Critiquing the #SkepticCanary: “The Skeptics™” (SkeptiCowards©) Bob Blatherskitewicz and the so-called, “self-proclaimed” “CANCER RESEARCHER”

@StortSkeptic: Ready for #bbcpanorama Monday? Listen to the #burzynski interview with ‘self-proclaimed’ “CANCER RESEARCHER” and Blatherskitewicz and you will be!
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/skepticcanary/2013/05/29/ep09–talking-burzynski–david-gorski-and-bob-blaskiewicz
@SLSingh: Now – Talking Burzynski – David Gorski and Bob Blaskiewicz =
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/skepticcanary/2013/05/29/ep09–talking-burzynski–david-gorski-and-bob-blaskiewicz
@gorskon: Finally! A real discussion of #Burzynski.
http://www.radiotimes.com/episode/wxxjy/panorama–cancer-hope-for-sale—panorama
Dr. Gorski, we ALL know it is definitely NOT happening HERE:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/skepticcanary/2013/05/29/ep09–talking-burzynski–david-gorski-and-bob-blaskiewicz
@TheWholeT00th: Listening to the Skeptic Canary Show w/DavidJames, TheHoppers, Blatherskitewicz, and the so-called ‘self-proclaimed’ “CANCER RESEARCHER”
10 mins in – no Quantum Biology. 😦 #Burzynski

@skepticCanary: Great show last night by @stortskeptic & @hoppers163 with @rjblaskiewicz & @gorskon about #burzynski #bbcpanorama
http://goo.gl/7pWIj
@skepticCanary: Great show last night by @stortskeptic & @hoppers163 with @rjblaskiewicz @gorskon about #burzynski
http://goo.gl/7pWIj
@LiverpoolPlants: Ahead of Mondays Panorama on #Burzynski , the @skepticcanary radio show has an interesting overview of the area
http://bit.ly/15lv5zG
@_JosephineJones: After
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/skepticcanary/2013/05/29/ep09–talking-burzynski–david-gorski-and-bob-blaskiewicz
and forthcoming #Burzynski #bbcpanorama I demand @gorskon & @rjblaskiewicz on #10oclocklive discussion panel!

@Hoppers163: Tonight at 7pm, Host @StortSkeptic ,myself and guests @gorskon & @rjblaskiewicz will be talking about #Burzynski
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/skepticcanary/2013/05/29/ep09–talking-burzynski–david-gorski-and-bob-blaskiewicz
@_JosephineJones: Join me in the Skeptic Canary chatroom while @rjblaskiewicz @gorskon & @StortSkeptic discuss #Burzynski
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/skepticcanary/2013/05/29/ep09–talking-burzynski–david-gorski-and-bob-blaskiewicz
@rjblaskiewicz: We’re live http://tobtr.com/s/4889681
#bbcpanorama #burzynski

I took up David James’ offer to waste about an hour of my life; which I’d never get back
http://t.co/1PI9xZBOVm
to listen to Bob Blaskiewicz Faux Skeptic Exposed!
(@rjblaskiewicz
http://www.skepticalhumanities.com
http://virtualskeptics.com/)

and

Dr. David H. Gorski
(@gorskon @oracknows @sciencebasedmed #sciencebasedmedicine

http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org)
Listened to:
“The Skeptics™”(SkeptiCowards©)
#Burzynski #skepticCanary
Blatherskitewicz / “Man-Crush,” ‘self-proclaimed’ “CANCER RESEARCHER”

My “Critique” of:
“The Skeptics™” (SkeptiCowards©)
#skepticCanary
will be better than their review of:
#Burzynski 2

(59:52)

David James’ “plugs” himself:
(@StortSkeptic
http://www.skeptical.gb.net/blog)
Reads from prepared list like a Skeptic Robot

The ship of fools sets sail with David James referring to:

skepticalhumanities

virtual sceptic

Dr. Gorski comments:

“Yeah, I’m disappointed you didn’t have the ‘Blake 7‘ theme”

Dr. Gorski, THIS is your “theme,” in case you “forgot“:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/25/the-skeptics-theme-song/
Perhaps you should consider Auto-Urine therapy

However, if your memory is THAT “piss-poor,” I’m NOT even sure that it would be efficacious

The “gang of four” continues on re:

Misinformed Consent

THIS is quite apropos, considering THIS “fiasco on Forbes (#Forbes) where Dr. Gorski’s “bud;” Dr. Peter A. Lipson, (@palMD) was part of an ethically and “fact-challenged” “piece” of fish-wrap
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/05/forbes-learns-a-lesson-but-not-the-right-one-censorship-and-bias-re-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/
Dr. Gorski mentions “The Health Freedom Movement,” which he characterizes as having to do with the “Freedom of Quacks,” when in fact, he should have referenced his “Freedom from “FACTS”

Dr. Gorski goes on to highlight his “Personalized Mud-targeted therapy directed at Dr. Stanislaw R. Burzynski

Reference is made to:

“Every squirrel gets a nut”

However, in Dr. Gorski’s case, it might instead be more properly labeled as:

“Every “nut” gets a squirrel

The “gang of four” glosses over the pro-drug Phenylbutyrate, and Dr. Burzynski’s involvement in getting this drug to the point where it is, today:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/burzynski-and-aacr-american-association-for-cancer-research/
Keir Liddle and the Cult of MISINFORMATION:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/09/keir-liddle-and-the-cult-of-misinformation/
Hypernatremia is also glossed over just the way Dr. Gorski prefers:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/burzynski-hypernatremia/
David H. Gorski and the Cult of Misinformation:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/david-h-gorski-and-the-cult-of-misinformation/
The listener can glean that Bob Blaskiewicz has a major, major “man-crush” on Dr. Gorski, and vice-versa

There’s a difference between genius and genes, and the knowledgeable listener can determine what the “group of four” lacks

Just as there’s a difference between “talking $hit,” and “getting $hit done

Dr. Gorski provides his “opinion” that the reason for Dr. Burzynski filing his phase 2 clinical trials had to do with:

Ultimately, in 1998, the State of Texas secured a consent agreement with Burzynski

The problem with Dr. Gorski’s “opinion,” is just THAT

His “opinion,” and does NOT take into account that Dr. Burzynski’s 72 phase 2 clinical trials are listed on Dr. Burzynski’s 11/25/1997 FORM 10-SB:
http://pdf.secdatabase.com/2573/0000950110-97-001598.pdf
Burzynski Clinical Trials (The SEC filings):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/11/burzynski-clinical-trials-2/
THIS is a perfect example of WHY I do NOT trust ANYTHING that Dr. Gorski posits:

It ALL requires “FACT-CHECKING“:

Dr. Gorski disparages Dr. Burzynski’s phase 2 clinical trials preliminary reports, but does NOT have the testicular fortitude to provide an “in-depth” review of them

Do you begin to wonder why ?

Could it be because:

The Emperor has NO clothes ?

Phase 3 trials are also mentioned, yet, the “gang of four” ignores:
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/
Perhaps if Dr. Gorski were a “real” “RESEARCHER,” instead of pretending to be a researcher, he could have done like I did and on ClinicalTrials . gov or the NCI (National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health (NIH)), and have given them a call or use their chat function in order to find this information out

THAT is WHY it is called “RESEARCH

And THAT is WHY I refer to Dr. Gorski as the so-called, ‘self-proclaimed’ “CANCER RESEARCHER”

The “gang of four” mention that issues have NOT been explored in depth by the media

You now know what else has NOTbeen explored in depth

The “gang of four” mention that Dr. Burzynski hasn’t published convincing data

I await Dr. Gorski’s in-depth, unbiased review of Dr. Burzynski’s 2003 onward, phase 2 clinical trials preliminary reports

Dr. Gorski

Balzac

Wouldn’t touch Balzac with a ten-foot pole?

(34:49)

1/2 way through

David James, the “Short on facts Skeptic” reminds listeners of calling in

JJ (@_JosephineJones) is mentioned:
http://josephinejones.wordpress.com
JosephineJones and the others who can’t handle the “Truth”:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/02/16/josephinejones-the-others-who-cant-handle-the-truth/
Josephine Jones and the Cult of Misinformation:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/josephine-jones-and-the-cult-of-misinformation/
Bob Blaskiewicz mentions:

You can sell flattery and hope

In Bob Blatherskitewicz’ case, HE can sell B.S.

My Critique of Bob Blaskiewicz (Colorado Public Television – PBS CPT12):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/my-critique-of-bob-blaskiewicz-colorado-public-television-pbs-cpt12/
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/
Blatherskitewicz states that there is this inaccurate idea that Skeptics are opposed to patients – Not true

In reality, Skeptics are opposed to “FACTS
http://rbutr.com/
Blatherskitewicz mentions
rbutr:

http://blog.rbutr.com/
r-but-r

BB claims his rbutr has been used to “Fair and utterly destroyed it,” in relation to “Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business

What a “CROCK

I have used rbutr to show how “full- of-it,” ego-driven individuals like Blatherskitewicz and Dr. Gorski are

They remind me of Wikipedia

When you expose WP and individuals like Blatherskitewicz and Dr. Gorski, under “Sunshine” and “Blue Sky,” perceptions start to change

Blatherskitewicz and Dr. Gorski engage in a lot of “hyperbole

Dr. Gorski gives the impression that the Dean of the Wayne State University – School of Mudicine, understand’s Gorski’s position

Wayne State University – School of Medicine

If THAT is your tacit stamp of approval of how Dr. Gorski handles his “ethical” responsibilities

Hold On, I’m Comin’


(46:50)

The Psychologist (co-host) who has been doing an excellent cameo of “Silent Bob,” makes himself known

He obviously has his work cut out for himself

PSYCH

BB uses the “C” word

“Cult”

Since we’re on the subject-matter:

“Orac” and the “Oracolytes” Cult of Misinformation:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/orac-and-the-oracolytes-cult-of-misinformation/
The Cult of “Misinformation”:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/the-cult-of-misinformation/
The cult of “Misinformation” continued:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/the-cult-of-misinformation-continued/
Orac and the Cult of “Misinformation” (Part III):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/orac-and-the-cult-of-misinformation-part-iii/
David H. Gorski and the Cult of “MISINFORMATION”:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/david-h-gorski-and-the-cult-of-misinformation/
DJ comments to Dr. Gorski

“I know I’m asking you to speculate”

Don’t worry, DJ

“SPECULATION” is really Dr. Gorski’s “specialty

BB states:

“His son I believe trained in Poland”

Blatherskitewicz, with your phenomenal attention to detail, aren’t you positive?

BB mentions two (2) possible honorary professorships in China for Dr. Burzynski

Blatherskitewicz, is THAT “SPECULATION ?

DJ poses a question to Dr. Gorski about “In an ideal world, to which Dr. Gorski states that he just wants Dr. Burzynski to:

“Publish the clinical trial data”

Personally, I think Dr. Gorski has a “professional” jealousy re the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR); where Dr. Gorski was in April, but did NOT bring up that antineoplaston research has been mentioned more recently than his research:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/burzynski-and-aacr-american-association-for-cancer-research/
The “gang of four” again raise the issue of Phenylbutyrate, and they mention that PB existed before for urea disorder, and is a Pro-Drug, but they provide NO indication of their knowledge of how Dr. Burzynski’s name and research is referenced in the historical record re PB, for all to see

Dr. Gorski raises the issue of “false balance

If there is ANYONE, and I do mean ANYONE, who should be intimately familiar with “false balance, it is YOU

Dr. Gorski, I have a question for you, and I mean this in ALL seriousness:

Do you have a “man-crush on it?

The best thing about the show – the retro music at the beginning

This show in a “nutshell”

Why was I so underwhelmed by # of call-in comments?

David James is “famous” for:
https://www.facebook.com/questions/488444654552853

Forbes Learns a Lesson, but Not the Right One: Censorship and Bias re: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics

onforb.es/11pwse9
4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM
http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW
“Speech is best countered by more speech”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics
Peter Lipson, Contributor

posted an article of a very dubious nature on Forbes (#Forbes), which censored (deleted) comments submitted and screen-captured as having been posted to the article comments section

What did Forbes do to rectify this embarrassing blunder?

Well, they did NOT do what Wikipedia is supposed to do (Do the RIGHT THING), they instead changed their comment acceptance function so that it now does NOT post the comments to the comment section; where they can be screen- saved to show that you submitted them, but now prevents the comments from being posted to the comments section before being reviewed by their censor(s)

I was able to submit comments and screen save them to show I submitted them, but the below, for example, was still censored

Thursday, 5/2/2013-ATTEMPT 1:

Didymus Thomas 30 minutes ago

Mr. Ogon, is this one of the Kurume, Japan case studies you were referring to?
Randomized Phase II Study of Hepatic Arterial Infusion with or without Antineoplastons as Adjuvant Therapy after Hepatectomy for liver Metastases from Colorectal Cancer. Annals of Oncology 2010;21:viii221

Reply

Didymus Thomas 20 minutes ago

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

Didymus Thomas 4 hours ago

Mr. Ogon, you commented:
“One further has to take into account the fact that Scamley has been known to employ idiosyncratic definitions, such as classifying tumor *growth* as “STABLE DISEASE” for “less than 50% reduction in size but no more than 50% increase in size of the tumor mass, lasting for at least twelve weeks.””
FDA has advised:
5/2007 – “Guidance for Industry – Food and Drug Administration”
“Clinical Trial Endpoints for the Approval of Cancer Drugs and Biologics”
“”STABLE DISEASE should not be a component of ORR”
“STABLE DISEASE can reflect the natural history of disease””
(Pg. 10 of 22 = actual pg. 7 of PDF)
“…STABLE DISEASE can be more accurately assessed by TTP or PFS analysis (see below)”
“Also, STABLE DISEASE can be more accurately assessed by TTP or PFS analysis (see below)”
(Pg. 11 of 22 = actual pg. 8 of PDF)
“Time to Progression and Progression-Free Survival”
“TTP – Time to Progression”
“PFS – Progression-Free Survival”
“TTP and PFS have served as primary endpoints for drug approval”
(Pg. 11 of 22 = actual pg. 8 of PDF)
And in addition, the below 2005 non-Burzynski study also uses “STABLE DISEASE?”
Role of temozolomide after radiotherapy for newly diagnosed diffuse brainstem glioma in children
Results of a multiinstitutional study (SJHG-98)

Reply

Didymus Thomas 15 minutes ago

Mr. Chapman, you commented:
” … the failure to publish any usable results from any single trial is grossly unethical”
“ The FDA’s Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective” advises:
“[T]he emphasis in Phase 2 is on EFFECTIVENESS”
“This phase aims to obtain PRELIMINARY DATA on whether the drug works in people who have a certain disease or condition”
“Phase 3 studies begin if EVIDENCE of EFFECTIVENESS is shown in Phase 2″
“These studies gather more information about safety and EFFECTIVENESS, studying different populations and different dosages and using the drug in combination with other drugs”

Reply

Didymus Thomas 9 minutes ago

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended 5/31/2010 states:
1/13/2009 Company announced Company had reached an agreement with FDA for Company to move forward with pivotal Phase III clinical trial of combination Antineoplaston therapy plus radiation therapy in patients with newly diagnosed, diffuse, intrinsic brainstem gliomas (DBSG)
Agreement was made under FDA’s Special Protocol Assessment procedure, meaning design and planned analysis of Phase III study is acceptable to support regulatory submission seeking new drug approval
2/1/2010 Company entered into agreement with Cycle Solutions, Inc., dba ResearchPoint to initiate and manage pivotal Phase III clinical trial of combination Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 plus radiation therapy (RT) in patients with newly-diagnosed, diffuse, intrinsic brainstem glioma
ResearchPoint is currently conducting feasibility assessment
ResearchPoint has secured interest and commitment from number of sites selected
Upon completion of assessment, randomized, international phase III study will commence
Study’s objective is to compare overall survival of children with newly-diagnosed DBSG who receive combination Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 plus RT versus RT alone

Reply

Didymus Thomas 1 minute ago

2003-2006 phase II clinical trial preliminary reports.
The co-authors might include an oncologist:
Drugs R D.
2003;4(2):91-101
2004;5(6):315-26
Integr Cancer Ther.
2005 Jun;4(2):168-77
2006 Mar;5(1):40-7

Friday, 5/3/2013-ATTEMPT 2

(Note how I shortened the comment):

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

Mr. Ogon, 5/2007 – “Guidance for Industry – Food and Drug Administration”
“Clinical Trial Endpoints for the Approval of Cancer Drugs and Biologics”
“Stable disease can reflect the natural history of disease”
“Also, stable disease can be more accurately assessed by TTP or PFS analysis”
“TTP – Time to Progression”
“PFS – Progression-Free Survival”
“TTP and PFS have served as primary endpoints for drug approval”
The below study also uses “stable disease”
Cancer. 2005 Jan 1;103(1):133-9 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.20741

Share your comment:

Saturday, 5/4/2013-ATTEMPT 3

Note how I further shortened the comment):

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

Mr. Ogon, 5/2007 – “Guidance for Industry – Food and Drug Administration, Clinical Trial Endpoints for the Approval of Cancer Drugs and Biologics:” “Stable disease can reflect the natural history of disease”
This study uses “stable disease:”. Cancer. 2005 Jan 1;103(1):133-9 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.20741

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

Forbes posted the 1 below comment out of the above:

Didymus Thomas 3 days ago
Mr. Ogon, is this one of the Kurume, Japan case studies you were referring to?
Randomized Phase II Study of Hepatic Arterial Infusion with or without Antineoplastons as Adjuvant Therapy after Hepatectomy for liver Metastases from Colorectal Cancer. Annals of Oncology 2010;21:viii221

One would hope that Forbes would learn a lesson about censoring individual’s comments, but instead, it seems that they learned a lesson about how to block comments

Here is the BIAS exhibited by Forbes, as far as whose comments they did NOT “censor”

– = “The Skeptic” Critics
+ = Questioning “The Skeptic” Critics

– = 70
+ = 44

+ = 25 more

(pg. 1)

rjblaskiewicz –
guychapman –
Peter Lipson –
rjblaskiewicz –
Vered Yasur –
Angel of Life +
rjblaskiewicz –
guychapman –
guychapman –
Krista Cashatt +

(pg. 2)

Boris Ogon –
junkeeroo +
Boris Ogon –
Sarah
junkeeroo +
junkeeroo +
Boris Ogon –
rjblaskiewicz –
Kendra Sue Too +
Boris Ogon –

(pg. 3)

junkeeroo +
Boris Ogon –
junkeeroo +
guychapman –
FW –
Angel of Life +
rjblaskiewicz –
randy hinton +
Boris Ogon –
rjblaskiewicz –

(pg. 4)

lilady –
Vered Yasur –
junkeeroo +
Tina Patterson +
chriswinter +
guychapman –
Angel of Life +
Boris Ogon –
JGC2013 –
guychapman –

(pg. 5)

lilady –
Angel of Life +
Boris Ogon –
FW –
junkeeroo +
Angel of Life +
Peter Lipson –
Angel of Life +
junkeeroo +
Boris Ogon –

(pg. 6)

Paul Morgan –
guychapman –
JGC2013 –
junkeeroo +
FW –
junkeeroo +
rjblaskiewicz –
FW –
Angel of Life +
Angel of Life +

(pg. 7)

Angel of Life +
FW –
AstroturfWatch +
FW –
junkeeroo +
junkeeroo +
Angel of Life +
Peter Lipson –
AstroturfWatch +
AstroturfWatch +

(pg. 8)

FW –
AstroturfWatch +
Angel of Life +
FW –
FW –
AstroturfWatch +
FW –
rjblaskiewicz –
Boris Ogon –
Boris Ogon –

(pg. 9)

Lynne –
guychapman –
guychapman –
guychapman –
guychapman –
randy hinton +
guychapman –
Boris Ogon –
Boris Ogon –
guychapman –

(pg. 10)

guychapman –
randy hinton +
guychapman –
Sharon Hill –
oval wooki –
randy hinton +
guychapman –
JGC2013 –
guychapman –
AstroturfWatch +

(pg. 11)

guychapman –
Allen Jones –
claire G –
claire G –
randy hinton +
lilady –
Didymus Thomas +
lilady –
Didymus Thomas +
lilady –

(pg. 12)

Didymus Thomas +
lilady –
Didymus Thomas +
Didymus Thomas +
Didymus Thomas +
Didymus Thomas +

“The Skeptic” Critics
TOTAL
18-guychapman –
13-Boris Ogon –
10-FW –
_8-rjblaskiewicz –
_6-lilady –
_3-Peter Lipson –
_3-JGC2013 –
_2-claire G –
_2-Vered Yasur –
_1-Paul Morgan –
_1-Lynne –
_1-Sharon Hill –
_1-oval wooki –
_1-Allen Jones –
70-TOTAL

Questioning “The Skeptic” Critics
TOTAL
12-junkeeroo +
10-Angel of Life +
_7-Didymus Thomas +
_6-AstroturfWatch +
_5-randy hinton +
_1-Krista Cashatt +
_1-Kendra Sue Too +
_1-Tina Patterson +
_1-chriswinter +
44-TOTAL

_1-Sarah (neutral)

“The Skeptic” Critics

guychapman (Guy Chapman, @SceptiGuy, @vGuyUK)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg/
A United Kingdom (UK) blahg

Guy Chapman comments on “Orac’s”:
(http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence)

FW (@frozenwarning): I work for the NHS in the UK

frozenwarning comments on “Orac’s”:
(http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence)

rjblaskiewicz (Bob Blaskiewicz, R.J. Blaskiewicz, @rjblaskiewicz)
http://www.skepticalhumanities.com

Bob Blaskiewicz comments on “Orac’s”:
(http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence)

lilady comments on “Orac’s”:
(http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence)

Peter Lipson (@palMD)
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/author/palmd/

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/editorial-staff/peter-a-lipson-md/

Dr. David H. Gorski (“Orac,” @gorskon, @oracknows, @ScienceBasedMed, #sciencebasedmedicine
runs:
http://www.scienceblogs/Insolence
and is the editor of:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org
and is a “pal” of his “bud:”. Dr. Peter A. Lipson)

Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan)

Paul Morgan comments on “Orac’s”:
(http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence)

What do all of those “Skeptic” Critics have in common?

Dr. David H. Gorski (“Orac”)

Forbes censors Peter Lipson “Speech is best countered by more speech” article comments:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/forbes-censors-peter-lipson-speech-is-best-countered-by-more-speech-article-comments/

Boris Ogon (@borisogon)

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

3,921 views

Not so much

Waiting for the 10,000

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM

A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics

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

guychapman (Guy Chapman) Critiquing “The Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics (page 9)

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
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

guychapman 5 days ago

“Well, this has flushed out i the comments most of what we’ve seen on Twitter and the blogs over the past year or two.”

guychapman, hardly
redd.it/1czvol
Forbes censors Peter Lipson
http://redd.it/1czvol
“Speech is best countered by more
http://www.reddit.com/tb/1czvol
speech” article comments:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/forbes-censors-peter-lipson-speech-is-best-countered-by-more-speech-article-comments
"On the one side we have the true believers claiming that there is a cure, that it’s being denied, that people would “otherwise die” (begging the question), and asking for “respect” and “decency”"

guychapman, THIS cure ?
http://burzynskimovie.com/images/stories/transcript/Documents/BurzynskiTriesToExposeNCI.pdf
"(as if it is respectful and decent to claim to cure cancer without good evidence)."

guychapman, THIS “good evidence” that you’re “without” ?

Burzynski – The Antineoplaston Randomized Japan Phase II Clinical Trial Study:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/burzynski-the-antineoplaston-randomized-japan-phase-ii-clinical-trial-study
"On the other side we have one really very simple point: show me the evidence."

guychapman, THIS “good evidence” that you’re “without” ?

The FDA’s Drug Review Process:

Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective

“[T]he emphasis in Phase 2 is on EFFECTIVENESS”

“This phase aims to obtain PRELIMINARY DATA on whether the drug works in people who have a certain disease or condition”

“Phase 3 studies begin if EVIDENCE of EFFECTIVENESS is shown in Phase 2″

“These studies gather more information about safety and EFFECTIVENESS, studying different populations and different dosages and using the drug in combination with other drugs”
http://www.fda.gov/drugs/resourcesforyou/consumers/ucm143534.htm
“61 registered human trials, one completed, zero results published, from any of them.”

guychapman, do you mean THIS ?

clinicaltrials . gov does NOT contain the same data as the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) cancer . gov web-site:

61 TOTAL
1 – Not Yet Recruiting (Open)(Phase 3)
1 – Closed
2 – Terminated (Withdrawn due to slow enrollment)
7 – Withdrawn (This study has been withdrawn prior to enrollment)
10 – Recruiting (Open)
11 – Open (1 Not Yet Recruiting / 10 Recruiting)
40 – Active, not recruiting (Closed)

The below 1st link: 10 Active (Open):
http://cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/search/results?protocolsearchid=11475951
The below 2nd link: 25 Closed-1st screen / 15 Closed-1 Completed-2nd screen:
http://cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/search/results?protocolsearchid=11476036
NONE of the above are “UNKNOWN” per the above 2 National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) links:

10 – Recruiting (Open)
11 – Open (1 Not Yet Recruiting / 10 Recruiting)
40 – Active, not recruiting (Closed)

10=Open
11=1 Not Yet Recruiting / 10 Recruiting
40=Closed
61-TOTAL

“The Burzynski fans’ snowstorm of irrelevant, low-grade publications in low impact journals and conference abstracts that aren’t even peer-reviewed, do not address this at all.”

guychapman, are you referring to THIS ?

The “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”

“The Helsinki Declaration states the obligations of those conducting trials in humans, and getting the results (good or bad) published and available is a core requirement.”

guychapman, WHERE does the Declaration of Helsinki indicate WHEN the final results of human clinical trials MUST be published?

Burzynski: Declaration of Helsinki
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-declaration-of-helsinki
guychapman 5 days ago

“I have some questions for the Burzynski fans.”

guychapman, I have some questions for you

Is it just me, or does it seem like I’m repeating what I already provided HERE?

Critiquing “The Skeptic”
redd.it/1do1ah
Burzynski Critics: A Film
http://redd.it/1do1ah
Producer, A Cancer
http://www.reddit.com/tb/1do1ah
Doctor, And Their Critics (page 9)
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/critiquing-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics-page-9/
“1. Burzynski’s claims are superficially similar to those of Max Gerson.”

“Gerson’s therapy is known to be ineffective and potentially harmful, but he used patient anecdotes – people sincerely convinced they had undergone a miracle cure – to promote his business.”

“What *objective* mechanism do you propose we use to distinguish between Burzynski and the quack Gerson?”

guychapman, how about the publications and Securities and Exchange (SEC) filings cited on my page 9 critique?

“2. Burzynski has registered 61 clinical trials in humans, completed one and published no useful data from any.”

guychapman, you obviously have a very “fast and loose” definition of “no useful data”

Exactly WHAT is your definition of “no useful data”?

“Can you name any mainstream cancer research operations that have similar rates of failure to compete and publish?”

guychapman, can you name any mainstream publications like Forbes that have similar rates of failure to “compete” and publish my 15+ comments in reply to your 18 comments?

Do you think it was because they knew that I would “rip you a new one” and you would be left there as the proverbial “Emperor (who) has no clothes”?

“3. How many people do you estimate are involved, globally, in the conspiracy to suppress Burzynski’s treatment?”

“My rough guess is a few hundred thousand.”

“Can you give a better estimate with reasons?”

guychapman, let’s start with YOU, guychapman (Guy Chapman, @SceptiGuy, @vGuyUK,
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg),
your pals at Wikipedia; Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales,
http://www.jimmywales.com,
(@jimmy_wales – whom you re-twit on Twitter), JzG|Guy, Guy, Anthony (AGK) BASC, Alexbrn, Dave Dial, Drmies, NE Ent, fluffernutter, foxj, jpgordon, Guerillero, Ironholds, John, Lord Sjones23, Tom Morris, Nstrauss, Steve Pereira/SilkTork, Rhode Island Red, Arthur Rubin, Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 (Seb az86556), Sgerbic, IRWolfie, Six words, Yobol, @RudyHellzapop, @_JosephineJones, @JCmacc1, @Malboury, @DianthusMed, @medTek, @StopBurzynski, @StortSkeptic, Dr. Peter A. Lipson (@palMD), #Forbes censor(s), Dr. David H. Gorski (@gorskon, @oracknows, @ScienceBasedMed, #sciencebasedmedicine,
http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence,
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org,
The Faux Skeptic Revealed! Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz, R.J. Blaskiewicz, Blatherskitewicz), C0nc0rdance, Boris Ogon, lilady, JGC2013, claire G, Sharon Hill, Allen Jones, Lynne, @JCmacc1, Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan), oval wooki, Vered Yasur, (the Forbes group) and
http://burzynskimovie.com/images/stories/transcript/Documents/BurzynskiTriesToExposeNCI.pdf, etc.

“4. When you talk about Antineoplastons not being chemotherapy, what, in your mind, distinguishes the intravenous administration of one chemical from the intravenous administration of another, other than the fact that it’s Burzynski doing it?”

guychapman, THIS:

“High Dose ANPA chemotherapy IV drip”

“…an unapproved drug, not ordinary “chemotherapy”
https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/27/27.F3d.153.93-2071.html
“5. When you speak about ANPs not being toxic, what, in your mind, distinguishes the side effects of “non-toxic” ANPs”

“(nausea, hypernatraemia, stroke etc)”

“form the side effects of other, “toxic” drugs?”

guychapman, THIS:

Burzynski: HYPERNATREMIA:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/burzynski-hypernatremia
FACT: Is “HYPERNATREMIA” listed on the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) list as a possible “Adverse Effect” of antineoplastons?:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/healthprofessional/page6
I do NOT see HYPERNATREMIA or STROKE on the list

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
HYPERNATREMIA in the U.S.:

“HYPERNATREMIA is the most common electrolyte disorder in the United States”

“In some cases, CANCER may cause the condition …”
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000394.htm
“A Burzynski critic has posted:”

“In order to maintain their doses of ANP, patients are required to drink obscene amounts of water every day (some report up to 12 quarts or more)”

“If they fail to do so, they may lapse into unconsciousness or die”

Let’s put this in perspective

FACT: Some sources indicate:

1) A man should drink about
3 liters (101.44 ounces / 3 quarts 5.44 ounces) per day

{12 quarts = 384 ounces = 11.356 liters}

[12 quarts in 24 hours = 1/2 quart or 16 ounces per hour]

2) Extremely healthy kidneys could process about 30 ounces (approx .9 liters) of water in an hour

{30 ounces in 24 hours = 720 ounces}

[720 ounces = 22.5 quarts per day]

3) A person with healthy kidneys could develop water intoxication by drinking about 2 to 3 times what their kidneys can process

So, if extremely healthy kidneys could process about 30 ounces per hour and 12 quarts per day would require one to only drink 16 ounces per hour, that means one is being asked to drink 14 ounces less per hour than what extremely healthy kidneys could process

So even if one drinks more than 16 ounces per hour so that one does not have to be awake hourly, there is still opportunity to do that

Of course, there are certain other factors that might have to be taken into consideration depending on the patient

“6. Burzynski has convinced you that he can cure incurable cancers.”

“What figures has he given you for his five-year survival versus standard of care?”

guychapman, HERE:

2003 – Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma:

a preliminary report
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12718563
Drugs R D. 2003;4(2):91-101

recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma

of all 12 patients
2 years / 33.3% – Survival
2 / 17% – alive and tumour free for over 5 years since initial diagnosis

from the start of treatment
5 years – 1 alive for more than
4 years – 1 alive for more than

2003
Protocol – recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma
12 – Patients Accrued
10 – Evaluable Patients
2 / 20% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
3 / 30% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
3 / 30% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease

2004 – Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in children with recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma :

a preliminary report
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15563234
Drugs R D. 2004;5(6):315-26

incurable recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma

6 patients were diagnosed with pilocytic astrocytoma

4 with low-grade astrocytoma
1 with astrocytoma grade 2

1 case of visual pathway glioma, a biopsy was not performed due to a dangerous location

1 patient was non-evaluable due to only 4 weeks of ANP and lack of follow-up scans

1 patient who had stable disease discontinued ANP against medical advice and died 4.5 years later

10 patients are alive and well from 2 to >14 years post-diagnosis

2004
Protocol – incurable recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma
12 – Patients Accrued
– Evaluable Patients
33% – % of Patients Showing Complete Response
25% – % of Patients Showing Partial Response
33% – % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
0 / 0% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease

2005 – Long-term survival of high-risk pediatric patients with primitive neuroectodermal tumors treated with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15911929
Integr Cancer Ther. 2005 Jun;4(2):168-77

13 children with recurrent disease or high risk

6 (46%) survived more than 5 years

2005
Protocol – recurrent disease or
high risk
– Patients Accrued
– Evaluable Patients
23% – % of Patients Showing Complete Response
8% – % of Patients Showing Partial Response
31% – % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
38% – % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease

2006 – Targeted therapy with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 of high-grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem glioma
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16484713
Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Mar;5(1):40-7

Brainstem glioma carries the worst prognosis of all malignancies of the brain

Most patients with brainstem glioma fail standard radiation therapy and chemotherapy and do not survive longer than 2 years

Treatment is even more challenging when an inoperable tumor is of high-grade pathology (HBSG)

patients with inoperable tumor of high-grade pathology (HBSG) treated with antineoplastons in 4 phase 2 trials

22% – overall survival at 5 years

17+ years maximum survival for a patient with anaplastic astrocytoma

5+ years for a patient with glioblastoma

5+ year survival in recurrent diffuse intrinsic glioblastomas and anaplastic astrocytomas of the brainstem in a small group of patients

18 – evaluable

2006
Protocol – high-grade pathology (HBSG)
– Patients Accrued
18 – Evaluable Patients
11% – % of Patients Showing Complete Response
11% – % of Patients Showing Partial Response
39% – % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
39% – % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease

2007 – Recent clinical trials in diffuse intrinsic brainstem glioma

Review Article
http://www.cancer-therapy.org/CT/v5/B/HTML/42._Burzynski,_379-390.html
Cancer Therapy Vol 5, 379-390, 2007

(Forbes)

Boris Ogon 1 week ago

(citing AstroturfWatch)

“They refuse to fact check anything. Namely Phase 2 results showing a 25% cure rate for brainstem glioma, never accomplished in medical history—ever.”

“Published plan as day in a ‘internationally peer-reviewed’ article.”

“You mean PMIDs 12718563 and 16484713? (These, at least, are the ones that Merola cites, which I assume is the sum total of your “fact checking.”)”

“Namely Phase 2 results showing a 25% cure rate for brainstem glioma, never accomplished in medical history—ever”

“Notice the chart on page 172 (page 8 of PDF).”

“Find just one, any single cure for this tumor type and you can’t, outside of Antineoplastons FDA sanctioned clinical trials:”
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1252.pdf
“The first reference is to Drugs in R&D 4:91 (2003).”

“The second reference is to Integrative Cancer Therapies 4:168 (2005).”

The “chart on page 172 (page 8 of PDF):”
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1252.pdf
refers to:

2006 Adis – Pediatr Drugs 2006; 8 (3)

pg 172

Treatments for Astrocytic Tumors

Table II. Treatment of diffuse, intrinsic brainstem glioma in children

Burzynski et al. [88] – Reference
Phase II – Study Type
(no. of pts) – pts = patients
RP (30) – RP = recurrent and progressive tumor – Tumor type
ANP – ANP = antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 – Treatment – ANP
OS (%) – OS = overall survival
[2y; 5y]
46.7; 30 – Efficacy
MST (mo)
19.9 – MST = median survival time
[% (no. )]
27 (8) – CR – CR = complete response
[% (no. )]
20% (6) – PR – PR = partial response
[% (no. )]
23% (7) – SD – SD = stabile disease
30% (9) – PD = progressive disease

pg 177

88. Burzynski SR, Weaver RA, Janicki T. Long-term survival in phase II studies of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in patients with diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma [abstract]. Neuro-oncol 2004; 6: 386

This is the 2004 publication, NOT 2003

Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in children with recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma : a preliminary report.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15563234
Drugs R D. 2004;5(6):315-26

pg 172

Burzynski et al. [89] – Reference
Phase II – Study Type
(no. of pts) – pts = patients
RPS (10) – RPS = recurrent and progressive tumors in children aged <4y – Tumor type {(66) = most in a study}
ANP – ANP = antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 – Treatment – ANP
OS (%) – OS = overall survival
[2y; 5y] – Efficacy
60; 20 {46.7 (30) = next best study}
MST (mo)
26.3 – MST = median survival time – {19.9 = next best study}
[% (no. )]
30% (3) – CR = complete response – {27% (8) = next best study}
[% (no. )]
0% (0) – PR = partial response – {56% (1) = next best}
[% (no. )]
40% (4) – SD = stable disease – {44% (25) = best}
[% (no. )]
30% (3) – PD = progressive disease – {23% (13) = best}

(Above, I also provide the best next case to compare to)

pg 177

89. Burzynski SR, Weaver RA, Janicki TJ, et al. Targeted therapy with ANP in children less than 4 years old with inoperable brain stem gliomas [abstract]. Neuro-oncol 2005; 7: 300

Long-term survival of high-risk pediatric patients with primitive neuroectodermal tumors treated with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15911929
Integr Cancer Ther. 2005 Jun;4(2):168-77

pg 173

1.4.3 Targeted Therapy

“…multi-targeted therapy with ANP has shown promising results [12;88-91]”

pg 176

90. Burzynski SR, Lewy RI, Weaver RA, et al. Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma: a preliminary report. Drugs R D 2003; 4: 91-101

Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma: a preliminary report.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12718563
Drugs R D. 2003;4(2):91-101

91. Burzynski SR, Weaver RA, Janicki T. et al. Targeted therapy with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) of high-grade, recurrent and progressive brain stem glioma. Integr Cancer Ther 2006 Mar; 5 (1): 40-7

Targeted therapy with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 of high-grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem glioma.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16484713
Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Mar;5(1):40-7

30 evaluable patients with recurrent and progressive DBSG

“>40% of patients survived for more than 2 years
30% more than 5 years.”

27% – CR – Complete Response
20% – PR – Partial Response
23% – SD – Stable Disease
30% – PD – Progressive Disease
[12,88]

pg 175

12. Burzynski SR Targeted therapy for brain tumors In: Columbus, F editor. Brain cancer research progress. New York: Nova Science Publishers Inc 2005

pg 173

10 evaluable children
aged <4 years diagnosed with DBSG treated with ANP
youngest 3-month-old infant
[89]

60% – 2-year survival rate
20% – 5-year survival rate
maximum survival more than 7 years

30% – CR – Complete Response
40% – SD – Stable Disease
30% – PD – Progressive Disease
[89]

“The results are compiled in table II.”

pg 174

2.3. Targeted Therapy

Multi-targeted ANP therapy is free from chronic toxicity in children and adults based on the results of numerous clinical studies involving

1652 adults
335 children
[147]

pg 178

147. Burzynski SR. Annual report to the FDA, IND 43,742, 2006

pg 174

Long-term follow-up of children treated with ANP for astrocytomas revealed:
normal development
no cognitive or endocrine deficiencies
normal fertility

>5 years – substantial number of patients tumor free
>17 years – follow-up period for some patients

pg 169

1.1.4. Targeted Therapy

Clinical trials with agents affecting single targets are in progress and the preliminary results of multi-targeted therapy with
antineoplastons (ANP) A10
and
AS2-1 have been reported
[39]

small group of patients with progressive LGA, ANP
60% – CR rate – Complete Response
10% – PR rate – Partial Response
median survival 7 years 9 months
maximum survival of more than 15 years
[39]

LGA = Low-Grade Astrocytomas

Table I. Selected chemotherapy regimens for the treatment of low- grade astrocytoma in children

Burzynski [39] – Reference
Phase II d – d = Preliminary results – Study type
P – P = progressive tumor – Tumor type
(no. of pts) – pts = patients
ANP (10) – ANP = antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 – Treatment {(78) = most in a study}
OS [%] – OS = overall survival
100% (1 yr) – 90% (3 yr) – Efficacy
93 mo – MST = MST = median survival time – {96 (1 y) next closest}
CR [% (no.)]
60% (6) – CR = complete response {24 (11) next closest}
PR [% (no.)]
10% (1) – PR = partial response {60% (9) best other study}
[% (no.)]
30% (3) – SD = stable disease + MR = minor response {70% (14) best other study}
[% (no.)]
0% (0) – PD = progressive disease {4% (2) next closest}
PFS (%)
90 (1 y) – 90 (3 y) – PFS = progression-free survival {100 (1 y) – 68 (3 y) best other study

(Above, I also provide the best next case to compare to)

pg 176

39. Burzynski SR Clinical application of body epigenetic system: multi-targeted therapy for primary brain tumors. World and Ehrlich Conference on Dosing of Magic Bullets; 2004 Sep 9-11 Nurnberg

Burzynski Clinical Trials (The SEC filings):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/11/burzynski-clinical-trials-2
Who has audited these figures?

guychapman, YOU just did

Otherwise, check with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

Where are they published?

guychapman, if you have NOT yet figured THAT out…

“7. There are numerous cases where the Burzynski clinic has said a tumour is “dying from the inside”, but where it turns out that it is growing aggressively and suffering necrosis due to outstripping its blood supply; this is usually a precursor to the death of a patient only weeks after being told they were on the way to a cure.”

“How do you account for this repeated error?”

guychapman, WHERE is the documentation?

Boris Ogon

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

3,919 views

Not so much

Waiting for the 10,000

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM

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

Critiquing Bob Blaskiewicz ( #Burzynski Cancer is Serious Business, Part II)

Critiquing Bob Blaskiewicz (#Burzynski Cancer is Serious Business, Part II) @rjblaskiewicz

rjblaskiewicz:

Except YOU do NOT actually believe in

“interesting and civil discussions,”

do you, Bobby ?

rjblaskiewicz:

Bobby, please point out where the Declaration of Helsinki supports your tweet
http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3

Please point out where the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) supports your tweet
http://m.cancer.gov/topics/factsheets/clinical-trials

rjblaskiewicz

rjblaskiewicz:

Do you mean THIS present ?

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

PZ Myers

“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”

Do you mean THIS St. Jude ?
St. Jude:

http://www.stjude.org/stjude/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=403c6f9523e70110VgnVCM1000001e0215acRCRD

2/15/2012 – the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has awarded St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital $4,314,800 for a childhood cancer survivor study

The new federal funds will be distributed by the National Cancer Institute (NCI)
http://cohen.house.gov/press-release/cohen-st-jude-receive-43-million-childhood-cancer-survivor-study

Tax-Exempt
Receives Federal Grants / Funds

http://www.stjude.org/stjude/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=b7e79bb8a0cf5110VgnVCM1000001e0215acRCRD&cpsextcurrchannel=1

Donations to St. Jude are tax deductible as allowed by law
http://www.stjude.org/stjude/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=6f8afa3186e70110VgnVCM1000001e0215acRCRD&vgnextchannel=2f62940504f9a210VgnVCM1000001e0215acRCRD

FORBES: St. Jude CEO – $742,718
http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml

Burzynski does NOT receive Federal Funds

Burzynski does NOT receive Federal Grants

Burzynski is NOT Tax-Exempt

Burzynski donations can NOT be deducted from a U.S. Tax Return

rjblaskiewicz:

THIS Phenylbutyrate (PB) ?

Phenylacetylglutaminate (PG) and Phenylacetate (PN) are metabolites of PHENYLBUTYRATE (PB) and are constituents of antineoplaston AS2-1

SODIUM PHENYLBUTYRATE was given an orphan drug designation by the FDA for use as an adjunct to

surgery,

radiation therapy, and

chemotherapy

for treatment of individuals with

primary or recurrent malignant glioma

Cumulative List of all Products that have received Orphan Designation: Total active designations: 2002 Effective: 5/5/2009
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/forindustry/developingproductsforrarediseasesconditions/howtoapplyfororphanproductdesignation/ucm162066.xls
PHENYLBUTYRATE and SODIUM PHENYLBUTYRATE are listed alphabetically in the lower 1/4th of this document

Pubmed 110 entries
Sodium Phenylbutyrate
“Sodium Phenylbutrate (aka PB) …”

Sodium Phenylbutyrate (PB)
Year – Pubmed (110 entries)
1958 1st entry
1995 1st clinical trial
2001 Phase 1
2009 Phase 2
2012 Phase 3

rjblaskiewicz:

THESE trials ?

2003 – 2006 Phase II preliminary reports

2003 – Phase II

Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma:

a preliminary report
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12718563
Drugs R D. 2003;4(2):91-101

recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma

antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1

6 months median duration of treatment

of all 12 patients

2 years / 33.3% – Survival

2 / 17% – alive and tumour free for over 5 years since initial diagnosis

from the start of treatment

5 years – 1 alive for more than
4 years – 1 alive for more than

Only mild and moderate toxicities were observed, which included

3 cases of skin allergy

2 cases of:
anaemia
fever
hypernatraemuia

single cases of:
agranulocytosis
hypoglycaemia
numbness
tiredness
myalgia
vomiting

2003 – Protocol – recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma
12 – Patients Accrued
10 – Evaluable Patients
2 / 20% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
3 / 30% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
3 / 30% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
2 / 20% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease

2004 – Phase II

Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in children with recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma :

a preliminary report
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15563234
Drugs R D. 2004;5(6):315-26

incurable recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma

antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 (ANP)

9 – patients’ median age

6 patients were diagnosed with pilocytic astrocytoma

4 with low-grade astrocytoma
1 with astrocytoma grade 2

1 case of visual pathway glioma, a biopsy was not performed due to a dangerous location

16 months – The average duration of intravenous ANP therapy

19 months – The average duration of oral ANP

1 patient was non-evaluable due to only 4 weeks of ANP and lack of follow-up scans

1 patient who had stable disease discontinued ANP against medical advice and died 4.5 years later

10 patients are alive and well from 2 to >14 years post-diagnosis

Only 1 case of serious toxicity of reversible tinnitus, of 1 day’s duration, was described

2004 – Protocol – incurable recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma
12 – Patients Accrued
33% – % of Patients Showing Complete Response
25% – % of Patients Showing Partial Response
33% – % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
0 / 0% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease

2005 – Phase II

Long-term survival of high-risk pediatric patients with primitive neuroectodermal tumors treated with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15911929
Integr Cancer Ther. 2005 Jun;4(2):168-77

13 children with recurrent disease or high risk

6 (46%) survived more than 5 years

2005 – Protocol – recurrent disease or high risk
23% – % of Patients Showing Complete Response
8% – % of Patients Showing Partial Response
31% – % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
38% – % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease

2006 – Phase II

Targeted therapy with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 of high-grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem glioma
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16484713
Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Mar;5(1):40-7

Brainstem glioma carries the worst prognosis of all malignancies of the brain

Most patients with brainstem glioma fail standard radiation therapy and chemotherapy and do not survive longer than 2 years

Treatment is even more challenging when an inoperable tumor is of high-grade pathology (HBSG)

patients with inoperable tumor of high-grade pathology (HBSG) treated with antineoplastons in 4 phase 2 trials

39% – overall survival at 2 years
22% – overall survival at 5 years

17+ years maximum survival for a patient with anaplastic astrocytoma

5+ years for a patient with glioblastoma

39% – Progression-free survival at 6 months

5+ year survival in recurrent diffuse intrinsic glioblastomas and anaplastic astrocytomas of the brainstem in a small group of patients

18 – evaluable
4 – glioblastomas
14 – anaplastic HBSG

14 – diffuse intrinsic tumors
12 – recurrence
6 – did not have radiation therapy or chemotherapy

Antineoplastons, A10 (A10I) and AS2-1 injections

5 months median duration

Responses were assessed by gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography

Antineoplastons tolerated very well
1 case of grade 4 toxicity (reversible anemia)

2006 – Protocol – high-grade pathology (HBSG)
18 – Evaluable Patients
11% – % of Patients Showing Complete Response
11% – % of Patients Showing Partial Response
39% – % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
39% – % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease

2/24/2013
http://www.skeptical.gb.net/blog/?p=1442
2/27/2013
http://www.skeptical.gb.net/blog/?p=1798
3/9/2013
http://www.thetwentyfirstfloor.com/?p=8001

rjblaskiewicz:

Bobby, oh REALLY ?

“The Skeptics” (Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business, Part II)

The “group” “The Sketics” claims is NOT a “group” and which allegedly does NOT spread “misinformation”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/the-skeptics

rjblaskiewicz:

No Bobby, you did NOT

rjblaskiewicz:

“VAMPIRE” ?

rjblaskiewicz:

Bobby, like THIS ?

Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D and “Freedom of Speech”

“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting ‘fire’ in a theater and causing a panic.”
United States Supreme Court ruled 3/3/1919
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)

https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/stanislaw-rajmund-burzynski-m-d-ph-d-and-freedom-of-speech

rjblaskiewicz:

Bobby, like THIS ?

David H. Gorski and the Cult of “MISINFORMATION”

Colorado Public Television 12 – PBS: Part II
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/david-h-gorski-and-the-cult-of-misinformation

Orac and the Cult of “Misinformation” (Part III)

David H. Gorski
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/orac-and-the-cult-of-misinformation-part-iii

Josephine Jones and the Cult of Misinformation

JJ recently blogged:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/josephine-jones-and-the-cult-of-misinformation

Keir Liddle and the Cult of MISINFORMATION
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/09/keir-liddle-and-the-cult-of-misinformation

The Cult of “Misinformation”

Review of “disinformation,” “misinformation,” and “misdirection” posted by #Burzynski critics
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/the-cult-of-misinformation

The cult of “Misinformation” continued

Adam Jacobs
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/the-cult-of-misinformation-continued

rjblaskiewicz:

Bobby, where’s your

Citation(s),

Reference(s), and / or

Link(s) ?

rjblaskiewicz:

Bobby, Adam Jacobs does NOT care about “FREE SPEECH,” he censors it:
http://dianthus.co.uk/burzynski-qa

rjblaskiewicz:

Well, Bobby

We know a lot of the skeptics seem to “hate” the truth

rjblaskiewicz:

Bobby, maybe you should have actually watched THIS:

Burzynski Infomercial on Colorado PBS 12
http://www.skeptical.gb.net/blog/?p=2401

rjblaskiewicz:

Bobby, maybe you should ACTUALLY listen to it

rjblaskiewicz:

Yeah, riiiiiiiiight, Bobby

rjblaskiewicz:

“Response to the release of Burzynski 2, Havanna Nights”
http://t.co/t9WMpNRN9L

Skeptical Humanities
Learning is Cool

Response to the release of Burzynski 2, Havanna Nights

Posted by Bob

On this week’s episode of the Virtual Skeptics, I replied to what was learned at the premiere of the new Burzynski movie

The text of my segment follows the episode

This week, the new Burzynski movie premiered in San Luis Obispo, California

We largely knew what was going to be in the movie since a couple of trailers had been released, the patients who appeared had talked about the filming, and there was a sort of credulous review had appeared a few days ahead of time and I believe the director may have mentioned it on a PBS fundraising specual a few days earlier

So we had a pretty good idea of what our proxies should be looking for

We really wanted to see if certain people who had been filmed, like Amelia Saunders or Hannah Bradley appeared and especially what was said about them

We wanted lists of people who appeared, to see if we might be able to put together who said what

Most of these people’s stories are well known, and we doubted there would be anything new

Also our people took down key quotes that struck them as important, like

(those notes did NOT seem very “key” considering Orac’s (David H. Gorski @gorskon #sciencebasedmedicine @ScienceBasedMed @oracknows) “Second-Hand” “review” of Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business, Part II)

“skeptics are hiding behind their BS free speech.”

(Yep, TRUE)

This is my takeaway, after talking to the people who I know were there

We are wiggly little scumbags who are hateful and slimy

(some skeptics seem to be “hateful” of the truth)

We ridicule the desperate and dying

Some of us are paid by big pharma

Others are deluded and think that we are doing good but are being misled

(that is a fair description of “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “misdirection”)

But make no mistake–and this was hammered home to me by everyone I talked to–we are to them pure evil

One of my big concerns going into the movie was how I was going to be portrayed and whether or not I was going to receive death threats

That my family was going to receive death threats or that I was going to be harassed at work

I feared this because of a letter that, as you know, was sent to my employer promising that I would be featuring prominently in the Burzynski movie

Nobody asked me for my opinion or to give a statement or to respond or clarify; they went straight to my boss

Fine

I’ve had wacky people contact my employers in the past

I fully expect it to happen in the future

Clips of this show, episode 13, were included in the movie

This is the episode that was quoted in the letter on my university chancellor

As it turned out, our faces were blurred, our names obscured, and our voices were altered

No real identifying information

Which, you know, I’m OK with

However, there are some problems here

1) What was served by contacting my employer other than to scare me

How dare the filmmakers say that we’re terrorizing people when they are doing just that

2) Someone asked me about a quote,

“we’re coming for you, you little polish sausage you.”

The thing is, the quote is patently absurd if my name is shown, something that everyone here jumped on, like I hoped you would during the original episode

That joking was not conveyed to the skeptics in the theater audience

This might be due to the fact that not only were we given scary voices but also that apparently every time we appeared scary music played in the background

It’s clear that the reason I’m in the movie in the capacity I am, as chief bad guy, is because I’m on video talking about the Burzynski Clinic

And this leads me to another thing that Brian mentioned

That when we kind of appeared on the screen, they put up a title card type thing that said,

“skeptical teleconference”

or something like that, and that a woman at the end of the show, wanted to know,

“How did you get this footage of these scheming skeptics?”

Um….we publicize our show constantly?

If you can’t have real clandestine drama, you might as well make it up

My favorite bit was a tweet that I got around this time where a new account who followed like 10 people I do said,

“It’s really interesting when you talk about Burzynski on the show

Could you do that more?”

Really, Eric?

(Do you know it was Eric ? After all, you thought I was Eric)

Bob Blaskiewicz

Yeah, I have a feeling it’s Merola

That’s just me though

He’s way too invested in the hashtag in his movie to just let it drop
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg/2013/03/burzynski-another-fact-blind-troll-who-predicted-that/#comments

Do you think I’m two years old?

(Your “fact-checking” ability makes me wonder)

I am interested in ultimately seeing it

I’m asking that the producer send a review copy to the James Randi Educational Foundation so a proper review can be done

(As if jref is a “reliable source”)

Or you could screen it in Minneapolis

Next week works for me, Eric, if you’re free

Another thing

News broke on the 7th of January in skeptical circles that the FDA was conducting an audit of the clinic

A patient in the movie apparently said that she had been receiving a brain scan when she heard that the Clinic was being investigated again

This means that material was added to the movie after the 7th of January

The Burzynski Birthday Fundraiser was announced by PZ Myers on the 6th

So there was more than enough time for the filmmaker to clarify exactly what was meant in that episode when I said that there was going to be a little present on his birthday

(That “present” PZ Myers was offering up ?)

Skeptics evilly, and with malice aforethought, raised $14.5K dollars for St. Jude’s

We then challenged the Clinic to match us, and it didn’t

That the director did not mention this fact seems to me inexcusable, making us look like we are big meanos who hate babies and morality

(He could have mentioned your “Fave,” PZ Myers)

This demonization is unfair and at the expense of the truth–if you ever read theotherburzynskipatientgroup blog you know whose side I’m on

If he used the video clip of us that he cited in his letter to my employer, about us bringing a “present” to Burzynski and knowing what it actually was without clarifying it, well, that just speaks to his regard for completeness and accuracy

No messiah should need such fudging

It suggests to me that he’s forcing evidence into a pre-existing narrative of persecution

(And what do you call what YOU are doing ?)

References:

PZ Myer’s announcement of the Houston Cancer Quack
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/01/06/lets-make-houston-cancer-quack-burzynski-pay/

The Virtual Skeptics episode that appears in the movie:

RJB

rjblaskiewicz:
http://t.co/F79zndTjuZ

Bob Blaskiewicz retweeted

Bobby, did you know that I tried to post a comment on the James Randi Educational Funding (jref) article Written by Brian Thompson , about this, but they did NOT post my response ?

Did you post something about “FREE SPEECH” ?

“Burzynski II” Fails to Convince
Swift”

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/2050-qburzynski-iiq-is-more-of-the-same.html

My 1st-hand Review of Orac’s 2nd-Hand Review – Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business, Part II

Burzynski critic Orac blogged about “Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business, Part II”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/my-1st-hand-review-of-oracs-2nd-hand-review-burzynski-cancer-is-serious-business-part-ii

rjblaskiewicz:

Bobby, does this mean it will be punctuated correctly, but NOT “Fact-Checked” ?

rjblaskiewicz:

Bobby, it did NOT help

rjblaskiewicz:

rjblaskiewicz:

Not really. 🙂

That’s what I thought, Bobby

rjblaskiewicz:

rjblaskiewicz:

rjblaskiewicz:

Bobby, what was that about

“many interesting and civil discussions” ?

Bobby, you can’t always get what you want

But if you try sometime, you just might find

you get what you need

rjblaskiewicz:

Bobby, let me guess

You are so busy tweeting about penises that you do NOT have enough time to “Fact-Check” ?

You do know FDA required ?

” … in 1997, his medical practice was expanded to include traditional cancer treatment options such as

chemotherapy,

gene targeted therapy,

immunotherapy and

hormonal therapy

in response to FDA requirements that cancer patients utilize more traditional cancer treatment options in order to be eligible to participate in the Company’s

Antineoplaston CLINICAL TRIALS
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/724445/000091205702038660/a2091272z10qsb.txt

rjblaskiewicz:

Comes with the territory! 🙂

Yes it does, Bobby

You’ve just been Insolently pwned