Tag Archives: Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business Part 2

“The Amazing Meeting” (I don’t think it means, what you think it says it means): 2 Intellectually and Ethically Challenged Individuals, Twaddle at TAM 2013

Posted on by
Reply

Gentlemen, I start your Insolence πŸ˜‡
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
(1:30) [1]
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
The “motto” of “The Amazing (Not so Much) Meeting” is “Fighting Fakers,” which is apropos, since I doubt that “Orac” the “Check my Facts” Hack of Dr. David H. Gorski, grasps the irony, that when I read some of his blog articles, you could easily switch his name with the name of some individual he is flogging, and the proverbial shoe fits, and:
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
(1:40)
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
“This is a guy who sometimes fools even, you know, physicians”
——————————————————————
(I couldn’t have said it better, myself) 😊
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
(2:47)
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
He states:

“There is a long segment about “The Skeptics”“

(applause) 😝
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
(4:25)
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
“His lawyer wrote a book”

“About a half of it is about Burzynski“ [4]
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
6:00
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Gorski mentions that Burzynski noticed that there were higher levels of these chemicals in healthy people, than people with cancer
——————————————————————
Whereas, Burzynski is on record as having said [5]:

” . . . healthy people have abundance of these chemicals in blood
Cancer patients have varied to none“

I did NOT know before now, that GorskGeek thinks that “none” is a “level” 😢
——————————————————————
He continues:

AS2.1 – which is a chemical called phenylacetic acid, which is a byproduct of metabolism that turns into phenylacetylglutamine by the liver

A10 – soluble is basically the same thing
It breaks down to PAG
——————————————————————
WOW !

I thought it was: AS2 – 1 😊

They are “basically the same thing” ? 😳

What does Burzynski say ? [6]

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

PG and PN are naturally occurring in human body as result of metabolism of phenylalanine in liver and kidneys

formulation of antineoplaston AS2-1 is 4:1 mixture of synthetic PN and PG

A10 is 4:1 mixture of PG and iso-PG

That does NOT look like “basically the same thing” to me πŸ˜›

20131111-160455.jpg
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
(6:50)
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Gorski founders on:

“And these are substances which were actually studied in the ’50’s and ’60’s and not found to be particularly, um, promising, but, he didn’t know that then”
——————————————————————
GorskGeek has #FAILED miserably to prove that on his blogs [7] πŸ˜„
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
(8:00)
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Gorski comments about Burzynski’s “animal testing,” “species specific” claims:

“There are ways of getting around that”
——————————————————————
But Gorski, again, has #FAILED miserably to prove it [8] πŸ˜…
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
(12:00)
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Gorski makes lame excuses about the NCI phase II clinical trial [9] πŸ˜–
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
(12:50)
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Gorski claims Burzynski was indicted for insurance fraud in the 1997 case 😱
——————————————————————
GorskGeek, care to try and prove that one also ? [10] πŸ˜ƒ
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
(14:25)
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Gorski then states that out of 61 trials on clinicaltrials . gov, “most” are “closed or unknown”
——————————————————————
GorskGeek #FAILED again 😁

At the time it was:

1 – Not Yet Recruiting
(OPEN)(Phase 3)
1 – COMPLETED
2 – WITHDRAWN
(Withdrawn due to slow enrollment)
7 – WITHDRAWN
(This study has been withdrawn prior to enrollment)
(9=WITHDRAWN)
10 – Recruiting
(10=OPEN)
40 – Active, not recruiting –
(40=CLOSED)
61 =TOTAL
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
(15:20)
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Gorski attempts to go all “legal eagle”:

“Listen to Burzynski’s lawyer!”

“You listen to Burzynski’s lawyer; and, and I swear I don’t understand, like why Burzynski would let him, let his lawyer say stuff this damning in his own book, but he does”

“So, get a load of some of these quotes, referring to one of the clinical trials, he says:”

“It was a joke”

“. . . there could not be any possibility of meaningful data coming out of the so-called clinical trial, it was all an artifice, that, you know, designed so that they could continue giving the treatment“

“The FDA wanted all of his patients to be on an IND, so, that’s what we did”
——————————————————————
Gorski, attorney Rick Jaffe is an American, living in America NOT the formerly communist Poland

He can say whatever he wants

GorskGeek is NOT a lawyer πŸ˜“

And there’s an excellent reason why

Nor is he schooled in the proper usage of the English language

FACT:

” . . . the so-called clinical trial . . .”

Any human being with a modicum of intelligence about the English language, understands that the term “clinical trial” is singular, i.e. one

Burzynski’s lawyer is obviously referring to the CAN-1 clinical trial mentioned in Burzynski’s 11/25/1997 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing [11]

One trial that is retrospective is CAN-1 Clinical Trial
——————————————————————
CAN-1 PHASE II STUDY OF ANTINEOPLASTONS A10 AND AS2-1 IN

PATIENTS WITH REFRACTORY MALIGNANCIES

133 patients
——————————————————————
Clinical trial of patients treated by Dr. Burzynski through 2/23/1996

FDA has indicated it will not accept data generated by this trial since it was not a wholly prospective one
——————————————————————
Gorski continues his trend of #FAILURES when he mentions the additional types of treatments that Burzynski was offering, but he #FAILED to mention [12] πŸ˜‚
——————————————————————
” … 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”
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
(18:20)
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Gorski addresses the case of Tori Moreno
——————————————————————
Kim Moreno states:

“We originally were at Miller’s Children at Long Beach Memorial and then went to City of Hope“

“We also sent her MRI’s to Dr. Fred Epstein in New York to be looked at”

Gorski suggests that 3 different opinions could have misdiagnosed Tori Moreno

You can read an interview with Tori’s mother [13]
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
(19:45)
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Gorski goes on to mention Burzynski patients going to Texas Children’s Hospital with hypernatremia issues
——————————————————————
Gorski, do you mean this ? [14]

The changing pattern of hypernatremia in hospitalized children

Department of Pediatrics, Texas Children’s Hospital, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
(20:00)
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Gorski mangles the case of Hannah Bradley, who had a grade 3 anaplastic astrocytoma brain tumor

GorskGeek makes excuses like “spontaneous remission”, but then provides no citation, reference, or link to a case of such a tumor having spontaneously exhibited remission [15]
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
(20:40)
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Gorski states that antineoplastons are chemotherapy
——————————————————————
No, Gorski, antineoplaston are:

“…an unapproved drug, not ordinary “chemotherapy“ [16] 😣
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
(21:53)
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Gorski claims in regard to Burzynski’s personalized gene-targeted therapy:

” . . . gives to the patient without regard for synergistic toxicity“

“Boom, there you go”
——————————————————————
Gorski’s #FAIL rate continues, as Burzynski has stated that phase 2 and 3 publications are reviewed as part of this process [17]

Gorski, “BOOM, THERE YOU GO” ッ
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Gorski, you should hire out to the Democratic Party as their mascot, because you must be the biggest pompous ASS I’ve ever seen 😜

Gorski, my advice: don’t quit your day job, HACK 😷
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
The #TAM2013 audience then has to suffer through 22:36 of the blatherskite of Robert J. (don’t call me Bobby) “Bob” Blaskiewicz Blatherskitewicz [2]

He blathers about the “dozen,” “17,” “16 dead,” “pancreatic cancer,” “Joseph, who was alive but died well within the life expectancy given his diagnosis,” “Joann, who was alive but died within a year of starting therapy,” “Irene S., who was dead within month,” “Maxine, who was already dead,” the “103 in 2011,” “63 in mid-June,” “17 on original 1999 site,” “about 3 added a year,” the “about 50 stories,” “1/10th of patient names gathered,” “Amelia S. – 7, tumor breaking up,” “Chase,” “Cody – 1994, 20 years ago, 2 visits, 6 weeks treatment breaking up,” “David,” “Janet, 3 – 5 yrs., oncologist, now dead, ovarian cancer,” “Pete took video down,” “8,000 patients,” “probable ischemic necrosis,” “13 yr. old, getting worse getting better, vomited – Marlene, nurse,” “Rory died 2005,” “Supatra, swelling, last wed., brain tumor,” “Side-effect, 2%, sodium load,” “Andrea, U.S. News and World Report, 30% chance recovery, glioblastoma, ANP in luggage, died on plane,” “Cathy wanted to be on ANP, Greg Burzynski, found out only brain tumor,” “Denise D. breast cancer,” and finally:
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
(18:45)
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
” … and light as many fires under his butt as we can“
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Mentions Rick Jaffe’s book Galileo’s Lawyer

IT’S ALL ABOUT THE PATIENTS [4]
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
All you need to know about Blaskiewicz is:

“White man speak with forked tongue” [18]
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
The 3rd video is a panel discussion, which includes “man-crush” tag-team [3]

Robert Blaskiewicz and David Gorski
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
(8:00)
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Bob says:

“Yeah, I’m not that type of doctor“
——————————————————————
Bob, the correct answer for you, is:

“I’m NOT a doctor” QUACK
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
(13:05)
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Gorski gabs that he’s a:

“Game of Thrones Geek”
——————————————————————
I just knew I was right, GorskGeek [19]
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
(14:00)
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
The only female panelist mentions “bureaucrats”, “wimps”, and “people without balls”
——————————————————————
2 out of 3 ain’t bad

She describes the Bob and David show to a T
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
(15:00)
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
The claim is made that a Burzynski physician appeared on the Burzynski Facebook page announcing results
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
(16:00)
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Gorski #whines that the Texas Medical Board wasn’t successful in shutting Burzynski down because of “politics”
——————————————————————
LAUGHABLE
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
(20:55)
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Gorski gives his usual excuse:

“He’s not an oncologist”
——————————————————————
GorskiGeek, that claim is as dead as apparently, quite a number of your brain cells [15]
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
(34:40)
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Audience members are given the opportunity to speak, and this is the garbage served up:
——————————————————————
“Hi, this is Susan

Ah, don’t forget to mention that Wikipedia has been a major battlefield

We’ve had 23,000 views to the clinic’s page this last month, also rebutr . . .”
——————————————————————
“Control the flow of information”
——————————————————————
Gorski pipes up:

“What she said”
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
(35:20)
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Blatherskitewicz chimes in:

“When it comes to Wikipedia can I just mention that is, that is, that that is so effective that Wikipedia was singled out in the most recent Burzynski movie“
——————————————————————
Gorski chirps:

“Yes”
——————————————————————
Bob yacks:

“as being controlled by evil skeptics“
——————————————————————
Gorski ejaculates:

“No, seriously”
——————————————————————
Bob bleats:

“No”

(applause)
——————————————————————
“You have to unleash the evil hoards of skeptics“

“Wahahaha” πŸ‘Ώ
——————————————————————
Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski on Wikipedia:

“Simply don’t pay attention to it, because it, it’s not true”

“You won’t be able to, do any, clinical research which we do, without convincing evidence, especially when you have the most powerful agency in the government which is against you“

“So they would love to find something which is wrong with what we are doing”

“Ah, so the fact that they’ve, um, agreed that what we have has value, and they allow us to do phase 3 clinical trials it means that we are right”

“Because, uh, uh, nobody who didn’t have any, concrete evidence that it works, would be able to go as far”

“So whatever Wikipedia says, well, I don’t care for them“

(laughing) [5]
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Enlightening ?

Inspiring ?

Amazing ?

Hypocrites

Apparatchiks [20]
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – David Gorski – Why We Fight (Part I): Stanislaw Burzynski Versus Science-Based Medicine – TAM 2013 11/8/2013 (22:44)
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”

======================================
[2] – Robert Blaskiewicz – Why We Fight (Part II): It’s All About The Patients – TAM 2013 11/8/2013 (22:36)
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”

======================================
[3] – Medical Cranks And Quacks
TAM 2013 JREF
11/8/2013 (42:42)
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”

======================================
[4] – “Galileo’s Lawyer” Richard A. Jaffe, Esq.
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
http://www.richardjaffe.com
======================================
[5] – 11/9/2013 – Pete Cohen chats with Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski:
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/09/pete-cohen-chats-with-dr-stanislaw-burzynski/
======================================
[6] – 6/2012 – Journal of Cancer Therapy, 2012, 3, 192-200 doi:10.4236/jct.2012.33028 Published Online June 2012, Pg. 192
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”

Click to access 9219.pdf

======================================
[7] – Burzynski: Oh, RATS!!!:
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/26/the-lancet-oncology-peer-review-team-d-12-01519-fail-2/
======================================
[8] – Critiquing: How Stanislaw Burzynski became Burzynski the Brave Maverick Doctor, part 1:
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/critiquing-how-stanislaw-burzynski-became-burzynski-the-brave-maverick-doctor-part-1/
======================================
[9] – 9/19/2013 – Critiquing: National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) CancerNet β€œfact sheet”:
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/critiquing-national-cancer-institute-nci-at-the-national-institutes-of-health-nih-cancernet/
======================================
[10] – 9/25/2013 – Critiquing: National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc. – NCAHF News: JURY NULLIFICATION THWARTS BURZYNSKI CONVICTION:
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/25/critiquing-national-council-against-health-fraud-inc-ncahf-news-jury-nullification-thwarts-burzynski-conviction/
======================================
[11] – 7/9/2013 – Burzynski: The Original 72 Phase II Clinical Trials:
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/09/burzynski-the-original-72-phase-ii-clinical-trials/
======================================
[12] – 4/26/2013 – Burzynski: 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:
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/burzynski-fda-requirements-that-cancer-patients-utilize-more-traditional-cancer-treatment-options-in-order-to-be-eligible-to-participate-in-the-companys-antineoplaston-clinical-trials/
======================================
[13] – Tori Moreno
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
http://www.cancerinform.org/aburzinterview2.html
======================================
[14] – 9/1999 – Pediatrics. 1999 Sep;104(3 Pt 1):435-9
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10469766/
======================================
[15] – 11/2/2013 – Critiquing: Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski’s cancer β€œsuccess” stories:
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/02/critiquing-dr-stanislaw-burzynskis-cancer-success-stories/
——————————————————————
10/25/2013 – Hannah Bradley – 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
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/25/hannah-bradley-i-feel-empowered-in-control-of-my-body-four-women-on-fighting-cancer-with-alternative-therapies-httpwww-telegraph-co-ukhealth10383724i-feel-empowered-in-control-of-my-body-fo/
======================================
[16] – NOT ORDINARY CHEMOTHERAPY
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/27/27.F3d.153.93-2071.html
======================================
[17] – 9/4/2013 – University of Michigan, where is alum Dr. David H. β€œOrac” Gorski’s Grapefruits ?:
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/04/university-of-michigan-where-is-alum-dr-david-h-orac-gorskis-grapefruits/
======================================
[18] – 10/13/2013 – Why β€œThe Skepticsℒ” Perfessor Robert J. (don’t call me β€œBobby”) β€œBob” Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) of University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire, β€œFame,” is a Coward and a Liar:
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/13/why-the-skeptics-perfessor-robert-j-dont-call-me-bobby-bob-blaskiewicz-rjblaskiewicz-of-university-of-wisconsin-eau-claire-fame-is-a-coward-and-a-liar/
======================================
[19] – 10/27/2013 – β€œThe Skepticsℒ” Burzynski Bias, Censorship, Lies, and Alibi’s: September 28, 2013 β€œThe Skepticsℒ” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/27/the-skeptics-lie-lied-lies-liars-lying-burzynski-bias-censorship-lies-and-alibis-september-28-2013-the-skeptics-burzynski-discussion-by-bob-blaskiewic/
======================================
[20] – 11/9/2013 – Wikipedia Articles:
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/burzynski-timeline/
======================================

Advertisement

The Lancet Oncology Peer Review Team D-12-01519: #FAIL

Posted on by
Reply

Eric Merola revealed in Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II (2), at (1:29:53), that The Lancet Oncology Peer Review Team D-12-01519, in 2 hours 8 minutes and 51 seconds, refused to publish Burzynski’s 11/26/2012 phase 2 clinical trial Progression-Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS) re patients 8 – 16 years after diagnosis, results
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/critiquing-in-which-the-latest-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-cure-is-reviewed-with-insolence-2/
Here is the “back story” involving the Critics, Cynics, “The Skepticsβ„’”, SkeptiCowardsΒ©
======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 5:12pm – 20 Dec 12:

@drpaulmorgan @dianthusmed Pick a medical journal Paul…

======================================
οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 5:28pm – 20 Dec 12:

@BurzynskiMovie @dianthusmed 1. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2. The Lancet Oncology. 3. New England Journal of Medicine. (1/2)

οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½
======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 4:26am – 16 Feb 13:

@dianthusmed @annacapunay #burzynski ask the Lancet, Adam.

======================================
οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½
John (@JohnDaily15) tweeted at 1:18pm – 16 Feb 13:

@BurzynskiMovie @dianthusmed @annacapunay if u want 2 see burzynski published data then ask the Lancet to pull their socks up @endless psych
https://twitter.com/JohnDaily15/status/303047378246705153
οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½
======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 1:54pm – 17 Feb 13:

@SceptiGuy @sdmack Asked the Lancet yet Guy? #burzynski

======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 2:32pm – 18 Feb 13:

@gorskon @mrhawkes @BurzynskiSaves Ask the Lancet why it is not published, Gorski.

======================================
THE #Burzynski TWITTER WAR (#TwitterWar)
======================================
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 3:45pm – 20 Dec 12:

β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 4:30pm – 20 Dec 12:

οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:32pm – 20 Dec 12:

οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:33pm – 20 Dec 12:

@drpaulmorgan Maybe if we tell him name of a good journal, he’ll pretend #burzynski published in it in his next movie?

οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½
Alan Henness (@zeno001) tweeted at 4:33pm – 20 Dec 12:

β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:34pm – 20 Dec 12:

β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 4:37pm – 20 Dec 12:

β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:39pm – 20 Dec 12:

β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 4:40pm – 20 Dec 12:

β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½
Burzynski: Japan publications:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/burzynski-japan/
οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½
Burzynski and AACR (American Association for Cancer Research):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/burzynski-and-aacr-american-association-for-cancer-research/
οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:41pm – 20 Dec 12:

======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 5:12pm – 20 Dec 12:

@drpaulmorgan @dianthusmed Pick a medical journal Paul…

======================================
οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 5:28pm – 20 Dec 12:

@BurzynskiMovie @dianthusmed 1. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2. The Lancet Oncology. 3. New England Journal of Medicine. (1/2)

οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 5:31pm – 20 Dec 12:

β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 5:32pm – 20 Dec 12:

β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 2:46am – 16 Feb 13:

======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 4:26am – 16 Feb 13:

@dianthusmed @annacapunay #burzynski ask the Lancet, Adam.

======================================
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:59am – 16 Feb 13:

@BurzynskiMovie And why, pray tell, do you think the Lancet would know about #burzynski’s trials? Are you claiming he submitted there?

β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Phil Harris (@Phil_Harris10) tweeted at 8:33am – 16 Feb 13:

@dianthusmed @annacapunay BurzynskiMovie Please explain why you refer to ‘The Lancet’ for info on #burzynski studies?

β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Phil Harris (@Phil_Harris10) tweeted at 8:44am – 16 Feb 13:

@dianthusmed @BurzynskiMovie @annacapunay Can’t see any positive reference to #burzynski in the Lancet. What’s their point

β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 8:54am – 16 Feb 13:

@Phil_Harris10 I’m guessing @BurzynskiMovie thinks if he says #burzynski’s published in the Lancet, the fanbois will just believe it

β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
MedTek (@medtek) tweeted at 9:17am – 16 Feb 13:

@dianthusmed @Phil_Harris10 I suspect @BurzynskiMovie is saying that the Lancet has refused to publish #burzynski?

οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½
John (@JohnDaily15) tweeted at 1:18pm – 16 Feb 13:

@BurzynskiMovie @dianthusmed @annacapunay if u want 2 see burzynski published data then ask the Lancet to pull their socks up @endless psych
https://twitter.com/JohnDaily15/status/303047378246705153
οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½
Steve Mack (@sdmack) tweeted at 6:32am – 17 Feb 13:

β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 6:41am – 17 Feb 13:

β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Steve Mack (@sdmack) tweeted at 7:42am – 17 Feb 13:

β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 9:24am – 17 Feb 13: .

======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 1:54pm – 17 Feb 13:

@SceptiGuy @sdmack Asked the Lancet yet Guy? #burzynski

======================================
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:28pm – 17 Feb 13:

@BurzynskiMovie If #Burzynski’s reference style is “have you asked the Lancet yet?” that might explain why he his publications are rejected

β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:30pm – 17 Feb 13:

β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:35pm – 17 Feb 13:

β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:37pm – 17 Feb 13:

β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:44pm – 17 Feb 13:

β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 1:05pm – 18 Feb 13:

β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
BurzynskiSaves (@BurzynskiSaves) tweeted at 1:24pm – 18 Feb 13:

β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 2:11pm – 18 Feb 13:

β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 2:15pm – 18 Feb 13:

β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 2:16pm – 18 Feb 13:

β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 2:30pm – 18 Feb 13:

======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 2:32pm – 18 Feb 13:

@gorskon @mrhawkes @BurzynskiSaves Ask the Lancet why it is not published, Gorski.

======================================
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:32pm – 18 Feb 13:

β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
THE #Burzynski TWITTER WAR (#TwitterWar)
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Alan Henness @zeno001
Phil Harris @Phil_Harris10
Keir Liddle @endless psych
Guy Chapman @SceptiGuy
Adam Jacobs Dianthus Medical @dianthusmed
Dr. Paul Morgan @drpaulmorgan
MedTek @medtek
Dr. David H. Gorski (@gorskon)
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
The majority of the above twits have tweeted on Twitter since the movie was available, and NONE of them have the “testicular fortitude” to provide a reason that The Lancet’s excuse for NOT publishing, is acceptable, including Dr. Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan), who suggested The Lancet

Eric Merola:

“All I can say to everyone reading this:”

“Think for yourself”

“Question everything, including me and my films”

@JoeRogan,

Question THIS!!!

“Joe Rogan Questions Everything”

@SyFy
======================================
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 4:30pm – 20 Dec 12:
@dianthusmed Neither claim having any evidence to support them. #Burzynski
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:32pm – 20 Dec 12:
@drpaulmorgan I’d still love to know why @BurzynskiMovie is asking about journals. Guess we’ll have to wait until he’s asked his boss
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:33pm – 20 Dec 12:
@drpaulmorgan Maybe if we tell him name of a good journal, he’ll pretend #burzynski published in it in his next movie?
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Alan Henness (@zeno001) tweeted at 4:33pm – 20 Dec 12:
@dianthusmed @drpaulmorgan @BurzynskiMovie That might take a while…
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:34pm – 20 Dec 12:
@zeno001 @drpaulmorgan @BurzynskiMovie Yeah. Well, I’m certainly not holding my breath
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 4:37pm – 20 Dec 12:
@dianthusmed @BurzynskiMovie I think it’s just obfuscation.
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:39pm – 20 Dec 12:
@drpaulmorgan @BurzynskiMovie Yes, very likely. All designed to distract from important stuff on #burzynski, like bit.ly/vbUfgo
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 4:40pm – 20 Dec 12:
@dianthusmed Like all those registered* Japanese trials? #Burzynski
*not registered anywhere
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:41pm – 20 Dec 12:
@drpaulmorgan If by “registered”, you mean “fictitious”, then yes, exactly like that #burzynski
======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 5:12pm – 20 Dec 12:
@drpaulmorgan @dianthusmed Pick a medical journal Paul…
οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 5:28pm – 20 Dec 12:
@BurzynskiMovie @dianthusmed 1. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2. The Lancet Oncology. 3. New England Journal of Medicine. (1/2)
οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 5:32pm – 20 Dec 12:
@BurzynskiMovie @dianthusmed Do you want me to go on? How about #Burzynski picks from this list impactfactor.weebly.com/oncology.html
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 2:46am – 16 Feb 13:
@annacapunay I see you’re supporting #burzynski. Can you explain why he won’t publish his data? 61 trials registered, none published. Why?
======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 4:26am – 16 Feb 13:
@dianthusmed @annacapunay #burzynski ask the Lancet, Adam.
======================================
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:59am – 16 Feb 13:
@BurzynskiMovie And why, pray tell, do you think the Lancet would know about #burzynski’s trials? Are you claiming he submitted there?
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Phil Harris (@Phil_Harris10) tweeted at 8:33am – 16 Feb 13:
@dianthusmed @annacapunay BurzynskiMovie Please explain why you refer to ‘The Lancet’ for info on #burzynski studies?
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Phil Harris (@Phil_Harris10) tweeted at 8:44am – 16 Feb 13:
@dianthusmed @BurzynskiMovie @annacapunay Can’t see any positive reference to #burzynski in the Lancet. What’s their point
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 8:54am – 16 Feb 13:
@Phil_Harris10 I’m guessing @BurzynskiMovie thinks if he says #burzynski’s published in the Lancet, the fanbois will just believe it
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
MedTek (@medtek) tweeted at 9:17am – 16 Feb 13:
@dianthusmed @Phil_Harris10 I suspect @BurzynskiMovie is saying that the Lancet has refused to publish #burzynski?
οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½
John (@JohnDaily15) tweeted at 1:18pm – 16 Feb 13:
@BurzynskiMovie @dianthusmed @annacapunay if u want 2 see burzynski published data then ask the Lancet to pull their socks up @endless psych
οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½
Steve Mack (@sdmack) tweeted at 6:32am – 17 Feb 13:
2013 – Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II (Feb 16, 2013 Trai…: youtu.be/wGJpDNrcSEo via @YouTube
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 6:41am – 17 Feb 13:
@sdmack Extended paean to a man who has conducted over 60 trials and published none, then wonders why the medical world does not believe him
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Steve Mack (@sdmack) tweeted at 7:42am – 17 Feb 13:
@SceptiGuy
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 9:24am – 17 Feb 13:
@sdmack Point refuted a thousand times. Most are conference proceedings or not peer reviewed. No credible per-reviewed #Burzynski pubs.
======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 1:54pm – 17 Feb 13:
@SceptiGuy @sdmack Asked the Lancet yet Guy? #burzynski
======================================
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:28pm – 17 Feb 13:
@BurzynskiMovie If #Burzynski’s reference style is “have you asked the Lancet yet?” that might explain why he his publications are rejected
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:30pm – 17 Feb 13:
@BurzynskiMovie ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=(…+”Lancet”[Journal]
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:35pm – 17 Feb 13:
@BurzynskiMovie Obviously you don’t mean ow.ly/hNgfB as it is in no way an endorsement of #Burzynski or his methods.
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:37pm – 17 Feb 13:
@BurzynskiMovie You probably meant this extremely well argued piece: ow.ly/hNgla – directly relevant to #Burzynski.
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:44pm – 17 Feb 13:
@dianthusmed @Phil_Harris10 @drpaulmorgan @medtek ow.ly/hNgE1 (not a study, an editorial, makes no claim to judgment re validity)
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 1:05pm – 18 Feb 13:
Most abstracts submitted to conferences get a poster presentation. Were #burzynski abstracts for talks? I doubt it. @SceptiGuy @sdmack
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
BurzynskiSaves (@BurzynskiSaves) tweeted at 1:24pm – 18 Feb 13:
@gorskon So there’s no peer-reviewed literature by #Burzynski in this list?Please say yes.. please say yes.. burzynskiclinic.com/publications.h… @sdmack
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 2:11pm – 18 Feb 13:
@gorskon @SceptiGuy @sdmack Yes, many were (ex: Neuro-Oncology). You’d know that if you understood definition of *research*. #burzynski
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 2:16pm – 18 Feb 13:
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 2:15pm – 18 Feb 13:
Funny, @BurzynskiMovie, but many of those #burzynski “studies” don’t show up on searches of PubMed. Not a good sign. @SceptiGuy @sdmack
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 2:16pm – 18 Feb 13:
Funny, but no one I know ever said that #burzynski has “no” peer-reviewed studies. Learn to read, @BurzynskiSaves. @sdmack
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 2:30pm – 18 Feb 13:
It’s easy for #burzynski to shut his critics up: Publish the data and show that it supports ANPs! @mrhawkes @BurzynskiSaves @BurzynskiMovie
======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 2:32pm – 18 Feb 13:
@gorskon @mrhawkes @BurzynskiSaves Ask the Lancet why it is not published, Gorski.
======================================

Wikipedia, your Burzynski BIAS is showing

Posted on by
Reply

As I have proven previously, Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia is BIASED, when it comes to the Burzynski Clinic Wikipedia article:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzynski_Clinic
WikipediA or WikipediAin’t ?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/wikipedia-or-wikipediaint/
Wikipedia, what’s your motivation?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/wikipedia-whats-your-motivation/
I show JzG what a β€œFACT” is: Burzynski: FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions): Clinical Trial Results:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/i-show-jzg-what-a-fact-is-burzynski-faq-frequently-asked-questions-clinical-trial-results/
guychapman (Guy Chapman) Critiquing β€œThe Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics (page 9):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/05/guychapman-guy-chapman-critiquing-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics-page-9/
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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzynski_Clinic
Lawsuits

“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.”
http://m.click2houston.com/news/Houston-cancer-doctor-draws-new-complaints-from-patients/-/16714936/8581480/-/hmrbjk/-/index.html

http://www.jag-lawfirm.com/burzynski-suit-kprc-02012012.html
Thank you very much.” Didymus Judas Thomas 15:03, 26 December 2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burzynski_Clinic&diff=prev&oldid=529836971
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

See
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burzynski_Clinic&diff=next&oldid=529836971
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.” β€” 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?

SILENCE

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 sourcesβ€”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?

[[WP:NPOVFAQ]]

(Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View Frequently Asked Questions)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ
[[WP:NPOVFAQ]]

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias
[[WP:CSB]]

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 β€œthe ignorant, the unthinking and the credulous.β€β€˜

β€œthe ignorant

the unthinking and

the credulous.β€β€˜

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

Critiquing β€œAll truth comes from public debate”: A corollary to crank magnetism

Posted on by
Reply

http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW

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
The difference between Randy Hinton and I:

RH: Forbes (#Forbes) and Facebook
bloodsucker’s
child killer’s
COG’s
crap
GOBLIN’S
maggot’s
medical mafia
medical mafia internet propaganda minister’s
oral sex
pharmawhores
propaganda
smear
undermind

Me: Forbes
Dr.
Mr.

“Orac:”-“One also can’t help but note a similarity here between DJT and Mr. Hinton, but what that means I will leave to each individual reader to decide for him or herself”

Me:-Any questions?

The differences between Dr. David H. Gorski (also known as: Orac, @oracknows, @gorskon, @ScienceBasedMed, #sciencebasedmedicine,
http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence, http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org) and I:
DHG:
anthropogenic global warming
anthropogenic global warming denialism
anti-GMO hysteria
antivaccine propagandist
antivaccinationism
antivaccinationist
antivaccinationists
ban hammers
banning
crank
cranks
crankery
crank magnetism
crank playbook
creationism
creationists
criticize
criticism
cynically
delusion
Gish gallop
HIV-AIDS denialist
Holocaust denial denialists go birther
β€œhuman shields”
kook
kooks
propagandist
pseudoscience
purveyors of β€œalternative medicine”
quackery
quacking
ramblings
stalked off
troll
troll’s
trolling
obnoxious troll
9/11 Truthers

Me:
I do NOT have 3 Twitter accounts like Dr. Gorski; who sometimes uses them to twit the same jargon, which is then sometimes retwitted by lemming “sheeple”

Any questions ?

“Orac:”-“… challenging my blog bud Peter Lipson (a.k.a. PalMD, who wrote a very good post about how Eric Merola …”

THIS “very good post” ?

Critiquing β€œThe Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics (page 1)
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/critiquing-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics-page-1/
Any questions ?

“Orac:“-Didymus did it in a mere month or two

Me:-1st post: #59 – Didymus Judas Thomas – The United States of America – November 28, 2012
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/11/26/significance-of-the-tmb-dismissal-case-against-burzynski/
Last post: #197 – Didymus Judas Thomas – At the Tu-Quack Center Selective Memory Maze – February 12, 2013
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/02/08/will-the-fda-finally-slap-down-stanislaw-burzynski-for-good/
I confess, in the past I have accused “Orac” of being “fact-challenged”

“Orac:”--β€œcowardice.”

IMPORTANT: The live β€œdebate”-A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics | Didymus Judas Thomas’ Hipocritical Oath Blog
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/important-the-live-debate-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/
#73 – Didymus Judas Thomas – At the Tu-Quack Center Oracles of Deny to Respond tree – January 30, 2013
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/28/an-excellent-explanation-of-how-dubious-stanislaw-burzynskis-activities-are
Me:-Any questions ?

“Orac”-“In any case, DJT quickly stalked off to WordPress to form his own blog, where he continued his ramblings in much the same way that he did in the comments of this blog…”

I confess, my “ramblings” consist of direct “quotes” and “facts” from the United States Supreme Court, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), etc., and I understand that “Orac” considers that kind of information to be “ramblings,” and has difficulty comprehending them because of:

“Orac:”-“…my fragile eggshell mind…”

Me:-Any questions ?
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/04/26/all-truth-comes-from-public-debate-a-corollary-to-crank-magnetism/
“Orac’s” blogsplat:-PRICELESS

Me:-Any questions ?

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”

Critiquing “The Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics (page 1)

Posted on by
Reply

http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW

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

rjblaskiewicz 1 week ago

(@rjblaskiewicz a/k/a Blatherskitewicz)

Mr. R.J. Blaskiewicz, is well known as:

“Bob Blaskiewicz, Faux Skeptic Exposed!”

There are numerous Internet pages and great pictures of him re Atlanta, Georgia, where he was called out, but hid behind his keyboard:

Sep 17, 2011 – Bob Blaskiewicz, Faux Skeptic Exposed!
http://www.wearechangeatlanta.com/2011/09/17/censorship-of-911-truth-by-ga-tech-professor-bob-blaskiwieckz
Bob Blaskiewicz, Faux Skeptic …
Oct 6, 2011
http://www.theprogressivemind.info/?p=71064
Skeptical Humanities
Jun 23, 2011 – Bob Blaskiewicz, Faux Skeptic Exposed
http://skepticalhumanities.com/2011/06/23/sneak-preview-of-things-to-come
September 21 …
Bob Blaskiewicz, Faux Skeptic …
CLASSIC PICTURE
http://www.wearechangeatlanta.com/tag/justice
Sep 17th, 2011
blaskiewicz
“blaskiewicz”. Bob Blaskiewicz, Faux Skeptic Exposed!
CLASSIC PICTURE
http://waca.wisemantis.com/tag/blaskiewicz
September …
Bob Blaskiewicz, Faux Skeptic …
Sep 17th, 2011
CLASSIC PICTURE
http://www.wearechangeatlanta.com/category/articles
guychapman 5 days ago

(@ScepticGuy @vGuyUK)

Mr Chapman leads “The Skeptics” with his 18 comments, revealing the BIAS of the Article, from his UK “blahg”
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg
Mr. Chapman is best known for referring to people as “C*NTS”

Author

Peter Lipson, Contributor 1 week ago

(@palMD)

Dr. Lipson is best known for his outstanding “superficial” research re this Article, and its BIASED “ethically-challenged” and “fact-challenged” writing style
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/dr-peter-a-lipson-and-or-his-censors-is-a-coward-critiquing-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics
4/23/2013
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/forbes-censors-peter-lipson-speech-is-best-countered-by-more-speech-article-comments
4/20/2013
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics
rjblaskiewicz 6 days ago

Mr. Blaskiewicz makes the comment:

“You are wrong. But you know this.”

Which aptly describes him:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/critiquing-bob-blaskiewicz-burzynski-cancer-is-serious-business-part-ii
3/26/2013
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/my-critique-of-bob-blaskiewicz-colorado-public-television-pbs-cpt12
guychapman 5 days ago

Mr. Chapman commented:

“What it does not include is the results from any one of the 61 registered trials on human subjects since 1996.”

Which goes to show that he does NOT know the subject-matter:

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)

2 – Terminated (Withdrawn due to slow enrollment)
7 – Withdrawn (This study has been withdrawn prior to enrollment)

The above 9 studies were NOT even started, which means that there would NOT be any “results” for them

1 – Not Yet Recruiting (Open)(Phase 3)
10 – Recruiting (Open)
11 – Open (1 Not Yet Recruiting / 10 Recruiting)

The above 11 studies had NOT even started, so there would also NOT be any results for them

That’s 20 subtracted from the 61, right there, leaving 41

Mr. Chapman goes on to state:

“Even without the fact that charging for participation in trials is unusual to say the least, the failure to publish any usable results from any single trial is grossly unethical.”

Mr. Chapman does NOT provide any information as to how clinical trials are to be run without charging for them, or any information as to how much the clinical trials cost

Mr. Chapman is just another “voice crying in the wilderness,” who complains, but does NOT provide any solution(s); which is so very “last century”

Mr. Chapman continues:

” … the failure to publish any usable results from any single trial is grossly unethical.”

Mr. Chapman does NOT provide any information from the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Declaration of Helsinki, or any other source, that supports his statement
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-what-happens-when-a-clinical-trial-is-over
Burzynski: Declaration of Helsinki:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-declaration-of-helsinki
“Trial results are not always publicly available, even after a clinical trial ends:”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/burzynski-faq-clinical-trial-results/
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?,” advises:
β€œThe 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 β€œare OFTEN” published, but sometimes they are β€œNOT” published β€œin a peer-reviewed scientific journal”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-what-happens-when-a-clinical-trial-is-over
Mr. Chapman does NOT seem to be able to grasp the American concept of “citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to any independent reliable source

guychapman 5 days ago

Mr. Chapman posits; with his usual verbosity, in his “lame duck” attempt at masking his ignorance on the subject and hoping that, as the court stated:

β€œThe U.S. v. Article’~ court stated that the FDA’s responsibility was to protect the ultimate consumer, which included protection of β€œthe ignorant, the unthinking and the credulous.β€β€˜

… that he will be able to overwhelm:

β€œthe ignorant, the unthinking and the credulous.β€β€˜

with the amount of verbiage he was allowed to ejaculate

Mr. Chapman states:

“I am puzzled by your schizophrenic attitude to the FDA though.”

Mr. Chapman does NOT want to touch this below with the proverbial

“10 Foot Pole:”

Burzynski: Managing social conflict in complementary and alternative medicine research: the case of antineoplastons
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/burzynski-managing-social-conflict-in-complementary-and-alternative-medicine-research-the-case-of-antineoplastons
Documents/BurzynskiTriesToExposeNCI.pdf

Click to access BurzynskiTriesToExposeNCI.pdf

Mr. Chapman, why was the FDA requiring “radiation” in the phase 3 clinical trial?

” … only obstacles now are $300 million $s needed to pay for final phase of clinical testing-and FDA requiring children with inoperable brainstem glioma to also undergo radiation treatment in Phase 3 trials, claiming it would be β€œunethical” not to do so”

Mr. Chapman continues:

“It seems to me that actually the FDA are being very fair to Burzynski. Despite the massive problems with hsi institutional review board, and his abject failure to publish results, they continued to allow him to register new trials.”

Mr. Chapman, again, does NOT provide any support for his statement
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/my-critique-of-oracs-stanislaw-burzynski-versus-regulations-protecting-human-research-subjects-revisited
To use Mr. Chapman’s own words back at him:

“I can’t think of anyone else in that position.”

The dishonesty of Guy Chapman, β€œThe Skeptics” shill
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/12/the-dishonesty-of-guy-chapman-the-skeptics-shill
Krista Cashatt 6 days ago

“What an amazing amount of disinformation and propaganda concerning Burzynski…hope you get some money in the deal”

What she said

Boris Ogon 6 days ago

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

3,581 views

Not so much

Waiting for the 10,000

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Forbes censors Peter Lipson “Speech is best countered by more speech” article comments

Posted on by
Reply

Forbes (#Forbes) removed comments that were posted on the Peter Lipson (@palMD) article where he proclaimed:

“Speech is best countered by more speech”
http://t.co/8PjEPukjpP

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics
PalMD (@palmd) tweeted at 9:12am – 20 Apr 13:

This happened after David H. Gorski

(@gorskon @oracknows, @ScienceBasedMed http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org #sciencebasedmed)

revealed on Twitter that Peter Lipson was his “bud” and Guy Chapman

(@SceptiGuy http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
@vGuyUK
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg)

mentioned Gorski on Peter Lipson’s article, and I posted Gorski’s “pal” status with Lipson on the article (see near bottom of this blog, in bold), after which ALL of my comments on the article were removed

Guy Chapman is best known for:
anarchic_teapot (@anarchic_teapot) tweeted at 5:24am – 15 Jun 12:
Cunts are nice things. He’s a malodorous arsehole & profiteering shite RT @SceptiGuy: Is Stanislaw Burzynski a cunt?
http://t.co/8bmXEJ7l

David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 3:58pm – 20 Apr 13:
http://t.co/ollMCNBukK

TheSkeptiCritic (@TheSkeptiCritic) tweeted at 12:14am – 21 Apr 13:
http://t.co/WjjtQvtD1d
“@gorskon: pro-#Burzynski
on my bud Peter’s post
Tactical air support
forbes.com/sites/peterlip…”
#Forbes
“The Skeptics” need “help”!!
I provideβ€”
(@TheSkeptiCritic) April 21, 2013

TheSkeptiCritic (@TheSkeptiCritic) tweeted at 1:47pm – 21 Apr 13:
http://t.co/WjjtQvtD1d
“@IDoubtIt: @gorskon pro #Burzynski
descended
Peter’s post
Tactical air support forbes.com/sites/peterlip…”
β€’
“The Skeptics”need”HELP”
I provideβ€”
(@TheSkeptiCritic) April 21, 2013

TheSkeptiCritic (@TheSkeptiCritic) tweeted at 2:28am – 22 Apr 13:
“@gorskon: @rjblaskiewicz #Burzynski trolls are in trouble now…”
#Forbes
Now we find out if your”pal”Peter Lipson walks the walkβ–Ί”Speech”!β€”
(@TheSkeptiCritic) April 22, 2013

TheSkeptiCritic (@TheSkeptiCritic) tweeted at 11:41am – 20 Apr 13:
β†’http://t.co/8nuBkviWWF

β–Ί https://t.co/XYy7rjlCAi
↓
β€ΊPeter Lipson
Β»A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics – Forbes
β†’ onforb.es/11pwse9
#Burzynski←
β–Ί …anislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/a-f…—
(@TheSkeptiCritic) April 20, 2013

TheSkeptiCritic (@TheSkeptiCritic) tweeted at 11:52am – 20 Apr 13:
http://t.co/WjjtQvtD1d
“@palmd: Didnt take long for the #Burzynski trolls to show up
forbes.com/sites/peterlip…”
β€’
Didn’t take long for”The Skeptics”to show up
#Forbesβ€”
(@TheSkeptiCritic) April 20, 2013

TheSkeptiCritic (@TheSkeptiCritic) tweeted at 2:34pm – 20 Apr 13:
β€Ί http://t.co/WjjtQvtD1d

β–Ίhttps://t.co/XYy7rjlCAi
“@medtek: Congratulations Eric!
β€Ί forbes.com/sites/peterlip…”
“The Sheeple”↓Barbara Streisand
Β» #Forbes Β«
β†’#Burzynski←
β–Ί …anislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/a-f…—
(@TheSkeptiCritic) April 20, 2013

TheSkeptiCritic (@TheSkeptiCritic) tweeted at 4:50pm – 20 Apr 13:
http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW

https://t.co/XYy7rjlCAi
β€œ@palmd: Didnt take long for
#Burzynski trolls to show up
forbes.com/sites/peterlip…”
#Forbes
Look it’s β–Ί”The Skeptics”!
…anislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/a-f…—
(@TheSkeptiCritic) April 20, 2013

TheSkeptiCritic (@TheSkeptiCritic) tweeted at 3:49pm – 21 Apr 13:
http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW
#Forbes Peter Lipson #Burzynski article proclaims:”Speech is best countered by more speech”
forbes.com/sites/peterlip…
β€’
@BurzynskiMovie
#EPICβ€”
(@TheSkeptiCritic) April 21, 2013

TheSkeptiCritic (@TheSkeptiCritic) tweeted at 4:03pm – 21 Apr 13:
http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW

Is #Forbes Peter Lipson #Burzynski article trying to invoke #Burzynski critics “Streisand effect”?
forbes.com/sites/peterlip…
β€’
@BurzynskiMovieβ€”
(@TheSkeptiCritic) April 21, 2013

TheSkeptiCritic (@TheSkeptiCritic) tweeted at 3:04am – 22 Apr 13:
http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW
Peter Lipson #Burzynski article comment screenpics re”Speech is best countered by more speech”
#Forbes walk the walk?
forbes.com/sites/peterlip…—
(@TheSkeptiCritic) April 22, 2013

TheSkeptiCritic (@TheSkeptiCritic) tweeted at 11:38am – 22 Apr 13:
http://t.co/BaZ3aHXvUh
“@neilthackray: #burzynski
One more crack at asking
open question
http://t.co/BaZ3aHXvUh"
Read #Forbes Peter Lipson article
@BurzynskiMovieβ€”
(@TheSkeptiCritic) April 22, 2013

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM |2,351 views
A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics
Comment Now Following Comments

Thank you for submitting your comment:

Mr. Morgan, I am not sure how you are obtaining your clinical trial data for Burzynski, since a simple review shows that:
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=antineoplaston&Search=Search
differs from what the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has when you follow the links on
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov
which is supposedly sourced from the NCI data:
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)
http://cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/search/results?protocolsearchid=11475951

http://cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/search/results?protocolsearchid
With the data being different between the 2 sources, how are we supposed to know what is correct?

Please note: Your comment will be reviewed by Forbes staff before appearing on the site.

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

Mr. Chapman, you commented:
“PDJT aka β€œAstroturfwatch””
You clearly seem to have me confused with someone else
I am NOT “Astroturfwatch”
I am NOT Eric Merola
What I AM is an American who asks the questions which those of you blogging in the UK, and those elsewhere, do NOT seem to want to address
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

Mr. Morgan, I am not sure how you are obtaining your clinical trial data for Burzynski, since a simple review of your link differs from what the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has when you follow the links on Clinical Trials . gov, which is supposedly sourced from the NCI data:
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)
http://cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/search/results?protocolsearchid=11475951
With the data being different between the 2 sources, how are we supposed to know what is correct?
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

Mr. Ogon, I’m not exactly who you were replying to, but you refer to a “25% cure rate,” and in the below 2 studies, neither one mentions a “25% cure rate” in it:
“You mean PMIDs 12718563 and 16484713? (These, at least, are the ones that Merola cites, which I assume is the sum total of your β€œfact checking.”)”
You then go on to comment:
“(2) it’s essentially the same group in both”
However, the dosages in the 2 studies are different, so I am not certain how you came to the above conclusion
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

Submit Comment
Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You’ll be notified if your comment is called out.

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM |2,372 views
A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics
Comment Now Following Comments

Comments
Called-Out
EXPAND ALL COMMENTS
– collapse comments

Didymus Thomas 3 hours ago
Mr. Chapman, you commented:
” … the failure to publish any usable results from any single trial is grossly unethical”
β€œ The FDA’s Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective” advises:
β€œ[T]he emphasis in Phase 2 is on EFFECTIVENESS”
β€œThis phase aims to obtain PRELIMINARY DATA on whether the drug works in people who have a certain disease or condition”
β€œPhase 3 studies begin if EVIDENCE of EFFECTIVENESS is shown in Phase 2β€³
β€œThese studies gather more information about safety and EFFECTIVENESS, studying different populations and different dosages and using the drug in combination with other drugs”
I have already previously addressed the issue of publication re comments made by Mr. Ogon, before you made your most recent comment concerning the same subject.
Please see my reply to him.
Once you have done that, please advise how your ” … the failure to publish any usable results from any single trial is grossly unethical,” comment is relevant.
What is the relevance of publishing results of phase 2 clinical trials if it is only β€œ PRELIMINARY DATA,” and NOT waiting until phase 3 study which would β€œgather more information about safety and EFFECTIVENESS”?
http://www.fda.gov/drugs/resourcesforyou/consumers/ucm143534.htm
Reply

Didymus Thomas 1 hour ago
Mr. Morgan, here is the other NCI link:
http://cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/search/results?protocolsearchid=11476036
Reply

randy hinton 1 hour ago

Reply

Didymus Thomas 1 hour ago
Mr. Chapman, you commented:
β€œPDJT aka β€œAstroturfwatch””
You clearly seem to have me confused with someone else
I am NOT β€œAstroturfwatch”
I am NOT Eric Merola
What I AM is an American who asks the questions which those of you blogging in the UK, and those elsewhere, do NOT seem to want to address
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 1 hour ago
Mr. Morgan, I am not sure how you are obtaining your clinical trial data for Burzynski, since a simple review of your link differs from what the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has when you follow the links on Clinical Trials . gov, which is supposedly sourced from the NCI data:
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)
http://cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/search/results?protocolsearchid=11475951
With the data being different between the 2 sources, how are we supposed to know what is correct?
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 10 minutes ago
Mr. Ogon, I’m not exactly who you were replying to, but you refer to a β€œ25% cure rate,” and in the below 2 studies, neither one mentions a β€œ25% cure rate” in it:
β€œYou mean PMIDs 12718563 and 16484713? (These, at least, are the ones that Merola cites, which I assume is the sum total of your β€œfact checking.”)”
You then go on to comment:
β€œ(2) it’s essentially the same group in both”
However, the dosages in the 2 studies are different, so I am not certain how you came to the above conclusion
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM |2,377 views
A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics
Comment Now Following Comments

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

FW and Mr. Ogon, I contacted the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) earlier this year and was advised:
“Not every cancer clinical trial taking place in the United States is listed on our NCI clinical trials database”
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

Mr. Ogon, why is “HYPERNATREMIA” and “SEIZURES” NOT listed on the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) list of ADVERSE EFFECTS for antineoplastons?
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/healthprofessional/page6
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

Mr. Ogon, you made various comments re clinical trials, impact factors, etc.
Why should anyone care about your comments when the “National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Cancer Clinical Trials, 15. What happens when a clinical trial is over?,” advises:
“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”
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

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 β€œSTABLE DISEASE” for β€œless than 50% reduction in size but no more than 50% increase in size of the tumor mass, lasting for at least twelve weeks.””
Why should anyone care about your comment re “STABLE DISEASE,” when the 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)

Click to access ucm071590.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)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15565574
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM |2,386 views
A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics
Comment Now Following Comments

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

Mr. Chapman, where does the Declaration of Helsinki indicate WHEN human clinical trials results MUST be published?
I do NOT see it listed on the National Institutes of Health, Helsinki document:

Click to access helsinki.pdf

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

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM |2,396 views
A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics
Comment Now Following Comments

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

Mr. Morgan, is this the Kurume Japanese case study you are 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

Click to access CCAC_Research_June_19_2009.pdf

Annals of Oncology 2010;21:viii221
Game Over?
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

Mr. Ogon, you commented:
“You are right now having a live β€œdebate” in front of more than 10,000 people … ”
I checked the “views” of this article and it was only 2,420 views
Please advise when the “live “debate” in front of more than 10,000 people,” will occur
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

Mr. Ogon, you commented:
β€œOne further has to take into account the fact that Scamley has been known to employ idiosyncratic definitions, such as classifying tumor *growth* as β€œSTABLE DISEASE” for β€œless than 50% reduction in size but no more than 50% increase in size of the tumor mass, lasting for at least twelve weeks.””
Why should anyone care about your comment re β€œSTABLE DISEASE,” when the FDA has advised:
5/2007 – β€œGuidance for Industry – Food and Drug Administration”
β€œClinical Trial Endpoints for the Approval of Cancer Drugs and Biologics”
β€œβ€STABLE DISEASE should not be a component of ORR”
β€œSTABLE DISEASE can reflect the natural history of disease””
(Pg. 10 of 22 = actual pg. 7 of PDF)
β€œβ€¦STABLE DISEASE can be more accurately assessed by TTP or PFS analysis (see below)”
β€œAlso, STABLE DISEASE can be more accurately assessed by TTP or PFS analysis (see below)”
(Pg. 11 of 22 = actual pg. 8 of PDF)
β€œTime to Progression and Progression-Free Survival”
β€œTTP – Time to Progression”
β€œPFS – Progression-Free Survival”
β€œTTP and PFS have served as primary endpoints for drug approval”
(Pg. 11 of 22 = actual pg. 8 of PDF)

Click to access ucm071590.pdf

And in addition, the below 2005 non-Burzynski study also uses β€œSTABLE DISEASE?”
Role of temozolomide after radiotherapy for newly diagnosed diffuse brainstem glioma in children
Results of a multiinstitutional study (SJHG-98)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15565574
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 51 minutes ago
Mr. Chapman, where does the Declaration of Helsinki indicate WHEN human clinical trials results MUST be published?
I do NOT see it listed on the National Institutes of Health, Helsinki document:

Click to access helsinki.pdf

Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 30 minutes ago
Mr. Morgan, is this the Kurume Japanese case study you are 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

Click to access CCAC_Research_June_19_2009.pdf

Annals of Oncology 2010;21:viii221
Game Over?
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 3 minutes ago
Mr. Ogon, you commented:
β€œYou are right now having a live β€œdebate” in front of more than 10,000 people … ”
I checked the β€œ
views” of this article and it was only 2,420 views
Please advise when the β€œlive β€œdebate” in front of more than 10,000 people,” will occur
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Comments
Called-Out
Expand All Comments
– collapse comments

Didymus Thomas 1 hour ago
Mr. Ogon, you commented:
β€œOne further has to take into account the fact that Scamley has been known to employ idiosyncratic definitions, such as classifying tumor *growth* as β€œSTABLE DISEASE” for β€œless than 50% reduction in size but no more than 50% increase in size of the tumor mass, lasting for at least twelve weeks.””
Why should anyone care about your comment re β€œSTABLE DISEASE,” when the FDA has advised:
5/2007 – β€œGuidance for Industry – Food and Drug Administration”
β€œClinical Trial Endpoints for the Approval of Cancer Drugs and Biologics”
β€œβ€STABLE DISEASE should not be a component of ORR”
β€œSTABLE DISEASE can reflect the natural history of disease””
(Pg. 10 of 22 = actual pg. 7 of PDF)
β€œβ€¦STABLE DISEASE can be more accurately assessed by TTP or PFS analysis (see below)”
β€œAlso, STABLE DISEASE can be more accurately assessed by TTP or PFS analysis (see below)”
(Pg. 11 of 22 = actual pg. 8 of PDF)
β€œTime to Progression and Progression-Free Survival”
β€œTTP – Time to Progression”
β€œPFS – Progression-Free Survival”
β€œTTP and PFS have served as primary endpoints for drug approval”
(Pg. 11 of 22 = actual pg. 8 of PDF)

Click to access ucm071590.pdf

And in addition, the below 2005 non-Burzynski study also uses β€œSTABLE DISEASE?”
Role of temozolomide after radiotherapy for newly diagnosed diffuse brainstem glioma in children
Results of a multiinstitutional study (SJHG-98)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15565574
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”

Didymus Thomas 1 hour ago
Mr. Chapman, where does the Declaration of Helsinki indicate WHEN human clinical trials results MUST be published?
I do NOT see it listed on the National Institutes of Health, Helsinki document:

Click to access helsinki.pdf

Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”

Didymus Thomas 45 minutes ago
Mr. Morgan, is this the Kurume Japanese case study you are 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

Click to access CCAC_Research_June_19_2009.pdf

Annals of Oncology 2010;21:viii221
Game Over?
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”

Didymus Thomas 18 minutes ago
Mr. Ogon, you commented:
β€œYou are right now having a live β€œdebate” in front of more than 10,000 people … ”
I checked the β€œ
views” of this article and it was only 2,420 views
Please advise when the β€œlive β€œdebate” in front of more than 10,000 people,” will occur
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

Mr. Ogon, you made various comments re clinical trials, impact factors, etc.
Why should anyone care about your comments when the “National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Cancer Clinical Trials, 15. What happens when a clinical trial is over?,” advises:
“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”
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Submit Comment
Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You’ll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments
Called-Out
EXPAND ALL COMMENTS
– collapse comments

Didymus Thomas 3 hours ago
Mr. Ogon, you commented:
β€œOne further has to take into account the fact that Scamley has been known to employ idiosyncratic definitions, such as classifying tumor *growth* as β€œSTABLE DISEASE” for β€œless than 50% reduction in size but no more than 50% increase in size of the tumor mass, lasting for at least twelve weeks.””
Why should anyone care about your comment re β€œSTABLE DISEASE,” when the FDA has advised:
5/2007 – β€œGuidance for Industry – Food and Drug Administration”
β€œClinical Trial Endpoints for the Approval of Cancer Drugs and Biologics”
β€œβ€STABLE DISEASE should not be a component of ORR”
β€œSTABLE DISEASE can reflect the natural history of disease””
(Pg. 10 of 22 = actual pg. 7 of PDF)
β€œβ€¦STABLE DISEASE can be more accurately assessed by TTP or PFS analysis (see below)”
β€œAlso, STABLE DISEASE can be more accurately assessed by TTP or PFS analysis (see below)”
(Pg. 11 of 22 = actual pg. 8 of PDF)
β€œTime to Progression and Progression-Free Survival”
β€œTTP – Time to Progression”
β€œPFS – Progression-Free Survival”
β€œTTP and PFS have served as primary endpoints for drug approval”
(Pg. 11 of 22 = actual pg. 8 of PDF)

Click to access ucm071590.pdf

And in addition, the below 2005 non-Burzynski study also uses β€œSTABLE DISEASE?”
Role of temozolomide after radiotherapy for newly diagnosed diffuse brainstem glioma in children
Results of a multiinstitutional study (SJHG-98)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15565574
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 2 hours ago
Mr. Chapman, where does the Declaration of Helsinki indicate WHEN human clinical trials results MUST be published?
I do NOT see it listed on the National Institutes of Health, Helsinki document:

Click to access helsinki.pdf

Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 2 hours ago
Mr. Morgan, is this the Kurume Japanese case study you are 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

Click to access CCAC_Research_June_19_2009.pdf

Annals of Oncology 2010;21:viii221
Game Over?
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 1 hour ago
Mr. Ogon, you commented:
β€œYou are right now having a live β€œdebate” in front of more than 10,000 people … ”
I checked the β€œ
views” of this article and it was only 2,420 views
Please advise when the β€œlive β€œdebate” in front of more than 10,000 people,” will occur
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 1 minute ago
Mr. Ogon, you made various comments re clinical trials, impact factors, etc.
Why should anyone care about your comments when the β€œNational Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Cancer Clinical Trials, 15. What happens when a clinical trial is over?,” advises:
β€œThe 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 β€œ
are OFTEN” published, but sometimes they are β€œNOT” published β€œin a peer-reviewed scientific journal”
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

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:
β€œ[T]he emphasis in Phase 2 is on EFFECTIVENESS”
β€œThis phase aims to obtain PRELIMINARY DATA on whether the drug works in people who have a certain disease or condition”
β€œPhase 3 studies begin if EVIDENCE of EFFECTIVENESS is shown in Phase 2β€³
β€œThese studies gather more information about safety and EFFECTIVENESS, studying different populations and different dosages and using the drug in combination with other drugs”
I have already previously addressed the issue of publication re comments made by Mr. Ogon, before you made your most recent comment concerning the same subject.
Please see my reply to him.
Once you have done that, please advise how your ” … the failure to publish any usable results from any single trial is grossly unethical,” comment is relevant.
What is the relevance of publishing results of phase 2 clinical trials if it is only “PRELIMINARY DATA,” and NOT waiting until phase 3 study which would “gather more information about safety and EFFECTIVENESS”?

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

Mr. Ogon, you commented:
β€œOne further has to take into account the fact that Scamley has been known to employ idiosyncratic definitions, such as classifying tumor *growth* as β€œSTABLE DISEASE” for β€œless than 50% reduction in size but no more than 50% increase in size of the tumor mass, lasting for at least twelve weeks.””
Why should anyone care about your comment re β€œSTABLE DISEASE,” when the FDA has advised:
5/2007 – β€œGuidance for Industry – Food and Drug Administration”
β€œClinical Trial Endpoints for the Approval of Cancer Drugs and Biologics”
β€œβ€STABLE DISEASE should not be a component of ORR”
β€œSTABLE DISEASE can reflect the natural history of disease””
(Pg. 10 of 22 = actual pg. 7 of PDF)
β€œβ€¦STABLE DISEASE can be more accurately assessed by TTP or PFS analysis (see below)”
β€œAlso, STABLE DISEASE can be more accurately assessed by TTP or PFS analysis (see below)”
(Pg. 11 of 22 = actual pg. 8 of PDF)
β€œTime to Progression and Progression-Free Survival”
β€œTTP – Time to Progression”
β€œPFS – Progression-Free Survival”
β€œTTP and PFS have served as primary endpoints for drug approval”
(Pg. 11 of 22 = actual pg. 8 of PDF)

Click to access ucm071590.pdf

And in addition, the below 2005 non-Burzynski study also uses β€œSTABLE DISEASE?”
Role of temozolomide after radiotherapy for newly diagnosed diffuse brainstem glioma in children
Results of a multiinstitutional study (SJHG-98)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15565574
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 2 hours ago
Mr. Chapman, where does the Declaration of Helsinki indicate WHEN human clinical trials results MUST be published?
I do NOT see it listed on the National Institutes of Health, Helsinki document:

Click to access helsinki.pdf

Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 2 hours ago
Mr. Morgan, is this the Kurume Japanese case study you are 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

Click to access CCAC_Research_June_19_2009.pdf

Annals of Oncology 2010;21:viii221
Game Over?
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 1 hour ago
Mr. Ogon, you commented:
β€œYou are right now having a live β€œdebate” in front of more than 10,000 people … ”
I checked the β€œ
views” of this article and it was only 2,420 views
Please advise when the β€œlive β€œdebate” in front of more than 10,000 people,” will occur
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 13 minutes ago
Mr. Ogon, you made various comments re clinical trials, impact factors, etc.
Why should anyone care about your comments when the β€œNational Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Cancer Clinical Trials, 15. What happens when a clinical trial is over?,” advises:
β€œThe 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 β€œ
are OFTEN” published, but sometimes they are β€œNOT” published β€œin a peer-reviewed scientific journal”
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 1 minute ago
Mr. Chapman, you commented:
” … the failure to publish any usable results from any single trial is grossly unethical”
β€œ The FDA’s Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective” advises:
β€œ[T]he emphasis in Phase 2 is on EFFECTIVENESS”
β€œThis phase aims to obtain PRELIMINARY DATA on whether the drug works in people who have a certain disease or condition”
β€œPhase 3 studies begin if EVIDENCE of EFFECTIVENESS is shown in Phase 2β€³
β€œThese studies gather more information about safety and EFFECTIVENESS, studying different populations and different dosages and using the drug in combination with other drugs”
I have already previously addressed the issue of publication re comments made by Mr. Ogon, before you made your most recent comment concerning the same subject.
Please see my reply to him.
Once you have done that, please advise how your ” … the failure to publish any usable results from any single trial is grossly unethical,” comment is relevant.
What is the relevance of publishing results of phase 2 clinical trials if it is only β€œ PRELIMINARY DATA,” and NOT waiting until phase 3 study which would β€œgather more information about safety and EFFECTIVENESS”?
Reply

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

Mr. Morgan, your clinical trial data for Burzynski differs from what the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has when you follow the links on ClinicalTrials . gov, which is supposedly sourced from the NCI:
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)
With the data being different between the 2 sources, how are we supposed to know what is correct?

Didymus Thomas 3 hours ago
Mr. Ogon, you commented:
β€œOne further has to take into account the fact that Scamley has been known to employ idiosyncratic definitions, such as classifying tumor *growth* as β€œSTABLE DISEASE” for β€œless than 50% reduction in size but no more than 50% increase in size of the tumor mass, lasting for at least twelve weeks.””
Why should anyone care about your comment re β€œSTABLE DISEASE,” when the FDA has advised:
5/2007 – β€œGuidance for Industry – Food and Drug Administration”
β€œClinical Trial Endpoints for the Approval of Cancer Drugs and Biologics”
β€œβ€STABLE DISEASE should not be a component of ORR”
β€œSTABLE DISEASE can reflect the natural history of disease””
(Pg. 10 of 22 = actual pg. 7 of PDF)
β€œβ€¦STABLE DISEASE can be more accurately assessed by TTP or PFS analysis (see below)”
β€œAlso, STABLE DISEASE can be more accurately assessed by TTP or PFS analysis (see below)”
(Pg. 11 of 22 = actual pg. 8 of PDF)
β€œTime to Progression and Progression-Free Survival”
β€œTTP – Time to Progression”
β€œPFS – Progression-Free Survival”
β€œTTP and PFS have served as primary endpoints for drug approval”
(Pg. 11 of 22 = actual pg. 8 of PDF)

Click to access ucm071590.pdf

And in addition, the below 2005 non-Burzynski study also uses β€œSTABLE DISEASE?”
Role of temozolomide after radiotherapy for newly diagnosed diffuse brainstem glioma in children
Results of a multiinstitutional study (SJHG-98)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15565574
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 2 hours ago
Mr. Chapman, where does the Declaration of Helsinki indicate WHEN human clinical trials results MUST be published?
I do NOT see it listed on the National Institutes of Health, Helsinki document:

Click to access helsinki.pdf

Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 2 hours ago
Mr. Morgan, is this the Kurume Japanese case study you are 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

Click to access CCAC_Research_June_19_2009.pdf

Annals of Oncology 2010;21:viii221
Game Over?
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 2 hours ago
Mr. Ogon, you commented:
β€œYou are right now having a live β€œdebate” in front of more than 10,000 people … ”
I checked the β€œ
views” of this article and it was only 2,420 views
Please advise when the β€œlive β€œdebate” in front of more than 10,000 people,” will occur
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 27 minutes ago
Mr. Ogon, you made various comments re clinical trials, impact factors, etc.
Why should anyone care about your comments when the β€œNational Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Cancer Clinical Trials, 15. What happens when a clinical trial is over?,” advises:
β€œThe 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 β€œ
are OFTEN” published, but sometimes they are β€œNOT” published β€œin a peer-reviewed scientific journal”
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 15 minutes ago
Mr. Chapman, you commented:
” … the failure to publish any usable results from any single trial is grossly unethical”
β€œ The FDA’s Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective” advises:
β€œ[T]he emphasis in Phase 2 is on EFFECTIVENESS”
β€œThis phase aims to obtain PRELIMINARY DATA on whether the drug works in people who have a certain disease or condition”
β€œPhase 3 studies begin if EVIDENCE of EFFECTIVENESS is shown in Phase 2β€³
β€œThese studies gather more information about safety and EFFECTIVENESS, studying different populations and different dosages and using the drug in combination with other drugs”
I have already previously addressed the issue of publication re comments made by Mr. Ogon, before you made your most recent comment concerning the same subject.
Please see my reply to him.
Once you have done that, please advise how your ” … the failure to publish any usable results from any single trial is grossly unethical,” comment is relevant.
What is the relevance of publishing results of phase 2 clinical trials if it is only β€œ PRELIMINARY DATA,” and NOT waiting until phase 3 study which would β€œgather more information about safety and EFFECTIVENESS”?
Reply

Didymus Thomas 2 minutes ago
Mr. Morgan, your clinical trial data for Burzynski differs from what the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has when you follow the links on ClinicalTrials . gov, which is supposedly sourced from the NCI:
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)
With the data being different between the 2 sources, how are we supposed to know what is correct?
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

Mr. Ogon, I’m not exactly who you were replying to, but you refer to a “25% cure rate,” and in the below 2 studies, neither one mentions a “25% cure rate” in it:
“You mean PMIDs” re Drugs R D. 2003;4(2):91-101 “and ” Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Mar;5(1):40-7? “(These, at least, are the ones that Merola cites, which I assume is the sum total of your β€œfact checking.”)”
You then go on to comment:
“(2) it’s essentially the same group in both”
However, the dosages in the 2 studies are different, so I am not certain how you came to the above conclusion
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

Didymus Thomas 3 hours ago
Mr. Ogon, you commented:
β€œOne further has to take into account the fact that Scamley has been known to employ idiosyncratic definitions, such as classifying tumor *growth* as β€œSTABLE DISEASE” for β€œless than 50% reduction in size but no more than 50% increase in size of the tumor mass, lasting for at least twelve weeks.””
Why should anyone care about your comment re β€œSTABLE DISEASE,” when the FDA has advised:
5/2007 – β€œGuidance for Industry – Food and Drug Administration”
β€œClinical Trial Endpoints for the Approval of Cancer Drugs and Biologics”
β€œβ€STABLE DISEASE should not be a component of ORR”
β€œSTABLE DISEASE can reflect the natural history of disease””
(Pg. 10 of 22 = actual pg. 7 of PDF)
β€œβ€¦STABLE DISEASE can be more accurately assessed by TTP or PFS analysis (see below)”
β€œAlso, STABLE DISEASE can be more accurately assessed by TTP or PFS analysis (see below)”
(Pg. 11 of 22 = actual pg. 8 of PDF)
β€œTime to Progression and Progression-Free Survival”
β€œTTP – Time to Progression”
β€œPFS – Progression-Free Survival”
β€œTTP and PFS have served as primary endpoints for drug approval”
(Pg. 11 of 22 = actual pg. 8 of PDF)

Click to access ucm071590.pdf

And in addition, the below 2005 non-Burzynski study also uses β€œSTABLE DISEASE?”
Role of temozolomide after radiotherapy for newly diagnosed diffuse brainstem glioma in children
Results of a multiinstitutional study (SJHG-98)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15565574
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”

Didymus Thomas 3 hours ago
Mr. Chapman, where does the Declaration of Helsinki indicate WHEN human clinical trials results MUST be published?
I do NOT see it listed on the National Institutes of Health, Helsinki document:

Click to access helsinki.pdf

Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”

Didymus Thomas 2 hours ago
Mr. Morgan, is this the Kurume Japanese case study you are 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

Click to access CCAC_Research_June_19_2009.pdf

Annals of Oncology 2010;21:viii221
Game Over?
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”

Didymus Thomas 2 hours ago
Mr. Ogon, you commented:
β€œYou are right now having a live β€œdebate” in front of more than 10,000 people … ”
I checked the β€œ
views” of this article and it was only 2,420 views
Please advise when the β€œlive β€œdebate” in front of more than 10,000 people,” will occur
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”

Didymus Thomas 44 minutes ago
Mr. Ogon, you made various comments re clinical trials, impact factors, etc.
Why should anyone care about your comments when the β€œNational Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Cancer Clinical Trials, 15. What happens when a clinical trial is over?,” advises:
β€œThe 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 β€œ
are OFTEN” published, but sometimes they are β€œNOT” published β€œin a peer-reviewed scientific journal”
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”

Didymus Thomas 33 minutes ago
Mr. Chapman, you commented:
” … the failure to publish any usable results from any single trial is grossly unethical”
β€œ The FDA’s Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective” advises:
β€œ[T]he emphasis in Phase 2 is on EFFECTIVENESS”
β€œThis phase aims to obtain PRELIMINARY DATA on whether the drug works in people who have a certain disease or condition”
β€œPhase 3 studies begin if EVIDENCE of EFFECTIVENESS is shown in Phase 2β€³
β€œThese studies gather more information about safety and EFFECTIVENESS, studying different populations and different dosages and using the drug in combination with other drugs”
I have already previously addressed the issue of publication re comments made by Mr. Ogon, before you made your most recent comment concerning the same subject.
Please see my reply to him.
Once you have done that, please advise how your ” … the failure to publish any usable results from any single trial is grossly unethical,” comment is relevant.
What is the relevance of publishing results of phase 2 clinical trials if it is only β€œ PRELIMINARY DATA,” and NOT waiting until phase 3 study which would β€œgather more information about safety and EFFECTIVENESS”?

Didymus Thomas 19 minutes ago
Mr. Morgan, your clinical trial data for Burzynski differs from what the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has when you follow the links on ClinicalTrials . gov, which is supposedly sourced from the NCI:
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)
With the data being different between the 2 sources, how are we supposed to know what is correct?
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”

Didymus Thomas 3 minutes ago
Mr. Ogon, I’m not exactly who you were replying to, but you refer to a β€œ25% cure rate,” and in the below 2 studies, neither one mentions a β€œ25% cure rate” in it:
β€œYou mean PMIDs” re Drugs R D. 2003;4(2):91-101 β€œand ” Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Mar;5(1):40-7? β€œ (These, at least, are the ones that Merola cites, which I assume is the sum total of your β€œfact checking.”)”
You then go on to comment:
β€œ(2) it’s essentially the same group in both”
However, the dosages in the 2 studies are different, so I am not certain how you came to the above conclusion
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”

Mr. Ogon, why is “HYPERNATREMIA” and “SEIZURES” NOT listed on the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) list of ADVERSE EFFECTS for antineoplastons?
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

Mr. Ogon, why is “HYPERNATREMIA” and “SEIZURES” NOT listed on the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) list of ADVERSE EFFECTS for antineoplastons?
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

Didymus Thomas 4 hours ago
Mr. Ogon, you commented:
β€œOne further has to take into account the fact that Scamley has been known to employ idiosyncratic definitions, such as classifying tumor *growth* as β€œSTABLE DISEASE” for β€œless than 50% reduction in size but no more than 50% increase in size of the tumor mass, lasting for at least twelve weeks.””
Why should anyone care about your comment re β€œSTABLE DISEASE,” when the FDA has advised:
5/2007 – β€œGuidance for Industry – Food and Drug Administration”
β€œClinical Trial Endpoints for the Approval of Cancer Drugs and Biologics”
β€œβ€STABLE DISEASE should not be a component of ORR”
β€œSTABLE DISEASE can reflect the natural history of disease””
(Pg. 10 of 22 = actual pg. 7 of PDF)
β€œβ€¦STABLE DISEASE can be more accurately assessed by TTP or PFS analysis (see below)”
β€œAlso, STABLE DISEASE can be more accurately assessed by TTP or PFS analysis (see below)”
(Pg. 11 of 22 = actual pg. 8 of PDF)
β€œTime to Progression and Progression-Free Survival”
β€œTTP – Time to Progression”
β€œPFS – Progression-Free Survival”
β€œTTP and PFS have served as primary endpoints for drug approval”
(Pg. 11 of 22 = actual pg. 8 of PDF)

Click to access ucm071590.pdf

And in addition, the below 2005 non-Burzynski study also uses β€œSTABLE DISEASE?”
Role of temozolomide after radiotherapy for newly diagnosed diffuse brainstem glioma in children
Results of a multiinstitutional study (SJHG-98)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15565574
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 3 hours ago
Mr. Chapman, where does the Declaration of Helsinki indicate WHEN human clinical trials results MUST be published?
I do NOT see it listed on the National Institutes of Health, Helsinki document:

Click to access helsinki.pdf

Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 3 hours ago
Mr. Morgan, is this the Kurume Japanese case study you are 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

Click to access CCAC_Research_June_19_2009.pdf

Annals of Oncology 2010;21:viii221
Game Over?
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 2 hours ago
Mr. Ogon, you commented:
β€œYou are right now having a live β€œdebate” in front of more than 10,000 people … ”
I checked the β€œ
views” of this article and it was only 2,420 views
Please advise when the β€œlive β€œdebate” in front of more than 10,000 people,” will occur
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 1 hour ago
Mr. Ogon, you made various comments re clinical trials, impact factors, etc.
Why should anyone care about your comments when the β€œNational Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Cancer Clinical Trials, 15. What happens when a clinical trial is over?,” advises:
β€œThe 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 β€œ
are OFTEN” published, but sometimes they are β€œNOT” published β€œin a peer-reviewed scientific journal”
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 1 hour ago
Mr. Chapman, you commented:
” … the failure to publish any usable results from any single trial is grossly unethical”
β€œ The FDA’s Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective” advises:
β€œ[T]he emphasis in Phase 2 is on EFFECTIVENESS”
β€œThis phase aims to obtain PRELIMINARY DATA on whether the drug works in people who have a certain disease or condition”
β€œPhase 3 studies begin if EVIDENCE of EFFECTIVENESS is shown in Phase 2β€³
β€œThese studies gather more information about safety and EFFECTIVENESS, studying different populations and different dosages and using the drug in combination with other drugs”
I have already previously addressed the issue of publication re comments made by Mr. Ogon, before you made your most recent comment concerning the same subject.
Please see my reply to him.
Once you have done that, please advise how your ” … the failure to publish any usable results from any single trial is grossly unethical,” comment is relevant.
What is the relevance of publishing results of phase 2 clinical trials if it is only β€œ PRELIMINARY DATA,” and NOT waiting until phase 3 study which would β€œgather more information about safety and EFFECTIVENESS”?
Reply

Didymus Thomas 49 minutes ago
Mr. Morgan, your clinical trial data for Burzynski differs from what the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has when you follow the links on ClinicalTrials . gov, which is supposedly sourced from the NCI:
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)
With the data being different between the 2 sources, how are we supposed to know what is correct?
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 33 minutes ago
Mr. Ogon, I’m not exactly who you were replying to, but you refer to a β€œ25% cure rate,” and in the below 2 studies, neither one mentions a β€œ25% cure rate” in it:
β€œYou mean PMIDs” re Drugs R D. 2003;4(2):91-101 β€œand ” Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Mar;5(1):40-7? β€œ (These, at least, are the ones that Merola cites, which I assume is the sum total of your β€œfact checking.”)”
You then go on to comment:
β€œ(2) it’s essentially the same group in both”
However, the dosages in the 2 studies are different, so I am not certain how you came to the above conclusion
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 3 minutes ago
Mr. Ogon, why is β€œHYPERNATREMIA” and β€œSEIZURES” NOT listed on the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) list of ADVERSE EFFECTS for
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

FW, you commented re Burzynski’s Phase 3 clinical trial:
“Unfortunately it backfired, because he seems quite happy to never start this trial, instead using it as a marketing tool, in the same way as he is happy to use individual patients”
Burzynski’s 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
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

Didymus Thomas 4 hours ago
Mr. Ogon, you commented:
β€œOne further has to take into account the fact that Scamley has been known to employ idiosyncratic definitions, such as classifying tumor *growth* as β€œSTABLE DISEASE” for β€œless than 50% reduction in size but no more than 50% increase in size of the tumor mass, lasting for at least twelve weeks.””
Why should anyone care about your comment re β€œSTABLE DISEASE,” when the FDA has advised:
5/2007 – β€œGuidance for Industry – Food and Drug Administration”
β€œClinical Trial Endpoints for the Approval of Cancer Drugs and Biologics”
β€œβ€STABLE DISEASE should not be a component of ORR”
β€œSTABLE DISEASE can reflect the natural history of disease””
(Pg. 10 of 22 = actual pg. 7 of PDF)
β€œβ€¦STABLE DISEASE can be more accurately assessed by TTP or PFS analysis (see below)”
β€œAlso, STABLE DISEASE can be more accurately assessed by TTP or PFS analysis (see below)”
(Pg. 11 of 22 = actual pg. 8 of PDF)
β€œTime to Progression and Progression-Free Survival”
β€œTTP – Time to Progression”
β€œPFS – Progression-Free Survival”
β€œTTP and PFS have served as primary endpoints for drug approval”
(Pg. 11 of 22 = actual pg. 8 of PDF)

Click to access ucm071590.pdf

And in addition, the below 2005 non-Burzynski study also uses β€œSTABLE DISEASE?”
Role of temozolomide after radiotherapy for newly diagnosed diffuse brainstem glioma in children
Results of a multiinstitutional study (SJHG-98)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15565574
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 4 hours ago
Mr. Chapman, where does the Declaration of Helsinki indicate WHEN human clinical trials results MUST be published?
I do NOT see it listed on the National Institutes of Health, Helsinki document:

Click to access helsinki.pdf

Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 4 hours ago
Mr. Morgan, is this the Kurume Japanese case study you are 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

Click to access CCAC_Research_June_19_2009.pdf

Annals of Oncology 2010;21:viii221
Game Over?
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 3 hours ago
Mr. Ogon, you commented:
β€œYou are right now having a live β€œdebate” in front of more than 10,000 people … ”
I checked the β€œ
views” of this article and it was only 2,420 views
Please advise when the β€œlive β€œdebate” in front of more than 10,000 people,” will occur
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 1 hour ago
Mr. Ogon, you made various comments re clinical trials, impact factors, etc.
Why should anyone care about your comments when the β€œNational Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Cancer Clinical Trials, 15. What happens when a clinical trial is over?,” advises:
β€œThe 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 β€œ
are OFTEN” published, but sometimes they are β€œNOT” published β€œin a peer-reviewed scientific journal”
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 1 hour ago
Mr. Chapman, you commented:
” … the failure to publish any usable results from any single trial is grossly unethical”
β€œ The FDA’s Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective” advises:
β€œ[T]he emphasis in Phase 2 is on EFFECTIVENESS”
β€œThis phase aims to obtain PRELIMINARY DATA on whether the drug works in people who have a certain disease or condition”
β€œPhase 3 studies begin if EVIDENCE of EFFECTIVENESS is shown in Phase 2β€³
β€œThese studies gather more information about safety and EFFECTIVENESS, studying different populations and different dosages and using the drug in combination with other drugs”
I have already previously addressed the issue of publication re comments made by Mr. Ogon, before you made your most recent comment concerning the same subject.
Please see my reply to him.
Once you have done that, please advise how your ” … the failure to publish any usable results from any single trial is grossly unethical,” comment is relevant.
What is the relevance of publishing results of phase 2 clinical trials if it is only β€œ PRELIMINARY DATA,” and NOT waiting until phase 3 study which would β€œgather more information about safety and EFFECTIVENESS”?
Reply

Didymus Thomas 1 hour ago
Mr. Morgan, your clinical trial data for Burzynski differs from what the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has when you follow the links on ClinicalTrials . gov, which is supposedly sourced from the NCI:
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)
With the data being different between the 2 sources, how are we supposed to know what is correct?
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 1 hour ago
Mr. Ogon, I’m not exactly who you were replying to, but you refer to a β€œ25% cure rate,” and in the below 2 studies, neither one mentions a β€œ25% cure rate” in it:
β€œYou mean PMIDs” re Drugs R D. 2003;4(2):91-101 β€œand ” Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Mar;5(1):40-7? β€œ (These, at least, are the ones that Merola cites, which I assume is the sum total of your β€œfact checking.”)”
You then go on to comment:
β€œ(2) it’s essentially the same group in both”
However, the dosages in the 2 studies are different, so I am not certain how you came to the above conclusion
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 43 minutes ago
Mr. Ogon, why is β€œHYPERNATREMIA” and β€œSEIZURES” NOT listed on the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) list of ADVERSE EFFECTS for antineoplastons?
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 8 minutes ago
FW, you commented re Burzynski’s Phase 3 clinical trial:
β€œUnfortunately it backfired, because he seems quite happy to never start this trial, instead using it as a marketing tool, in the same way as he is happy to use individual patients”
Burzynski’s 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
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

Mr. Ogon, you missed these 2 Burzynski 2004 and 2005 phase 2 clinical trial publications:
Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in children with recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma : a preliminary report
Drugs R D. 2004;5(6):315-26
Long-term survival of high-risk pediatric patients with primitive neuroectodermal tumors treated with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1
Integr Cancer Ther. 2005 Jun;4(2):168-77
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

Didymus Thomas 4 minutes ago
Mr. Ogon, you missed these 2 Burzynski 2004 and 2005 phase 2 clinical trial publications:
Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in children with recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma : a preliminary report
Drugs R D. 2004;5(6):315-26
Long-term survival of high-risk pediatric patients with primitive neuroectodermal tumors treated with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1
Integr Cancer Ther. 2005 Jun;4(2):168-77
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

FW, you commented:
The FDA was ordered by a scientifically illiterate judge to allow these trials, they had no choice”
Where is the reference, citation, or link for this remarkable claim?
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Share your comment:

Didymus Thomas 11 minutes ago
Mr. Ogon, you missed these 2 Burzynski 2004 and 2005 phase 2 clinical trial publications:
Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in children with recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma : a preliminary report
Drugs R D. 2004;5(6):315-26
Long-term survival of high-risk pediatric patients with primitive neuroectodermal tumors treated with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1
Integr Cancer Ther. 2005 Jun;4(2):168-77
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 1 minute ago
FW, you commented:
The FDA was ordered by a scientifically illiterate judge to allow these trials, they had no choice”
Where is the reference, citation, or link for this remarkable claim?
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

Mr. Ogon, you commented:
“I take it that by β€œnot harmful” you mean β€œaside from the possibly life-threatening HYPERNATREMIA …”
Did you know these FACTS re HYPERNATREMIA?
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
Support Care Cancer. 2013 Feb 13
DOI
10.1007/s00520-013-1734-6
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
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM |2,516 views
A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics
106 comments, 4 called-out
Comment Now

Didymus Thomas 34 minutes ago
Mr. Ogon, you missed these 2 Burzynski 2004 and 2005 phase 2 clinical trial publications:
Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in children with recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma : a preliminary report
Drugs R D. 2004;5(6):315-26
Long-term survival of high-risk pediatric patients with primitive neuroectodermal tumors treated with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1
Integr Cancer Ther. 2005 Jun;4(2):168-77
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 25 minutes ago
FW, you commented:
The FDA was ordered by a scientifically illiterate judge to allow these trials, they had no choice”
Where is the reference, citation, or link for this remarkable claim?
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 2 minutes ago
Mr. Ogon, you commented:
β€œI take it that by β€œnot harmful” you mean β€œaside from the possibly life-threatening HYPERNATREMIA …”
Did you know these FACTS re HYPERNATREMIA?
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
Support Care Cancer. 2013 Feb 13
DOI
10.1007/s00520-013-1734-6
HYPERNATREMIA in the U.S.:
β€œHYPERNATREMIA is the most common electrolyte disorder in the United States”
β€œIn some cases, cancer may cause the condition …”
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000394.htm
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

Please note that the above study took place in 2006 and the results were just published in 2013
That’s around 7 to 8 years from the study end to when it was finally published
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

Didymus Thomas 49 minutes ago
Mr. Ogon, you missed these 2 Burzynski 2004 and 2005 phase 2 clinical trial publications:
Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in children with recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma : a preliminary report
Drugs R D. 2004;5(6):315-26
Long-term survival of high-risk pediatric patients with primitive neuroectodermal tumors treated with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1
Integr Cancer Ther. 2005 Jun;4(2):168-77
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 40 minutes ago
FW, you commented:
The FDA was ordered by a scientifically illiterate judge to allow these trials, they had no choice”
Where is the reference, citation, or link for this remarkable claim?
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 17 minutes ago
Mr. Ogon, you commented:
β€œI take it that by β€œnot harmful” you mean β€œaside from the possibly life-threatening HYPERNATREMIA …”
Did you know these FACTS re HYPERNATREMIA?
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
Support Care Cancer. 2013 Feb 13
DOI
10.1007/s00520-013-1734-6
HYPERNATREMIA in the U.S.:
β€œHYPERNATREMIA is the most common electrolyte disorder in the United States”
β€œIn some cases, cancer may cause the condition …”
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000394.htm
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 2 minutes ago
Please note that the above study took place in 2006 and the results were just published in 2013
That’s around 7 to 8 years from the study end to when it was finally published
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”

TheSkeptiCritic (@TheSkeptiCritic) tweeted at 3:43pm – 22 Apr 13:
http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW
“@SceptiGuy: Relevant to #Burzynski ”
Postsβ–ΊPeter Lipson #Forbes
17β–ΊGuyβ€’How many you have to repost?
14β–ΊMeβ€’Numerous!!
forbes.com/sites/peterlip…—
(@TheSkeptiCritic) April 22, 2013

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

Mr. Chapman, isn’t it problem that a number of the entities you list were engaged in this well documented “conspiracy”?

Click to access BurzynskiTriesToExposeNCI.pdf

Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

TheSkeptiCritic (@TheSkeptiCritic) tweeted at 5:57pm – 22 Apr 13:
http://t.co/8PjEPukjpP…

https://twitter.com/TheSkeptiCritic/status/326469754116247552

guychapman 2 hours ago

Reply

Didymus Thomas 2 minutes ago
Mr. Chapman, isn’t it problem that a number of the entities you list were engaged in this well documented β€œconspiracy”?

Click to access BurzynskiTriesToExposeNCI.pdf

Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech
Reply

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

Burzynski provided Clinical Trial data in the Form 10-Q Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing For the fiscal year ended February 29, 2012
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

guychapman 3 hours ago

Reply

Didymus Thomas 1 hour ago
Mr. Chapman, isn’t it problem that a number of the entities you list were engaged in this well documented β€œconspiracy”?

Click to access BurzynskiTriesToExposeNCI.pdf

Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech
Reply

Didymus Thomas 2 minutes ago
Burzynski provided Clinical Trial data in the Form 10-Q Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing For the fiscal year ended February 29, 2012
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech
Reply

Thank you for submitting your comment:

guychapman 7 hours ago

Reply

Didymus Thomas 4 hours ago
Mr. Chapman, isn’t it problem that a number of the entities you list were engaged in this well documented β€œconspiracy”?

Click to access BurzynskiTriesToExposeNCI.pdf

Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech
Reply

Didymus Thomas 3 hours ago
Burzynski provided Clinical Trial data in the Form 10-Q Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing For the fiscal year ended February 29, 2012
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech
Reply

Didymus Thomas 8 minutes ago
Enter Your CommentMr. Chapman, you employ a favorite tactic of critics like you.
It seems you are more interested in addressing form (CAPITALIZATION) over substance (the real issues).
Maybe you think that your verbosity (17 posts) will somehow lend credibility to your 3 comments re the Declaration of Helsinki; which does NOT state WHEN human clinical trial results MUST be published, and even though you have repeatedly proclaimed that Burzynski has NOT published the FINAL results of any of his phase 2 clinical trials, you have NOT provided any indication as to WHEN any of those trials were completed so that they can be compared to the 2006 study I cited whose results were published in 2013.
You also commented:
β€œIn order to claim that he can cure incurable tumours, he needs to publish high quality clinical trial evidence in peer-reviewed journals,” yet you do NOT provide any citation, reference, or link that overrides the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) information re publication which I have commented on previously.
It is apropo you commented:
β€œWatergate only involved a handful of people and it was busted almost immediately,” since President Nixon is credited with starting the β€œWar on Cancer,” and when Watergate occurred he was told that there was a cancer on the Presidency” but Watergate occurred in 1972 and Nixon didn’t resign until 2 years later, in 1974.
It is also appropriate that you mention oncologist David Gorski; who disclosed on social media that Peter Lipson is his β€œpal”
Did you review Burzynski’s 2003-2006 phase 2 clinical trials preliminary reports to see if any of the authors listed on them is an oncologist? No? That’s why your observation that Burzynski (a biochemist) is NOT an oncologist, is irrelevant.
Do you have any proof to back up your remarkable claim:
β€œAgainst that we have an anonymous shill who takes every word of the Burzynski clinic and its supporters as Revealed Truth”?
No? That’s because you’re wrong about that just like the other issues I’ve listed above.
Mr. Chapman, you attempts at obfuscation of the issues, does not impress.
Peter Lipson: β€œSpeech is best countered by more speech”

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

Enter Your CommentMr. Chapman, you employ a favorite tactic of critics like you.
It seems you are more interested in addressing form (CAPITALIZATION) over substance (the real issues).
Maybe you think that your verbosity (17 posts) will somehow lend credibility to your 3 comments re the Declaration of Helsinki; which does NOT state WHEN human clinical trial results MUST be published, and even though you have repeatedly proclaimed that Burzynski has NOT published the FINAL results of any of his phase 2 clinical trials, you have NOT provided any indication as to WHEN any of those trials were completed so that they can be compared to the 2006 study I cited whose results were published in 2013.
You also commented:
“In order to claim that he can cure incurable tumours, he needs to publish high quality clinical trial evidence in peer-reviewed journals,” yet you do NOT provide any citation, reference, or link that overrides the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) information re publication which I have commented on previously.
It is apropo you commented:
“Watergate only involved a handful of people and it was busted almost immediately,” since President Nixon is credited with starting the “War on Cancer,” and when Watergate occurred he was told that there was a cancer on the Presidency” but Watergate occurred in 1972 and Nixon didn’t resign until 2 years later, in 1974.
It is also appropriate that you mention oncologist David Gorski; who disclosed on social media that Peter Lipson is his “pal”
Did you review Burzynski’s 2003-2006 phase 2 clinical trials preliminary reports to see if any of the authors listed on them is an oncologist? No? That’s why your observation that Burzynski (a biochemist) is NOT an oncologist, is irrelevant.
Do you have any proof to back up your remarkable claim:
“Against that we have an anonymous shill who takes every word of the Burzynski clinic and its supporters as Revealed Truth”?
No? That’s because you’re wrong about that just like the other issues I’ve listed above.
Mr. Chapman, you attempts at obfuscation of the issues, does not impress.
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

America, Land of the “Free Speech” and Home of the Brave; well, unless your #Forbes?

TheSkeptiCritic (@TheSkeptiCritic) tweeted at 6:29pm – 22 Apr 13:
http://t.co/8PjEPukjpP…
“@drpaulmorgan: @JamesBrewer @charlottechurch There will soon be a @BBCPanorama
#Burzynski
β€’
Or you can join in here
forbes.com/sites/peterlip…—
(@TheSkeptiCritic) April 22, 2013

TheSkeptiCritic (@TheSkeptiCritic) tweeted at 11:54pm – 22 Apr 13:
http://t.co/8PjEPukjpP
“@robertquickert: I wonder how many scientists consider SEC filings as proof” #Burzynski
β€’
You miss the point #Forbes
forbes.com/sites/peterlipβ€”
(@TheSkeptiCritic) April 23, 2013

TheSkeptiCritic (@TheSkeptiCritic) tweeted at 12:22am – 23 Apr 13:
#Forbes #Censors Lipson”Speech is best countered by more speech”posts after I post David H. Gorski posts Peter is his “pal”
#Burzynski
#EPICβ€”
(@TheSkeptiCritic) April 23, 2013

TheSkeptiCritic (@TheSkeptiCritic) tweeted at 12:27am – 23 Apr 13:
https://t.co/DttIrMVCzh
#Forbes #Censors Peter Lipson “Speech is best countered by more speech” #Burzynski
β–ΊStreisand Effect
@BurzynskiMovie
twitter.com/TheSkeptiCriti…—
(@TheSkeptiCritic) April 23, 2013
Censorship in America
Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II (Part 2)
Eric Merola
@BurzynskiMovie
#Burzynski
Burzynski Clinic
United States Supreme Court
First Amendment
http://my.billofrightsinstitute.org/page.aspx?pid=472

Fact-checking http://thehoustoncancerquack.com

Posted on by
Reply

HoustonCancerQuack proclaims:

“Fact-checking Burzynski II”

“DO YOU THINK YOU HAVE AN OPEN MIND?”

“DO YOU HAVE THE ALL THE FACTS?”

Let’s find out if they have all the “FACTS,” shall we?

“Basic claims about ANP”

“Antineoplastons are chemotherapy, regardless of what supporters say”

“Toxicity, reactions, and even patient deaths can and do happen due to their administration”

FACT: Is any citation, reference, or link to an independent reliable source provided for this claim?

“patient deaths can and do happen due to their administration”

NO

FACT: This is only an “opinion” until it is supported by “FACTS”

Here is what the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) lists as POSSIBLE “Adverse Effects”:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/healthprofessional/page6
“The most common side effect of ANP, hypernatremia, is an effect of the sodium in the mixture”

FACT: Is any citation, reference, or link to an independent reliable source provided for this claim?

NO

FACT: Is “HYPERNATREMIA” listed on the above National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) list as a possible “Adverse Effect”?

Let’s see what we can find out about “HYPERNATREMIA,” shall we?

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
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)

DOI
10.1007/s00520-013-1734-6
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00520-013-1734-6
This 3 month study of 3,446 patients in 2006 found that most of the HYPERNATREMIA (90 %) was acquired during hospital stay

HYPERNATREMIA in the U.S.:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000394.htm
HYPERNATREMIA is the most common electrolyte disorder in the United States
In some cases, cancer may cause the condition

“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

“There are two cases of children (Haley S. and Elizabeth K.) at The OTHER Burzynski Patient Group who have had strokes unrelated to their tumors, likely because of the treatment”

FACT: Is any citation, reference, or link to an independent reliable source provided for this claim?

NO

FACT: Is “STROKE” listed on the above National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) list as a possible “Adverse Effect”?

FACT: This is only an “opinion” until it is supported by “FACTS”

“For an example of a patient nearly overdosing, see Adam M’s story”

“Patients seem to often end up in the hospital because of the treatment”

FACT: Is any citation, reference, or link to an independent reliable source provided for this claim?

NO

FACT: Is “ENDING UP IN THE HOSPITAL” listed on the above National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) list as a possible “Adverse Effect”?

FACT: This is only an “opinion” until it is supported by “FACTS”

“A surgical oncologist, researcher and patient advocate explains why physicians question Dr. Burzynski’s methods:”

My blog explains WHY I question this physician:
http://www.stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com
“This physician and others declined to be interviewed for the movie because of Merola’s track record of slanted presentation and because of past threats issued by people hired by the Burzynski Clinic”

“Past threats issued by people hired by the Burzynski Clinic”?

FACT: Is any citation, reference, or link to an independent reliable source provided for this claim?

NO

FACT: This is only an “opinion” until it is supported by “FACTS”

excuses, Excuses, EXCUSES
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/18/david-h-gorskis-conspiracy-mongering-and-more-of-his-dr-stanislaw-burzynski-stories
“What was the β€œpresent” from skeptics that was alluded to in the movie?”

“The β€œpresent” the Skeptics for the Protection of Cancer Patients (SPCP) delivered to Burzynski on his birthday, was a donation of $14,500 to St Jude Children’s Hospital for research into childhood cancers”

“They challenged Dr. Burzynski to match their donation”

“He did not”

“In fact, some of the interviews in the movie (conducted after the FDA inspection of the Burzynski Clinic, mentioned at the end) were filmed after the fundraiser had been announced, so Merola seems to have deliberately omitted the whole truth, because he certainly was aware of it”

“Doesn’t sound so sinister now, does it?”

“Also, Burzynski got a card”

Want to know what that “PRESENT” really was?

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
“Are skeptics really calling out cancer patients, ridiculing and harassing them?”

You tell me:

Sheila Herron (@Ac2cSheila) tweeted at 1:54pm – 31 Mar 12:

Peter Bowditch (@RatbagsDotCom) tweeted at 8:09pm – 19 Feb 13:

“What about the 2-hour rejection from The Lancet?”

“The vast majority of papers that get rejected from The Lancet are rejected within 48 hours thanks to an editorial pre-screening process”

“Most researchers are thankful for this courtesy because it allows them to resubmit to other journals more quickly”

“Why does Merola try to convince the audience that this is evidence of a conspiracy against Burzynski?”

Why bring it up if you really have nothing to add that is relevant?

FACT: The Lancet Oncology will not discuss any submission that may or may not have been submitted to The Lancet Oncology with anyone other than the corresponding author

To do so would constitute a breach in confidentiality

“Patients pay a lot of money upfront to enter his clinical trials, presumably believing that the trials will eventually be published”

Is that really the patients’
motivation?

FACT: Is any citation, reference, or link to an independent reliable source provided for this claim?

NO

FACT: This is only an “opinion” until it is supported by “FACTS”

“Burzynski has never published the results of those trials but keeps the money:”

Really?

Burzynski Clinical Trials (The SEC filings)
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/11/burzynski-clinical-trials-2
“Burzynski’s abysmal trial completion record, over sixty abandoned trials, the trust of every patient who participated betrayed”

“If trial completion were a batting average, he’d be batting .016”

Really?

FACTS:
http://cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/search/results?protocolsearchid=11475951

http://cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/search/results?protocolsearchid=11476036
“His publication average is .000”

“Really:”
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=burzynski&pg=1

REALLY?
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/18/david-h-gorskis-conspiracy-mongering-and-more-of-his-dr-stanislaw-burzynski-stories
“Speaking of harassment…”

“Merola does not mention that skeptics only caught wind of the Burzynski story in November 2011, after a teenaged blogger critical of the Clinic received phony legal threats from someone who had been hired by the Clinic to β€œclean up” its reputation”

“This person, Marc Stephens, sent this high school student images of his family’s home, the message clearly:”

β€œWe know where you live.”

“These threats were well documented in the international press”

“Somehow Merola managed to not mention that in the movie”

Maybe it wouldn’t be so bad if the loquacious “teenaged” high school student got his “FACTS” straight:

TheSkeptiCritic (@TheSkeptiCritic) tweeted at 8:12pm – 16 Apr 13:
https://twitter.com/TheSkeptiCritic/status/324329482712391680

http://rhysmorgan.co/blog

http://rhysmorgan.co/burzynski-morally-reprehensible

http://thewelshboyo.wordpress.com
“What really happened to Amelia Saunders?”

“Merola suggests that Amelia Saunders died as a result of her parents taking her off of antineoplaston therapy, that there β€œconfusion and disagreement” between the doctors in the UK and Houston’s reading”

Really?

FW (@frozenwarning) tweeted at 5:01am – 14 Mar 13:

Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 12:38pm – 14 Mar 13:

Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 1:09pm – 14 Mar 13:
http://t.co/AyHjRYZwEJ

Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 1:34pm – 14 Mar 13:
http://t.co/Du1OrFENRS

Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 11:49pm – 14 Mar 13:
http://t.co/wxU2PHJ3GD

“We hope this makes it clear that what you are seeing in the new Burzynski movie may not be entirely reliable”

So … like your blog?

“As we get more information about the claims in the movie, we will add additional rebuttals and provide context for understanding what really goes on at the Burzynski Clinic”
http://www.anp4all.com
I can’t wait
http://thehoustoncancerquack.com/fact-checking-burzynski-ii

David H. Gorski’s conspiracy-mongering and more of his Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski “stories”

Posted on by
3

Eric Merola’s conspiracy-mongering and more of Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski’s cancer β€œsuccess” stories

David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 5:23am – 15 Apr 13:
http://t.co/8Fb4GD7hkK’s-cancer-β€œsuccess”-stories-part-2

Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) tweeted at 5:52am – 15 Apr 13:

ScienceBasedMed (@ScienceBasedMed) tweeted at 12:28pm – 15 Apr 13:
http://t.co/5MNwcmHEPW

ScienceBasedMed (@ScienceBasedMed) tweeted at5:35pm – 15 Apr 13:
http://t.co/5MNwcmHEPW

Because promoting it once just isn’t good enough

4/15/2013 David H. Gorski tweeted away about his blog, about Eric Merola’s second movie, about Stanislaw Burzynski, Burzynski: Cancer Is A Serious Business, Part 2

A ?

Or, as they might say in Toronto, Canada,

Aye ?

Maybe this is the “screening” title, as opposed to:

“Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II”

@Gorskon mentions the “Skeptic Mule,” Brian Thompson, from the James Randi Educational Foundation (jref)
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/2050-qburzynski-iiq-is-more-of-the-same.html
@OracKnows implies that he took advantage of his supposedly “awesome” commentary about his experience on the JREF Swift Blog,
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/finally-james-randi-educational-fund-jref-wins-an-award-that-they-richly-deserve
and his “alleged” “COPIOUS notes,” which I referred to in my blog:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/my-1st-hand-review-of-oracs-2nd-hand-review-burzynski-cancer-is-serious-business-part-ii
Gorski dishonestly demonizes what he refers to as β€œthem” (i.e., Eric Merola) and mentions the skeptics promoted in Burzynski II, all with a heapin’ helpin’ of conspiracy-mongering

In this post, I will delve into a little more detail about the fundamental intellectual dishonesty behind Orac’s conspiracy-mongering

In particular, note how everything I said in my previous posts about what went on at the Q&A is verified, and, in fact, you now have the details

I will try to mention the specific time points to refer to as I go along

Also note that there is a segment at about the 47:45 mark in which JREF’s Brian Thompson (blurred out but still recognizable) speaks with the husband of one of Burzynski’s patients that is worth watching and that I will briefly discuss further into this post

3 things

3 things got me to thinking that I was probably due to write about Stanislaw Burzynski and his “Conspiracy Theory” propagandist Gorski again

The 1st thing, of course, was Gorski’s blog

The 2nd thing was the Q&A video

The 3rd thing was a rather odd online encounter that I had with @gorskon a couple of days ago

It was so bizarre that it left me scratching my head and thinking that @gorskon really needs to look at how he appears online

Either that, or he’s losing it

Regular readers probably remember that a couple of weeks ago I posted a shameless self-plug featuring a link to a YouTube video of a talk he did for the National Capital Area Skeptics on March 9 (which I can’t resist embedding my 21 point skidoo review blog again, for those of you who might not have seen itβ€”forgive me):

Critiquing David H. Gorski – Quackademic Medicine
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/critiquing-david-h-gorski-quackademic-medicine
apparently Merola saw the video too

It didn’t take long at all for @gorskon to get himself hence to Twitter to start tweeting:

David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 10:08pm – 12 Apr 13:

David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 7:34pm – 13 Apr 13:

which made me want to be sure to immortalize it

I’m not sure if it was embarrassment or a stab of conscience, but Gorski’s immortal comments where he mentions that Eric Merola had contacted him about appearing in Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part 2, is now gone from his blog, or hiding from me:

Didymus Judas Thomas

#52 – Didymus Judas Thomas

At the Tu-Quack Center ScienceBasedMedicine Room

January 15, 2013

Don’t worry Orac, no one is going to mistake you for Vincent Kennedy McMahon; HE actually has a Gigantic Pair of Grapefruits! I find it amazing that you can communicate with EM about getting to say what you want to say, but then amazingly can’t communicate about not wanting any videos, music, pictures, or whatever else β€œConspiracy Theory” misgivings you fear. It’s not about β€œCarpe Diem” for you, it’s about β€œCarpe Don’t!!” That’s just a β€œPiss-Poor” excuse!!!
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/14/the-story-of-sean-olaighin-patient-of-dr-stanislaw-burzynski
Gorski asks:

“On the other hand, what’s worse than being a white supremacist?”

Rubbishing the work of multiple M.D.’s and an oncologist ?

Posting

“Misinformation” ?

“Disinformation” ??

(Misβ€’Disβ€’Information)

“Misdirection” ???

@ScienceBasedMed
“Apparently I’m also a puppy eater”

David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 12:07pm – 6 Apr 13:
http://t.co/CUJkMpw6jP

Maybe he meant you throw

“puppy Heaters” ?

David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 2:29pm – 30 Mar 13:

David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 2:33pm – 30 Mar 13:

David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 8:35am – 31 Mar 13:

Such is life

However, @gorskon’s ill-considered Twitter adventures got me interested in what he might be up to again, as did learning that he blogged about a Q&A after a screening of Burzynski II in Toronto

Gorski blogged:

“As with Merola’s screening at San Luis Obispo on March 10, this screening in Toronto, which occurred on April 5, was attended by at least one skeptic, who was kind enough to do the same thing our colleagues did in California and provide me with notes”

I wonder if they were “COPIOUS notes” like he “allegedly” received previously?

I hope that my discussion of these blog comments, and Q&A’s and of these twits will serve, along with my previous discussions, as educational background for those who attend further screenings of the Burzynski movie, for example the upcoming screening on April 27 at the Newport Beach Film Festival

Davey doubles down on the conspiracy-mongering

“The very first thing I noticed upon viewing the YouTube video of the Q&A from March was that the sheer conspiracy mongering that Merola engages in was not adequately captured by the notes”

Those “alleged” “COPIOUS notes”?

THAT is truly, truly over the top

Gorski continues:

“For instance, take a look at the segment beginning at about the 13:56 mark, in which Merola discusses how former senior advisor to President Obama David Axelrod allegedly watched the film”

“Merola repeated this very same story near the very beginning of his Q&A in Toronto, although he apparently did preface it with a disclaimer to the effect of something like, β€œI have no proof of this”

“You can believe me or not.”

“Clearly, the David Axelrod story is going to be a regular feature of Merola’s movie publicity tour, and Merola plans on using it at every Q&A”

“I can only hope that my reporting on it last time led him to add that little disclaimer”

David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 12:27pm – 30 Mar 13:

This is not a mistake

Another “delusion of grandeur”?

Gorski proceeds:

“More importantly, I would love to see whether David Axelrod will actually respond to this, particularly now that we have evidence that Merola is telling this story other than reports of promoters of science-based medicine who were brave enough to go into the veritable lions’ den a month ago”

“Brave enough” ?

“Lions’ Den” ??

really ? Seriously ?? REALLY ???

So, as opposed to you (NOT) appearing in Burzynski 2?

Gorski questions:

“Can you imagine how some of them would react to a pharmaceutical company advertising off-label uses for its drugs?”

Oh, wait

We don’t have to imagine it

We already know

It would be like Orac commenting on a pharmaceutical company being fined $3 BILLION?

Gorski blathers on

“Next up, if you don’t believe me when I told you last time just how much Merola despises anyone whom he considers to be a member of β€œThe Skeptics,” just mosey on over to the segments at the 21:25 and 35:45 marks”

“At the 21:25 mark, Merola is asked, β€œHow did you discover the skeptics’ group and how did you gain access to the videoconference and do you know anything else about them?””

Merola’s answer:

“Sure”

“Basically, these guys have no shame whatsoever”

“They have no problem letting everybody know their names and putting themselves out there”

“I really believe that the lower tier guys, like the guys that you saw, they put that on YouTube and were very proud of it”

“I went through a lawyer to get legal clearance to make sure I was safe”

“That’s why they’re blurred out and their names are hidden”

Gorski blogospheresplats:

“If you want to know the utter intellectual dishonesty of this answer, realize that the segment that Merola included in his movie of β€œskeptics plotting” was nothing more than a clip taken from the Virtual Skeptics podcast (episode 13, to be precise) in which Bob Blaskiewicz was talking about Burzynski and his plans to raise money for St. Jude’s for Burzynski’s 70th birthday in January”

What David fails to do is describe this birthday “present” in detail as I did on my blog:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/critiquing-bob-blaskiewicz-burzynski-cancer-is-serious-business-part-ii
Gorski blatherskites on:

“Also note the disconnect between the movie, which, according to reports, implies that skepticsβ€”excuse me, β€œThe Skeptics,” to use Merola’s term in his movieβ€”are some shadowy cabal, while in the Q&A he admits that this stuff is on YouTube”

As if Bobby (Blatherskitewicz) Blaskiewicz’s and pals’ YouTube videos and blog which Merola specifically described as:

” … the LOWER TIER guys, like the guys that you saw, they put that on YouTube … ”

are the relevant part of the so-called

“shadowy cabal”

But none of that matters anyway because, apparently:

Skeptics are calling me an actress or an actor

Sheila Herron (@Ac2cSheila) tweeted at 1:54pm – 31 Mar 12:

Skeptics are saying I’m laundering money

Peter Bowditch (@RatbagsDotCom) tweeted at 8:09pm – 19 Feb 13:

What is going on?”

Gorski posits:

“I wonder if I’m one of the β€œguys at the top.””

“If I am, this is the first I’ve heard of it”

Don’t worry Davey

It’s a long way to the top if ya wanna Rock and Roll

and, you haven’t even made it to the chorus line

In other words, you’re not even

off, Off, OFf, OFF Broadway yet

β€œThe Skeptics” (Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business, Part II)
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/the-skeptics
Gorski blathersplats on:

“He goes on to complain about how skeptics have β€œcompletely hijacked” Burzynski’s Wikipedia page and how he really really wanted to β€œcall them out,” but for β€œlegal reasons” and β€œrunning time.””

Is THAT all you’ve got ?

THIS is just the tip of the bucket list:

β€œThe Skeptics:” Your problem is, Wikipedia IS censored
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/the-skeptics-your-problem-is-wikipedia-is-censored
But Gorski knows this, because when he blocked my comments on his blog, suddenly 2 “alleged” “gatekeepers” got “brave”

#174 – SW – 2/12/2013

[…]
anti-Burzynski β€œbloggers”
[…]

These individuals are also responsible for β€œgate keeping” the Wikipedia Page on The Burzynski Clinic

This issue, as well as the identities of those involved, will be covered in great length in the new 2013 β€œChapter 2β€³ documentary

[…]
You will notice the β€œanti-Burzynski bloggers” refuse to do that or adhere to reputable sources
[…]

As one of those β€œgate keeping” wikipedians I find this quite laughable – not only the threat of β€œcovering” my identity, but also the suggestion that bloggers and wikipedians (there may be an overlap, but I can assure you that I’m not a blogger) refuse to check and adhere to reputable sources

#203 – novalox – 2/13/2013

Now, let’s just wait and see djt make accusations of persecution and unfairness

Should be entertaining to see his attempts at this

Oh, BTW, djt, if you are still reading this, I was one of the Wikipedia editors who reported you for your trolling behaviors there

Have fun with that
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/02/08/will-the-fda-finally-slap-down-stanislaw-burzynski-for-good
Gorski splats:

“About 18 months ago, Burzynski made the huge mistake of siccing his attack Teacup Chihuaha Marc Stephens on a teen skeptic in the U.K. by the name of Rhys Morgan”

πŸ™‚

Oh !

The infamous “teen skeptic,” @rhysmorgan ?

TheSkeptiCritic (@TheSkeptiCritic) tweeted at 8:12pm – 16 Apr 13:
https://twitter.com/TheSkeptiCritic/status/324329482712391680

http://rhysmorgan.co/blog

http://rhysmorgan.co/burzynski-morally-reprehensible

http://thewelshboyo.wordpress.com
So, where’s your “FACTS” that “PROVE” that Burzynski “sicced” anyone on him?

Don’t have any as usual ?

Gorski rants on:

“When someone like Merola promises to slime me in a movie that will see international distribution, I take notice”

You mean you knew from the beginning that it would have “international distribution”?

Gorski racks up more frequent “conspiracy-mongering” flyer miles

“Around the 35:45 mark, Merola is asked who is paying β€œThe Skeptics” and whether it’s been investigated”

Merola’s response:

“Yeah, I’ve done a lot of that myself, but frankly as you can imagine for legal reasons I just didn’t want to call them out”

“I’m not going to call them out”

“Not yet”

“I know who most all of them are”

“I know what they’re doing”

“But for legal reasons, because these guys are vicious and do not care about the truthβ€”they only care about winningβ€”and I don’t want to give them any reason to damage me any further or at all, frankly”

“So, yes, it’s been done, but they’re slippery, slippery people, and I’m not going to go any farther than that”

“But that would be a great thing, to have someone do a separate investigative report on just these guys, because most peopleβ€”the festival staff, most people that watched itβ€”said, β€œI’ve never even heard of these guys”

“I didn’t even know they existed.””

“Then they go back online, and they realize, wow, so they’re the ones doing all the damage online”

“They’re the ones doing this and that”

“That’s the best I can answer that”

“I’ve been trying to be careful myself, because they’re really nasty people”

Gorski theorizes:

“I was struck by how paranoid this sounded, even more so than I had expected based on reports I received”

Too bad you weren’t able to eruditely explain in detail how it’s supposedly “paranoid”

Gorski rambles:

“I was also further struck at how Merola describes Burzynski critics, who according to him are more than happyβ€”proud, evenβ€”to β€œput their names out there” as β€œspineless,” when he himself has decided for legal reasons not to β€œname names.””

What would you like better ?

Liars ?

Cowards ??

Dissimulators ???

Gorski rattles off:

“One can’t help but wonder if maybeβ€”just maybeβ€”the reason Merola’s lawyers told him not to β€œname names” is because they realized that much of what he says is likely to be libelous”

Would you like me to do some of it for him?

Gorski ruminates:

“Certainly, I consider it so from what I’ve been able to gather”

But then again, you don’t believe in “Free Speech” on your blog

Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D and β€œFreedom of Speech”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/stanislaw-rajmund-burzynski-m-d-ph-d-and-freedom-of-speech

Gorski insists:

“In any case, what really bothers Merola is he knows damned well that I’ve actually read nearly every paper I can get my hands on about antineoplastons”

“I also have the skill set to analyze them, and I wasn’t impressed”

Like I have NOT been impressed by your lack of “fact-checking” and NOT backing up what you twit and blog about?

Gorski postulates:

” … their willingness becomes particularly problematic in the case of Tori Moreno”

“Moreno is a Burzynski patient from the late 1990s who is now 14 years old”

“She appeared in the video above and is scheduled to appear again with Eric Merola at the Newport Beach Film Festival screening, along with her parents”

“She was clearly nervous on stage, and it was clearly her father who was driving the bus, so to speak”

“I must admit that I have a real problem with her being used this way”

And in reference to adults he comments:

” … they are considered competent to make their own decisions with respect to speaking out”

“Such is not the case with an underage teen like Tori Moreno”

“From my point of view, poor Tori is being used as nothing more than a prop by Eric Merola and, sadly, her father to be presented as β€œliving proof” that Burzynski’s therapy works”

So, Gorski “thinks” (?) Tori is NOT “competent” to make her “own decisions with respect to speaking out”

But is she?

(“Such is not the case with an underage teen like Tori Moreno”)

Well, NOT if you’re “Dr. Free Speech”

And that’s something that needs to be said publicly

Gorski thinks we’re supposed to be impressed by:

“According to the NCI, treatment options include:”

“Therapeutic options include watchful waiting; …”

which refers to patents with dates from 2004 and 2005 re a Burzynski patient being treated about 10 years before those patents, in 1995

So what to make of all this?

Lessons for those who would oppose “The Skeptics”

Gorski’s comments re:

The Q&A session at San Luis Obispo and what I’ve learned about the Q&A session after the Toronto screening of Burzynski II provide many lessons for unbiased individuals and critics of skeptics who don’t “fact-check”

First and foremost, to me, at least, is the lesson that David H. Gorski can’t be trusted

He is a true believer, and he despises fact-checking

For instance, he clearly plans on repeating that Eric Merola clearly plans on repeating an “unbelievable” story about David Axelrod, even though there is NO indication that David’s done due diligence

Like below where he states:

“He demonstrates time and time again that he does not understand science, clinical trials, or why science-based oncologists do not take Burzynski seriously”

I guess the people that work at these places do NOT “take Burzynski seriously” either:

3/2011 – PHASE II TRIAL of tipifarnib and radiation in CHILDREN with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic pontine GLIOMAS
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21339191
University of Californiaβ€”San Francisco

Children’s Hospital Boston, Massachusetts

St Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee

Seattle Children’s Hospital, Seattle, Washington

Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Children’s National Medical Center, Washington, DC

Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Ohio

Neuro Oncol (2011) 13 (3): 298-306
doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noq202
http://neuro-oncology.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/3/298.full
Neuro Oncol (2011) 13 (3): 298-306. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noq202
5.723 Impact Factor

REFERENCE:

25. ↡ BURZYNSKI SR

Treatments for astrocytic TUMORS in CHILDREN: current and emerging strategies

Paediatr Drugs. 2006;8:167-178
http://link.springer.com/article/10.2165%2F00148581-200608030-00003
Pediatric Drugs
May 2006, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 167-178

He’s using every tool at his disposal and is willing to cherry pick and distort information, and in general demonstrate no regard for the truth

In other words, one thing that anyone who wants to criticize Gorski should know is that Gorski is not convincible, not trustworthy, and likely to use whatever internet sources he has to attack, and anyone who wants to confront Gorski at a Q&A with a critical question needs to be prepared for the types of spin he will bring to bear

In particular, that includes not giving him what I like to call a β€œweasel” opening that allows him to attack based on one mistake and ignore everything else

He’s very good at that

Gorski ejaculates:

“The problem is the quality (more specifically, the lack thereof) and utterly unconvincing nature of Burzynski’s publications”

“He publishes in bottom-feeding journals and has not yet published a completed phase II clinical trial”

“That’s plenty bad enough”

“Burzynski has only published abstracts and partial reports on phase II trials, none of which are particularly convincing”

“His publications are all, as far as I’ve been able to tell, crap, and I’ve read nearly all of them”

This leaves one to wonder why DHG does NOT cite any US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), or National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) document that supports his position as to the RELEVANCE of the Impact Factor of any journal Burzynski has or may publish in, nor does he back up his comments re the Preliminary Reports that Burzynski has published re the Phase II clinical trials:

Drugs in R & D (Drugs in Research and Development)

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

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 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 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

Integrative Cancer Therapies

6/2005 – 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
23% – % of Patients Showing Complete Response
8% – % of Patients Showing Partial Response
31% – % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
38% – % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease

3/2006 – 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

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

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
E. Multitargeted therapy

Antineoplaston A10 injections (A10) consist of synthetic phenylacetylglutaminate sodium (PG) and phenylacetylisoglutaminate sodium (isoPG) in a ratio 4:1

antineoplaston AS2-1 (AS2-1) consists of PG and phenylacetate sodium (PN) in a ratio of 1:4

Phase II studies with ANP included patients with DBSG began 1988
(Burzynski, 2004a)

Only small # of patients with DBSG involved in most studies, which dealt with broad spectrum of primary brain tumors
(Burzynski, 2004a)

1996, phase II study of ANP in patients with brainstem gliomas opened and nearing completion
(Burzynski et al, 2003, 2004a, 2007)

studies are conducted at Burzynski Clinic and monitored by FDA and Institutional Review Board (IRB)

most recent report describes results in children with newly diagnosed DBSG
(Burzynski et al, 2007)

20 evaluable patients
5 with high-grade gliomas

overall survival (OS)
2 years – 40%
5 years – 30%

CR – 30%
PR – 10%
SD – 20%
PD – 40%
(Burzynski et al, 2007)

study closed for accrual and final results will be evaluated before end of 2007

Phase III protocol currently under FDA’s review

Results summarized in Table 2

proposed antineoplastic activity of ANP in DBSG consists of targeted therapy affecting AKT2 and TGFB1 pathways (PG), RAS, TP53, and p21 (PN) MYCC (PG and PN), MAD (PG), INI1 (PG), and apoptosis (PG and isoPG)

PG is formed in patient’s liver from PN and PB, but doesn’t share with PN and PB an inhibitory affect on HDAC

details of these mechanisms have been described previously

(Castillo et al, 1991; Liau et al, 1992; Adam et al, 1995; Liu and Samid, 1995; Shack et al, 1995; Danesi et al, 1996; Gorospe et al, 1996; Prasanna et al, 1996; Adam et al, 1997; Engelhard et al, 1997; Harrison et al, 1998; Ng et al, 2000; Witzig et al, 2000; Li et al, 2001; Burzynski et al, 2003, 2004a,b, 2005; Waldbillig and Burzynski, 2003; Burzynski, 2004b, 2006a,b)

DBSGs remain some of most tragic diagnoses in oncology

general opinion of neuro-oncologists that results of treatment for DBSG constitute worst response in all primary brain tumors

DBSGs occur usually in children, in whom brain tumors in general are 2nd most frequent malignancy, and most common form of solid tumors

Due to poor response, # of clinical trials in DBSG is small, and there isn’t much interest in bringing new agents into approval process by pharmaceutical companies

Results of treatment with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in patients with diffuse, intrinsic brain stem glioma

Author – Burzynski et al, 2007
Phase II – Study Type
N – newly diagnosed tumor – Tumor Type
20 – # of patients
ANP – Treatment
ANP – antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1
Efficacy
overall survival
2 yrs / 5 yrs
40% / 30%
median survival time
16.4 – months

6 / 30% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
2 / 10% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
4 / 20% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
8 / 40% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease

Most results of phase II trials with targeted therapy and ANP have been presented at oncology meetings and published as abstracts

It was decided to include data from meeting abstracts in order to present most up to date results, but they should be treated with caution until they pass scrutiny of peer review

Children, older than 3 years, and young adults with newly diagnosed tumors, are usually temporarily helped with standard radiation therapy, but it’s estimated that less than 10% of them will survive 2 years

Children, younger than 3 years, adults after age 40, and patients with high-grade glioma pathology have very grave prognosis, and median survival is similar to supratentorial GBM, or worse

Children diagnosed with DBSG and neurofibromatosis 1 have better prognosis, except those that show contrast-enhancement on MRI

prognosis is especially grave for patients with recurrent DBSG, who typically don’t survive longer than 6 months

Targeted radiotherapy and bevacizumab in combination with irinotecan may offer hope, but they would require further clinical trials

The patients with recurrent DBSG can be helped with treatments currently in phase II clinical trials

The results of phase II trials in DBSG with ANP compare favorably with responses and survival data in radiation therapy and chemotherapy trials

Currently conducted phase II studies are closed for accrual and nearing completion, and phase III studies are scheduled to open soon

Introduction of new multitargeted agents and acceleration of basic and clinical research in DBSG may offer better chances in the future

Ouch

I cringed
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/dr-stanislaw-burzynskis-cancer-success-stories-part-2/#more-25645
Hopefully I didn’t fail to convey the full scope of “The Skeptics” true conspiracy theory awesomeness

That was awesome

“The Skeptics:” Your problem is, Wikipedia IS censored

Posted on by
Reply

A recent epistle by Guy Chapman
(@SceptiGuy @vGuyUK)
appeared on the blogosphere proclaiming:

“Homeopaths: Your problem is, Wikipedia is not censored”

“The quacks’ problem with Wikipedia is not that it is censored; it is that Wikipedia is not censored to protect their cherished delusions”

“Wikipedia is marvellous”

“It is the most visited informational site on the internet, and is run on a budget of peanuts, almost entirely by volunteers”
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg/2013/04/homeopaths-your-problem-is-wikipedia-is-not-censored
Maybe Guy got the last part wrong

When it comes to the Wikipedia article on the Burzynski Clinic
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burzynski_Clinic&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop
it should possibly read:

“… run on a budget of volunteers, almost entirely by peanuts”

(or some other type of “nut”)

Interestingly enough, in regards to

Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business, Part II

one of the “marvelous” censors on Wikipedia ejaculated for all to see
for posterity:

“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”

[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]

([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])

21:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burzynski_Clinic&diff=next&oldid=529537854
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 12:42pm – 14 Mar 13:

Thank you “Guy”

Your 15 seconds of “Fame” starts

NOW !!!