Exactly
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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”
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:15:08
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:16:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well my point is he’s proven them to the FDA because they’re the ones
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Could be, but I would have to read, read the
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well when it comes to Guy Chapman, yeah
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:17:03
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
You still there ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Yeah, hello, yeah, you’re back
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Yeah, something cut off there for awhile
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:18:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well I would certainly look at that, but then again I would also look at the FDA granting him Orphan Drug Designation [10]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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 ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Orphan Drug for brainstem glioma and all gliomas [10]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Is it sodium phenylbutyrate or is it the the versions of the drug, the AS10 stuff or A1 or whatever it’s called ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Right, it’s both AS10 AS2-1 and AS
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Clarification: A10 and AS2-1
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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 ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:19:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
So, oh, um

Do you have any questions for me ?

I’ve spent a lot of times asking questions of you
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:22:02
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:23:15
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Um, but all of this, was done, to critics

Do you think that is deserved ?

Do you think that that is right ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:24:04
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Mhmm
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
I don’t give lame reasons for blocking people on my blog because I’m an American and I actually believe in “Free Speech”
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well to be fair

It it it doesn’t strike me as necessarily a “Free Speech” issue, you know
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Was it down-voted ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Oh no
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
No
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
It wasn’t down-voted
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Mhmm
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Mhmm
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
So I, I like how The Skeptics run things, you know
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:25:14
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:26:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Did he, did he leave them up ?

Did he leave them up ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:27:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Right, um, do you think that he is required to answer you
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Right
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
You know, I can tell his readers come on my blog because it shows that they come on my blog
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Mhmm

Um so a a question uh why were why do you have so many Twitter and Wikipedia sock-puppets
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:28:15
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Wikipedia

You left Wikipedia
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Mhmm

Um a
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
And if they can prove otherwise, I’d sure like to see it [58]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
But that’s what y’all always say

That’s what y’all like to say, about everything
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Twitter does not

Twitter does not block people for for arguing

Only for spamming and policy violations
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:29:05
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Wikipedia is a joke [59]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Um, Wikipedia, do you know why um they’ve locked the Burzynski page ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:30:04
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Did you notice the part where he threatened, did you notice the part where he threatened to expose Wikipedia
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Expose them for what ?

For doing what they do, which is basically provide false information and one-sided information ? [64]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Oh, please

They get on there and they say hey, Lola Quinlan filed a lawsuit, but they don’t tell you anything else

They don’t tell you, you know, Jaffe’s side of the story, and her lawyer’s side of the story
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Yeah, Jaffe’s on there
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
(laughing)
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Jaffe’s on there
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Oh Jaffe’s on there but on that specific article about Lola, they didn’t say, here’s the article that was posted on uh Lola’s attorney’s web-site that, that mentions both his responses and Jaffe’s responses, to the uh lawsuit
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:31:10
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
uh well you could add that if you hadn’t gotten blocked
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Uh, trust me, I tried to add that and they wouldn’t add it
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:32:20
Okay

Um, so, who are you
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
(laughter)

You know, The Skeptics like to be nasty, and so, I’ve been like Josephine Jones (@_JosephineJones)

If she wants to play anonymous, I’ll play anonymous [65]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
She’s gotten threats
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well, I don’t threaten people

I don’t threaten Gorski

I don’t send letters to people’s employers

I deal with them directly, and, you know, if if they won’t answer questions, then, you know, I’ll just post them on my blog for other people to see, and question uh themselves
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
So we don’t know who you are
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:33:01
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Like I said, I’m going to be like Josephine Jones [66]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Like, she has suffered at the hands of some really mess, and she’s also, you have to realize she’s in the U.K, where libel laws are very lax at this point

That’s changing, ah, but uh, the the legitimate criticism, there is a big case last, me maybe 2 years ago of Simon Singh, talking about an alternative therapy, and, um, he was just saying that there’s no evidence for it but it’s promoted by um chiropractors, or something, or something like that

And he got slapped with a libel suit that cost him several years of his life and a lot of money

Um, so, there are several reasons why someone in the U.K. might uh be uh reticent to use their real name um, uh, and legitimate reasons

Um, in the U.S., I’m not sure that there is
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:34:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
I’ve been using my real name for a long time now

Um, you know, Gorski blogs under his real name, and is critical of uh, uh, also, let’s face it, everyone know, knows who “Orac” is

Um, how do we know that you don’t work for the clinic ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Because I’ve said so

I’m not even in Texas

I was born in Texas, but I don’t live in Texas

I don’t even, didn’t even, uh live in Houston
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Mhm
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Wasn’t even close to Houston
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well see, one of the the problems is, Ju, I don’t know if you were around for the BurzynskiSaves thing

Did you ever see that account ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Oh, of course, I, I’ve seen a lot of stuff goes on Twitter [67]

I’ve see y’all saying “Oh, we’re “The Skeptics” and y’all know are names,” but, there’s a lot of Skeptics that post on there with pseudonyms, also [68]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Mhmm

Right

Oh no, I mean you have a right to do that but but I I’ve found that posting under a pseudonym diminishes my credibility

Um, so, . . the quote was uh um, uh, “Happily promotes bogus therapies,” was Simon Singh’s quote that got him sued
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:35:10
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Um, but Josephine Jones does it to, quote “protect her family”

Um

So there’s that

Um, are you afraid for you’re family ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well, I’m just not sure how some of these uh Skeptics will react considering their past behavior [69]

I mean, when Skeptics refuse to, I mean they block you on your blogs [70]

They block your comments [71]

You know, they decide, “Well, I’m maybe going to accept one comment from you, but I won’t accept anymore [72]

You know, to me that’s just ridiculous [73]

Uh, the action on Forbes that happened, the action on The Guardian that happened, where, you know, you had someone on Gorski’s blog basically lie to the Gua, to The Guardian to get them to get them to uh block my comment [74]

So, you know, I’m Skeptical of The Skeptics and their uh and what they would do [75]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:36:01
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Um, you don’t see that there would be anything to gain from, from going on-record ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Not really [76]

I like my anonymity just like Josephine Jones likes hers [77]

I mean, I will read her stuff and reply to it and treat it seriously jus, just like any other blogger [78]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Um I I haven’t, I’ve never, honestly, I’ve never seen a Skeptic actually go after a person individually

Um, you know, uh, you, unless they were doing colossal harm to people

Um, to to focus on an, uh, let’s say, call someone’s work for um, yeah

Cite one example, of a Skeptic making shit for a Burzynski shill or anyone else in real life

That’s a quote

That’s, that’s something coming in from, from Guy
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:36:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well the thing is, some of these Skeptics use names, and they’re not necessarily their real names

So, you know, I’ve seen
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Like had anyone ever contacted Sheila Herron, or has anyone to to um, go after her job, or go after um, you know, my brother has gotten stuff from people

He didn’t tell me because he didn’t want to upset me, but my brother gets things from Burzynski supporters that are violent and threatening

I get letters telling me that I suck cancer’s dick

Um, I I’ve all sorts of things um, and I just, I’ve never seen that, that intrusion into real life on the part of uh, um, uh, Skeptics

I’ve never seen them doing that type of of of stuff

I’ve never seen them threatening bogus lawsuits

Um, and I I I wonder there, if there is some sort of, what do you think accounts for that, that difference?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well I think that some people just have bad manners
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Mhmm
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
I mean see, I’ve seen Skeptics on Twitter basically harass someone pro-Burzynski and keep sending them tweets, and that person specifically send them a tweet saying please keep, stop sending me tweets

You know, they didn’t go in and ask Twitter to block the, that particular person

That person just kept sending them tweets
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Mhmm
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
So, you know, I’ve seen that stuff before
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
I’ve I’ve I’ve shown up on, you know, as you, as you might, I imagine you moni, you monitor the Hashtag, right ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Yeah, I’ll look at it, and if you notice, I don’t uh, I usually don’t reply to Skeptics individually because I pretty much figure that y’all are gonna try and get my next account blocked whenever I do that kind of junk, so, well, you know, I just post what I want to post, under the Hashtag
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:38:01
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Okay

Um, which is, which is your right

Um, uh, but every so often I jump in and say, you know, this movie has some flaws in it

You know, that’s something I say rather frequently

Um, and I invite people, if they’re interested, to take a look at a couple of links

I don’t, I, you’ll notice that I no longer force people to like, “Well how do you explain this ?,” because that doesn’t seem to be very persuasive, or work at all

Ah, only people who are open minded to having their mind changed, those are the only ones I want to talk to

So I give them a choice

Kind of like Morpheus in The Matrix really

Um, b, that was a joke for me

Um (laugh), um anyway

Um, but, it it I, honestly, I would encourage you to go on-record, um, but I have, less than nothing invested in that, so, um
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
(Why would I want to reveal my identity, when David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., FACS, a/k/a “Orac” claimed that he was pretty certain he knew who I was ?

Just Bring it, Gorski)

20131015-181243.jpg
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:39:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Uh, what’s next for you
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well I’ll just keep reviewing the, any inaccurate statements I see posted

You know, it depends on if it’s Gorski, you know

Gorski’s gone on there and posted inaccurate stuff, and I call him out, you know he’s basically said on his blog, you know, if I do something inaccurate, you know, I’ll ‘fess up to it

Well, I’ve pointed out where he’s done that and said “Hey, you said you were gonna ‘fess up to it”

If I said on my blog that I was going to ‘fess up to doing something wrong, and you caught me, well, then I should, come out and say, “Okay, you got me”

But Gorski won’t even do that, you know, he just continues to go on down the road, as if
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well what happens

Well what happens if he doesn’t understand what you’re saying ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
(laughing)
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
I mean one of the
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
excuse
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
I mean seriously

Well, one of the problems I think that a lot of Skeptics have had, in in back channel discussions about this is that we don’t understand exactly what you’re saying
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:40:01
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
We certainly don’t understand why you’re so attached to him if you’ve never had any uh, you know, close dealing with uh, uh, with Burzynski

We don’t really understand that
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
I find, I find
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Actually, especially when you consider, that all the information that we’ve put forward, that we’ve backed up with statements from uh, you know, uh, it, it, the statements that we have from from patients saying that you know, we’ve we’ve, we were told that, no that’s not exactly, they put it usually that but that that we believe that getting worse is getting better

Like how could someone continue to defend someone, when we pile up all of these different, you know, sources, saying the same thing ?

It it is, it is beyond us and we wonder if there’s absolutely anything that we could say that would convince you otherwise
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
You know, I’m just going to let the FDA do their job, and let y’all speculate all y’all want

Uh, I mean (laugh)
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
But, I mean, but that means
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:41:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
See, I’m here for full discussion

And y’all don’t seem to want to discuss, after y’all just go out there and spam the Internet with garbage, that you don’t back-up with citations and references and links
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Everything on The Other Other Burzynski Patient Group is referenced

It goes
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
But some of your other stuff that you tweeted that you haven’t backed up with links, and some of the stuff on thehoustoncancerquack isn’t backed-up with links, and Gorski’s stuff
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
There’s very little on
thehoustoncancerquack

There’s very little on
thehoustoncancerquack in the 1st place
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well, that and the anp4all one

isn’t backed up
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Eh, right

The they both go to the same place

Uh un but, you know, we, the thing that that totally befuddles us, and is just endlessly frustrating, is like how many more examples, of patients believing that getting worse is getting better, and it’s not us saying it, it’s the patients saying it
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:42:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
And how many more of those patients do we need to to give you before you will like reconsider that perhaps you might be wrong ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
When the FDA says he’s wrong

I mean, I’m not, I’m not just gonna accept your story
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Burzynski provides the FDA with the evidence, and the FDA makes the
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
The evidence would be
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
the FDA doesn’t approve a drug
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
The evidence
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
if something’s not proved
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
The evidence would be phase 2 trials

And ev the evidence would be a completed and published phase 3 trial

That’s not forthcoming

The phase 3
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well you know that he’s trying

I mean, y’all can sit there and jump up and down all you want
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
You don’t know that he’s trying

He’d start completing these trials

And he would, he would be soliciting um, uh, lots of um, uh, you know, you know he’d be putting out papers constantly um and if the the British Medical Journal example’s anything uh representative of how Burzynski works, he’d immediately tell everyone that his he’s being . . blackballed by the, by the journal, even when it’s just a courtesy that he gets a a rejection
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:43:30
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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

So, given that what would, how many more patients do we have to show you before you consider that you may be wrong ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:44:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well, I’m gonna go with what the FDA is gonna do still because they’re running the show
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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

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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
What I find funny is that y’all complain, “Well, he hasn’t published, uh a final report”

Well his 1st final, was completed in 2009, and like I said, the M.D. Anderson 2006 study wasn’t published until 2, 2013

I mean, so y’all can jump up and down all you want

Y’all want a final report

Well, the final report will be done when the clinical trial is over
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well, unless you’re The Lancet, I guess
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
they test it

Yeah, and they they they want uh, that was evidence of fast-tracking is what, that rejection was uh e was very quickly

Um, so, uh, uh again, the FDA is not the arbiter of this

It’s ultimately Burzynski

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 ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well, I’m not gonna get into speculation, I’m just going to wait and see
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
You’ve been speculating about what the FDA’s motivation are like crazy

Why not speculate about Burzynski a little bit
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well, how have I been speculating ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:46:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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 ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
what the journals keep saying, in response
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
What ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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

20130930-164002.jpg
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:47:06
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Not that he’s been practicing medicine medicine for 36 years, or whatever, it’s when the clin, clinical trial was done
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
The FDA A believes there is evidence of efficacy
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Perhaps based on bad phase 2
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well, we don’t know that

We don’t have the Freedom of Information Act information
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:48:01
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Uh did do do you think that if they thought that he was a real doctor that they all would have refused like that ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
He’s changed things
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Eric said they gave
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
We’ll I’m
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:49:02
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:50:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
He should have access to this

We can’t get it

How how long will it take before you recognize that, nothing is forthcoming ?

How long would that take ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well, I mean, were talking about a blog here
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
(laughing)
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:51:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Nothing thas that has made all of that um, uh, n nothing th th th that uh his peers would take seriously

The other thing that that that strikes me now is that, you know, you you you you keep saying that, well Eric is going to to share things with you

Does it ever concern you eh uh eh occur to you that Eric might not be reliable ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well, he gave you The Lancet information and he posted the e-mail in the movie, and Josephine Jones posted a copy of it
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:52:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Where has Eric been wrong ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:53:05
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:54:16
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Um
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:55:08
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:56:02
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well, I’m sure, I’m sure Gorski would have a comment about that, as he’s commented previously about how he thinks uh Burzynski should publish
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Oh I, I I I certainly don’t think that he would put a lot of stock in it, but I, I, I know Dave Gorski enough, he wants this to work

He has patients who are dying, you know

And if if if let’s say that that Burzynski could get ah his gene-targeted therapy to work on breast cancer patients in in a reliable way, that would be, such a help to these people, that that Gorski’s trying to help
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:57:10
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
And, it it it doesn’t make sense, I mean, there, some of the best um, one of the the most important developments in medical history, was the development of of just washing your hands uh uh before uh uh going in and delivering a baby

Right ?

The guy who did it, was a colossal jerk, but it still worked and it’s the standard now

Right ?

Um, yea, it doesn’t matter now whether or not Burz, whether or not Gorski agrees with how Burzynski publishes

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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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”
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:58:04
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
So then he can go on, you know, for however many years he wants to
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
But he is a, the thing is, the thing is, you thing you have to understand is Gorski, Gorski is a genuine expert, in matters re re regarding on oncology studies

I mean, he has a
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well,
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
He, He’s able to convince people, he’s able to convince people, on the strength of his record, to give him money to carry out research

People who know what they’re talking about

To give him money to carry out his research

Right ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
This is, this is a guy who must phone it in because, he went in there and posted the old Josephine Jones response that, you know, no drugs had been approved by the FDA without their final phase 2 publication 1st being published, which was not a factual statement, and you’ve made the same statement

So I, I’m thinking that Gorski just bought her statement and took it and ran with it, and before he fact-checked it, and what, what happened, it was wrong
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
1:59:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
I mean, Gorski needs to stop phoning stuff in, and check his sources before he posts stuff, because I’ve found many cases where, he hasn’t seemed to do that, and that’s why I question him
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well what about all the other physicians, um, going back long before the Burzynski thing broke on-line

Of all these patients, with whom they have long-established relationships, and then doctors essentially after years, of treating these patients, basically saying, “I can’t work with you anymore if you go to Burzynski”

What about that ?

Di, are all of these doctors just as biased ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well, I found it interesting that uh the one on the, Burzynski 2, you know he gave his ex excuses for not, working with uh, that patient, and, but yet, he was the same doctor that treated a another Burzynski patient, according to the movie
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
2:00:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
I mean, so what does he do ?

Pick and choose ?

Or do doctors pick and choose over there in Britain ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Did he get burned at some point ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well, the movie didn’t say anything
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
We don’t know

Yeah, well, you wouldn’t expect Eric Merola to say that he got, that a doctor got burned

Would you ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well, I fail to see these doctors on there, providing any factual information, anywhere on the Internet about, uh their disagreements, in a serious way, instead of just making these over-broad statements, you know, “He hasn’t published anything in the blah blah blah,” and
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
But he, he doesn’t have, he hasn’t given us his data
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well, he’s provided some data, and specifically 4 publications
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
He’s given, he’s given, he’s given case studies
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
He’s given more than the case studies
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
He’s done

Okay
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
He’s done more than the case studies

He’s specifically given uh, almost all the information om an oncologist would want

And Gorski, and Gorski
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Except for a ph, completed phase 3 clinical trial
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
(laughing)

I mean, I love Gorski, but he comes up with these stupid excuses like, “Well, Burzynski is not an oncologist”
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
2:01:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well, Gorski doesn’t go go in there and look at his other, his phase 2 clinical trial publications, as far as the preliminary reports, and look at the co-authors, and see if any of those guys are oncologists, and that they’re working with Gorski, I mean they’re working with Burzynski

I find that ridiculous
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Yeah

One of the things, one of the things that I’ve noticed going through these um, well, well there there is that

Uh, Guy Chapman, “It’s a blog, not a peer-reviewed publication” [79]

Um, almost no treatment goes out without trials

Massive amounts of data are required

Um, so, it it is kind of, slightly disingenuous to hold uh Gorski to the same . . standard that you would, it on his blog

I think that professionally he would make, he he he would follow-up on these things, but u what I’ve noticed when you you mention these other people who are working with with Burzynski as co-investigators, the co- investigators don’t seem to have access to these, to these records
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
2:02:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Um, you know, when they have to, when a patient has to, and often you have someone like a pediatrician, uh, signing on um uh to eh eh to work with with, uh and arrange care for patients when they’re out of state, away from Burzynski

Um, it’s it’s it’s often not an oncologist

It’s accurate to say that B Burzynski is not a board s uh certified oncologist

It’s accurate to say that no trial has been completed and fully published

Um, yeah it’s um, it it it if, all of the arguing on behalf of Burzynski doesn’t give him a single phase 3

It doesn’t give him um a uh uh of of a completed and and published phase 2

Uh, in in in that sense, you know, uh all the the the, you know, kind of back-peddling and and and trying to defend him is is going to, not going to help his case at all
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
2:03:03
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
What is the issue were not talking about
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Hey, I’ve said it to Gorski

He liked to back his stuff up on the Mayo study, yet he wouldn’t, he wouldn’t uh debate about the Mayo study

He likes to say, “Well, Burzynski is not an oncologist,” but he won’t, say Hey, look at the publications, are any of the guys on the publications oncologists ?

We know that Gorski, we know that Burzynski works with oncologists in his practice

So, just because Burzynski himself is not an an oncologist, does not necessarily mean anything

Do we need to go out, onto PubMed, and, and review every particular person that’s published something about cancer and see if they’re all oncologists ?

Seriously
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
2:04:11
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
I mean, Gorski will just
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Yeah, but they
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
post a lot of stuff without backing it up
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
But they have track records that support the idea that you should trust them
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well, (laughing), I, you know, that’s up to someone’s opinion, considering some of the information that’s that the FDA has accepted, as far as giving these guys approval
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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 ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
How did I say I, I didn’t trust them ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
2:05:12
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well, I didn’t say that they weren’t trustworthy, I just raised questions that no one wants to answer about ’em
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
You’re suggesting that they’re untrustworthy
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
No, I’m just sayin’ that I’ve raised questions and none of The Skeptics wanna to uh talk about ’em
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
I I would say that the the FDA has given Burzynski every opportunity for decades

Every opportunity

When he didn’t have r r really, he got special treatment as far as I can tell

Uh, the, I’m rather stunned every morning I wake up and don’t see in the paper, that that place has has been closed down

I, I really am

Uh, so, you know,that one doesn’t really fly with me either

Um
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
2:06:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well, to me the FDA owes Burzynski for a lot of the garbage they pulled off against him (laugh), not to say, you know, they owe him in that way, but they owed him
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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 ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well, we know a lot stuff they did, but that still doesn’t impress me that they pulled out of the prosecution

I mean
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Yeah, the the the it wasn’t the FDA who was pressing charges, it was a Federal prosecutor
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Right
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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 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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
The, no, claims works

He claims works
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well, he says they work together and they’re not going to work if you don’t use them that way
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
One of the things I think

One of the things that I think is happening here
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
(laughing)
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
One of the things I think is happening here, is that lots of people have worked with Burzynski and then have stopped working with B Burzynski

Uh, you know, uh lots of uh uh uh these partnerships do not seem to work out in the end

I often wonder, if the uh, the way that these things are, are are playing out, because it’s s so reliable that they’re, that these partnerships are going to fail, I I wonder if th they are designed in such a way, that for instance, um a, uh, a a partner would be uncomfortable working with him
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
2:08:18
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Or um or that the specifications for what it takes to enter one of these trials is so high, that nobody will ever enter the trials

I mean, I wonder if they are, what, especially, like why hasn’t Burzynski left the country ?

That’s what I want to know
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Why would he leave the country ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Exactly
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
I think he’s made it clear
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
If he was so, if he was s so persecuted and really cares about getting his treatment out to the world, why wouldn’t he ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
2:09:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
They’re, they’re lots of things going on here

David James has pointed this out, that a lot of questions I’m asking are not going answered

“I still don’t know how long it would take before you would have any doubts about Burzynski”

“I still have no idea, how often we can see patients reporting that signs of getting worse are getting better, before you would change your mind”

I’ve made it very clear that he just needs to have a completed study published and replicated before I support his right to go out and charge people what he’s charging for these, for these drugs, and I’m I’m just not seeing that here with you, and I I wonder what could come from, and don’t worry I will go to your site and I will comment on on on what you’ve run

Um, but, you know, I I I I it’s hard for Skeptics to imagine, what could be gained from engaging with you, if there seems to be no conceivable way, that we can, one, get a straight answer for, how many patients will have to report that getting worse is getting better before you starting doubting your opinion, or, uh, how many uh, uh, how many years does this have to go on before you decide that, “No, we probably just can’t produce the goods”
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
2:10:15
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well, I think The Skeptics, Skeptics are falling short because, you know, they don’t own up to
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
2:11:02
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
So I can say that since the Mayo Clinic 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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Correction: M.D. Anderson
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Why wasn’t that study
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
for me to make up my mind (laughing)
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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 ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
2:12:05
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well I can say, well I’m going to have to wait, the same amount of time I had to wait for Mayo to publish their study; which was from 2006 to 2013
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Clarification: M.D. Anderson
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Why was the Mayo

Why was the Mayo study delayed ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
How do you know it was delayed ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well you said you had so many years before you finish it and go in

ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
I mean, has anybody
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Why, why did it take so long ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Sure
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Um, because, I can ask that question of those researchers, why was this study in this time, and what happened in-between
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
2:13:03
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Why did it take so long for it, for it to come out
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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”
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
2:14:07
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
I I, yeah, the other thing that David James points out is, you know, why 2016 when he’s had 36 years already ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Again, we get back to, when the clinical trial is finished, not when Burzynski started
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Treating people
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
I mean, you would expect to find a results to be published after, the final results are in
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
You would expect the Burzynski Patient Group to be a lot bigger after 36 years, and in fact is
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
You would expect some people would want to have confidentiality, and maybe not want to be included
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
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”
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Why am I unsure ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Uh about the
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
(laughing) I just gave you an example
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
The reasons, the reasons for which that he’s, no, why are you defending him so hard, when you’re unsure ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
2:15:02
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Oh, who said I was unsure ?

I just gave you an example

I mean, I’m just, I believe in free and open debate

I mean, I believe, if y’all are gonna spam the Internet, the Internet with garbage that y’all do not back-up, with specific
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
I’ve backed-up everything that
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
references
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Every time that I’ve tried
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
(laughing)
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
and then other people
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Like your tweet that said uh, “antineoplastons is uron, is Unicorn pee,” right ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Way back

It is about
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
(laughing)
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
It is about as efficacious

We have the same
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
“Burzynski is a vampire”

Good one (laughing)
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Yeah, I’ve, and and I based that on a a a that type of thing
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
He sucks their blood out of ’em right ?

Yeah (laughing)

Humor

Okay, I understand humor
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
You, you, you can read that how you want, right ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
(laughing)
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
There

He does have the accent though

Right ?

No (laugh)
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well, that’s because he’s Polish
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
(laughing)

Alright ?

No, but listen, like, it it it’s not, it, we we don’t understand why you defend himself so hard, when there is such a paucity of of of information out there

Um
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
2:16:09
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
What I defend, is that, y’all post stuff, a lot of Skeptics post stuff, including Gorski, and they do not back it up, with references, citations, or links

Gorski will just post stuff, like he did about saying, you know, the FDA would not approve, uh, accelerated approval, without a final phase 2 clinical trial being published, which was an incorrect statement, he did not provide any link
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Even if it’s true or false you, honestly though
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
We know it’s false
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Even if it’s true or false, in in that particular instance, you know, eh let’s just say that you’re right

Gorski gets that point completely wrong

It has no bearing on whether or not, ANP works
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well, I’m just
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
That’s a Red Herring
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
I’m just
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
You’re just focusing on this, on this little niggly stuff, where the real question, is does it work ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Not
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Are patients getting better at a better rate then not
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
2:17:01
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
That’s
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
or otherwise ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well, that is just lame
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Y’all, Skeptics, like to sh spam Twitter, and social media, with all this negative stuff about Burzynski, but then when I ask you to back it up, you can’t back it up, and then, and then on this conversation you want to come down and pinhole it, to a specific subject, you know, the nitty-gritty

Well, if y’all were only debating the nitty-gritty, we would only be d debating the nitty-gritty, but that’s not what y’all do
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
We’re were talking about whether or not there’s evidence to suggest it works
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well, we know the FDA’s said there is
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
The FDA, see that’s the thing

You, the FDA are are, you know, you invest them with, we’re just, we’re just circling around again
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
(laughing)
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Uh um, alright

Well, this has gone on for rather a, longer than I thought it would
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
2:18:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Um, I, uh, wanna thank you for coming on here

I wasn’t sure that you would actually do it

Um, I’m glad that you did

I’m glad that we talked

Um, I will look at your web-site, and we will, uh, we, uh, you, oh make sure that I I go to your blog and and I talk there

Um
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
And I’ll give you those links that I told you I would give you
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Please do

And I will look at those

Maybe not in the next few days; I’ve got a lot going on but
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Yeah, that’s fine
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Alright

Um
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Well, I thought it was productive too

You know, I don’t see why Gorski is afraid of debating issues
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
I don’t think he is
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
on the Internet, on his blog
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
I don’t think he’s afraid

I just think he’s got a lot going on

He is act, a full-time surgical oncologist and researcher

He does have insane am, he has to pick and choose his battles

And if, if if he saw that we were going to ultimately be circling around our same arguments again and again; kind of like we’ve done here, um, he uh, you, he doesn’t have time for that, I don’t think
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
2:19:00
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
I mean
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Hey, he has time to post about, “Hey, uh, Burzynski got a Catholic award from somebody,” which, has nothing to do with antineoplastons, whatsoever

So, you know, he’s not focusing just in on, “Do antineoplastons work, yes or no?,” “When will Burzynski publish ?,” yes or no ?

You know, he’s putting all this ridiculous side junk, you know

So, I am not going to take that seriously
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Alright

I I would ask that you to to go back over The The Other Burzynski Patient Group and take their stories seriously, because they deserve at least the same amount of consideration that the survivors do

That’s my
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Exactly
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
That’s my kids, okay

Well, Thanks for much for talking

I greatly appreciate it
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
You bet

Thank you
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Alright

Take it easy
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
You too
====================================
====================================
END
====================================
====================================
I thought that this was very productive, because it proved that Randy Hinton was correct when he commented on #Forbes:

“[Y]ou people always control the conversation“
====================================
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
====================================
[0] – Bobby Blaskiewicz Bows Up ā€˜Bout Burzynski:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/bobby-blaskiewicz-bows-up-bout-burzynski/
======================================
[1] – 9/28/2013 ā€“ Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz ā€“ 2:19:51
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
http://m.youtube.com/?client=mv-google#/watch?v=pa97hXMbUL0
======================================
[2] – The Skepticsā„¢ā€ Robert J. (donā€™t call me ā€œBobbyā€) Blaskiewicz wants to Debate:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/27/the-skeptics-robert-j-dont-call-me-bobby-blaskiewicz-wants-to-debate/
======================================
[3] – ā€œThe Skepticsā€ are ā€œdebatableā€:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/29/the-skeptics-are-debatable/
======================================
[4] – Bob Burzynski Skeptic Sez Multiforme Manuscript Meme Message Memorable:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/30/bob-burzynski-skeptic-sez-multiforme-manuscript-meme-message-memorable/
======================================
[5] – What to do when a Burzynski Skeptic suggests you not do it:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/what-to-do-when-a-burzynski-skeptic-suggests-you-not-do-it/
======================================
[6] – ā€œThe Skepticsā„¢ā€ Definition of ā€œDebateā€
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/03/the-skeptics-definition-of-debate/
======================================
[7] – A Message to Guy ā€œCanā€™t Git-R-Doneā€ Chapman:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/03/a-message-to-guy-cant-git-r-done-chapman/
======================================
[8] ā€“ About | Didymus Judas Thomasā€™ Hipocritical Oath Blog
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/about/
======================================
[9] – Burzynski: The FDAā€™s Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-the-fdas-drug-review-process-ensuring-drugs-are-safe-and-effective/
======================================
[10] – Critiquing: The Institute of Medicine report on cancer care: Is the system ā€œin crisisā€?:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/critiquing-the-institute-of-medicine-report-on-cancer-care-is-the-system-in-crisis/
======================================
[11] – Burzynski: Not every cancer clinical trial taking place in the United States is listed on our NCI clinical trials database:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/burzynski-not-every-cancer-clinical-trial-taking-place-in-the-united-states-is-listed-on-our-nci-clinical-trials-database/
======================================
[12] – Burzynski Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Links:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/29/burzynski-securities-and-exchange-commission-sec-links/
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
http://www.itnonline.com/article/fda-approves-trial-radiation-therapy-brain-stem-glioma
======================================
[13] – Burzynski: Why has the FDA NOT granted Accelerated Approval for Antineoplastons A10 (Atengenal) and AS2-1 (Astugenal) ?:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/burzynski-why-has-the-fda-not-granted-accelerated-approval-for-antineoplastons-a10-astengenal-and-as2-1-astugenal/
======================================
[14] – FINALLY, one of ā€œThe Skepticsā„¢ā€ has the ā€œBallsā€ to do what even Dr. David H. ā€œOracā€ Gorski would NOT do:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/12/finally-one-of-the-skeptics-has-the-balls-to-do-what-even-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-would-not-do/
======================================
[15] – The Guardian: Censorship and Bias ā€“ Six stubborn myths about cancer:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/31/the-guardian-censorship-and-bias-six-stubborn-myths-about-cancer/
======================================
[16] – Critiquing: Ameliaā€™s family ā€˜mislead by cancer clinicā€™:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/23/critiquing-amelias-family-mislead-by-cancer-clinic/
======================================
[17] – Critiquing: Watford Observer ā€“ ā€˜He said he hoped to cure my daughterā€™:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/22/critiquing-watford-observer-he-said-he-hoped-to-cure-my-daughter/
======================================
[18] – Review Articles on Clinical Trials:

1. 3/2004 ā€“ The Present State of Antineoplaston Research

Integrative Cancer Therapies 2004;3:47-58
Volume 3, No. 1, March 2004

DOI: 10.1177/1534735-403261964

Volume 3 Number 1.March.2004

Pg. 50
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”

Click to access 994.pdf

======================================
[19] – Antineoplastons: Adverse Effects:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/antineoplastons-adverse-effects/
======================================
[20] – Critiquing David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/critiquing-david-h-gorski-md-phd-facs-www-sciencebasedmedicine-orgeditorial-staffdavid-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
======================================
[21] – Critiquing: Dr. David H. ā€œOracā€ Gorski, M.D., Ph.D, LIAR: Stanislaw Burzynski versus the BBC:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/04/critiquing-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-m-d-ph-d-liar-stanislaw-burzynski-versus-the-bbc/
======================================
[22] – Critiquing: Dr. David H.
ā€œOracā€Gorski, M.D., Ph.D, L.I.A.R.:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/07/critiquing-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-m-d-ph-d-l-i-a-r/
======================================
[23] – My Critique of Bob Blaskiewicz (Colorado Public Television ā€“ PBS CPT12):
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/my-critique-of-bob-blaskiewicz-colorado-public-television-pbs-cpt12/
======================================
[24] – Burzynski: Institutional Review Board (IRB):
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/burzynski-institutional-review-board-irb/
======================================
[25] – Critiquing https://theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/24/critiquing-httpstheotherburzynskipatientgroup-wordpress-com/
======================================
[26] – WHAT IS MISDIRECTION? Critiquing
ā€œAntineoplastons: Has the FDA kept its promise to the American people ?ā€
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/what-is-misdirection-critiquing-antineoplastons-has-the-fda-kept-its-promise-to-the-american-people/
======================================
[27] – Burzynski: HYPERNATREMIA:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/burzynski-hypernatremia/
======================================
[28] – Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, quickly realized that David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS is NOT doing something wrong when he LIES about Burzynski:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/wayne-state-university-detroit-michigan-quickly-realized-that-david-h-gorski-md-phd-facs-is-not-doing-something-wrong-when-he-lies-about-burzynski/
======================================
[29] – Burzynski: Egypt antineoplaston publications:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-egypt-antineoplaston-publication/
======================================
[30] – Burzynski: Russia antineoplaston publications:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-russia-antineoplaston-publications/
======================================
[31] – Burzynski: Poland antineoplaston publications:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-poland-antineoplaston-publications/
======================================
[32] – Burzynski: China antineoplaston publications:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-china-antineoplaston-publications/
======================================
[33] – Burzynski and China / Taiwan, ROC:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/burzynski-china-taiwan-roc/
======================================
[34] – Burzynski and Taiwan, ROC:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/burzynski-taiwan-roc/
======================================
[35] – Critiquing: Dr. Michael A. Friedman, Dr. Mark G. Malkin, Dr. Mario Sznol, Robert B. Lanman, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Mayo Clinic, Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), Public Health Service, Quality Assurance and Compliance Section, Regulatory Affairs Branch (RAB), Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP), Division of Cancer Treatment (DCT), National Cancer Center (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Stanislaw Burzynski: On the arrogance of ignorance about cancer and targeted therapies:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/critiquing-stanislaw-burzynski-on-the-arrogance-of-ignorance-about-cancer-and-targeted-therapies/
======================================
[36] – Burzynski Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Links:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/29/burzynski-securities-and-exchange-commission-sec-links/
======================================
[37] – Burzynski: Japan antineoplaston publications:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/burzynski-japan/
======================================
[38] – Critiquing the #SkepticCanary: ā€œThe Skepticsā„¢ā€ (SkeptiCowardsĀ©) Bob Blatherskitewicz and the so-called, self-proclaimed “Cancer Researcherā€œ:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/critiquing-the-skepticcanary-the-skeptics-skepticowards-bob-blatherskitewicz-and-the-so-called-self-proclaimed-cancer-researcher/
======================================
[39] – September 28, 2013 ā€œThe Skepticsā„¢ā€ Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz ā€“ 2:19:51:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/04/september-28-2013-the-skeptics-burzynski-discussion-by-bob-blaskiewicz-21951/
======================================
[40] – Critiquing: In which the latest movie about Stanislaw Burzynski ā€œcancer cureā€ is reviewedā€¦with Insolence:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/critiquing-in-which-the-latest-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-cure-is-reviewed-with-insolence-2/
======================================
[41] – What to do when a Burzynski Skeptic suggests you not do it:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/what-to-do-when-a-burzynski-skeptic-suggests-you-not-do-it/
======================================
[42] – Critiquing ā€œWhen is a skeptic not a skepticā€:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/26/critiquing-when-is-a-skeptic-not-a-skeptic/
======================================
[43] – Critiquing: In which Orac does Stanislaw Burzynski propagandist Eric Merola a favorā€¦:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/critiquing-in-which-orac-does-stanislaw-burzynski-propagandist-eric-merola-a-favor/
======================================
[44] – Galileo’s Lawyer
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
http://www.richardjaffe.com/jaffe/
======================================
[45] – Burzynski: The Original 72 Phase II Clinical Trials:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/09/burzynski-the-original-72-phase-ii-clinical-trials/
======================================
[46] – Critiquing ā€œBurzynski: Another fact-blind troll, who predicted that?ā€:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/critiquing-burzynski-another-fact-blind-troll-who-predicted-that/
======================================
[47] – My review of ā€œBurzynski: A note to the PBS ombudsmanā€:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/23/my-review-of-burzynski-a-note-to-the-pbs-ombudsman/
======================================
[48] – guychapman (Guy Chapman) Critiquing ā€œThe Skepticā€ Burzynski Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics (page 9):
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/05/guychapman-guy-chapman-critiquing-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics-page-9/
======================================
[49] – I find Rhys Morgan abnormally prehensile:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/i-find-rhys-morgan-abnormally-prehensile/
======================================
[50] – josephinejones (@_JosephineJones), D Nile ist
http://josephinejones.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/happy-birthday-dr-burzynski-and-goodbye-antineoplastons/comment-page-1/#comment-8921
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/23/josephinejones-_josephinejones-d-nile-ist-httpjosephinejones-wordpress-com20130123happy-birthday-dr-burzynski-and-goodbye-antineoplastonscomment-page-1comment-8921/
======================================
[51] – I show JzG what a
ā€œFACTā€ is: Burzynski: FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions): Clinical Trial Results:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/i-show-jzg-what-a-fact-is-burzynski-faq-frequently-asked-questions-clinical-trial-results/
======================================
[52] – Dr. Peter A. Lipson (and / or his Censor(s)) is a Coward: Critiquing ā€œA Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Criticsā€:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/dr-peter-a-lipson-and-or-his-censors-is-a-coward-critiquing-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/
======================================
[53] – IMPORTANT: The live ā€œdebateā€ that wasnā€™t-A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/important-the-live-debate-that-wasnt-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/
======================================
[54] – ā€œThe Skeptics:ā€ Your problem is, Wikipedia IS censored:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/the-skeptics-your-problem-is-wikipedia-is-censored/
====================================
[55] – Wikipedia, whatā€™s your motivation?:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/wikipedia-whats-your-motivation/
====================================
[56] – WikipediA or WikipediAinā€™t ?:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/wikipedia-or-wikipediaint/
====================================
[57] – Wikipedia, your Burzynski BIAS is showing:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/18/wikipedia-your-burzynski-bias-is-showing/
====================================
[58] – Wikipedia, youā€™ve sprung a Wiki Leak:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/wikipedia-youve-sprung-a-wiki-leak/
====================================
[59] – On the 6th day, HE created WIKIPEDIA, and on the 7th, WikipedBiaS:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/30/on-the-6th-day-he-created-wikipedia-and-on-the-7th-day-wikipedbias/
====================================
[60] – Wikipedia, do you serve up Mud Pies with your Wikipedia Lies ?:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/31/wikipedia-do-you-serve-up-mud-pies-with-your-wikipedia-lies/
====================================
[61] – Critiquing: Wikipedia ā€“ Burzynski Clinic:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/10/critiquing-wikipedia-burzynski-clinic/
====================================
[62] – Critiquing Wikipedia: Burzynski Clinic, Colorado Public Television (CPT12), and Public Broadcasting System (PBS)
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/12/critiquing-wikipedia-burzynski-clinic-colorado-public-television-cpt12-and-public-broadcasting-system-pbs/
====================================
[63] – A Critical Analysis of Wikipediaā€™s ā€œFailure to Communicateā€
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/13/a-critical-analysis-of-wikipedias-failure-to-communicate/
====================================
[64] – Critiquing Wikipedia: Burzynski Clinic ā€“ 2013 BBC documentary, Curing cancer or ā€˜selling hopeā€™ to the vulnerable?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/22/critiquing-wikipedia-burzynski-clinic-2013-bbc-documentary-curing-cancer-or-selling-hope-to-the-vulnerable/
======================================
[65] – Josephine Jones and the Cult of Misinformation:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/josephine-jones-and-the-cult-of-misinformation/
======================================
[66] – The Burzynski Skeptics:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/the-burzynski-skeptics/
======================================
[67] – ā€œThe Skepticsā€ (Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business, Part II) |:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/the-skeptics/
====================================
[68] – Critiquing the Skeptics re ā€œFunny how you never see Orac and this person in the same place at the same timeā€:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/critiquing-the-skeptics-re-funny-how-you-never-see-orac-and-this-person-in-the-same-place-at-the-same-time/
====================================
[69] – ā€œThe Skepticsā€-Tracking the Twits that Tweet:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/the-skeptics-tracking-the-twits-that-tweet/
====================================
[70] – Shall We Play A Game? ā€œThe Skepticsā€ (SkeptiCowards) vs. ā€œThe Skepticsā€™ā€ Critics #Burzynski The 1st ever ā€œLIE OFFā€:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/23/shall-we-play-a-game-the-skeptics-skepticowards-vs-the-skeptics-critics-burzynski-the-1st-ever-lie-off/
====================================
[71] – ā€œThe Skepticsā€ Theme Song:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/25/the-skeptics-theme-song/
====================================
[72] – Thawing out ā€œThe Skepticsā€ @FrozenWarning (FrozenBoring):
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/01/thawing-out-the-skeptics-frozenwarning-frozenboring/
====================================
[73] – ā€œThe Skepticsā„¢ā€ Doctor David H. Gorski is one of the ā€œSkeptiCowardsĀ©ā€ (I kid you not): Houston, We Have a Problem:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/02/the-skeptics-doctor-david-h-gorski-is-one-of-the-skepticowards-i-kid-you-not-houston-we-have-a-problem/
====================================
[74] – QUESTIONS the Critics and Cynics, ā€œThe Skepticsā„¢ā€ do NOT want to ANSWER:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/23/questions-the-critics-and-cynics-the-skeptics-do-not-want-to-answer/
====================================
[75] – The Burzynski Skeptics:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/the-burzynski-skeptics/
====================================
[76] – Critiquing: Stanislaw Burzynski comments on new cancer science, hilarity ensues because of The Skepticsā„¢ comments:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/critiquing-stanislaw-burzynski-comments-on-new-cancer-science-hilarity-ensues-because-of-the-skeptics-comments/
====================================
[77] – FINALLY, one of ā€œThe Skepticsā„¢ā€ has the ā€œBallsā€ to do what even Dr. David H. ā€œOracā€ Gorski would NOT do:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/12/finally-one-of-the-skeptics-has-the-balls-to-do-what-even-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-would-not-do/
====================================
[78] – The Skeptics @Majikthyse reveals madjik research skilz:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/26/the-skeptics-majikthyse-reveals-madjik-research-skilz/
====================================
[79] – The dishonesty of Guy Chapman, ā€œThe Skepticsā€ shill:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/12/the-dishonesty-of-guy-chapman-the-skeptics-shill/
====================================
======================================
[80] –

====================================

Critiquing: Amelia’s family ‘mislead by cancer clinic’

Posted on by
Reply

6/5/2013 – This article was published By Getreading [1]

“A family who sent their terminally ill daughter to the US for experimental treatment said the clinic misled them about her chances of survival“

“The parents of Pride of Reading Child of Courage winner, four-year-old Amelia Saunders who died in January, say they were told she had a 54 per cent chance of survival with the clinical trial in Houston, Texas“

“However mum Chantal Saunders, 36, believes the actual figure was just one per cent“
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Based on what ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
“A BBC Panorama investigation shown on Monday questioned whether the Burzynski Clinic was ā€œselling hopeā€ to families“
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Aren’t all cancer treatments “selling hope” ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
“In it, Mrs Saunders said:”

ā€œI think thatā€™s wrong” [54 per cent figure]

“I think thatā€™s a complete lie”

“I think one per cent is a more accurate figure.ā€
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Based on what ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
“Dad Richard, 35, says he has only found two patients of Dr Stanislaw Burzynski with the same rare brain tumour as Amelia who survived long-term”

“Mr Saunders, from Lower Earley, said:”

ā€œIt didnā€™t work for Amelia but we absolutely know it works for other people.ā€

ā€œItā€™s hard to believe it works for Ameliaā€™s tumour type and thatā€™s what we have found tricky”

ā€œIā€™ve had all sorts of excuses from them as to why they wonā€™t release data on how many patients they treat and the outcomes”

ā€œI think the figures Panorama were given show there was 700-odd patients they treated and something like 15 per cent survived over five years“
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Panorama’s figures were:

ā€œThey say 776 patients with brain tumours were treated in trials before 2008.ā€

ā€œAnd that 15.5% had survived more than five years, which compares favourably to other treatments.ā€ [2]
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
“If you look at all brain tumours thatā€™s almost identical to any other treatment”
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Based on what ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
ā€œIf you look at Ameliaā€™s tumour alone youā€™re looking at almost zero per cent.ā€

“Amelia was diagnosed with a rare tumour on her brain stem in February last year“

“Her devastated family was told by doctors there was no treatment available in Britain”

“After finding out about Burzynskiā€™s clinical trial, which has been running for 20 years, Ameliaā€™s family decided to raise the money needed for the ā€˜antineoplastonā€™ treatment ā€“ a staggering Ā£250,000 ā€“ in just a few weeks through donations”

“Mrs Saunders, who also has two-year-old daughter Charlotte, said:”

ā€œHe was giving us more hope than I think realistically there was”
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Based on what ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
“Mr Saunders added:”

ā€œWe find it very hard to believe the treatment did nothing”

“We did no chemotherapy with her”

“To keep it stable for 11 months is incredible in itself, but how do we prove that?”

ā€œWe canā€™t.ā€
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Why not ?

Were there not scans ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
“In November last year Dr Burzynski told the family a new scan showed Ameliaā€™s tumour was breaking down“

“UK doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital in London said it actually showed the tumour was continuing to grow“
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Based on what ?

Great Ormond Street Hospital having 36 years of experience treating patients with antineoplastons ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
“The family decided to stop the Burzynski treatment a few weeks later”
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
Based on what ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
“Although the family now has doubts over Burzynskiā€™s success rate, Richard says they have spoken to others who have been helped by the drug”
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
“The family now has doubts over Burzynski’s success rate” ?

What was all this, then ?

a) “A family who sent their terminally ill daughter to the US for experimental treatment said the clinic misled them about her chances of survival“

b) “However mum Chantal Saunders, 36, believes the actual figure was just one per cent“

c) ā€œI think thatā€™s wrong” [54 per cent figure]

“I think thatā€™s a complete lie”

d) “I think one per cent is a more accurate figure.ā€

e) ā€œHe was giving us more hope than I think realistically there was”
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
“He said:”

ā€œWe asked repeatedly throughout the time Amelia was under treatment for evidence to back up his claims, and he at no point produced this”

ā€œWe found patients ourselves through Facebook, forums, email and word of mouth”

ā€œWe want everyone to know that there are people who are living proof that the treatment works ā€“ but it just didnā€™t for our little girl”

ā€œWe just wish Dr Burzynski would speak the truth, and release proper, tangible results.ā€
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
So, you wanted him to “release proper, tangible results” before the clinical trials were finished ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
“The Saunders family have donated the rest of the money raised for Amelia to cancer research and other charities”

“This included Ā£50,000 to a cancer treatment research team at the University of Nottingham“

“Its Professor Richard Grundy said it was ā€œunethicalā€ for Dr Burzynski not to publish results from his trial“
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
So, you wanted him to “publish results from his trial” before the clinical trial was finished ?
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
ā€œUnfortunately the results from Dr Burzynskiā€™s clinic are not published in any form thatā€™s acceptable to the scientific community,ā€ he said”
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
So a donation of Ā£50,000 was made, which included to a cancer treatment research team at the University of Nottingham, where Professor Richard Grundy; who exhibits NO knowledge of antineoplastons in this article, is

How “convenient” for him and the University

In my ‘opinion,ā€™ it is “unethicalā€ for Professor Grundy to NOT share his findings re Dr. Burzynskiā€™s 2003-2010 phase 2 clinical trial preliminary reports [3]

He reminds of the situation that Burzynski found himself in when he relates that clinical investigators decided to change the protocol without his approval on a clinical trial of antineoplastons

Seriously, who in their right mind would ignore the input of the inventor and developer of a medicine with close to 20 years of clinical experience, and think they know more than that person ? [4]
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] ā€“ Reading Post, Amelia’s family ‘mislead by cancer clinic’, By Getreading | 5 Jun 2013 07:59
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/amelia-saunders-family-mislead-burzynski-4051287
======================================
[2] ā€“ 8/4/2013 ā€“ Critiquing Dr David H. ā€œOracā€ Gorski, M.D., Ph.D, LIAR: Stanislaw Burzynski versus the BBC:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/04/critiquing-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-m-d-ph-d-liar-stanislaw-burzynski-versus-the-bbc/
======================================
[3] – 9/22/2013 – Critiquing Wikipedia: Burzynski Clinic ā€“ 2013 BBC documentary, Curing cancer or ā€˜selling hopeā€™ to the vulnerable?;
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/22/critiquing-wikipedia-burzynski-clinic-2013-bbc-documentary-curing-cancer-or-selling-hope-to-the-vulnerable/
======================================
[4] – Critiquing: National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) CancerNet ā€œfact sheetā€:
ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”ā€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/critiquing-national-cancer-institute-nci-at-the-national-institutes-of-health-nih-cancernet/
======================================

DJT’s Comments – September 28, 2013 ā€œThe Skepticsā„¢ā€ Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz ā€“ 2:19:51

Posted on by
Reply

Yes
Okay
Well as I put in my about page, I agreed with the juror that he was neither guilty or innocent
So, so since I see all this opposition by these Skeptics, and I see that the theyā€™re getting all of their facts straight
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
And since I see ahhh yā€™all pretty much trying to take over the net with yā€™allā€™s information I decided to come back and correct all the false information that was being put out by other Skeptics
Well the major issue is that the FDAā€™s own information says if phase 3 trials are approved ā€“ phase 2 trials is to see if thereā€™s evidence of effectiveness
And so if phase 3 trials are approved, that means youā€™ve provided evidence of effectiveness
Thatā€™s the FDAā€™s own information ā€“ I have that clearly on my blog
Also the FDA has given Burzynski uhhh Orphan Drug Designation in 2004 for uhhh brainstem glioma and then in 2009 for all gliomas
So that must mean that there is evidence of effectiveness, otherwise I donā€™t think they would be doing that
Well the issue is he was given 2 phase 3 trials that we know of
One was on uh Clinical Trials . gov ā€“ the one about eye cancer
The vision cancer
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 donā€™t post all clinical trials on our web-site
And so he obviously had that other one about brainstem glioma, that he was trying to get started
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
Well, what we do know is that in the movie, Merola showed that one page rejection from The Lancet
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
Of course, I understand their 2nd response, which came out, which Eric posted on his Facebook page, yā€™all, that yā€™all have talked about ā€“ that, you know, theyā€™re busy, they get a lot of
submissions
I understand that, so obviously he would have to look for a different publication for both of those, things heā€™s trying to get published
Well a lot of the time Iā€™m making fun of yā€™allā€™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, Iā€™ve proven him to be frequently incorrect about his information and misleading
And so Iā€™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 yā€™all, sometimes Iā€™ll check it out and sometimes I wonā€™t, and sometimes Iā€™ll comment on it
I was, on there just yesterday to see some more of your post on there
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
Well I also did a critique of the newspaper story that was put out about Amelia in the U.K.
And they had 2, 2 patients that were dealt with
And
I believe, yes
And one of the patients, Burzynski has specifically published in one of his scientific publications that maximum dosage is not reached for a month
So if someone, so if someone only goes in there and has treatment for a month, theyā€™re not even, you know, theyā€™re finally going to reach the uh maximum dosage
And I think that was maybe the case with Luna, I think she was only there for a month
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
So, you know, it just didnā€™t tell, if only one month of treatment was enough to even start to do anything for her
Well the thing is, the FDA has approved phase 3, and also given them the Orphan Drug Designation, which means they should have some knowledge about whatā€™s going on, I would think
Plus we donā€™t know for sure, weā€™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 thatā€™s one of the things Burzynski has tried to do, ah heā€™s specifically mentioned it in his personalized treatment
But I donā€™t know for sure if itā€™s also something thatā€™s done with the ANPā€™s in just the clinical trials environment
So, that could be a possibility
Well
Well what I find interesting about these other doctors is like like the doctors mentioned in the movie and BBC Panoramaā€™s report and in some of these newspaper articles where they are mentioned again is that these doctors never do a review of Burzynskiā€™s scientific publications and including our favorite oncologist who refuses to do so
Uhhh
Oh yeah he says heā€™s read everything but uh you know he claims that heā€™s uhmmm reviewed, reviewed uh Burzynskiā€™s personalized gene targeted therapy but he, but then just a few months ago he admitted, you know, I donā€™t know where Burzynski says which genes are targeted by antineoplastons
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 youā€™ve read and reviewed every Burzynski publication and you didnā€™t know which genes are targeted by antineoplastons when thatā€™s specifically in the publications ?
To me that tells me that you do not know how antineoplastons work be because you just admitted you donā€™t know which genes Burzynski talks about
I mean thatā€™s just funny as heck to me that he would say that
Well Iā€™ve, Iā€™ve got it on my blog
Uhm
I mean I can forward it to you at some point
But I agree with you about I donā€™t remember seeing anything about antineoplastons cutting off the blood flow to the, you know the blood brain barrier for sure either
Well I think I know the point that youā€™re getting at uhhh about the IRBā€™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, itā€™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
So itā€™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 Burzynskiā€™s publications specifically said, you know this particular uh clinical trial, the IRB was agreed upon by the FDA
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
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
Well, I would have to find you one, there were like 3
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, whatā€™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 thatā€™s not necessarily how the clinical trial system works
Well hereā€™s my point, I mean, yā€™all probably get a better sense from, ummm, Hymas, about whatā€™s going on with that
From her uh fiancƩ, or husband, whatever his status happens to be right now
And uh also from Ric, uh theyā€™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
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
And my other point is that, uhmmm, when these trials finish, as Iā€™ve pointed out on my blog, M.D. Anderson finished a trial in 2006 and didnā€™t publish the results electronically until January of this year
So, just think
Burzynskiā€™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, thatā€™s understandable
So, we know that heā€™s trying to publish, uh but theyā€™re going to keep it close to the vest obviously, from, from how they do their things, and where theyā€™re trying to publish
And plus, like Iā€™ve said before
Weā€™ve still got the accelerated approval thing thatā€™s out there, you know, like the FDAā€™s given Temodar and, and Avastin, and another drug, whereas theyā€™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
Well from the information thatā€™s been published in certain um publications
And in, and in not only Burzynskiā€™s but elsewhere in, in newspapers or articles, or such like that
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 weā€™re approving it anyway
Basically thatā€™s what the publication said and I published this on my blog in an article specifically about, you know, those 2 or 3 drugs that the FDA approved for brainstem or brain related cancers
And so, you know, Iā€™m not going to buy that argument about that, about that specific thing
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
Well, we can wonder if some of Burzynskiā€™s results are the same, otherwise why would the FDA say, you know, give the ODD, why would the FDA give the phase 3 approval
Plus I donā€™t buy some of these doctors coming out and saying stuff, they have the opportunity just like the other doctors in Egypt, in Russia, in Germany, in, in Poland in China in Taiwan that have done antineoplaston studies, Iā€™m like, these people can do antineoplaston studies so whatā€™s the excuse for all these other doctors who say that they supposedly canā€™t do them
You know, the informationā€™s out there and
and like these other doctors can do it
Well, we kind of know that thatā€™s a fact
Well what we know from 1996 from Burzynskiā€™s own information that heā€™s published, is that not only does he have the original parent antineoplastons, but heā€™s developed 2nd and 3rd generations, but he canā€™t just stop in the middle of his clinical trial and use the 2nd and 3rd generations which may be better
He canā€™t uh use these other types of um antineoplastons that other researchers, researchers like Egypt, or Japan have found um that may be better because he canā€™t just switch in the middle of the clinical trial
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 thatā€™s all heā€™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
Right
Well I find it interesting that you talk about the cost, because Iā€™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
And, um
The thing thatā€™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
favorite oncologist didnā€™t comment about that in his movie review
Well what I find interesting, you know, Iā€™m not sure how people think heā€™s supposed to pay for the clinical trials, you know, if heā€™s supposed to go into debt, millions of dollars
I find that funny considering the FDA approved phase 3, has given him ODD for brainstem glioma and also also all gliomas
You know, thatā€™s kind of ridiculous
And the people
gettinā€™ off about his house, well who cares ?
They donā€™t know where his money came for that particular source
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 lawyerā€™s advice
So, maybe Burzynski has taken his tax lawyers advice, just like Iā€™m sure heā€™s taken Richard Jaffeā€™s ad advice (laugh), which has proved well, for him
You know, you know
Thatā€™s another thing
Well I guess we could ask, you know, Ben and Laura Hymas
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 ?
So I would ask her about her personal experience instead of saying, you know, instead of quoting some of these other people
Well we all know the FDA is in charge of this, and so hopefully they know whatā€™s going on
No, Iā€™m sure the FDA can look at the records because Burzynski sent them 2.5 million pages according to our friend Fabio
And uh, you know just something the doctors who came in and did the little olā€™ one day, 6 patient records, where they reviewed all the records and slides, and MRIā€™s, etcetera, you know they can do the same thing, the FDA can do the same thing with all these patients
And see the same MRIā€™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
I mean, they, FDA probably went through all their records
And, so, all these people didnā€™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
I mean, we could agree that since
Burzynskiā€™s publication says that itā€™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
Well we know from his own publications, he says he canā€™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 donā€™t remember it right off the top of my head
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 have the same uh adverse effects that the current parent generation have
But we donā€™t know, and like I said the FDA Iā€™m sure knows because they have all the records, we donā€™t have them, and so unlike our favorite oncologist Iā€™m not going to speculate, about what the FDA knows and I do not know
Well we know they stopped this particular trial, supposedly because a patient died
So whatā€™s the hold-up ?
I mean, hopefully theyā€™ve done an autopsy
What was found
No
And we donā€™t have a final report from the FDA on what the findings wer
I donā€™t remember specifically
Possibly not
Well heā€™s using the same 1st generation drug
Well Iā€™m sure a lot of people leave the doctors office not knowing things, for decades
Well we know the contin, the tumors can uh continue to grow for awhile, at least, and certain effects that they probably would
Well Iā€™m sure, I mean, itā€™s going to continue to grow, in any other clinical trial too, for a certain awhile
I mean like
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
The FDA not giving him phase 3 approval, the FDA not giving him ODD designation
And showing that, and showing the FDA that thereā€™s evidence of effectiveness
Not until the FDA says it doesnā€™t work
Well they seem to be doing a good job at it
Well Iā€™m sure, Iā€™m sure they wouldnā€™t have done things if they didnā€™t see some evidence that it was working
No I havenā€™t read it
I know what itā€™s called
Right
Well Iā€™m just gonna say, you know, the F, the FDA doing what theyā€™ve done, since they approved those 72 initial trials, pretty much speaks for itself
I mean theyā€™ve had every opportunity to shut this down, since then
No, Iā€™m just concentrating on what weā€™re doing
Well #1 I donā€™t think the one with brainstem glioma where they wanted to use radiation with ANP was really the right way to go, I mean heā€™s already proven that uh he seems to have better results without
first starting radiation
Yeah but the thing is radi, I, the FDA was not saying, ok, one study, one side of the study weā€™re only going to use ANP, in the other side of the study weā€™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
They donā€™t do that with other drugs
Well I donā€™t buy anything Guy Chapman sells, considering his past record
Well his theories are suspect, anything he hands out, let me tell ya
But the question may be bogus, because of where the messenger has been bogus a lot of times before
Well Iā€™m just gonna say what I think about Chapman because heā€™s proven himself, many times to be questionable
I donā€™t see him on my blog responding to my criticism
Thatā€™s like, thatā€™s like saying that Gorskiā€™s web-site is disorganized, his blog is like anti vaccine one day, Burzynski the next, blah blah blah
Well how would I know ?
I donā€™t have
Well you didnā€™t when I tried to get you to do stuff the 1st time, did ya ?
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
And thatā€™s the newest article
Well I thought that was pretty funny because doing biblical research, you come upon, Didymus Judas Thomas, or heā€™s all, also known by other names
Heā€™s basically The Skeptic
And so, like I said, I consider myself to be Skeptic of The Skeptics
I thought it was apropos
Of course
Iā€™m doubting The Skeptics
Exactly
Exactly
Well I like how The Skeptics say, you know, all of Burzynskiā€™s successes over the years are anecdotal and uh I consider on the same way that everything negative about Burzynski is anecdotal
Well my point is heā€™s proven them to the FDA because theyā€™re the ones
Could be, but I would have to read, read the
Well when it comes to Guy Chapman, yeah
You still there ?
Yeah, something cut off there for awhile
Well I would certainly look at that, but then again I would also look at the FDA granting him Orphan Drug Designation
Orphan Drug for brainstem glioma and all gliomas
Right, itā€™s both AS10 AS2-1 and AS
Well not really, since you mentioned that youā€™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 weā€™ve gone over
And so we can re debate it there
Well Iā€™ve specifically stated on my blog that Marc Stephens uh obviously didnā€™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, I blog and show where Gorski is wrong, I blog and show where you are wrong, or Josephine Jones, or Guy Chapman, etcetera
And, eh, yā€™all have every opportunity to come on my blog, and Iā€™ve had very few takers, uh, one claiming to be from Wikipedia, who I shot down
And hasnā€™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 donā€™t block people on my blog
I donā€™t give lame reasons for blocking people on my blog because Iā€™m an American and I actually believe in ā€œFree Speechā€
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
Oh no
It wasnā€™t down-voted
They, I mean Iā€™ve got screen-shots of where my comments were there, between other peopleā€™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, Gorskiā€™s good friend and pal who authored that particular article
So I, I like how The Skeptics run things, you know
Well I think that people who really believe in ā€œFree Speech,ā€ and when itā€™s done rationally, I mean, Gorski would never, really respond to any of my questions, so I
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 heā€™s pretty much left a lot of my comments up that Iā€™ve seen
Uh, but he never really responded to my questions about, what he based his beliefs upon
Well I would think, if youā€™re going to base your position on a certain thing, and then you canā€™t back it up with scientific literature, uh, you should answer, maybe not specifically to me, but answer the question
Answer to your readers
You know, I can tell his readers come on my blog because it shows that they come on my blog
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 olā€™, do their little, hey weā€™re going to block your account while we do blah blah blah, and Iā€™m not gonna waste my time, going through their little review process, Iā€™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.ā€™s, and Iā€™ll just use another Twitter I.D. and continue on
And so Wikipedia can say what they want, because Iā€™ve only ever used one I.P., Iā€™ve only got on there during one time, and when they finally said hey, you know, weā€™re not gonna uh grant your appeal, I completely left their web-site alone, so all that stuff
that they post
Yep
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.
And if they can prove otherwise, Iā€™d sure like to see it
But thatā€™s what yā€™all always say
Thatā€™s what yā€™all like to say, about everything
Yeah Iā€™m sure thatā€™s what they like to say
I mean, you can report an e-mail, or report a twit, and theyā€™ll block it
But um theyā€™ll never come back and say, and this is why we blocked you, for this particular twit, for this particular reason
Wikipedia is a joke
Oh sure, Iā€™m sure, thatā€™s no problem
I donā€™t have any problem with them locking that
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
So I said, well theyā€™re not answering his questions, Iā€™ll just take on that role, and uh ask his questions and ask further questions, and they didnā€™t wanna deal with it, you know
Expose them for what ?
For doing what they do, which is basically provide false information and one-sided information ?
Oh, please
They get on there and they say hey, Lola Quinlan filed a lawsuit, but they donā€™t tell you anything else
They donā€™t tell you, you know, Jaffeā€™s side of the story, and her lawyerā€™s side of the story
Oh Jaffeā€™s on there but on that specific article about Lola, they didnā€™t say, hereā€™s the article that was posted on uh Lolaā€™s attorneyā€™s web-site that, that mentions both his responses and Jaffeā€™s responses, to the uh lawsuit
Uh, trust me, I tried to add that and they wouldnā€™t add it
You know, The Skeptics like to be nasty, and so, Iā€™ve been like Josephine Jones
If she wants to play anonymous, Iā€™ll play anonymous
Well, I donā€™t threaten people
I donā€™t threaten Gorski
I donā€™t send letters to peopleā€™s employers
I deal with them directly, and, you know, if if they wonā€™t answer questions, then, you know, Iā€™ll just post them on my blog for other people to see, and question uh themselves
Like I said, Iā€™m going to be like Josephine Jones
Because Iā€™ve said so
Iā€™m not even in Texas
I was born in Texas, but I donā€™t live in Texas
I donā€™t even, didnā€™t even, uh live in Houston
Wasnā€™t even close to Houston
Oh, of course, I, Iā€™ve seen a lot of stuff goes on Twitter
Iā€™ve see yā€™all saying ā€œOh, weā€™re ā€œThe Skepticsā€ and yā€™all know are names,ā€ but, thereā€™s a lot of Skeptics that post on there with pseudonyms, also
Well, Iā€™m just not sure how some of these uh Skeptics will react considering their past behavior
I mean, when Skeptics refuse to, I mean they block you on your blogs
They block your comments
You know, they decide, ā€œWell, Iā€™m maybe going to accept one comment from you, but I wonā€™t accept anymore
You know, to me thatā€™s just ridiculous
Uh, the action on Forbes that happened, the action on The Guardian that happened, where, you know, you had someone on Gorskiā€™s blog basically lie to the Gua, to The Guardian to get them to get them to uh block my comment
So, you know, Iā€™m Skeptical of The Skeptics and their uh and what they would do
Not really
I like my anonymity just like Josephine Jones likes hers
I mean, I will read her stuff and reply to it and treat it seriously jus, just like any other blogger
Well the thing is, some of these Skeptics use names, and theyā€™re not necessarily their real names
So, you know, Iā€™ve seen
Well I think that some people just have bad manners
I mean see, Iā€™ve seen Skeptics on Twitter basically harass someone pro-Burzynski and keep sending them tweets, and that person specifically send them a tweet saying please keep, stop sending me tweets
You know, they didnā€™t go in and ask Twitter to block the, that particular person
That person just kept sending them tweets
So, you know, Iā€™ve seen that stuff before
Yeah, Iā€™ll look at it, and if you notice, I donā€™t uh, I usually donā€™t reply to Skeptics individually because I pretty much figure that yā€™all are gonna try and get my next account blocked whenever I do that kind of junk, so, well, you know, I just post what I want to post, under the Hashtag
Well Iā€™ll just keep reviewing the, any inaccurate statements I see posted
You know, it depends on if itā€™s Gorski, you know
Gorskiā€™s gone on there and posted inaccurate stuff, and I call him out, you know heā€™s basically said on his blog, you know, if I do something inaccurate, you know, Iā€™ll ā€˜fess up to it
Well, Iā€™ve pointed out where heā€™s done that and said ā€œHey, you said you were gonna ā€˜fess up to itā€
If I said on my blog that I was going to ā€˜fess up to doing something wrong, and you caught me, well, then I should, come out and say, ā€œOkay, you got meā€
But Gorski wonā€™t even do that, you know, he just continues to go on down the road, as if
I mean one of the
excuse
I find, I find
You know, Iā€™m just going to let the FDA do their job, and let yā€™all speculate all yā€™all want
Uh, I mean
See, Iā€™m here for full discussion
And yā€™all donā€™t seem to want to discuss, after yā€™all just go out there and spam the Internet with garbage, that you donā€™t back-up with citations and references and links
But some of your other stuff that you tweeted that you havenā€™t backed up with links, and some of the stuff on thehoustoncancerquack isnā€™t backed-up with links, and Gorskiā€™s stuff
Well, that and the anp4all one
isnā€™t backed up
When the FDA says heā€™s wrong
I mean, Iā€™m not, Iā€™m not just gonna accept your story
Burzynski provides the FDA with the evidence, and the FDA makes the
the FDA doesnā€™t approve a drug
if somethingā€™s not proved
Well you know that heā€™s trying
I mean, yā€™all can sit there and jump up and down all you want
Well, Iā€™m gonna go with what the FDA is gonna do still because theyā€™re running the show
What I find funny is that yā€™all complain, ā€œWell, he hasnā€™t published, uh a final reportā€
Well his 1st final, was completed in 2009, and like I said, the M.D. Anderson 2006 study wasnā€™t published until 2, 2013
I mean, so yā€™all can jump up and down all you want
Yā€™all want a final report
Well, the final report will be done when the clinical trial is over
Well, unless youā€™re The Lancet, I guess
Well, Iā€™m not gonna get into speculation, Iā€™m just going to wait and see
Well how have I been speculating ?
what the journals keep saying, in response
You know, are they going to give The Lancet response, like they did in 2 hours and such, saying, ā€œWell, we think your message would be best heard elsewhere,ā€ or they gonna gonna give The Lancet response of, ā€œWell, we donā€™t have room in our publication this time, well, because weā€™re full up, so, try and pick another place
Well, you like to jump up and down with the 15 year quote, but then again I always get back to, Hey, itā€™s when, when the report, when the clinical trial is done
Not that heā€™s been practicing medicine medicine for 36 years, or whatever, itā€™s when the clin, clinical trial was done
The FDA A believes there is evidence of efficacy
Well, we donā€™t know that
We donā€™t have the Freedom of Information Act information
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
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, Iā€™m not even gonna buy that one, because thatā€™s not one of the reasons
Eric said they gave
Well Iā€™m
Well, Iā€™m, Iā€™m sure that theyā€™re going to keep you appraised just like they have in the past, just like Eric has done in the past
So
I mean, weā€™ll see what happens with the Japanese publication
Well thatā€™s like me asking ā€œHow long is it going to take for yā€™allā€™s, yā€™allā€™s Skeptics to respond to my questions ?ā€
Because yā€™all havenā€™t been forthcoming
Well, he gave you The Lancet information and he posted the e-mail in the movie, and Josephine Jones posted a copy of it
Well, yā€™all are free to, you know, claim that all you want, because I donā€™t always agree with Eric, and uh, heā€™s free to express his opinion
Well I donā€™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 yā€™all have commented on, including Gorski
You know, I donā€™t necessarily agree with that
I am more agreeable to yā€™all, saying that, you know, theyā€™re busy, theyā€™ve got other things to do, but Iā€™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
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 didnā€™t use the same wording that they used the 1st time
I would have think that, you know, their 2nd comment
Nah, Iā€™m not saying that they did that all
Iā€™m just sayinā€™, you know, that they gave, 2 different responses, and I would think that the 2nd one they gave
Well I find it funny, something along the lines of, you know, ā€œWe believe your message would be received better elsewhere,” you know
I donā€™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 youā€™re doing that, and youā€™re The Lancet Oncology, maybe you need to set some different procedures in place, ā€˜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
Well, Iā€™m sure, Iā€™m sure Gorski would have a comment about that, as heā€™s commented previously about how he thinks uh Burzynski should publish
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, ā€œWell, that just shows evidence of efficacy, you know, itā€™s not phase 3, so it doesnā€™t really prove itā€
So then he can go on, you know, for however many years he wants to
Well,
This is, this is a guy who must phone it in because, he went in there and posted the old Josephine Jones response that, you know, no drugs had been approved by the FDA without their final phase 2 publication 1st being published, which was not a factual statement, and youā€™ve made the same statement
So I, Iā€™m thinking that Gorski just bought her statement and took it and ran with it, and before he fact-checked it, and what, what happened, it was wrong
I mean, Gorski needs to stop phoning stuff in, and check his sources before he posts stuff, because Iā€™ve found many cases where, he hasnā€™t seemed to do that, and thatā€™s why I question him
Well, I found it interesting that uh the one on the, Burzynski 2, you know he gave his ex excuses for not, working with uh, that patient, and, but yet, he was the same doctor that treated a another Burzynski patient, according to the movie
I mean, so what does he do ?
Pick and choose ?
Or do doctors pick and choose over there in Britain ?
Well, the movie didnā€™t say anything
Well, I fail to see these doctors on there, providing any factual information, anywhere on the Internet about, uh their disagreements, in a serious way, instead of just making these over-broad statements, you know, ā€œHe hasnā€™t published anything in the blah blah blah,ā€ and
Well, heā€™s provided some data, and specifically 4 publications
Heā€™s given more than the case studies
Heā€™s done more than the case studies
Heā€™s specifically given uh, almost all the information om an oncologist would want
And Gorski, and Gorski
I mean, I love Gorski, but he comes up with these stupid excuses like, ā€œWell, Burzynski is not an oncologistā€
Well, Gorski doesnā€™t go go in there and look at his other, his phase 2 clinical trial publications, as far as the preliminary reports, and look at the co-authors, and see if any of those guys are oncologists, and that theyā€™re working with Gorski, I mean theyā€™re working with Burzynski
I find that ridiculous
Well yā€™all, yā€™all can call things what yā€™all want
I mean, yā€™all can give these, fallacy arguments and all that garbage that yā€™all like, because thatā€™s what yā€™all like to talk about instead of dealing with the issues
I mean, Gorski doesnā€™t want to deal with the issues
Hey, Iā€™ve said it to Gorski
He liked to back his stuff up on the Mayo study, yet he wouldnā€™t, he wouldnā€™t uh debate about the Mayo study
He likes to say, ā€œWell, Burzynski is not an oncologist,ā€ but he wonā€™t, say Hey, look at the publications, are any of the guys on the publications oncologists ?
We know that Gorski, we know that Burzynski works with oncologists in his practice
So, just because Burzynski himself is not an an oncologist, does not necessarily mean anything
Do we need to go out, onto PubMed, and, and review every particular person thatā€™s published something about cancer and see if theyā€™re all oncologists ?
Seriously
I mean, Gorski will just
post a lot of stuff without backing it up
Well, I, you know, thatā€™s up to someoneā€™s opinion, considering some of the information thatā€™s that the FDA has accepted, as far as giving these guys approval
How did I say I, I didnā€™t trust them ?
Well, I didnā€™t say that they werenā€™t trustworthy, I just raised questions that no one wants to answer about ā€˜em
No, Iā€™m just sayinā€™ that Iā€™ve raised questions and none of The Skeptics wanna to uh talk about ā€˜em
Well, to me the FDA owes Burzynski for a lot of the garbage they pulled off against him (laugh), not to say, you know, they owe him in that way, but they owed him
Well, we know a lot stuff they did, but that still doesnā€™t impress me that they pulled out of the prosecution
I mean
Right
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 just ignore the person thatā€™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 donā€™t use the drugs in the manner that he knows works
Well, he says they work together and theyā€™re not going to work if you donā€™t use them that way
Why would he leave the country ?
I think heā€™s made it clear
Well, I think The Skeptics, Skeptics are falling short because, you know, they donā€™t own up to
So I can say that since the Mayo Clinic 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
for me to make up my mind
Well I can say, well Iā€™m going to have to wait, the same amount of time I had to wait for Mayo to publish their study; which was from 2006 to 2013
How do you know it was delayed ?
I mean, has anybody
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 thatā€™s done that, and say, well hereā€™s the high end, hereā€™s the low end of the spectrum, hereā€™s the middle
Sure
Sure, but thatā€™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, thatā€™s only gonna be one, particular clinical study
Well, we know that the Declaration of Helsinki doesnā€™t even give a standard saying, ā€œYou must publish within x amount of years,ā€ you know ?
So, Iā€™ve yet to find a Skeptic who posted something that said, ā€œHere are the standards, published hereā€
Again, we get back to, when the clinical trial is finished, not when Burzynski started
I mean, you would expect to find a results to be published after, the final results are in
You would expect some people would want to have confidentiality, and maybe not want to be included
Why am I unsure ?
I just gave you an example
Oh, who said I was unsure ?
I just gave you an example
I mean, Iā€™m just, I believe in free and open debate
I mean, I believe, if yā€™all are gonna spam the Internet, the Internet with garbage that yā€™all do not back-up, with specific
references
Like your tweet that said uh, ā€œantineoplastons is uron, is Unicorn pee,ā€ right ?
ā€œBurzynski is a vampireā€
Good one
He sucks their blood out of ā€˜em right ?
Yeah
Humor
Okay, I understand humor
Well, thatā€™s because heā€™s Polish
What I defend, is that, yā€™all post stuff, a lot of Skeptics post stuff, including Gorski, and they do not back it up, with references, citations, or links
Gorski will just post stuff, like he did about saying, you know, the FDA would not approve, uh, accelerated approval, without a final phase 2 clinical trial being published, which was an incorrect statement, he did not provide any link
We know itā€™s false
Well, Iā€™m just
Iā€™m just
Not
Thatā€™s
Well, that is just lame
Yā€™all, Skeptics, like to sh spam Twitter, and social media, with all this negative stuff about Burzynski, but then when I ask you to back it up, you canā€™t back it up, and then, and then on this conversation you want to come down and pinhole it, to a specific subject, you know, the nitty-gritty
Well, if yā€™all were only debating the nitty-gritty, we would only be d debating the nitty-gritty, but thatā€™s not what yā€™all do
Well, we know the FDAā€™s said there is
And Iā€™ll give you those links that I told you I would give you
Yeah, thatā€™s fine
Well, I thought it was productive too
You know, I donā€™t see why Gorski is afraid of debating issues
on the Internet, on his blog
Hey, he has time to post about, ā€œHey, uh, Burzynski got a Catholic award from somebody,ā€ which, has nothing to do with antineoplastons, whatsoever
So, you know, heā€™s not focusing just in on, ā€œDo antineoplastons work, yes or no?,ā€ ā€œWhen will Burzynski publish ?,ā€ yes or no ?
You know, heā€™s putting all this ridiculous side junk, you know
So, I am not going to take that seriously
Exactly
You bet
Thank you
You too

Robert J. (don’t call me “Bobby”) Blaskiewicz’s #Epic Skeptic “Word-Salad” #Fail – September 28, 2013 ā€œThe Skepticsā„¢ā€ Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz ā€“ 2:19:51

Posted on by
Reply

Are you there ?
Okay, we might as well get started if were going to do this
Alright, so ummm I guess we can start with uhhh bit of a conversation
Uhhh
Youā€™ve been on the Burzynski Hashtag for a long time ā€“ whatā€™s youā€™re motivation ?
Okay
So what information have Skeptics posted that they uhhh that they missed that demonstrates that Burzynskiā€™s uhhh treatments are effective ?
What, what have we missed ?
Well okay, uh one of the issues that Skeptics have with Burzynski is that in order to, letā€™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 thatā€™s gone nowhere
In fact, it was withdrawn this I think within the last week
It doesnā€™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
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 itā€™s like youā€™ve lowered the bar for for evidence in a way that that you know oncologists donā€™t
The the
Right
So, do you think that there is a uh uh conspiracy to keep Burzynski from publishing ?
Right
Right
So, uhmmm, as far as I understand it The Lancet, uhhh the the question of The Lancet publication ehhh is par for the course, that most people are, when they get a speedy rejection from a uh uh, uh journal, are actually uh grateful, because that means there allowed to go ahead and submit their material to another journal more quickly and get it out there
Uhm, but the reaction that we saw on the side of the Burzynski camp was that, see, theyā€™ll never publish us
Uhm, which is, eg, taken as far as I can tell as evidence of a conspiracy or that his name is is poison uh I mean, I think it is, but uhmmm, that wasnā€™t indicated in the in the rejection letter in order to uh claim that it is is to go beyond the evidence which again weā€™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 donā€™t understand exactly what youā€™re trying to do with it
Could you kind of clarify that for us because itā€™s uhhh long and itā€™s itā€™s intense and thereā€™s a lot of emotion behind it but we donā€™t understand exactly, what itā€™s supposed to mean
Alright, ah have you read The Other Burzynski Patient Group ?
So, ahmmm what is your response say to the story of Amelia Saunders ?
Okay, what part of, what did I get wrong ?
Uh was that Amelia and Luna ?
Luna was the other one, correct
Oh, I, youā€™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 wasnā€™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 donā€™t need to reach full dosage ā€™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 wonā€™t react well to swelling, right, and and wont react well to pressure, so we were wondering, if in fact you donā€™t have to reach the full dosage in order to have uh severe side effects
Ummm, you know maybe you havenā€™t reached a therapeutic dose level, but that doesnā€™t mean that it didnā€™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
I mean, ummm, so thatā€™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 thatā€™s not true
Okay, so, um, going back to Amelia, um, some of the the most um I think the most serious charges is that we see a uh repeatedly in his uh uh stories of his patients, um those are all cited, those are all backed uh by, you know, um at least as good as anything the Burzynski Patient Group has ever done
Uhmmm, something that we see over and over are patients reporting over and over that signs of getting worse are signs if getting better
Um, in particular a, uh report thatā€™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 itā€™s dying on the inside
And when you see something like a 5th of the patients who weā€™ve been able to to document, reporting this excitedly, we get extremely concerned about whatā€™s happening
Uhmmm, what part of that is not absolutely terrifying to you
Well, the the yeah Iā€™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 thatā€™s been, thatā€™s been floated and research has been done on uh and might even be promising and uh what heā€™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, whatā€™s the word Iā€™m looking for, uhm uh, replacement therapy
Uh and there isnā€™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
Why isnā€™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
Uhmmm itā€™s itā€™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 elseā€™s families are you you imagine what an oncologist sees in that office over the course of of a year and thereā€™s going to be unimaginable suffering
Iā€™m sure that theyā€™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
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
Heā€™s read everything
I think
Can you go ahead and send me that link that that I saw in the chat that you had uh posted a couple of times in the chat
Could you send me that link, to that publication
I can give you a minute to to go find it if thatā€™s
That would be good
Uhmmm
Well, yeah thatā€™s a, thatā€™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 Iā€™ve learned from from working uh with others on the Burzynski Patient Group is whatā€™s it like to be a cancer patient, only by proxy, man I couldnā€™t imagine really going through this myself, and, you know Iā€™d hate to see my family go through this
That these people are at what could be described as a low point, theyā€™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 theyā€™re there uhm uhhh but, you know that itā€™s an, itā€™s an extremely grim prognosis
Uhhh and I worry that when theyā€™re in that desperate state and especially letā€™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
What protections are in place for patients as far as that these kids are and and their parents are protected
Who had the better results ?
Okay
Hmmm, yeah, the, Guy Chapman has just um uh tossed in a a, a comment
I guess uh that there are a lot of people who wanna talk to you (laughter)
Uh, Guy Chapman has just jumped in and said it looks like you forgot the phase 3 trial is withdrawn and none of the phase 2 trials were published
Uhmmm, this, this is not a minor thing for for for Skeptics
This, this is exactly what will convince us to get on board the Burzynski train is the publication of these trials
But even the preliminary trials, one has been finished, and none has been published in its entirety for over 15 years
When you consider that this is a, as you just pointed out, this is a a cancer, the, especially the brainstem gliomas
That these cancers uh the cases resolved fairly quickly, we know what the outcome are fairly quickly
Ummm, do you have any sense of when these trials are going to be published ?
From Laura ?
Right
When you, when you think about a major, sorry, go ahead
Yeah, right, uh
Antineoplastons has a better rate ?
Right
Right, one of the things that that there there are 2 points to be made here
Uhm, the 1st one is that major pharmaceutical companies that are getting this accelerated approval have a track record of producing results which Burzynski does not have
Secondly, when it comes to ummm the rates of antineoplastons, how can we possibly say without a single published trial he, that he has an improved rate over Temodar or anything like that, and thatā€™s exactly what would show to us whether or not his rate is better, the the types of publications that heā€™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
But what that doesnā€™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, heā€™s never done that
But if you think about that, I mean that if it does have a a an improvement rate above uh other treatments
That still has an improvement rate, you know, that, that would give another option to people, ummm, even if in the aggregate their rates arenā€™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
Thatā€™s a long time when someone is dying
Well, one of
One of the problems that that doctors have in in this country when it comes to doing ummm antineoplastons studies to verify any any effect that uh Burzynski has uhhh I i think back to the one where people say well that the FDA sabotaged his trials, and
Well, if if you think about it though, um, the, the proposed action as I understand it of the antineoplaston is that itā€™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, Iā€™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 Burzynskiā€™s patients are carrying
Um in in some ways that that sodium load is uh leading people to constantly drinking up to Iā€™ve seen 12 liters of water a day
Thatā€™s not necessary for other deactsylace inhibitors
Um the, why would you prefer that to to another drug if it did essentially the same thing, that didnt have this massive side effect ?
thats not necessary for other deactsylace inhibitors
Well that sss I believe that thatā€™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
ah he has asked everything that Burzynski does looks sort of like the behaviors of pseudo-science
So what weā€™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 doesnā€™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
Another thing that thatā€™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 thereā€™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, thereā€™s something that he asks for a a huge payment up front
Thatā€™s something thatā€™s been warned against for generations of uh by anti-quack um uh crusaders if if theyā€™re asking for everything up front, then be afraid
Ummm, another thing is that uh the kind of cult thatā€™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
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
Thatā€™s a manikin world-view of black and white
Um, these are all huge red flags, that youā€™re dealing with a quack
Um, why hasnā€™t Burzynski done anything to change that ?
Right
Well, there, this is important
This is really important though
Wha, when sheā€™s talking about, thatā€™s Luna Pettiguineā€™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 thatā€™s calculated is, is the hospital only expects to get a fraction, a tiny fraction of that back from the insurance companies, and thatā€™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
Additionally, all of those therapies, have demonstrated efficacy, and if Burzynski were to demonstrate his efficacy, $30,000 dollars to start on a life-saving treatment for a child would be a steal, and he would earn every nickel of it
Um, so, those arguments hold very little weight with us
He has a a an enormous house thatā€™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 donā€™t think heā€™d be able to get one, I donā€™t think heā€™s shown uh that he can carry off a uh a research program responsibly
Uhmmm
Well
Oh he, have you noticed the the, the thing on his web-site where if you make a donation to the clinic it goes directly to him ?
Right
You know, you know
Ummm, o-kay
Uh, I want to turn this over to the people who are watching
Um, I want to give them a a chance to address you as well
Uhmmm, hi everyone
Uhmmm, so, um, letā€™s, letā€™s wait for for that to roll in, and I do wait to go back to the, the the, the and letā€™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 ?
Well thatā€™s just a known side-effect, your going to know that going in, but we actually have people say
Are there, why why why not, these people, see this is the thing though
The reason that site was started was because the people that donā€™t make it donā€™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 Burzynskiā€™s favor to only look at the positive outcomes, and to have no sense of how other peopleā€™s diseases progressed, right, youā€™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 itā€™s a healing crisis or itā€™s progression of the disease
Or other people say itā€™s breaking up in the middle, hurrah
No, itā€™s actually a tumor thatā€™s growing
That record there, thatā€™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 ?
Are they feeding these people their stories ?
Are they feeding these people their stories
Okay Iā€™m going to go back, I want to point something else out to you
Um, I have to, I donā€™t remember the exact patient so I have to go back to my web-site to take a look at it
Um
Because we are, because weā€™re on a Google+ stream that thatā€™s a lot of data it takes awhile to bring up my, my site
Let me
Uhmmm
Well, that seems to give him an instant out, no matter what happens
That turns his claims into something thatā€™s unfalsifiable
If I could give you an example of what unfalsifiable is
Um, and Iā€™ll Iā€™ll draw an uh, uh, case, uh hypothetical case of um uh proposed by Carl Sagan as the invisible dragon in your garage
If you say you have have a dragon in your garage, um, you know, you should be able to go over and verify that thereā€™s a dragon in the garage
So letā€™s say we go over to Carl Saganā€™s garage and, you know
Well, I donā€™t see anything
Well itā€™s an invisible dragon
Well okay, well then, letā€™s uh spray paint it
Well, itā€™s incorporeal
Well, uh, letā€™s measure for the heat of the breath
Well itā€™s heatless flame that it breathes
And, you know, okay, well then weā€™ll put flour down on the ground to see that itā€™s it itā€™s standing there
And, oh no itā€™s ah itā€™s floating
Well, you know, at some point, when you canā€™t falsify something
When you cannot, even in principle, prove something false, itā€™s indistinguishable from something thatā€™s not there
And that kind of out, that oh well the tumor can keep on growing
Th (laugh) that that thatā€™s an invisible dragon, as far as I can tell
A every time that I and and and and , and David points this out, that um, you you know your not going to speculate about the the FDA but then at every turn your invoking the FDA as being obstructionist
I, I just find that to be contradictory and and self-defeating
Um, let me see
Well, thatā€™s not necessarily true
I mean uh when it when it comes to the case um Iā€™ve iā€™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 Burzynskiā€™s benefit if there were other cases, Iā€™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
Um, itā€™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 didnā€™t involve them ultimately somehow being responsible for it, right ?
So, it it it doesnā€™t seem to me that necessarily an autopsy would be um a a done deal
Um, let me see
No we donā€™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
Uh, and, I guess Iā€™ll
It should be in Ameliaā€™s I I, I packed Ameliaā€™s story with all the stories, um, that I could find um in what weā€™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
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 Sā€™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 Gā€™s story
And then lastly and and the worst uh thing that weā€™ve seen, the patients report that Burzynski himself told Chase uh Sammut
The exact same thing
Um, and that was a
Have you read Chaseā€™s story
It would stick with you, because that case is grotesque
The parents, uh, there was even a uh, uh, a fight over whether or not the parents should be allowed to continue treating this kid
He was basically lying, uh, in a uh uh brain dead uh for all intents and purposes, uh, in a in a coma uh without possibility of reversal, in his parents living room for months
Um, eh, all the while, heā€™s still on the, uh, well I donā€™t actually, I canā€™t say that, I donā€™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 weā€™ve been able to find that patients have been reporting this for decades
At some point, you would think that a doctor would realize that perhaps what these patients are walking away with is inaccurate
Why hasnā€™t that changed ?
E wel that that that thatā€™s not it
This is this is like the 2nd day of oncology class, that thatā€™s what the tumor looks like
People are reporting that the tumor is no longer growing, um, or that the growing has slowed after theyā€™ve started
Well, okay
There, there is an explanation for that, and why you canā€™t take that as necessarily being evidence of efficacy
Ah, the tumor grows exponentially while the resources are available to it, but then it reaches a point where itā€™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 weā€™re talking about, and his patients donā€™t leave his office, knowing these facts, for decades
This doesnā€™t have anything to do with the, do with the drug
This this
But, but when itā€™s, this treatment is working or this is not evidence that the treatment is working
Thatā€™s pretty basic
I mean weā€™re not, weā€™re not talking about deactsylace inhibitors or anything like that were youā€™d really need to know something about
This is, whether or not, youā€™re getting the outcome that you want
This is the whole reason for going
And it has nothing to do with the with the with the drugs
Which is, which is like which we just pointed out was a was an invisible dragon
youā€™re youā€™re youā€™re assuming
Youā€™re youā€™re youā€™re assuming that
Youā€™re assuming that
Um, Iā€™m not assuming that
Ultimately it would, but whether or not it it it had a genuine therapeutic effect is a different matter all together
Um, this, what would, what would convince you that youā€™re wrong
So youā€™re saying because the Orphan Drug Designation and the face that thereā€™s a phase 3, therefor it works ?
So what youā€™re saying is thereā€™s nothing that would convince you now, that it doesnā€™t work
O-kay
Um, itā€™s itā€™s itā€™s not the FDAā€™s, but you understand itā€™s not the FDAā€™s job to tell someone that their drug doesnā€™t work
itā€™s itā€™s itā€™s up to Burzynski
Itā€™s up to Burzynski to show that his drug does work
And itā€™s always been his burden of proof
Heā€™s the one thatā€™s been claiming this miracle cancer cure, forever
Um, I donā€™t know if youā€™ve read Jaffeā€™s book
There seems to have been a lot going on there you really should look at it because itā€™s itā€™s itā€™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 donā€™t know why the phase 3 trial was approved
I donā€™t know that weā€™ve seen even the phase 1 trials, we donā€™t know why heā€™s getting a phase 3
And thereā€™s a real story in that, we think
Um, that weā€™d love to see, however we canā€™t see, however we canā€™t see it because of proti protri proprietary uh protections that the FDA is giving to Burzynski, right ?
Theyā€™re not sharing his trial designs because they are his trial designs, right?
That the makeup of his drug that heā€™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
Theyā€™ve given him every opportunity, over 60 opportunities to prove himself worth uh their confidence and hasnā€™t
Um, but I definitely recommend that you look at Jaffeā€™s book and you will see, I think, um that um itā€™s called um, uh Galileoā€™s
You know what itā€™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, isnā€™t necessarily having anything to do with the efficacy of the drug
That comes across very clearly
Um, you, you mentioned it yourself, he heā€™s done well to listen to Jaffeā€™s advice, right ?
So, there thereā€™s a lot to that
Um, uh, but yeah, let me go back to the Twitter feed
Um
Well it sounds to me like theyā€™re theyā€™re not um, the the the you know, theyā€™ve put the clinical hold on now because they now have evidence that somebody may have died because of the treatment
Um, I donā€™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
Okay
Iā€™m doing, Iā€™m doing the 2 things at once and itā€™s um, ok ok well itā€™s well ok I canā€™t I canā€™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
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 Iā€™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 doesnā€™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
That seems, if it works, if his drug genuinely works, and he hasnā€™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 thereā€™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, uh no other institution has a 3 for 3 fail, according to to Guy iye he knows no other one
Um, that 45% of phase 3 clinical trials fail due to deficient phase 2 design
Um, he has an approved phase 3, but phase 2 was deficient so phase 3 fails
Do you think that that could possibly have anything to do with why weā€™re not seeing the phase 3 advance
Heā€™s claimed
Heā€™s claimed
Thatā€™s a different thing altogether
And in fact
Well, you understand why they do that, because in order to, itā€™s
No, they do do this with other drugs, well, it depends on the type
Some drugs itā€™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, ok
It doesnā€™t matter where
It doesnā€™t matter where it comes from uh, um
So-kay, um that would be shooting the messenger as opposed to dealing with the question, but
the idea, the best, well, the best, well in that case the best response is ā€œI donā€™t knowā€
Thereā€™s something that that we donā€™t know, youā€™re coming, honestly we didnā€™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 itā€™s the organization is not apparent to the readers
Um, and um according to
No, that is tied together
But let me, we know that that the the, the central concern is Burzynski
Ah, the source of this ah of of those #ā€™s that I just gave you, Chapman has just updated me and he says um that it is, and Iā€™ll go back to the, the ADR research . com issues in clinical research, so itā€™s the question, Bay Clinical uh Research and Clinical Development, a white paper called ā€œWhy do so many pase 3 clinical trials fail ?
Uh, itā€™s prepared by Anastassios Retzios, Ph.D
Is Anastassios Retzios reliable ?
There is a correct here
Exactly
Thatā€™s the right answer
You donā€™t know
You donā€™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
Thatā€™s just, itā€™s my responsibility as a reader
Um
What, what stuff would you like
What stuff would you like me to do ?
I generally, I donā€™t read your blog
Uh um, alright
Okay, Iā€™ll look at that, and I will respond to it once Iā€™ve taken a look at that, okay ?
Um, and Iā€™ll respond on your web-site
Um, seems only fair
Um, one question Iā€™d wondered, what is the Didymus Judas Thomas reference to
Oh, so this is the Doubting Thomas
This is the Doubting Thomas
Okay, so this is the one, you show me the, you put your your, the, your hand inside the wound
You know, Jesus says, basically, ok, bring it on, check me out, right ?
Okay
Alright
That that, I didnā€™t, I didnā€™t realize that he was also, that that was the same guy
So, itā€™s itā€™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, ā€œLook, bring it onā€
Check out these wounds
But heā€™s never done that
Instead he he he wants us to just take the words of of of of his apostles
I donā€™t necessarily trust his apostles
I donā€™t think that theyā€™re unbiased
I wanna see the data
I wanna see the the wounds in his hands and the the mark on his side
Oh, hey when when we talk about The Other Burzynski Patient Group, I donā€™t make any pretensions to make that my site proves anything
I I I really donā€™t
Itā€™s not my job to prove anything
Itā€™s Burzynskiā€™s job
It is a researchers job to prove these things
But we just pointed out, we just pointed out, that the FDA, often approves, phase 3 trials, based on flawed phase 2 clinical trials
That is therefor a real possibility in this case
Yes you would
T t and what I would honestly expect and hope, is that you would be honest about this, to yourself, and and and thatā€™s the thing we donā€™t, we often donā€™t realize that weā€™re not being honest with ourself
I try to fight against it, constantly
But, um, uh but the way that youā€™d earlier phrased your uh your response to ā€œcould you possibly be proved wrong ?ā€, . . really did exclude other possibilities of of of of yourself being wrong
So if the FDA
Well Iā€™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 hasnā€™t approved a phase 3
Well, ok
Letā€™s letā€™s back, letā€™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
Yeah, hello, yeah, youā€™re back
Yeah Google+ is a little wonky sometimes
But, would, does, if you were to learn, that sometimes phase 3 trials, uh, are approved, and failed, based on flawed phase 2, would, would that make you reconsider your position of the phase 3 being evidence that it works
Uh um could you send me that link, the, the, um . me see
Iā€™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 ?
Is it sodium phenylbutyrate or is it the the versions of the drug, the AS10 stuff or A1 or whatever itā€™s called ?
Okay, thatā€™s what has Orphan Drug status
Alright, Iā€™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 ?
So, oh, um
Do you have any questions for me ?
Iā€™ve spent a lot of times asking questions of you
Mhmm
Guy Chapman, throws up the the, the comment, permission to investigate is not evidence of anything other than evidence of a valid protocol, not a uh, evidence of efficacy, in and of itself
Thatā€™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 itā€™s on the record, is that I am taking exactly no money from anyone for this, and have gotten nothinā€™ but grief from a lot of people, even people who, even people who support me have given me grief for this
Um, just so that you know, um, there have been, some of the things that have happened, oh, this is an important point too
Um, that when we have criticized this, uh, a # of us, especially Gorski, uh myself, uh Rhys Morgan, uh, um, and and uh Popehat, the the lawyer, blog, uh, um, who else was on there, um, oh, the Merritts, uh, t, uh Wayne Merritt, and his family, people have been critical of of of Burzynski have faced retaliation for opposing him ah and intimidation, and including, um, I had my uh a couple weeks before Christmas my, my, the Chancellor of my University was contacted via e-mail, and uh Eric Merola said that I had been um, uh, been spreading mis truths about Burzynski, that I had been a be, on my my show um had said things that were demonstratively untrue, and he also said that the drug was FDA approved, which it, you know, thatā€™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
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, heā€™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 didnā€™t take down his on-line review of Burzynski, uh, had his a picture of his house sent to him, clearly the message being, ā€œWe know where you live kid,ā€ 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 doesnā€™t have a law degree so heā€™s misrepresenting himself
Um, but all of this, was done, to critics
Do you think that is deserved ?
Do you think that that is right ?
Mhmm
Well to be fair
It it it doesnā€™t strike me as necessarily a ā€œFree Speechā€ issue, you know
Was it down-voted ?
No
Mhmm
Mhmm
Well we do have for for for for one thing, um, I guess to understand is that we are uh motivated by um uh a respect, this is the one thing that that all Skeptics I think um are uh respect critical thinking, um, and um respect scientific uh a we weā€™re mostly scientific enthusiasts, thereā€™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
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, weā€™re allowed to to let whoever we want into our sandbox if we, you know, uh if we want
Did he, did he leave them up ?
Did he leave them up ?
Right, um, do you think that he is required to answer you
Right
Mhmm
Um so a a question uh why were why do you have so many Twitter and Wikipedia sock-puppets
Wikipedia
You left Wikipedia
Mhmm
Um a
Uh We have uh a response from David James, everyone uh gave you a fair shout
You were a spammer plain and simple
You couldnā€™t, you couldnā€™t
work out your questions
Twitter does not
Twitter does not block people for for arguing
Only for spamming and policy violations
Mhmm
Okay
Um, let me see
Each new account was blocked for additional violations of policies
Um, this is a uh uh referring to the Wikipedia rules too
Um, so
Um, Wikipedia, do you know why um theyā€™ve locked the Burzynski page ?
Did you notice the part where he threatened, did you notice the part where he threatened to expose Wikipedia
We have to, well, they they uh are looking that itā€™s not one-sided information they want to show
Like they discuss, there is controversy about this guy
Yeah, Jaffeā€™s on there
Jaffeā€™s on there
uh well you could add that if you hadnā€™t gotten blocked
Okay
Um, so, who are you
Sheā€™s gotten threats
So we donā€™t know who you are
Like, she has suffered at the hands of some really mess, and sheā€™s also, you have to realize sheā€™s in the U.K, where libel laws are very lax at this point
Thatā€™s changing, ah, but uh, the the legitimate criticism, there is a big case last, me maybe 2 years ago of Simon Singh, talking about an alternative therapy, and, um, he was just saying that thereā€™s no evidence for it but itā€™s promoted by um chiropractors, or something, or something like that
And he got slapped with a libel suit that cost him several years of his life and a lot of money
Um, so, there are several reasons why someone in the U.K. might uh be uh reticent to use their real name um, uh, and legitimate reasons
Um, in the U.S., Iā€™m not sure that there is
Iā€™ve been using my real name for a long time now
Um, you know, Gorski blogs under his real name, and is critical of uh, uh, also, letā€™s face it, everyone know, knows who ā€œOracā€ is
Um, how do we know that you donā€™t work for the clinic ?
Mhm
Well see, one of the the problems is, Ju, I donā€™t know if you were around for the BurzynskiSaves thing
Did you ever see that account ?
Mhmm
Right
Oh no, I mean you have a right to do that but but I Iā€™ve found that posting under a pseudonym diminishes my credibility
Um, so, . . the quote was uh um, uh, ā€œHappily promotes bogus therapies,ā€ was Simon Singhā€™s quote that got him sued
Um, but Josephine Jones does it to, quote ā€œprotect her familyā€
Um
So thereā€™s that
Um, are you afraid for youā€™re family ?
Um, you donā€™t see that there would be anything to gain from, from going on-record ?
Um I I havenā€™t, Iā€™ve never, honestly, Iā€™ve never seen a Skeptic actually go after a person individually
Um, you know, uh, you, unless they were doing colossal harm to people
Um, to to focus on an, uh, letā€™s say, call someoneā€™s work for um, yeah
Cite one example, of a Skeptic making shit for a Burzynski shill or anyone else in real life
Thatā€™s a quote
Thatā€™s, thatā€™s something coming in from, from Guy
Like had anyone ever contacted Sheila Herron, or has anyone to to um, go after her job, or go after um, you know, my brother has gotten stuff from people
He didnā€™t tell me because he didnā€™t want to upset me, but my brother gets things from Burzynski supporters that are violent and threatening
I get letters telling me that I suck cancerā€™s dick
Um, I Iā€™ve all sorts of things um, and I just, Iā€™ve never seen that, that intrusion into real life on the part of uh, um, uh, Skeptics
Iā€™ve never seen them doing that type of of of stuff
Iā€™ve never seen them threatening bogus lawsuits
Um, and I I I wonder there, if there is some sort of, what do you think accounts for that, that difference?
Mhmm
Mhmm
Iā€™ve Iā€™ve Iā€™ve shown up on, you know, as you, as you might, I imagine you moni, you monitor the Hashtag, right ?
Okay
Um, which is, which is your right
Um, uh, but every so often I jump in and say, you know, this movie has some flaws in it
You know, thatā€™s something I say rather frequently
Um, and I invite people, if theyā€™re interested, to take a look at a couple of links
I donā€™t, I, youā€™ll notice that I no longer force people to like, ā€œWell how do you explain this ?,ā€ because that doesnā€™t seem to be very persuasive, or work at all
Ah, only people who are open minded to having their mind changed, those are the only ones I want to talk to
So I give them a choice
Kind of like Morpheus in The Matrix really
Um, b, that was a joke for me
Um, um anyway
Um, but, it it I, honestly, I would encourage you to go on-record, um, but I have, less than nothing invested in that, so, um
Uh, whatā€™s next for you
Well what happens
Well what happens if he doesnā€™t understand what youā€™re saying ?
I mean one of the
I mean seriously
Well, one of the problems I think that a lot of Skeptics have had, in in back channel discussions about this is that we donā€™t understand exactly what youā€™re saying
We certainly donā€™t understand why youā€™re so attached to him if youā€™ve never had any uh, you know, close dealing with uh, uh, with Burzynski
We donā€™t really understand that
Actually, especially when you consider, that all the information that weā€™ve put forward, that weā€™ve backed up with statements from uh, you know, uh, it, it, the statements that we have from from patients saying that you know, weā€™ve weā€™ve, we were told that, no thatā€™s not exactly, they put it usually that but that that we believe that getting worse is getting better
Like how could someone continue to defend someone, when we pile up all of these different, you know, sources, saying the same thing ?
It it is, it is beyond us and we wonder if thereā€™s absolutely anything that we could say that would convince you otherwise
But, I mean, but that means
Everything on The Other Other Burzynski Patient Group is referenced
It goes
Thereā€™s very little on
thehoustoncancerquack
Thereā€™s very little on
thehoustoncancerquack in the 1st place
Eh, right
The they both go to the same place
Uh un but, you know, we, the thing that that totally befuddles us, and is just endlessly frustrating, is like how many more examples, of patients believing that getting worse is getting better, and itā€™s not us saying it, itā€™s the patients saying it
And how many more of those patients do we need to to give you before you will like reconsider that perhaps you might be wrong ?
I donā€™t, the thing is though that, that thatā€™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 doesnā€™t work
The evidence would be
The evidence
The evidence would be phase 2 trials
And ev the evidence would be a completed and published phase 3 trial
Thatā€™s not forthcoming
The phase 3
You donā€™t know that heā€™s trying
Heā€™d start completing these trials
And he would, he would be soliciting um, uh, lots of um, uh, you know, you know heā€™d be putting out papers constantly um and if the the British Medical Journal exampleā€™s anything uh representative of how Burzynski works, heā€™d immediately tell everyone that his heā€™s being . . blackballed by the, by the journal, even when itā€™s just a courtesy that he gets a a rejection
So, I mean, honestly, um, saying ā€œWell, when the F, FDA tells you that it doesnā€™t work, the FDAā€™s never gonna say that because thatā€™s not their job
So, given that what would, how many more patients do we have to show you before you consider that you may be wrong ?
Thatā€™s not an option, because theyā€™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
Right ?
It is Burzynskiā€™s job to be convincing
It is not our uh, uh, it it it he hasnā€™t produced in decades
In decades
In hundreds and hundreds of patients, whoā€™ve payed to be on this
Hell, weā€™d weā€™d weā€™d like a prelim, well when youā€™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
they test it
Yeah, and they they they want uh, that was evidence of fast-tracking is what, that rejection was uh e was very quickly
Um, so, uh, uh again, the FDA is not the arbiter of this
Itā€™s ultimately Burzynski
So, how long will it be before Burzynski doesnā€™t publish, that you decide that uh perhaps heā€™s heā€™s, doesnā€™t have the goods ?
Youā€™ve been speculating about what the FDAā€™s motivation are like crazy
Why not speculate about Burzynski a little bit
Well actually Iā€™m not even asking you to speculate about Burzynski, Iā€™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 ?
What ?
But these but but but that doesnā€™t have any bearing on
That doesnā€™t
Oh Iā€™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 ?
Itā€™s a itā€™s a itā€™s a question that should be answered by a number uh uh months ?
Years ?
How long ?
Itā€™s been 15 years already
I could push it back to 36 years
He hasnā€™t shown that it works for 36 years
I can do that
I was being nice
Perhaps based on bad phase 2
He withdrew
He withdrew the the phase 3 clinical trial
I that before recruiting,
although Iā€™ve seen lots of people say they were on a phase 3 clinical trial
I wonder how that happened
Uh did do do you think that if they thought that he was a real doctor that they all would have refused like that ?
Heā€™s changed things
That The Lancet is a top-tier journal like New England Journal of Medicine
Itā€™s basically be, besieged by uh 100ā€²s of people submitting their, their, their reports
Um, itā€™s just, you know, letā€™s say he, someone has such a thin publishing record as Burzynski does, do you think that itā€™s likely that he will ever get in a top-tier journal ?
What about the the Public Library of Science ?
Itā€™s not the only journal there
What about BMC Cancer ?
Thereā€™s lots of places that he can go
Um, and he doesnā€™t seem to to have evailed himself of that, as far as I can tell
And I would know because heā€™d get rejected, or heā€™d be crowing, you know
Either way, heā€™s gonna tell us what happens
He told us what happened with The Lancet, you know
I donā€™t have any evidence that suggests to me that heā€™s even trying
So letā€™s go back to this
How long will it take ?
How long will it take before you, the Japanese studyā€™s interesting too because we should be able to find that in the Japanese science databases, and we can find, we canā€™t find it at all
We canā€™t find it anywhere
And, and those are in English, so itā€™s not a language problem
We canā€™t find that anywhere
Weā€™ve asked
We asked Rick Schiff, for, for that study
And, and it hasnā€™t come to us
He is now I believe on the Board of Directors, over there
He should have access to this
We canā€™t get it
How how long will it take before you recognize that, nothing is forthcoming ?
How long would that take ?
Well, I mean, were talking about a blog here
Weā€™re talking about life
No, weā€™re talking about a bloggerā€™s feelings in that case
In in this case weā€™ren talking about, 1,000ā€²s of patients, over the course of of of generations, you know
This is important stuff
This is not eh eh equating whatā€™s happening to to patients with whatā€™s happening to you is is completely off-kilter as far as I can tell
Itā€™s nothing
Itā€™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 theyā€™ve trusted him, and heā€™s produced nothing
Nothing of substance
Nothing thas that has made all of that um, uh, n nothing th th th that uh his peers would take seriously
The other thing that that that strikes me now is that, you know, you you you you keep saying that, well Eric is going to to share things with you
Does it ever concern you eh uh eh occur to you that Eric might not be reliable ?
He then, and then he
And then he he, you know, the the the the dialogue that sprung up around that was, well see, heā€™s never going to get to get published
Well youā€™re just setting yourself up for wish fulfillment
You want him to be, persecuted, so you are ecstatic when he doesnā€™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
Where has Eric been wrong ?
Itā€™s itā€™s itā€™s itā€™s a form letter
You know
Theyā€™re just saying, ā€œNo thanksā€
ā€œThanks, but no thanksā€ is what they were saying, in the most generic way possible
Like I said, theyā€™re besieged by researchers trying to publish
So, so, possibly
So possibly what you are saying is that they in fact have read it, and after having read it theyā€™ve rejected it
Is that what youā€™re saying ?
Because thatā€™s what peer-review is
Do you know it was the same editor, that it came from the same desk ?
You canā€™t make that assumption that that the form letter will be the same form letter every time
I mean you just canā€™t
I mean in in some ways we have a lot of non-information that youā€™re filling in, with what you expect, as as opposed to whatā€™s actually really there, and I I I just think youā€™re putting too much uh stock in one uh, uh, in in in in this uh the publication kerfuffle
Um
Well, not necessarily
Iā€™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
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 itā€™s not uniform, doesnā€™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, letā€™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 wouldnā€™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, ā€œYeah, this is good,ā€ or ā€œNo, this is the problem, you have to go back and you have to fix thisā€
Right ?
So we really, every time we talk about the letter that he got, yeah that doesnā€™t have much to do with anything, really
We wanna see the frickinā€™ data
And if he had a cure for some cancers that otherwise donā€™t have reliable treatments, he has an obligation to get that out there anyway he can
And if if peer-review doesnā€™t, you know, play a, if peer-review canā€™t do it, you know, isnā€™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
Thatā€™s the way to do it
Oh I, I I I certainly donā€™t think that he would put a lot of stock in it, but I, I, I know Dave Gorski enough, he wants this to work
He has patients who are dying, you know
And if if if letā€™s say that that Burzynski could get ah his gene-targeted therapy to work on breast cancer patients in in a reliable way, that would be, such a help to these people, that that Gorskiā€™s trying to help
And, it it it doesnā€™t make sense, I mean, there, some of the best um, one of the the most important developments in medical history, was the development of of just washing your hands uh uh before uh uh going in and delivering a baby
Right ?
The guy who did it, was a colossal jerk, but it still worked and itā€™s the standard now
Right ?
Um, yea, it doesnā€™t matter now whether or not Burz, whether or not Gorski agrees with how Burzynski publishes
Itā€™s the, itā€™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
But he is a, the thing is, the thing is, you thing you have to understand is Gorski, Gorski is a genuine expert, in matters re re regarding on oncology studies
I mean, he has a
He, Heā€™s able to convince people, heā€™s able to convince people, on the strength of his record, to give him money to carry out research
People who know what theyā€™re talking about
To give him money to carry out his research
Right ?
Well what about all the other physicians, um, going back long before the Burzynski thing broke on-line
Of all these patients, with whom they have long-established relationships, and then doctors essentially after years, of treating these patients, basically saying, ā€œI canā€™t work with you anymore if you go to Burzynskiā€
What about that ?
Di, are all of these doctors just as biased ?
Did he get burned at some point ?
We donā€™t know
Yeah, well, you wouldnā€™t expect Eric Merola to say that he got, that a doctor got burned
Would you ?
But he, he doesnā€™t have, he hasnā€™t given us his data
Heā€™s given, heā€™s given, heā€™s given case studies
Heā€™s done
Okay
Except for a ph, completed phase 3 clinical trial
Yeah
One of the things, one of the things that Iā€™ve noticed going through these um, well, well there there is that
Uh, Guy Chapman, ā€œItā€™s a blog, not a peer-reviewed publicationā€
Um, almost no treatment goes out without trials
Massive amounts of data are required
Um, so, it it is kind of, slightly disingenuous to hold uh Gorski to the same . . standard that you would, it on his blog
I think that professionally he would make, he he he would follow-up on these things, but u what Iā€™ve noticed when you you mention these other people who are working with with Burzynski as co-investigators, the co- investigators donā€™t seem to have access to these, to these records
Um, you know, when they have to, when a patient has to, and often you have someone like a pediatrician, uh, signing on um uh to eh eh to work with with, uh and arrange care for patients when theyā€™re out of state, away from Burzynski
Um, itā€™s itā€™s itā€™s often not an oncologist
Itā€™s accurate to say that B Burzynski is not a board s uh certified oncologist
Itā€™s accurate to say that no trial has been completed and fully published
Um, yeah itā€™s um, it it it if, all of the arguing on behalf of Burzynski doesnā€™t give him a single phase 3
It doesnā€™t give him um a uh uh of of a completed and and published phase 2
Uh, in in in that sense, you know, uh all the the the, you know, kind of back-peddling and and and trying to defend him is is going to, not going to help his case at all
You are, honestly as far as I can tell you are doing the um, you know, youā€™re youā€™re ah throwing up uh, uh, uh, youā€™re giving me another uh invisible dragon in the garage, um
What is the issue were not talking about
Yeah, but they
But they have track records that support the idea that you should trust them
Okay, so
What youā€™re telling me is that you trust the FDA to to be able to tell you when heā€™s not doing, good science, but also that you donā€™t trust the FDA
Do you see an inherent conflict there ?
Well, when I, whenever I would ask about, like, why would these trials arenā€™t happening uh and, you know, you say well the the FDAā€™s arranged it
The FDAā€™s in control
They sign off on these things
But theyā€™re theyā€™re theyā€™re theyā€™re at the same that theyā€™re, theyā€™re trustworthy theyā€™re also not trustworthy depending on what you need for the particular argument at the time
Youā€™re suggesting that theyā€™re untrustworthy
I I would say that the the FDA has given Burzynski every opportunity for decades
Every opportunity
When he didnā€™t have r r really, he got special treatment as far as I can tell
Uh, the, Iā€™m rather stunned every morning I wake up and donā€™t see in the paper, that that place has has been closed down
I, I really am
Uh, so, you know, that one doesnā€™t really fly with me either
Um
Do you know that the FDA pulled out of the prosecution ?
Did you know that the FDA pulled out of the prosecution um of his criminal case, because they were backing a researcher ?
Yeah, the the the it wasnā€™t the FDA who was pressing charges, it was a Federal prosecutor
Right
And and, they declined to provide information that the prosecution needed
Thatā€™s important
That that thatā€™s really important
That he has been given the benefit of the doubt, and he has come up wanting, for decades now
The, no, claims works
He claims works
One of the things I think
One of the things that I think is happening here
One of the things I think is happening here, is that lots of people have worked with Burzynski and then have stopped working with B Burzynski
Uh, you know, uh lots of uh uh uh these partnerships do not seem to work out in the end
I often wonder, if the uh, the way that these things are, are are playing out, because itā€™s s so reliable that theyā€™re, that these partnerships are going to fail, I I wonder if th they are designed in such a way, that for instance, um a, uh, a a partner would be uncomfortable working
with him
Or um or that the specifications for what it takes to enter one of these trials is so high, that nobody will ever enter the trials
I mean, I wonder if they are, what, especially, like why hasnā€™t Burzynski left the country ?
Thatā€™s what I want to know
Exactly
If he was so, if he was s so persecuted and really cares about getting his treatment out to the world, why wouldnā€™t he ?
Theyā€™re, theyā€™re lots of things going on here
David James has pointed this out, that a lot of questions Iā€™m asking are not going answered
ā€œI still donā€™t know how long it would take before you would have any doubts about Burzynskiā€
ā€œI still have no idea, how often we can see patients reporting that signs of getting worse are getting better, before you would change your mindā€
Iā€™ve made it very clear that he just needs to have a completed study published and replicated before I support his right to go out and charge people what heā€™s charging for these, for these drugs, and Iā€™m Iā€™m just not seeing that here with you, and I I wonder what could come from, and donā€™t worry I will go to your site and I will comment on on on what youā€™ve run
Um, but, you know, I I I I itā€™s hard for Skeptics to imagine, what could be gained from engaging with you, if there seems to be no conceivable way, that we can, one, get a straight answer for, how many patients will have to report that getting worse is getting better before you starting doubting your opinion, or, uh, how many uh, uh, how many years does this have to go on before you decide that, ā€œNo, we probably just canā€™t produce the goodsā€
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 thatā€™s important
And thatā€™s where youā€™re falling short in the analogy
Iā€™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 youā€™ve never done that
And even in this, this was an opportunity to do that
To come up with a basis for understanding, where itā€™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
Why wasnā€™t that study
Why wasnā€™t that , that that that, still . . again, it it doesnā€™t seem really to to approach the the the, main question here
You know, um . . what are the standards that you have that it isnā€™t, what are your standards to show that it isnā€™t efficacious ?
Why was the Mayo
Why was the Mayo study delayed ?
Well you said you had so many years before you finish it and go in
Why, why did it take so long ?
I have something for you, okay ?
Send me that
Could you send me that study the way that it was published because um, just just send me the final study, um, to my e-mail address
Um, because, I can ask that question of those researchers, why was this study in this time, and what happened in-between
Why did it take so long for it, for it to come out
Right
Um, but it it would, perhaps, answer the question; because youā€™re using it as an example on the basis of which to dismiss criticism, whether or not, uh, it is the standard, and therefor youā€™re allowed to accept that Burzynski hasnā€™t published until 2016, or, um, itā€™s an anomaly, which is also a possibility, that most stuff comes out more quickly
I I, yeah, the other thing that David James points out is, you know, why 2016 when heā€™s had 36 years already ?
Treating people
You would expect the Burzynski Patient Group to be a lot bigger after 36 years, and in fact is
So, if youā€™re unsure about this stuff, if youā€™re unsure about the the time to publication, why are you defending it so hard, other than saying, ā€œI donā€™t know, I really need toā€
Uh about the
The reasons, the reasons for which that heā€™s, no, why are you defending him so hard, when youā€™re unsure ?
Iā€™ve backed-up everything that
Every time that Iā€™ve tried
and then other people
Way back
It is about
It is about as efficacious
Yeah, Iā€™ve, and and I based that on a a a that type of thing
You, you, you can read that how you want, right ?
There
He does have the accent though
Right ?
No
Alright ?
No, but listen, like, it it itā€™s not, it, we we donā€™t understand why you defend himself so hard, when there is such a paucity of of of information out there
Um
Even if itā€™s true or false you, honestly though
Even if itā€™s true or false, in in that particular instance, you know, eh letā€™s just say that youā€™re right
Gorski gets that point completely wrong
It has no bearing on whether or not, ANP works
Thatā€™s a Red Herring
Youā€™re just focusing on this, on this little niggly stuff, where the real question, is does it work ?
Are patients getting better at a better rate then not
or otherwise ?
Weā€™re were talking about whether or not thereā€™s evidence to suggest it works
The FDA, see thatā€™s the thing
You, the FDA are are, you know, you invest them with, weā€™re just, weā€™re just circling around again
Uh um, alright
Well, this has gone on for rather a, longer than I thought it would
Um, I, uh, wanna thank you for coming on here
I wasnā€™t sure that you would actually do it
Um, Iā€™m glad that you did
Iā€™m glad that we talked
Um, I will look at your web-site, and we will, uh, we, uh, you, oh make sure that I I go to your blog and and I talk there
Um
Please do
And I will look at those
Maybe not in the next few days; Iā€™ve got a lot going on but
Alright
Um
I donā€™t think he is
I donā€™t think heā€™s afraid
I just think heā€™s got a lot going on
He is act, a full-time surgical oncologist and researcher
He does have insane am, he has to pick and choose his battles
And if, if if he saw that we were going to ultimately be circling around our same arguments again and again; kind of like weā€™ve done here, um, he uh, you, he doesnā€™t have time for that, I donā€™t think
Alright
I I would ask that you to to go back over The The Other Burzynski Patient Group and take their stories seriously, because they deserve at least the same amount of consideration that the survivors do
Thatā€™s my
Thatā€™s my kids, okay
Well, Thanks for much for talking
I greatly appreciate it
Alright
Take it easy