“The Skeptics™” Mark McAndrew is Trollolo

“The Skeptics™” Mark McAndrew #whining on “The Telegraph” while citing Guy Chapman’s blog, claims I shouldn’t be citing my own blog, but he does NOT have any problem whatsoever with his Skeptic guy friend, Guy Chapman, citing HIS own blog


This is why I’m Hipocritical of “The Skeptics™”


Mark McAndrew citing Guy Chapman’s (blahg) blog

Guy Chapman citing his own (blahg) blog TWICE

Guy Chapman citing his own (blahg) blog TWICE

Guy Chapman citing his own (blahg) blog

Guy Chapman citing his own (blahg) blog


Note below, how the moderator leaves my comment as “This comment is awaiting moderation. Show comment”, so that the reader has to select “Show comment” in order to see my reply


Guy Chapman

All of homeopathy, or just the imponderables?
Didymus Judas Thomas

Mr. Chapman, I’m quite surprised that you’ve been mum about this particular Homeopathy publication on PubMed?

Cell Biochem Funct. 2013 Feb 13. doi: 10.1002/cbf.2960
[Epub ahead of print]

Stimulation of natural killer cells for homoeopathic complexes: An in vitro and in vivo pilot study in advanced cancer patients.
Guy Chapman does NOT want to acknowledge that this publication exists

Note below, Mark McAndrew’s comment which gets deleted


Mark McAndrew, you must be the Troll under the bridge that people have to cross to get to the party

#8 – Mark McAndrew – October 22, 2013

Thanks Orac, great takedown

Perhaps you should ask the Telegraph for right of reply?

As a real oncologist (whose entire profession is under attack by these pricks) you have the moral authority to demand it

Comments were fun tho

Although debating the spectacular embarrassment that is Sandra Courtney was a bit like going ten rounds with a propped-up corpse

Good exercise, but not exactly testing

Nor hygienic

BTW, lilady, you’ve accidently upvoted one of the Demented One’s posts, the entirely non-ironic

“I think I have exposed your and other skeptics’ credibility as well

Actually, better than you think you have tarnished mine

More batty arrogance on display.”

(Is it true she reckons magic water saved her life from mercury poisoning from her fillings?

Gods, what a freak!)

[1] – “The Skeptics™” Bum Rush “The Telegraph” (@Telegraph): I Feel Empowered, In Control Of My Body: Four Women On Fighting Cancer With Alternative Therapies http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10383724/I-feel-empowered-in-control-of-my-body-four-women-on-fighting-cancer-with-alternative-therapies.html
[2] – Bias Biased “The Telegraph” Censor “Telegraph” Censors “The Daily Telegraph” Censored “The Sunday Telegraph” Censoring Censorship (@Telegraph): I Feel Empowered, In Control Of My Body: Four Women On Fighting Cancer With Alternative Therapies http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10383724/I-feel-empowered-in-control-of-my-body-four-women-on-fighting-cancer-with-alternative-therapies.html



Shall We Play A Game? “The Skeptics” (SkeptiCowards) vs. “The Skeptics'” Critics #Burzynski The 1st ever “LIE OFF”

It is the first ever “LIE OFF”


1. One (1) “LIE” per Tweet (or blog comment)

2. You may use the same link to refer to additional “LIES” (One (1) at a time)

3. The “LIE” MUST be supported by “FACTS” (Citation(s), Reference(s), and / or Link(s)) – I realize that having to rely on “FACTS” may put many of “The Skeptics” at a perceived “disadvantage,” since many of them are so used to getting away with unsubstantiated vitriolic comments (Example: See

4. The “alleged” “LIAR” may contest their exalted position (One (1) issue at a time)

5. You may have to pull an Anthony Jeselnik, and “Defend Your Tweet” (One (1) issue at a time)

6. Score will be kept of the “LIES

7. All “LIES” are binding and are the responsibility of the “LIAR” (This contest is in no way affiliated with Anthony Jeselnik or Comedy Central … maybe … that could be a “LIE“)







*The small print is important. This is NOT a “Pissing” Contest. Pissers will be perfunctorily penalized and Pissed OFF (Rules are subject to being changed arbitrarily and capriciously; something “The Skeptics” have an intimately familiar relationship with)

Have a Nice Day

Remember kids, this WikipediAin’t The People’s Court;” (Doug Llewelyn is NOT looking over your shoulder) you CAN take “The LIE” into your own hands

So don’t get “Pissed OFF,” get the “Lie Off


“The Skeptics” (SkeptiCowards)

1. 5/23/2013 – Dr. David H. Gorski
2. 5/23/2013 – Dr. David H. Gorski
3. 5/24/2013 – Guy Chapman
4. 5/25/2013 – Guy Chapman
5. 5/29/2013 – dougal445

The Skeptics” Critics


1. David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 12:44pm – 30 Mar 13:

NO, Dr. Gorski, you have NOT “deconstructed his “evidence” in depth before”
Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business (Part I) consists of the documentary; as well as the documents on the movie web-site, which you have NOT “deconstructed … in depth before”
David Gorski (@gorskon)
5/23/13, 9:32 AM
@FauxSkeptic No need to defend my Tweet. The defense is in the link. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/stanislaw-burzynski-bad-medicine-a-bad-movie
2013-05-23 16:45:18

is NOT:”deconstructed his”evidence”in depth…”


AllUrBaseRbelong2us (@AllUrBaseRBe2us)
5/23/13, 8:15 PM
U tweeted4/20/13
Defend tweet😅


3. FauxSkeptic (@FauxSkeptic)
5/24/13, 12:33 PM
🚫”The Skeptics” @vGuyUK,🚫
you blahgged at:📄
Defend your twit:😅


4. ☆AnthonyJeselnik:☆
you blahgged at:📄
Defend your twit:😅


5. @dougal445 tweeted at 1:16am-19 Apr 13:
Defend Your Tweet:


Wikipedia, your Burzynski BIAS is showing

As I have proven previously, Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia is BIASED, when it comes to the Burzynski Clinic Wikipedia article:
WikipediA or WikipediAin’t ?:
Wikipedia, what’s your motivation?:
I show JzG what a “FACT” is: Burzynski: FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions): Clinical Trial Results:
guychapman (Guy Chapman) Critiquing “The Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics (page 9):
12/26/2012 I requested that Wikipedia add the below Houston’s KPRC News article re Lola A. Quinlan, to the Burzynski Clinic Wikipedia article, considering that they had previously posted there:

“In January 2012, Lola Quinlan, an elderly, stage IV cancer patient, sued Dr Burzynski…”

“Please add re WP:NPOV that Burzynski’s attorney, Richard Jaffe has disputed Lola Quinlan’s claims:
“On February 1, 2012, Dr. Burzynski’s attorney, Richard Jaffe, disputed Lola Quinlan’s allegations on Houston’s KPRC News.”


Thank you very much.” Didymus Judas Thomas 15:03, 26 December 2012
So, what was Wikipedia’s NON-BIASED rational wiki reasoning for NOT including this Houston, Texas, news article reference?

Dear Didymus Judas Thomas,

The Wikipedia page Talk:Burzynski Clinic has been changed on
December 26, 2012 by Arthur Rubin

to view this change.

Editor’s summary: /* Law Suits */ So?

Contact the editor:
mail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Arthur_Rubin
wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arthur_Rubin
Arthur Rubin advised:

“:So? [OR] Disputing it in the media probably means he doesn’t have a case. [/OR] In any case, a lawyer disputing the allegations against his client is not even news.” — Arthur Rubin 15:24, 26 December 2012

I had the impression that Arthur Rubin had not even bothered to read the article in question, and replied:

“::Arthur Rubin, I’m not sure what relevance your above post has re WP:NPOV since the article includes statements from attorneys representing both sides.”. 17:51, 27 December 2012 Didymus Judas Thomas 12/27/2012

Arthur Rubin’s, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ response?


Well, you know the saying:

Silence IS Golden

(Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View)

WP:NPOV clearly indicates:
“Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing FAIRLY, PROPORTIONATELY, and as far as possible WITHOUT BIAS, ALL significant views that have been published by reliable sources.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

“ALL Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content MUST be written from a neutral point of view.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

“NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

“This policy is NONNEGOTIABLE and ALL editors and articles MUST follow it.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

“The principles upon which this policy is based CANNOT be superseded by OTHER POLICIES or GUIDELINES, or by editors’ consensus.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

(Words CAPITALIZED for emphasis only.).

“1 Explanation of the neutral point of view.”

“This page in a nutshell:”

“Articles mustn’t take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

“This applies to both what you say and how you say it.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

“Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

“As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all notable and verifiable points of view.”.

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

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

(Wikipedia: Simplified Ruleset)

[[WP:SR]] “Wikipedia does not have its own views, or determine what is “correct.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

“Instead, editors try to summarize what good sources have said about ideas and information.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

“Differing views are presented objectively and without bias as they are reported in reliable sources—sources that have a reputation for being accurate.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

“Good sources are the base of the encyclopedia, and anyone must be able to realistically check whether contributions can be backed up by one.”.

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?


(Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View Frequently Asked Questions)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias.

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

Is Wikipedia’s Burzynski BIAS showing?

YOU decide, because in my opinion it IS, since this piece of “Yellow Journalism” is referenced in the Burzynski Clinic Wikipedia article:

2010 film, Burzynski – Cancer is Serious Business

Prior to the debut of “Burzynski”, Houston Press correspondent Craig Malisow mocked the film’s lack of objectivity, characterizing it as “a puff-piece paean that cherrypicks facts and ignores any criticism”, and criticized the project for presenting only Burzynski’s side of the story.” [60]
60^ Malisow, Craig (2010-06-02). “Stanlislaw Burzynski: New Movie Proves He’s A Cancer-Fighting Giant – Houston News – Hair Balls”. Blogs.houstonpress.com. Retrieved 2011-11-25.

Jun 2, 2010 – Houston’s Stanislaw Burzynski, who sells a so-called cancer …

(Hair Balls hasn’t seen the movie, but nowhere in the … )

So, in a nutshell, Wikipedia will reference “Yellow Journalism” by a “Hack” who posts an article about a movie he has NOT even seen, but will NOT reference a news article which is posted on Lola A. Quinlan’s attorney’s web-site, which contains comments from her attorney, as well as Dr. Stanislaw R. Burzynski’s attorney

Wikipedia, your BIAS is showing

“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.”‘

“the ignorant

the unthinking and

the credulous.”‘

Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’, which are you?

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

Burzynski: FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions): Clinical Trial Results:
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)
(Guy Chapman, @SceptiGuy, @vGuyUK, guychapman)

Wikipedia apologist Guy Chapman’s United Kingdom “blahg:”
Wikipedia, what’s your motivation?:
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
to view this change

> “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?

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
Age: 18 and over
Protocol IDs: CDR0000066552, BC-ME-2, NCT00003509

11/25/1997 – FORM 10-SB

Click to access 0000950110-97-001598.pdf

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
Burzynski Clinical Trials (The SEC filings):
5/1/2012 Certain prospective protocols which have reached a Milestone:
Antineoplaston Therapy in Treating Patients With Stage IV Melanomau
Melanoma (Skin)
Drug: antineoplaston A10
Drug: antineoplaston AS2-1
Phase II / Phase 2
Age 18 and over
Protocol IDs
BC-ME-2, NCT00003509

2009_05_26 Study Changes Recruitment status, Recruitment, Misc.
1 clinical_study study_id
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

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

Fm: 2008-01
To: 2005-02

Fm: 2008-07-23
To: 2009-05-23


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
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



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 … “
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:
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:
Nowhere does it indicate that final (completed) human clinical trial results MUST be published in a peer-reviewed scientific medical journal
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?

Critiquing “The Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics (page 10)



Didymus Judas Thomas, Contributor

Musings on the intersection of Articles, Bias, and Censorship

(The Big 3: A.B.C.)

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM

A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics

randy hinton 5 days ago

Hey Petey!

“I am ready to sit on a stage with Eric in front of a large crowd and debate this matter with you ANYTIME YOUR READY.”

Petey!, responds:

guychapman 5 days ago

(citing randy hinton 5 days ago)


“The answer is in your own post.”

“They were not convinced the treatment was likely to provide benefit, so why on earth would they subject children to the side effects, infection risk and other known problems with ANP treatment?”

“Unlike Burzynski, they seem to have followed the dictates of the Helsinki declaration.”

guychapman, HOW has Burzynski NOT “followed the dictates of the Helsinki declaration.”?

YOU remind me of this randy hinton comment:

“The hospital’s don’t seem to want to discuss this matter publically.”

And neither do YOU

Sharon Hill 5 days ago

“I am thrilled with this piece.”

“My website, Doubtful News, was also a target of the Burzynski PR machine when they tried to shut down critique and questioning.”

Sharon Hill, I’m “doubtful” your website was worth the trouble

But look on the bright side

You just got free “Pub” in a BIASED CENSORING publication

It’ll be something you can tell the grandkids about

“Very pleased that this part of the story is getting out.”

“The bottom line is, there would be no problems if the clinic just met the same standards expected from all clinics – you follow the federal and state rules and you have evidence to back up your claims.”

“The fact that they have to retaliate the way they do is GOOD evidence they have nothing better to show.”

Sharon Hill, and I see that:

“The fact that you have to retaliate the way you do is GOOD evidence you have nothing better to show.”

As in, NO “citation(s),” NO “reference(s),” and / or NO “link(s)” that support your claims

ovalwooki 5 days ago

“Mr. Burzynski is a fraud, a thief, and a scoundrel.”

ovalwooki, so, like YOU ?

“When people are at their lowest, facing death for themselves or a Loved one, he holds out a lie disguised as hope, takes every dime from them that he can, and in some cases even threatens with lawsuits the very people he’s just ripped off.”

ovalwooki, and we should just take your word for it, because, WHY?

“He threatens innocent people who call him out on his horrible record of successful ” cures “ .”

ovalwooki, WHAT is:

“his horrible record of successful ” cures“ ?

“As far as I know, he’s cured no one, ever, and there is no validity to him or his methods, at all.”

ovalwooki, exactly WHAT does:

“As far as I know”


“He clearly defines what is most flawed with our system of healthcare, here in America.”

ovalwooki, “clearly defines what is most flawed with our system of” yellow journalism, here in America

randy hinton 5 days ago

“In the 1950’s, Congressman Charles Tobey enlisted Benedict Fitzgerald, an investigator for the Interstate Commerce Commission, to investigate allegations of conspiracy* and monopolistic practices on the part of orthodox medicine.”

“This came about as the result of the son of Senator Tobey who developed cancer and was given less than two years to live by orthodox medicine.”

“That is when he learned of alleged conspiratorial practices on the part of orthodox medicine.”

“The final report clearly indicated there was indeed a conspiracy to monopolize the medical and drug industry and to eliminate alternative options.”

guychapman 3 days ago

“That was 60 years ago.”

“And it was not adopted as generally plausible even then.”

guychapman, so, what has changed since then, because there are definitely still dissimulators like YOU?

“By peerless I mean risible, of course.”

guychapman, so, like your comments, right?

JGC2013 4 days ago

“It seems to me there are nly too possibilities here:”

JGC2013, “nly” ?

“1) Antineoplastons don’t work and after two decades and 60-plus uncompleted and unplublished ‘clinical trials’ Burzinsky is fully aware that there is no evidence antineoplastons showing they are effective at treating advanced cancers, but despite this continues to charge patients to receive antineoplaston treatment for financial gain.”

JGC2013, THAT certainly explains THIS:

Burzynski – The Antineoplaston Randomized Japan Phase II Clinical Trial Study:
“In which case he’s a fraud, exploiting desparate people for his own personal gain.”

JGC2013, THAT certainly explains THIS:

“Orac” and the “Oracolytes” Cult of Misinformation:
“Or 2) antineoplastons DO work, and Burzinsky does have clinical evidence demonstrating efficacybut rather than publish the results of trials (allowing independent oncologists can first confirm and then adopt antineoplatosn therapy) he’s chosen not to publish in order to maintain a lucrative monopoly on antineoplaston herapy, offering it only to the small subset of cancer patients who afford to pay exorbitant fees to be treated at his clinic and effectively denying millions of other cancer patients access to a cure for their cancer.”

JGC2013, THAT certainly explains THIS:
“In which case he’s a monster.”

JGC2013, this is NOT a Rob Zombie film

My 1st-hand Review of Orac’s 2nd-Hand Review – Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business, Part II:
“I personally can’t envision any third posibility. Can anyone else?”


3). Citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s)

guychapman 4 days ago

By a curious coincidence, several senior figures in the pharmaceutical industry today gave evidence to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee on the specific issue of publication before and after the event for clinical trials and data, and discuss the obligations of those conducting trials.
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=13017 (from approx. 18:44 for the directly relevant content)

guychapman, thank you for keeping us appraised of what’s going in the United Kingdom, home to Kings, Queens, Dukes, Dutchesses, Earls, Counts, Countesses, Knights, Dragons, Wizards, etc., and that fairyland you’re living in

"Figures as low as 70-odd percent and as high as 90+ percent."

guychapman, just in case you have NOT noticed, Burzynski is in the United States of America

Travel Tex
“Texas. It’s like a WHOLE OTHER COUNTRY”

Don’t Mess With Texas

“Nobody citing zero percent as being acceptable or desirable, oddly.”

guychapman, YOU have “zero percent” acceptability or desirability, oddly.

AstroturfWatch 4 days ago

“Hey Peter Lipson, while you were at the Cleveland Clinic, did you speak to Dr. Bruce Cohen, the director of Neuro-oncology?”

“Because he is in “Burzynski Part 1″ and was Paul Michaels neuro-oncologist and watch Paul’s brain tumor “disappear” (after previously telling Paul’s parents “this is the worst case we’ve ever seen”.”

“Dr. Cohen is in the “trailer #2″ from Burzynski, Part 1 also.”

“I think Bruce is still there, perhaps you need to give old Bruce Cohen a call ;)”

Bruce H. Cohen, MD Bio – The United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation
Dr. Cohen joined Cleveland Clinic’s department of Neurology, in Cleveland, Ohio , in 1989

guychapman 3 days ago

“You don’t get it do you?”

“Science does not work by assuming that single voices in the wilderness somehow counter the consensus view.”

“The consensus of informed opinion is that Burzynski’s treatment is unproven and not terribly likely to become proven, not least because his science appears incompetent.”

guychapman, are you indicating that Dr. Cohen is NOT competent, and misdiagnosed his patient?

Boris Ogon

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


Not so much

Waiting for the 10,000

| 4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM

Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”