Tag Archives: apologist

Critiquing: In which the latest movie about Stanislaw Burzynski “cancer cure” is reviewed…with Insolence

Posted on by
Reply

6/3/2013 “Orac” (@oracknows Dr. David H. Gorski @gorskon @ScienceBasedMed #sciencebasedmedicine
http://www.scienceblogs.com/insolence
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org)
posted his laughable review of:

Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II

In which the latest movie about Stanislaw Burzynski “cancer cure” is reviewed…with Insolence
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/03/in-which-the-latest-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynskis-cancer-cure-is-reviewed-with-insolence/
I’ve been ignoring “Orac” lately, since unlike “Orac,” I’ve been doing REAL research; which “Orac” has made excuses for NOT doing

Unlike “Orac,” my critique is done in order as it appears in Part 2

11/29/2011 “Orac” posted a review of the 1st #Burzynski Documentary:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/11/29/burzynski-the-movie-subtle-its-not/
12/12/2012 “Orac” was on vacation from his “exhaustive research” re Dr. Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski, so one of his “Oracolytes” posted:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/12/12/stanislaw-burzynski-a-pioneering-cancer-researcher-or-a-quack/
This was a repost of “Orac’s” 11/29/2011 review of Burzynski Part 1

I posted a critique of “Orac’s” cherry-picked 12/12/2012 posting

If you access the above link and scroll down, you will see that it only has comments from the day the article was posted (12/12/2012) through 1/30/2013

A grand total of about a month and a half

Comment #15 is the last item

This is a rarity since usually “Orac” has more than 15 comments to one of his posts

Gee, Orac

You didn’t delete my critique from your blog, did you?

Like you deleted that you had been approached by Eric Merola to appear in Burzynski 2?

“Orac” whines about Eric Merola’s “exhaustive research,” in a sarcastic manner, and claims that he is “intellectually dishonest”

Let us find out if Gorski is what he claims Merola is
======================================
1. (9:14) Chris Onuekwusi

Gorski laments that Mr. Onuekwusi did NOT have surgery, but instead, chose Burzynski

Gorski, why did Mr. Onuekwusi choose Burzynski and NOT surgery?

Since Burzynski is supposedly your fave subject, one would think that you would know, but your blog seems to indicate you are clueless, because you act as if Mr. Onuekwusi was supposed to choose surgery

Gorski, if you had done “exhaustive research” on Burzynski and “Gene-Targeted Cancer Therapy,” you would have viewed this @youtube video:

Texas Med. Bd. v. Dr. Burzynski – Gene-Targeted Cancer Therapy – Case Dismissed 11/19/2012
BurzynskiMovie

Gorski, if you would have listened and viewed this video, you would have heard Mr. Onuekwusi just say “NO,” to “SURGERY” at 4:35
======================================
2. (31:17) Laura Hymas

Gorski becomes the “apologist” for the unnamed United Kingdom (U.K.) National Health Service (NHS) oncologist who Ben, Laura, and her parents converse with on the recording

(36:35) Ben makes it clear that the Primary Care Trust would pay for the 8 week MRI scans, blood tests, and personal health check

Gorski completely ignores this in his review

(37:00) Ben points out that just the past Wednesday, a friend of theirs, a prior 7-year-old Burzynski patient who was now 11, had seen this doctor, and this patient had been cared for by a UK doctor after returning from America

(38:30) Ben indicated that the doctor would be sent a sheet that would need to be faxed to Burzynski with the blood test results and such

The doctor said to let him know when Laura needed a scan, but then it seems he reneged on that

Gorski completely ignores all this

Laura’s mom raised the issue that no matter the doctor’s opinion about Burzynski, he had taken the Hippocratic oath
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon’s knife or the chemist’s drug.

I will not be ashamed to say “I know not,” nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient’s recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know.

Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death.

If it is given me to save a life, all thanks.

But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty.

Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person’s family and economic stability.

My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter.

May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
——————————————————————
Perhaps the UK doctor believes the Hippocratic oath is a joke, and maybe Gorski does also

(42:15) Laura’s parents give the UK N.H.S. the “business”
======================================
3. (1:00:00) Tori Moreno

Merola relates that brainstem glioma has a median survival of shorter than a year, and other data

(1:01:40) Tori’s father reveals that he was told in August of 1998 that she was going to die because of the Diffuse Intrinsic Pontine Glioma (DIPG) which was almost completely replacing the pons region and extending beyond the brainstem itself
——————————————————————
Gorski rants because Eric missed the following 3 publications re spontaneous regression which are not even titled as DIPG’s

None of these publications were around in 1998

Gorski does NOT indicate whether any of the lesions were as large as Tori’s, and that the infants would die

The last one has nothing to do with children
——————————————————————
4/2007 – Spontaneous remission of a diffuse brainstem lesion in a neonate
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17318651/
Pediatr Radiol. 2007 Apr;37(4):399-402. Epub 2007 Feb 23.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/17318651/
Pediatric Radiology
April 2007, Volume 37, Issue 4, pp 399-402
DOI
10.1007/s00247-007-0424-2
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00247-007-0424-2
Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany

7 week infant – spontaneous remission of diffuse brainstem lesion

Clinical / MRI strongly suggested diffuse pontine glioma

MRI studies showed continuous decrease in size of lesion

No longer visible at 27 months (2 years 3 months)

Spontaneous remission of diffuse pontine glioma extremely rare

To our knowledge there are reports of only 3 similar cases
——————————————————————
1/2005 – Spontaneous regression of a diffuse brainstem lesion in the neonate. Report of two cases and review of the literature.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16206736/
J Neurosurg. 2005 Jan;102(1 Suppl):65-71.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16206736/
Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics
Vol. 102: 65-71 (Volume publication date: January 2005)
DOI: 10.3171/ped.2005.102.1.0065
http://thejns.org/doi/abs/10.3171/ped.2005.102.1.0065?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3dpubmed&
Section of Pediatric Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, Children’s Hospital of Columbus, Ohio, USA.

2 newborns with diffuse brainstem lesions regressed without treatment

characteristics of diffuse brainstem glioma

Subcategory of diffuse lesions may exist, particularly in neonatal period

Must be stressed that nearly all patients with diffuse brainstem lesions experience poor outcome, regardless of tumor grade or treatment
——————————————————————
2/2005 – A brainstem cavernoma demonstrating a dramatic, spontaneous decrease in size during follow-up: case report and review of the literature.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15680664/
Surg Neurol. 2005 Feb;63(2):170-3; discussion 173.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15680664/
Department of Neurosurgery, Osaka City General Hospital, Osaka, Japan
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0090301904005178
Surgical Neurology
Volume 63, Issue 2, February 2005, Pages 170–173

42-year-old woman

Pontine cavernoma

Large brainstem cavernoma showing spontaneous, dramatic reduction in size after removal of only biopsy specimen of lesion
——————————————————————
Gorski does NOT address where Tori’s father states that a gag order was in effect so that he could NOT discuss which insurance company paid for Tori’s care
======================================
4. Amelia Saunders

No, Gorski, Eric did NOT say:

“Two months after this interview, Amelia’s brain tumor began to swell and fill with fluid. There was confusion and disagreement between their local radiologists and the radiologists in Houston about why this was happening—so her parents decided to discontinue antineoplaston therapy.”

He says:

“Two months after this interview Amelia’s condition began to deteriorate…”

Unless your purchased version of the movie somehow magically differs from the free version that was available 7/13/2013 – 7/20/2013
======================================
5. (1:10:00) Accelerated Approval

Gorski, being his usual SkeptiCoward© self, does NOT broach the subject of why the United States Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval to Temodar (1999) and Avastin (2009), but has NOT granted approval for antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1, even though the FDA supervised Burzynski’s phase 2 clinical trials and was at the Burzynski Clinic going through their documentation, and as Fabio pointed out, Burzynski has provided the FDA with 2.5 million pages of clinical trial documents
(37:20) 4/27/2013

======================================
6. (1:10:12) FDA requiring radiation be used in Burzynski’s phase 3 clinical trial even though Burzynski had shown better results when radiation is NOT used before antineoplaston administration

Again, Gorski does NOT touch this with the proverbial ZZ Top Ten-Foot Pole, as is his custom
======================================
7. (1:20:20) Bob Blaskiewicz

(Also known as rjblaskiewicz @rjblaskiewicz Robert J. Blaskiewicz Faux Skeptic Exposed! Blatherskitewicz
http://www.skepticalhumanities.com

http://virtualskeptics.com/)
See also: Robert Quickert @RobertQuickert (also known as Robert Quackert a/k/a RobertQuackert)
http://www.thehoustoncancerquack.com
——————————————————————
Gorski has nothing to say about his fellow “man-crush’s” comments re Burzynski’s clinical trials allegedly being:

“unpromising imaginary trials”

even though phase 2 clinical trials are for:

“evidence of effectiveness”

and the FDA has approved phase 3 trials for Burzynski, which is for:

“Phase 3 studies begin if EVIDENCE of EFFECTIVENESS is shown in Phase 2″
“These studies gather more information about safety and EFFECTIVENESS”
http://www.fda.gov/drugs/resourcesforyou/consumers/ucm143534.htm
Nor does Gorski comment on his pal’s comment that Burzynski’s clinical trials are a “scam,” which in turn means that he is stating that the F.D.A. is involved in a “scam”

Gorski is also silent on his blog buddy’s statement that Burzynski’s clinical trials are “unproven,” since ALL clinical trials are “unproven” until such time as the FDA approves the drug(s)
======================================
8. (1:23:20) Death Cult

Blaskiewicz also postulates that Burzynski has a “death cult,” and Gorski, who claims:

“I will call you out publicly”

in relation to the critics, cynics, The Skeptics™, and SkeptiCowards© who posted certain twits on Twitter

It seems that that standard possibly does NOT apply to Gorski’s bud
======================================
9. (1:25:50) Costs of clinical trials

Bobby also ridicules how much it costs to run a clinical trial, as if he’s a clueless “sheeple” who does NOT know how to do real research, like Gorski

Gorski plays “silent Bob” to “Bob”
======================================
10. (1:26:30) $800,000 a month standard care for cancer treatment

When it is pointed out that antineoplaston (ANP) treatment was costing $10,000 a month, yet the individual knew someone who had an $800,000 a month standard care for cancer treatment bill, Gorski was as silent as a titmouse
======================================
11. (1:27:38) Gorski

Gorski gets a mention, and his comment is that at least he can use his blog as a tax write off

Gorski, I do this for FREE

NO tax write off
======================================
12. (1:27:50) Gorski’s Respectful Insolence blogsplat

“Orac” gets some screen-time

More on his blog, after the below entries
======================================
13. (1:29:53) 11/26/2012 The Lancet Oncology Peer Review Team D-12-01519

Gorski can NOT seem to bring himself to pontificate on The Lancet’s lame excuse for NOT publishing Burzynski’s phase 2 clinical trial Progression-Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS) re patients 8 – 16 years after diagnosis, results, and the Lancet Peer Review Team coming up with this piss-poor ejaculation in 2 hours 8 minutes and 51 seconds

Gorski #FAIL
======================================
14. Herceptin

Gorski pretends he took a bathroom break when Burzynski mentions he was using Herceptin to treat stomach cancer when the FDA had only approved it initially for brain cancer, and only later approved it for stomach cancer after Burzynski was already using it for that purpose
======================================
15. Tennessee and Alabama doctors

Gorski is as silent as a church mouse on making any comments derogatory as to the doctors who had treated Burzynski patients
======================================
16. Texas Medical Board

Gorski calls for Burzynski’s medical license to be pulled; apparently because Gorski still does NOT understand what the term “standard of care” means

Yet Gorski is a clam when it comes to the last time the TMB went after Burzynski and FAILED, as to why the TMB did NOT go after the specific doctors at the Burzynski Clinic who were actually those patients doctor of record, if the TMB had an actual case; though I should point out that it was predominantly the State Office of Administrative Hearings involved in that fiasco
======================================
17. Twitter

Gorski mentions an individual who posted tweets, and posted, as I mentioned in 8., above:

“I will call you out publicly”

as if everyone reads his blog!

I have absolutely NO qualms about

calling them out publicly, NOW:

“appears to be just a money laundry for a lying quack fraud”

and:

“when Laura dies #Burzynski will just move on to his next mark if she doesn’t run out of money first”

BurzynskiSaves (@BurzynskiSaves) tweeted at 7:42pm – 25 Dec 11:

“@RatbagsDotCom:They will be even more vulnerable when Laura dies and #Burzynski forgets her and moves on to the next mark” #unconscionable https://twitter.com/BurzynskiSaves/status/151115741888909312

Gee, willikers!

Is that YOU, Peter Bowditch (also known as HeadInDitch)?
@RatbagsDotCom
======================================
18. FDA

Nary a word does Gorski spout about the FDA and the comments made about who it really serves
======================================
19. The “Present”

Gorski comments about the “present” that Blaskiewicz was involved with:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/07/lets-make-dr-stanislaw-burzynski-do-something-good-for-cancer-patients-for-a-change/
1/6/2013 – PZ Myers Let’s make Houston cancer quack Burzynski pay! http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/01/06/lets-make-houston-cancer-quack-burzynski-pay/
“That’s why I like the idea of the campaign that Bob Baskiewicz has come up with to wish Dr. Burzynski a happy birthday this year, skeptic style:” http://thehoustoncancerquack.com/2013/01/04/happy-birthday-dr-burzynski/
I posted blogs about what this “present” REALLY was:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/18/fact-checking-httpthehoustoncancerquack-com/
Critiquing Bob Blaskiewicz (#Burzynski Cancer is Serious Business, Part II):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/critiquing-bob-blaskiewicz-burzynski-cancer-is-serious-business-part-ii/
The “present” included sayings like:

“Let’s make Houston cancer quack Burzynski pay!”

“there is a plan to remind him of the grief he has caused”

“his snake oil”

“bilk people out of buckets of money”

“Crime does pay”

“This fraud”

“The Burzynski clinic is a place you go to die”

“The lies”

“his quackery”

I guess this means Gorski has given this his “Orac” stamp of approval
======================================
20. Whiny Gorski, Part 2

Just like in his review of the 1st Burzynski documentary where Gorski claimed he was going to deal predominantly with “science,” but then ended up whining about almost everything under the sun, Gorski does the same with Burzynski 2, which is hilarious, since he blathers about the narration of the movie as if it is “creepy,” when it is no more “creepy” than his lame “cancer researcher” pal:

C0nc0rdance:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/23/my-review-of-c0nc0rdance/
======================================
21. Publication of final phase 2 clinical trial results

Gorski blogsplats that Burzynski has NOT published his final results, but ignores that Burzynski’s 1st completed phase 2 clinical trial was in 2009, and that MD Anderson, which had done a clinical trial in 2006, did NOT publish their results until 6-7 years later, in 2013
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/26/burzynski-the-clinical-trials/
It really does NOT matter if Burzynski does publish the final results, since Gotski can just whine that phase 2 trials are only for “evidence of effectiveness,” or make excuses that he does NOT understand the publication(s), but then again, I’m guessing that Gorski did NOT graduate 1st in his class, unlike Burzynski
======================================
22. “I’ve recently learned a lot about how and why these trials were originally approved by the FDA”

Gorski posits the above in regards to Burzynski’s clinical trials

What, Gorski ?

Did that UK NHS employee @FrozenWarning (a/k/a Frozen Boring a/k/a FrozenBoring) who posts on your blogsplat, finally let you in on the details of their post on #Forbes, when your “bud” Dr. Peter A. Lipson posted that mudfish-wrap:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/01/thawing-out-the-skeptics-frozenwarning-frozenboring/
“A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics”

where FW posted:

“The FDA was ordered by a scientifically illiterate judge to allow these trials, they had no choice.”

whilst doing what The Skeptics™ SkeptiCowards© are famous for, providing NO citation, reference, and / or link in support of this claim

Or did you finally read all the comments I posted on your blogsplat, outlining how Burzynski went through the process of getting the clinical trials underway, before you BLOCKED me for pointing out that you and The Skeptics™ SkeptiCowards© are:

“intellectually dishonest” ?

I show JzG what a “FACT” is: Burzynski: FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions): Clinical Trial Results:

Posted on by
1

Burzynski: FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions): Clinical Trial Results:
redd.it/1e458n
FAQ
http://po.st/SLDlJ
Who is JzG and why should you care?

JzG claims there is a “misleading factoid”

JzG does NOT seem to comprehend that the reason something is titled as a “FACT,” is because it is NOT misleading

JzG does NOT seem to understand that indicating that a “FACT” is misleading, is oxymoronic

It is a “FACT” that:

“Trial results are not always publicly available, even after a clinical trial ends”

(Source: U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health)

An individual with the same initials (JzG also known as JzG|Guy) is one of the “gatekeepers” of the “Burzynski Clinic” Wikipedia page, as I documented HERE:

guychapman (Guy Chapman) Critiquing “The Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics (page 9)
redd.it/1dpsj6
(Guy Chapman, @SceptiGuy, @vGuyUK, guychapman)
http://redd.it/1dpsj6
Wikipedia apologist Guy Chapman’s United Kingdom “blahg:”
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg
Wikipedia, what’s your motivation?:
redd.it/1dk974
WP
http://t.co/N7ErbunCV2
JzG are you related to Guy Chapman?

I consider him to be a coward

Wikipedia’s “Neutral” policy history clearly indicates:

“The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered, …”

[[WP:NPOV]] “History of NPOV:” (Content # 6, Note 3)

(Wikipedia: Neutral Point Of View)

This is also a “factoid,” and the JzG|Guy “gatekeeper” on Wikipedia gave it the same amount of respect JzG gives the U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health

Which leads one to wonder if they are twins, considering that one had the testicular fortitude to post a comment, and the other is a coward and trumpets U.K. views

One JzG|Guy commented on Wikipedia:

> “We are told that 2013 will be a big year, but apparently his plan is to

> release another bullshit movie not to publish useful research.” JzG|Guy
> User:JzG/help|Help! 21:52, 24 December 2013
>
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Didymus_Judas_Thomas&diff=next&oldid=528610760
to view this change

and:
>
> “There is unlikely to be any dispassionate debate over ANPs while Burzynski
> continues with his unethical practices.” JzG|Guy User:JzG/help|Help!
> 12:43, 26 December 2012
>
> Continues with his unethical practices.? Yet TMB/SOAH had their
> case dismissed? Is WP judge, jury, & executioner?
>
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burzynski_Clinic&diff=next&oldid=529537854
to view this change.

I could really care less what JzG|Guy’s “opinion” is, since:

Wikipedia’s “Neutral” policy history clearly indicates:

“The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered, …”

[[WP:NPOV]] “History of NPOV:” (Content # 6, Note 3)

(Wikipedia: Neutral Point Of View)

As the old military saying goes:

If I wanted your opinion … (Wikipedia) … I’d beat it out of you

In this blog post reply, Wikipedia shill “JzG” presents a single myopic misleading meme for a number of reasons in respect of Stanislaw Burzynski

JzG posits:

“Most obvious of these is that of the 61 trials registered by Burzynski over nearly two decades, only one has even been completed.”

WHAT “completed” trial is JzG referring to?

Good question, since I have yet to find one of “The Skeptics” who could adequately describe what Protocol, start date, and completion date apply to this “one” trial they keep mentioning

Antineoplaston Therapy in Treating Patients With Stage IV Melanoma
Phase II
Status: COMPLETED
Age: 18 and over
Protocol IDs: CDR0000066552, BC-ME-2, NCT00003509

11/25/1997 – FORM 10-SB

Click to access 0000950110-97-001598.pdf

ME-2 PHASE II STUDY OF ANTINEOPLASTONS A10 AND AS2-1 IN PATIENTS WITH MALIGNANT MELANOMA
8 40
7/26/96 – Revised
10/4/96 – Revised
4/14/97 – Revised

11/1/1999 – First received

5/23/2009 – Last updated

5/2009 – Last verified
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/archive/NCT00003509
Burzynski Clinical Trials (The SEC filings):
redd.it/1e2f2i
5/1/2012 Certain prospective protocols which have reached a Milestone:
http://redd.it/1e2f2i
Antineoplaston Therapy in Treating Patients With Stage IV Melanomau
Melanoma (Skin)
Drug: antineoplaston A10
Drug: antineoplaston AS2-1
Phase II / Phase 2
COMPLETED
Age 18 and over
Protocol IDs
CDR0000066552
BC-ME-2, NCT00003509
http://cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/BC-ME-2
2009_05_26 Study Changes Recruitment status, Recruitment, Misc.
1 clinical_study study_id
2
is_fda_regulated Yes
is_section_801 Yes
delayed_posting No
resp_party name_title Stanislaw R. Burzynski
name_title organization Burzynski Clinic
organization resp_party

Fm: Active, not recruiting
To: COMPLETED

status date
Fm: 2008-04
To: 2009-05

date
Fm: 2008-01
To: 2005-02

last_release_date
Fm: 2008-07-23
To: 2009-05-23
http://clinicaltrials.gov/archive/NCT00003509/2009_05_26/changes
“COMPLETED:”

2009-05-23 (5/23/2009)

To put this in perspective, the below study done in 2006, was NOT published until about 7 years later, in 2013

2/13/2013 – The frequency, cost, and clinical outcomes of HYPERNATREMIA in patients hospitalized to a comprehensive CANCER center
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23404230
Over 3 month period in 2006 re 3,446 patients, most of the HYPERNATREMIA (90 %) was acquired during hospital stay

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

Department of General Internal Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

Division of Endocrinology, Mayo Clinic

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

Supportive Care in Cancer
February 2013

DOI
10.1007/s00520-013-1734-6
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00520-013-1734-6

JzG continues:

“Then there’s the fact that unpublished trials are not generally acceptable when applying for approval for a drug, or when promoting the drug (in this case it’s hardly relevant as he appears to have no intention of applying for approval; the trials seem to be used as an end-run around restrictions on his use of unapproved drugs).”

JzG ignores:

Burzynski: What happens when a clinical trial is over?:

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

Cancer Clinical Trials

15. What happens when a clinical trial is over?

“The results of clinical trials are OFTEN published in peer-reviewed scientific journals”

” … WHETHER OR NOT the results are published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal … “
http://m.cancer.gov/topics/factsheets/clinical-trials
This makes it clear that clinical trial results “are OFTEN” published, but sometimes they are “NOT” published “in a peer-reviewed scientific journal”

Burzynski: Declaration of Helsinki:
redd.it/1e4ybx
Helsinki
http://po.st/ajl2Xy
The Declaration of Helsinki does NOT indicate WHEN final (completed) results of human clinical trials MUST be published

Burzynski: The FDA’s Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective:
redd.it/1e6gvj
Nowhere does it indicate that final (completed) human clinical trial results MUST be published in a peer-reviewed scientific medical journal
http://redd.it/1e6gvj
JzG comments:

“Why does the medical and scientific community not accept Burzynski’s claims to cure cancer? Because he has failed to publish credible evidence. The few papers he has published are neither compelling nor generally useful in evaluating his claims.”

JzG where is / are YOUR in-depth review(s) of the 2003-2007 phase II clinical trials preliminary reports?

Wikipedia, what’s your motivation?

Posted on by
Reply

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM

the below article was posted on Forbes (#Forbes):
onforb.es/11pwse9

http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics
A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics

by:

“Speech is best countered by more speech”

Peter Lipson:

I documented the preliminary report of my adventures on the Forbes comment section, on my blog:
http://t.co/n1IzlVmZEu
Critiquing “The Skeptic” Burzynski
reddit.it/1d8am2
Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer
http://reddit.it/1d8am2
Doctor, And Their Critics (page 1)
http://www.reddit.com/tb/1d8am2
4/27/2013:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/critiquing-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics-page-1/
Once THAT was cleared up, and I posted a comment, one lilady decided to interject Wikipedia into the mix, on Forbes

lilady 4 days ago

“Ha Didymus Thomas…You opened your huge tin of Spam, months ago!”

“And, you “Didymous Judas Thomas” and your sock puppets were banned by Wikipedia.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Didymus_Judas_Thomas
“You and Randy Hinton are sounding suspiciously alike.”

“So, Randy Hinton, will you be debating a real surgical oncologist?”

“Or are you one of DJT’s sockies?”

Permalink
http://server8.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/sbomdbt/smno/p1/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/?commentId=comment_blogAndPostId/blog/comment/2541-1653-320
Flag
Reply

I replied to lilady’s comment and ASSumption re:

“You and Randy Hinton are sounding suspiciously alike”

Didymus Thomas 4 days ago

As former President Ronald Reagan used to say:

“Well, there you go again.”

Let me make this perfectly clear and unambiguous as I can.

1. I am NOT Dr. Stanislaw R. Burzynski, I have never worked for him, I have never met him.

2. I am NOT AstroTurfWatch.

3. I am NOT Eric Merola, I have never worked for him, I have never met him.

4. I am NOT Randy Hinton, I have never met him, this article is the first place I have seen his name.

Permalink
http://server8.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/sbomdbt/smno/p1/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/?commentId=comment_blogAndPostId/blog/comment/2541-1653-322
Flag
Reply

lilady returned and restated her ASSumption, whilst providing NO information in support of her claim re any of my “alleged” “sock puppets”

lilady 4 days ago

“But you ARE Didymus Judas Thomas, who, along with his/her sock puppets, are banned from Wikipedia:”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Didymus_Judas_Thomas
“So, Randy Hinton…why don’t you post at the blog I linked to?”

Permalink
http://server8.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/sbomdbt/smno/p1/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/?commentId=comment_blogAndPostId/blog/comment/2541-1653-323
Flag
Reply

I replied to lilady’s “day old fish:”

Didymus Thomas 3 days ago

1. Do you have a point ?

2. Do you have a relationship with Wikipedia?

3. Why is it that on the Wikipedia “Brainstem Glioma” Prognosis page it has “needs citations,” when I can do an Internet search and find reliable independent sources for that information?

4. Do you really want to get into a debate about WP, or do you want to handle one issue at a time?

5. “The U.S. v. Article’~ court stated that the FDA’s responsibility was to protect the ultimate consumer, which included protection of

“the ignorant, the unthinking and the credulous.”‘

Permalink
http://server8.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/sbomdbt/smno/p1/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/?commentId=comment_blogAndPostId/blog/comment/2541-1653-324
Flag
Reply

I added the above point “5.,” since it aptly described the “lilady” I was dealing with

lilady rejoined:

lilady 3 days ago

“I have no connection with Wikipedia and you and your sock puppets have been banned from the site.”

“Your posts only indicate that you and your sockies’ Spam are ignorant in basic science and cancer treatment.”

Permalink
http://server8.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/sbomdbt/smno/p1/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/?commentId=comment_blogAndPostId/blog/comment/2541-1653-325
Flag
Reply

I responded to lilady’s continued ASSumptions, since, if anything, if either of us were

“…ignorant in basic science and cancer treatment”

I felt that the honor should be bestowed upon a lilady

Didymus Thomas 3 days ago

1. lilady, please explain what you did bit (sic – “not”) understand re Randy Hinton’s comment:

“I will not waste my time with a CHAT on line where you people alway’s control the conversation”

2. The fact that you were not able to offer a coherent response to point 3 of my reply says it all

3. WP claims to have a neutral policy:

“The principles upon which this ‘policy’ is based cannot be superseded by ‘other policies’”

Yet, even WP apologist, Guy Chapman is unable to explain why, when WP claims ‘other policies’ are supposedly “co-equal” with the neutral policy, that none of those ‘other policies’ also indicate that:

“The principles upon which this ‘policy’ is based cannot be superseded by ‘other policies’”

4. As former President George Herbert Walker Bush said: “Read … my … lips”

Permalink
http://server8.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/sbomdbt/smno/p1/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/?commentId=comment_blogAndPostId/blog/comment/2541-1653-326
Flag
Reply

I detailed the exploits of lilady on Forbes and “Orac” and the “Oracolytes” blog, on my blog:

Orac, a lilady, the Oracolytes: “The
redd.it/1dgqa1
Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A Film
http://redd.it/1dgqa1
Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And
http://www.reddit.com/tb/1dgqa1
Their Critics
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/01/orac-a-lilady-the-oracolytes-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/
Seeing as how lilady did NOT have a response for my reply; what a surprise, and since another commentor had posted:

Boris Ogon

“You are right now having a live “debate” in front of more than 10,000 people, … “

which came as quite a surprise to me, since there had only been

3,875 views

Not so much

I wanted to assist Mr. Ogon in reaching his goal

Waiting for the 10,000

I wonder if Wikipedia believes in “Sunshine” and “Blue Sky,” because when they ban people who question their “gatekeeper’s” “infallibility,” it means that the banned individual is NOT able to post their comments on the Wikipedia ban appeal section where it can be seen

If Wikipedia were really NOT afraid of “Sunshine” and “Blue Sky,” then they should change their ban appeal process so that the banned individual has access to the ban appeal process on Wikipedia

On my blog I posted:
redd.it/1djmit
“The Skeptics:”
http://redd.it/1djmit
Your problem is,
http://www.reddit.com/tb/1djmit
Wikipedia IS censored
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/the-skeptics-your-problem-is-wikipedia-is-censored
In the above article I refer to Wikipedia apologist Guy Chapman (guychapman on Forbes, also known as @SceptiGuy, @vGuyUK); because when you post garbage, sometimes you need 2 or more Twitter accounts to do it at the same time

Mr. Chapman has a “blahg” on a United Kingdom (UK) site:
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg
When I was attempting to get Wikipedia to prove that they really are “neutral” and that they actually abide by:

“The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered, …”

[[WP:NPOV]] “History of NPOV:” (Content # 6, Note 3)

(Wikipedia: Neutral Point Of View)

To show how “BIASED” Wikipedia is, all one has to do is read the below comments:

I pointed out that the e-mail address provided on Wikipedia for blocked individual’s to use, did NOT work, because there is NO “@” in it:

arbcom-appeals.en.lists.wikimedia.org

and should be changed to:

arbcom-appeals-en@lists.wikimedia.org

here is the response I received:

On 2/1/13 wikiXXX.@.XXXX.XXX
Anthony (AGK) BASC

On 3 February 2013 06:56, Didymxs Thomas

“Everything you have said in that e-mail demonstrates a misunderstanding or misreading of Wikipedia policy. We have told you already that we do not accept the validity of your complaint; that will not change, and you will not be unblocked at this time.”

“I wish you luck with your future endeavours outwith Wikipedia.”

“Yours,”

“Anthony (AGK)”
“BASC”

So, advising Wikipedia that the e-mail address they provide on their site will NOT work because it has no “@” sign, means:

“Everything you have said in that e-mail demonstrates a misunderstanding or misreading of Wikipedia policy”
>
> “Looking into your situation, the community were united that
> your contributions were biased.”
>
> WP editors seem to be biased:
>
> “We are told that 2013 will be a big year, but apparently his plan is to
> release another bullshit movie not to publish useful research.” JzG|Guy
> User:JzG/help|Help! 21:52, 24 December 2013
>
> Bullshit?

You remind me of THIS “Guy” Chapman (@SceptiGuy) and his “bullshit”

Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 12:42pm – 14 Mar 13:

(Surely Guy Chapman is NOT the same individual as JZG|Guy?)

Thank you “Guy”

Your 15 seconds of “Fame” starts

NOW !!!
>
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Didymus_Judas_Thomas&diff=next&oldid=528610760
to view this change

“The world, right now, considers Burzynski to be at best unethical and at
> worst a quack…”. Guy (Help!) 08:58, 30 December 2012
>
> The world?

(Surely, Guy Chapman is NOT the same individual as Guy?)

(Surely, JZG|Guy is NOT the same individual as Guy?)
>
> “There is unlikely to be any dispassionate debate over ANPs while Burzynski
> continues with his unethical practices.” JzG|Guy User:JzG/help|Help!
> 12:43, 26 December 2012
>
> Continues with his unethical practices.? Yet TMB/SOAH had their
> case dismissed? Is WP judge, jury, & executioner?
>
> “What they mean is that nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it,
> which necessarily means that it’s not considered in the least
> promising.” Guy (Help!) 3:54 pm, 24 December 2012, Monday
>
> Nobody else is doing meaningful work on it? Ignores independent research
> done in Poland, Russia, Korea, Egypt, Japan, & China which
> specifically reference SRB’s publications in their publications
> re antineoplastons & phenylacetylglutamine (PG); which is AS2-5, &
> includes phase III trials published in China & continued research being
> published in China 12/17/2012?

What, exactly, do you NOT understand about THIS?
>
>“The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the
> general public is not relevant and should not be considered,”
> WP:NPOV “History of NPOV:” (Content # 6, Note [3])
>
(Surely, Guy Chapman, @SceptiGuy, @vGuyUK, JZG|Guy, guychapman, and Guy are NOT all the same individual?)

See
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burzynski_Clinic&diff=next&oldid=529537854
to view this change.

> Arbitrator views and discussion
>
> On Friday, January 25, 2013, Steve Pereira wrote:
>
> Hello Didymus Judas Thomas
>
> The Arbitration Committee look into conduct disputes where the community
> are unable to resolve them. Looking into your situation, the
> community were united that your contributions were biased:
>
What do you NOT understand about THIS?

>“The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the
> general public is not relevant and should not be considered,”
> WP:NPOV “History of NPOV:” (Content # 6, Note [3])

(Wikipedia: Neutral Point Of View)
>
> There is also concern that you wish to promote antineoplaston therapy in
> the article, a cancer therapy that is unproven in independent trials and
> yet is very expensive.
>
> Steve/SilkTork
>
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 1:05 AM, Didymos Thomas

What do you NOT understand about THIS?

>“The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the
> general public is not relevant and should not be considered,”
> WP:NPOV “History of NPOV:” (Content # 6, Note [3])

(Wikipedia: Neutral Point Of View)
>
Boris Ogon

“You are right now having a live “debate” in front of more than 10,000 people, … “

…and there had only been

3,799 views

Not so much

Waiting for the 10,000

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM

Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzynski_Clinic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Burzynski_Clinic