Critiquing https://theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com

Critiquing https://theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com

Robert J. (Bob) Blaskiewicz operates The Other Burzynski Patient Group (TOBPG)

The problem is:

1. Bob Blaskiewicz Faux Skeptic Exposed! does NOT want to debate or want people to consider the failures of Science Based Medicine compared to Burzynski, because he has an agenda

2. @rjblaskiewicz is a known LIAR

Making unsubstantiated claims like this:

Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) tweeted at 9:45am – 25 Aug 13:

@dixon_frederick @AlaaTheWarrior Actually, he CLAIMS a success rate, but is unable to publish. Suspicious: clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?te…

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
374 – TOTAL CHILDREN DIED:
Science Based Medicine

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
[6] .9/15/1999 – 29 / 85% died
======================================
[9] .9/15/1994 – 51 / 88% – children died
======================================
[8] 1/1998 – 8 / 89% of 9 children died of their disease at median of 44 weeks
======================================
[5] .10/21/2002 – 12 / 100% – all children patients died
======================================
[2] 5/1/2010 – 18 – children patients have died from disease progression
======================================
[3] 2/2008 – All 30 / 100% – children have died
======================================
[4] 1/1/2005 – 33 / 100% – children died of disease progression
======================================
[1] 4/2011 – 63 / 100% – children died
======================================
[7] .3/15/1999 – 130 / 100% – children died
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
COMBINED:
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
[1] 4/2011 – children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG)
——————————————————————
[1] 4/2011 – children with DIPG
——————————————————————
[1] 5/1/2010 children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma
——————————————————————
[1] 5/1/2010 children with diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas (DIPGs)
——————————————————————
[1] 5/1/2010 Pediatric patients with newly diagnosed DIPGs
——————————————————————
[3] 2/2008 – children with diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma
——————————————————————
[3] 2/2008 – diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma
——————————————————————
[4] 1/1/2005 – newly diagnosed diffuse brainstem glioma in children
——————————————————————
[4] 1/1/2005 – children with newly diagnosed diffuse brainstem glioma
——————————————————————
[4] 1/1/2005 – newly diagnosed, diffuse, intrinsic brain stem glioma
——————————————————————
[5] .10/21/2002 – typical diffuse pontine glioma
or
histologically proven anaplastic astrocytoma/glioblastoma multiforme located in the pons

——————————————————————
[5] .10/21/2002 – pontine glioma patients
——————————————————————
[5] .10/21/2002 – paediatric patients with pontine gliomas
——————————————————————
[5] .10/21/2002
brain tumours
brain stem glioma

——————————————————————
[5] .10/21/2002
Histological diagnoses included

8 – glioblastoma multiforme
5 – no histology
3 – anaplastic astrocytoma
3 – astrocytoma with no other specification
1 – pilocytic astrocytoma

——————————————————————
[6] .9/15/1999 – Brainstem gliomas
——————————————————————
[6] .9/15/1999 – diffuse intrinsic pontine tumor
——————————————————————
[6] .9/15/1999 – high grade glioma was required for nonpontine brain stem tumors
——————————————————————
[7] .3/15/1999 children with newly diagnosed brainstem tumor
——————————————————————
[7] .3/15/1999 tumors arising in the pons
——————————————————————
[7] .3/15/1999 diffusely infiltrating pontine lesion
——————————————————————
[8] 1/1998 – children with diffuse pontine gliomas
——————————————————————
[8] 1/1998 – pediatric malignancies
——————————————————————
[8] 1/1998 – Diffuse pontine gliomas
——————————————————————
[9] .9/15/1994 – Brain stem gliomas
——————————————————————
[9] .9/15/1994 – childhood brain tumors
——————————————————————
[9] .9/15/1994 – children with brain stem gliomas
——————————————————————
[9] .9/15/1994 – patients with diffuse intrinsic brain stem gliomas
——————————————————————
[9] .9/15/1994 – children with diffuse intrinsic brain stem gliomas
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
# OF CHILDREN
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
[8] 1/1998 – 9 / 100% – consecutive children
——————————————————————
[5] .10/21/2002 – 20 – enrolled (9 male / 11 female)
——————————————————————
[2] 5/1/2010 – 20 – children accrued
——————————————————————
[3] 2/2008 – 31 – children enrolled
——————————————————————
[4] 1/1/2005 – 33 / 100% – patients enrolled
——————————————————————
[6] .9/15/1999 – 34 / 100% – patients enrolled
——————————————————————
[1] 4/2011 – 63 / 100% – children enrolled in study
——————————————————————
[9] .9/15/1994 – 66 children
——————————————————————
[7] .3/15/1999
130 – eligible patients
66 – arm 1
64 – arm 2
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
# OF EVALUABLE CHILDREN
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
[8] 1/1998 – 9 / 100% – consecutive children evaluable
——————————————————————
[5] .10/21/2002 – 12 – Evaluable patients
——————————————————————
[2] 5/1/2010 – 20 – children evaluable
——————————————————————
[3] 2/2008 – 30 – eligible and evaluable for survival and toxicity
——————————————————————
[4] 1/1/2005 – 33 / 100% – patients evaluable
——————————————————————
[6] .9/15/1999 – 34 / 100% – patients evaluable
——————————————————————
[9] .9/15/1994 – 58 / 100% – evaluable patients
——————————————————————
[1] 4/2011 – 63 / 100% – children evaluable
——————————————————————
[7] .3/15/1999
130 – evaluable patients
66 – arm 1
64 – arm 2
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
AGE RANGE OF CHILDREN
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
[5] .10/21/2002 – 3-17 years of age
——————————————————————
[6] .9/15/1999 – 3.6–15.4 years
——————————————————————
[3] 2/2008 – 3–21 – age children enrolled
——————————————————————
[4] 1/1/2005 – 3-21 years – eligible for current multiinstitutional study
——————————————————————
[7] .3/15/1999 3-21 years of age
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
MEDIAN AGE OF CHILDREN
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
[5] .10/21/2002 – 6 years – median age
——————————————————————
[4] 1/1/2005 – 6.4 years – Median age at diagnosis
——————————————————————
[9] .9/15/1994 – 7.5 years – mean age at diagnosis
——————————————————————
[6] .9/15/1999 – 7.8 years – median age of patients
——————————————————————
[3] 2/2008 – 8 – median age (3–14 years)
——————————————————————
[2] 5/1/2010 – 8.3 years – mean age
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
1 YEAR OR LESS SURVIVAL RATES
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
[1] 4/2011 – 9 / 14% – mean 1-year Event-Free Survival (EFS)
——————————————————————
[1] 4/2011 – 14 / 21.9% – no evidence produced 1-year Event-Free Survival (EFS) rate higher than
——————————————————————
10/2006..5 / 26% – 1 year: Burzynski Antineoplastons: Progression-Free Survival Rate (PFS): Protocol – BT-11 BRAINSTEM GLIOMAS and multicentric tumors (MBSG) (Pg. 466)
——————————————————————
[7] 3/15/1999 – 17 / 27.0% – ARM 2: 1 year Patients Surviving: Protocol – easier to treat cases of newly diagnosed BRAIN STEM (tumor) GLIOMA patients: radiation therapy and chemotherapy with cisplatin (Mandell et al.) (6/1992–10/1997) 2004 (Pg. 58)
——————————————————————
10/2004..9 / 29%Burzynski Antineoplastons: 1 year Progression-Free Survival (PFS): Protocol – patients with diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (DBSG): Special Exception (SE) (Pg. 386)
——————————————————————
[7] 3/15/1999 – 40 / 30.9% – ARM 1: 1 year Patients Surviving: Protocol – easier to treat cases of newly diagnosed BRAIN STEM (tumor) GLIOMA patients: radiation therapy and chemotherapy with cisplatin (Mandell et al.) (6/1992–10/1997) 2004 (Pg. 58)
——————————————————————
[9] .9/15/1994 – 20 / 35% – 1 year Overall Survival
——————————————————————
3/2006..39%Burzynski Antineoplastons Patients with high-grade, recurrent and progressive BRAINSTEM GLIOMAS: Progression-Free Survival (PFS) at 6 months: BRAINSTEM GLIOMA (BSG) (Pgs. 40 + 44-45)
——————————————————————
[1] 4/2011 – 25 / 40% – mean 1-year Overall Survival (OS)
——————————————————————
10/2004..12 / 41%Burzynski l: 1 year Progression-Free Survival (PFS): Protocol – patients with diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (DBSG) (Pg. 386)
——————————————————————
3/2004 – 43%Burzynski Antineoplastons – % of responding Patients didn’t develop Progression: 6/1/2003 Protocol – BT-11 – BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (Pg. 51)
——————————————————————
[4] 1/1/2005 – 16 / 48% – 1 year estimated Survival rate
——————————————————————
10/2006..10 / 53%Burzynski Antineoplastons 1 year Overall Survival Rate (OS): Protocol – BT-11 BRAINSTEM GLIOMAS and multicentric tumors (MBSG) (Pg. 466)
——————————————————————
3/2004 – 61%Burzynski Antineoplastons % of Objective Response (OR) Patients hadn’t had Progression: 6/1/2003 Protocol – HIGH-GRADE GLIOMA (Pg. 53)
——————————————————————
[3] 2/2008 – 27 / 90% – 1 year  - Overall survival
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
LESS THAN 1 YEAR SURVIVAL (MST)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
[7] 3/15/1999 – 5 months – ARM 2: Median time to Disease Progression: Protocol – easier to treat cases of newly diagnosed BRAIN STEM (tumor) GLIOMA patients: radiation therapy and chemotherapy with cisplatin (Mandell et al.) (6/1992–10/1997) 2004 (Pg. 58)
——————————————————————
3/2006.-.6 months – Patients with Recurrent Tumors Survive no more than, despite standard treatment: (Pgs. 40 + 45-46)
——————————————————————
[7] 3/15/1999 – 6 months – ARM 1: Median time to Disease Progression: Protocol – easier to treat cases of newly diagnosed BRAIN STEM (tumor) GLIOMA patients: radiation therapy and chemotherapy with cisplatin (Mandell et al.) (6/1992–10/1997) 2004 (Pg. 58)
——————————————————————
2003 – 6.4 monthsBurzynski Antineoplastons Median Survival: Protocol patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA: BT-11 Special Exception (SE) (Pg. 99)
——————————————————————
2003 – 7 monthsBurzynski Antineoplastons Median Survival: Protocol patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA: BT-11 (Pg. 99)
——————————————————————
3/2004 – 7 monthsBurzynski Antineoplastons – Progression-Free Survival (PFS): 6/1/2003 Protocol – BT-11 BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (Pg. 51)
——————————————————————
3/2004 – 7 monthsBurzynski Antineoplastons Progression-Free Survival (PFS): Protocol – subgroup very difficult to treat recurrent diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (Pg. 52)
——————————————————————
[7] 3/15/1999 – 8 months – ARM 2: Median time to Death: radiation therapy and chemotherapy with cisplatin (Mandell et al.) (6/1992 – 10/1997) 2004 (Pg. 58)
——————————————————————
[7] 3/15/1999 – 8 months – ARM 2: Median Overall Survival from Diagnosis (OSD): Median time to Death: Protocol – easier to treat cases of newly diagnosed BRAIN STEM (tumor) GLIOMA patients: radiation therapy and chemotherapy with cisplatin (Mandell et al.) (6/1992–10/1997) 2004 (Pg. 58)
——————————————————————
[7] 3/15/1999 – 8 months – ARM 2: Median Overall Survival from start of Treatment (OST): Median time to Death: Protocol – easier to treat cases of newly diagnosed BRAIN STEM (tumor) GLIOMA patients: radiation therapy and chemotherapy with cisplatin (Mandell et al.) (6/1992–10/1997) 2004 (Pg. 58)
——————————————————————
[7] 3/15/1999 – 8.5 months – Median Survival (MST): standard radiation therapy in combination with chemotherapy (RAT) (Mandell et al.) (6/1992–10/1997) children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM TUMORS: results of pediatric oncology group
——————————————————————
[7] 3/15/1999 – 8.5 months – ARM 1: Median Overall Survival from start of Treatment (OST): Median time to Death: Protocol – easier to treat cases of newly diagnosed BRAIN STEM (tumor) GLIOMA patients: radiation therapy and chemotherapy with cisplatin (Mandell et al.) (6/1992–10/1997) 2004 (Pg. 58)
——————————————————————
[7] 3/15/1999 – 8.5 months – ARM 1: Median time to Death: Median Overall Survival from Diagnosis (OSD): Protocol – easier to treat cases of newly diagnosed BRAIN STEM (tumor) GLIOMA patients: radiation therapy and chemotherapy with cisplatin (Mandell et al.) (6/1992–10/1997) 2004 (Pg. 58)
——————————————————————
3/2004 – 10.3 monthsBurzynski Antineoplastons – Median Overall Survival from start of Treatment (OST): 6/1/2003 Protocol – BT-11 BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (Pg. 51)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
1 YEAR SURVIVAL
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
3/2004 – 12 months (1 year)Burzynski Antineoplastons: Progression-Free Survival (PFS): 6/1/2003 Protocol – HIGH-GRADE GLIOMA (Pg. 53)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
1+ YEAR SURVIVAL
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
3/2004 – 13.7 months (1 year 1.7 months)Burzynski Antineoplastons: Median Overall Survival from Diagnosis (OSD): 6/1/2003 Protocol – BT-11 BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (Pg. 51)
——————————————————————
4/2007 – 16.4 months (1 year 4.4 months)Burzynski Antineoplastons(ANP): Median Survival (MST): Protocol – newly diagnosed diffuse, intrinsic BRAINSTEM GLIOMAs (NDBSG) BT-11 (Pg. 206)
——————————————————————
3/2004 – 17 months (1 year 5 months) – Median Survival without Treatment (Pg. 53)
——————————————————————
2006 – 19.9 months (1 year 7.9 months) – Median Survival Time (MST): next best traditional standard of care study (Pg. 172)
——————————————————————
2006 – 19.9 months (1 year 7.9 months)Burzynski Antineoplastons (ANP): Median Survival Time (MST): Treatments for Astrocytic Tumors – recurrent and progressive tumor: Treatment of diffuse, intrinsic BRAINSTEM GLIOMA in children (Pg. 172)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
2 YEAR SURVIVAL
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
3/2006 – 2 years – Most Patients with BRAINSTEM GLIOMA fail standard radiation therapy and chemotherapy and don’t survive longer: (Pgs. 40 + 45-46)
——————————————————————
[7] 3/15/1999 – 4 / 6.7% – ARM 2: 2 year Patients Surviving: Protocol – easier to treat cases of newly diagnosed BRAIN STEM (tumor) GLIOMA patients: radiation therapy and chemotherapy with cisplatin (Mandell et al.) (6/1992–10/1997) 2004 (Pg. 58)
——————————————————————
[7] 3/15/1999 – 7% – 2 year Overall Survival (OS): standard radiation therapy in combination with chemotherapy (RAT) (Mandell et al.) (6/1992–10/1997) children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM TUMORS: results of pediatric oncology group
——————————————————————
[7] 3/15/1999 – 9 / 7.1% – ARM 1: 2 year Patients Surviving: Protocol – easier to treat cases of newly diagnosed BRAIN STEM (tumor) GLIOMA patients: radiation therapy and chemotherapy with cisplatin (Mandell et al.) (6/1992–10/1997) 2004 (Pg. 58)
——————————————————————
Less than 10% – 2 year Survival: standard radiation therapy: for newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (DBSG)
——————————————————————
[3] 2/2008 – 3 / 10% – 2 years – Overall survival
——————————————————————
10/2006..3 / 16% – 2 years: Burzynski Antineoplastons: Progression-Free Survival Rate (PFS): Protocol – BT-11 BRAINSTEM GLIOMAS and multicentric tumors (MBSG) (Pg. 466)
——————————————————————
10/2006..6 / 32% – 2 year Overall Survival Rate (OS): Burzynski Antineoplastons: Protocol – BT-11 BRAINSTEM GLIOMAS and multicentric tumors (MBSG) (Pg. 466)
——————————————————————
2003 – 4 / 33.3% – 2 year Survival: Burzynski Antineoplastons Protocol patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA: BT-11 (Pgs. 91-92)
——————————————————————
3/2006 – 39% – 2 year Overall Survival: Burzynski Antineoplastons: Patients with high-grade, recurrent and progressive BRAINSTEM GLIOMAS (BSG) (Pgs. 40 + 44-45)
——————————————————————
4/2007 – 8 / 40% – 2 year Overall Survival (OS): Burzynski Antineoplastons (ANP): Protocol – newly diagnosed diffuse, intrinsic BRAINSTEM GLIOMAs (NDBSG) BT-11 (Pg. 206)
——————————————————————
2004 – 42% – 2 year Patients (Surviving) Survival: Burzynski Antineoplastons: 6/1/2003 Protocol – BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (Pgs. 52-53)
——————————————————————
10/2004..13 / 45% – 2 year Overall Survival (Survival: Special Exception (SE)) Burzynski Antineoplastons: Protocol – patients with diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (DBSG) (Pg. 386)
——————————————————————
2006 – 14 / 46.7% – 2 year Overall Survival (OS) (%) – Efficacy: Burzynski Antineoplastons (ANP): Treatments for Astrocytic Tumors – recurrent and progressive tumor: Treatment of diffuse, intrinsic BRAINSTEM GLIOMA in children (Pg. 172)
——————————————————————
2006 – 30 / 46.7% – 2 year Overall Survival (OS) (%) – Efficacy: next best traditional standard of care study (Pg. 172)
——————————————————————
7/2005 – 5 / 50% – 2 year Overall Survival: Burzynski Antineoplastons: children less than 4 years old with inoperable BRAIN STEM GLIOMAs (BSG) BT-11 (study and Special Exception (SE)) (Pg. 300)
——————————————————————
2006 – 6 / 60% – 2 year Overall Survival (OS) (%) – Efficacy: Burzynski Antineoplastons (ANP) – recurrent and progressive (RPS) tumors in children aged <4y: children less than 4 years old with inoperable BRAIN STEM GLIOMAS (Pg. 172) 2005
——————————————————————
2006 – 6 / 60% – 2-year Survival rate: Burzynski Antineoplastons (ANP) – children aged <4 years diagnosed with diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (DBSG) treated with ANP (Pg. 173) 2005
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
2+ YEARS PATIENTS SURVIVED
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
3/2006 – 2+ years – Most Patients with Newly Diagnosed High-Grade BRAIN STEM GLIOMAS (HBSG) don’t Survive more than: (Pgs. 40 + 45-46)
——————————————————————
2006 – 12 / >40% – 2+ year patients survived Burzynski Antineoplastons (ANP) recurrent and progressive diffuse intrinsic BRAINSTEM GLIOMA (DBSG) (Pg. 173)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
3 YEAR OVERALL SURVIVAL
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
[9] .9/15/1994 – 7 / 11% – 3 years Overall Survival
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
4+ YEARS FROM START OF TREATMENT
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
2003 – 4+ years – 1 alive – From start of Treatment: Burzynski Antineoplastons Protocol patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA: BT-11 (Pgs. 91-92)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
LONG TERM SURVIVORS
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
2003 – 5+ years – 1 alive – Burzynski Antineoplastons: From start of Treatment: Protocol patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA: BT-11 (Pgs. 91-92)
——————————————————————
[7] 3/15/1999 – 0% – 5 year Overall Survival (OS): standard radiation therapy in combination with chemotherapy (RAT) (Mandell et al.) (6/1992–10/1997) children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM TUMORS: results of pediatric oncology group
——————————————————————
[6] .9/15/1999 – 5 / 15% – long term survivors who remained in continuous remission after mean follow-up period of 79 months {6 years 7 months} (46–104 months [3 years 10 months – 8 years 8 months])
——————————————————————
10/2006..3 / 16% – 5 year Overall Survival Rate (OS): Burzynski Antineoplastons: Protocol – BT-11 BRAINSTEM GLIOMAS and multicentric tumors (MBSG) (Pg. 466)
——————————————————————
10/2004..5 / 16% – 5 years: Burzynski Antineoplastons: Overall Survival (Survival: Special Exception (SE)) Protocol – patients with diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (DBSG): Special Exception (SE) (Pg. 386)
——————————————————————
7/2005 – 2 / 20% – 5 year Overall Survival: Burzynski Antineoplastons: children less than 4 years old with inoperable BRAIN STEM GLIOMAs (BSG) BT-11 (study and Special Exception (SE)) (Pg. 300)
——————————————————————
2005 – 2 / 20% – 5 year Overall Survival (OS) (%) – Efficacy: Burzynski Antineoplastons (ANP) – recurrent and progressive (RPS) tumors in children aged <4y: children less than 4 years old with inoperable BRAIN STEM GLIOMAS 2006 (Pg. 172)
——————————————————————
2005 – 2 / 20% – 5-year Survival rate: 2006 Burzynski Antineoplastons (ANP) – children aged <4 years diagnosed with diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (DBSG) treated with ANP (Pg. 173)
——————————————————————
3/2006 – 22%Burzynski Antineoplastons 5 year Overall Survival: Patients with high-grade, recurrent and progressive BRAINSTEM GLIOMAS (BSG) (Pgs. 40 + 44-45)
——————————————————————
10/2004..7 / 24% – 5 years: Burzynski Antineoplastons: Overall Survival (Survival: Special Exception (SE)) Protocol – patients with diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (DBSG) (Pg. 386)
——————————————————————
4/2007 – 6 / 30% – 5 year Overall Survival (OS): Burzynski Antineoplastons ((ANP): Protocol – newly diagnosed diffuse, intrinsic BRAINSTEM GLIOMAs (NDBSG) BT-11 (Pg. 206)
——————————————————————
2005 – 9 / 30% – 5 year Overall Survival (OS) (%) – Efficacy: Burzynski Antineoplastons (ANP): Treatments for Astrocytic Tumors – recurrent and progressive tumor: Treatment of diffuse, intrinsic BRAINSTEM GLIOMA in children 2006 (Pg. 172)
——————————————————————
2005 – 9 / 30% – 5+ year patients survived Burzynski Antineoplastons (ANP) recurrent and progressive diffuse intrinsic BRAINSTEM GLIOMA (DBSG) 2006 (Pg. 173)
——————————————————————
2003 – 2 / 17% – 5+ years Alive and Tumor Free since Initial Diagnosis: Burzynski Antineoplastons: Protocol patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA: BT-11 (Pgs. 91-92)
——————————————————————
9 / 30% – 5+ year patients survived 2006 Burzynski Antineoplastons (ANP) recurrent and progressive diffuse intrinsic BRAINSTEM GLIOMA (DBSG) (Pgs. 172-173)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
SURVIVAL
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
[2] 5/1/2010 – 6.9 months – Progression-Free Survival (PFS)
——————————————————————
[5] .10/21/2002 – 8 months – Overall Median Survival
——————————————————————
[3] 2/2008 – 9 months (3–36 months [3 years]) – Median Survival (MS)
——————————————————————
[2] 5/1/2010 – 9.15 months – Median Overall Survival
——————————————————————
[1] 4/2011 – 9.6 months – Median Time to Death
——————————————————————
[4] 1/1/2005 – 12 months (1 year) – Median Survival (MS)
——————————————————————
[6] .9/15/1999 – 12 months (1 year) – Overall Survival (5–104+ months [5 months – 8 years 8+ months])
======================================
2 YEARS 2.3 MONTHS MEDIAN SURVIVAL TIME (MST)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
2006 – 26.3 months (2 years 2.3 months)Burzynski Antineoplastons (ANP) – Median Survival Time (MST): recurrent and progressive (RPS) tumors in children aged <4y: children less than 4 years old with inoperable BRAIN STEM GLIOMAS 2005 (Pg. 172)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
3 YEARS MEDIAN OVERALL SURVIVAL FROM DIAGNOSIS (OSD)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
2004 – 3 years – with treatment, may approach (Pg. 53)
——————————————————————
2004 – 3 years Burzynski Antineoplastons Median Overall Survival from Diagnosis (OSD): 6/1/2003 Protocol – HIGH-GRADE GLIOMA (Pg. 53)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
5+ YEARS SURVIVAL
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
3/2006 – 5+ yearsBurzynski Antineoplastons: Survival in recurrent diffuse intrinsic GLIOBLASTOMAS and anaplastic ASTROCYTOMAS of the BRAINSTEM in a small group of Patients: BRAINSTEM GLIOMA (BSG) Patient with GLIOBLASTOMA (Pgs. 40 + 44-45)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
6+ YEARS MAXIMUM SURVIVAL (MS)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
7/2005 – 6+ yearsBurzynski Antineoplastons: Maximum Survival (MS): children less than 4 years old with inoperable BRAIN STEM GLIOMAs (BSG) BT-11 (study and Special Exception (SE)) (Pg. 300)
——————————————————————
6+ yearsBurzynski Antineoplastons Patient with recurrent, diffuse, intrinsic GLIOBLASTOMA MULTIFORME (GBM)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
6.3 YEARS MEDIAN OVERALL SURVIVAL FROM DIAGNOSIS (OSD)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
2004 – 6.3 yearsBurzynski Antineoplastons: Median Overall Survival from Diagnosis (OSD): 6/1/2003 Protocols – LOW-GRADE GLIOMA IN CHILDREN (Pg. 50)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
7+ YEARS LONGEST / MAXIMUM SURVIVAL
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
3/2004 – 7+ yearsBurzynski Antineoplastons: Longest Survival (the Patients are currently alive): Protocol – subgroup very difficult to treat recurrent diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (Pg. 52)
——————————————————————
2006 – 7+ yearsBurzynski Antineoplastons (ANP) – Maximum Survival (MS): children aged <4 years diagnosed with diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (DBSG) treated with ANP (Pg. 173)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
7.5+ YEARS MAXIMUM SURVIVAL (MS)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
2004 – 7.5+ yearsBurzynski Antineoplastons Maximum Survival (MS): 6/1/2003 Protocol – BT-11 BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (Pg. 51)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
9+ YEARS MAXIMUM SURVIVAL (MS)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
10/2006 – 9+ yearsBurzynski Antineoplastons: Maximum Survival Rate: Protocol – BT-11 BRAINSTEM GLIOMAS and multicentric tumors (MBSG) (Pg. 466)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
11 YEARS MAXIMUM SURVIVAL (MS)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
10/2004..11 yearsBurzynski Antineoplastons: Maximum Survival: Protocol – patients with diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (DBSG): Special Exception (SE): (high-grade diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (DBSG) recurrent after radiation and chemotherapy) (Pg. 386)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
12.5+ YEARS MAXIMUM SURVIVAL (MS)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
2004 – 12.5+ yearsBurzynski Antineoplastons: Maximum Survival (MS): 6/1/2003 Protocol – HIGH-GRADE GLIOMA (Pg. 53)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
15.5+ YEARS MAXIMUM SURVIVAL (MS)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
10/2004 – 15.5+ yearsBurzynski Antineoplastons: Maximum Survival: Protocol – patients with diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (DBSG): (high-grade diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (DBSG) recurrent after radiation and chemotherapy) (Pg. 386)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
17+ YEARS MAXIMUM SURVIVAL (MS)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
3/2006 – 17+ years (approaching 18 years)Burzynski Antineoplastons: BRAINSTEM GLIOMA (BSG) Maximum Survival for Patient with recurrent, diffuse, intrinsic anaplastic ASTROCYTOMA (Pgs. 40 + 44-45)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
Burzynski: BRAINSTEM GLIOMAs (DBSG):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/31/burzynski-brainstem-gliomas-dbsg/
======================================
References:
======================================
[1] 4/2011 – children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas
======================================
Temozolomide in the treatment of children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas: a report from the Children’s Oncology Group
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21345842/
Neuro Oncol. 2011 Apr;13(4):410-6. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noq205. Epub 2011 Feb.22
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21345842/
Neuro-oncology 2011 Apr; 13(4):410-6
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3064697/
The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, USA
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3064697/pdf/noq205.pdf
the Children’s Oncology Group
http://m.neuro-oncology.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/4/410.long?view=long&pmid=21345842
open-label phase II study (ACNS0126)
7/6/2004-9/6/2005
======================================
[2] 5/1/2010 – Children With Newly Diagnosed Diffuse Intrinsic Pontine Glioma
======================================
Prospective Evaluation of Radiotherapy With Concurrent and Adjuvant Temozolomide in Children With Newly Diagnosed Diffuse Intrinsic Pontine Glioma
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19647954/
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 May 1;77(1):113-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.04.031. Epub 2009 Aug 3
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19647954/
International Journal of Radiation Oncology * Biology * Physics
Volume 77, Issue 1 , Pages 113-118, 1 May 2010
http://www.redjournal.org/article/S0360-3016(09)00597-5/abstract
published online 03 August 2009
Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India
Presented at the Eighth Congress of the European Association for Neuro-Oncology, Barcelona, Spain, September 12–14, 2008
3/2005-11/2006
======================================
[3] 2/2008 – children with diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma
======================================
Research Article
Treatment of children with diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma with radiotherapy, vincristine and oral VP-16: A Children’s Oncology Group phase II study
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17278121/
Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2008 Feb;50(2):227-30
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/17278121/
Pediatr Blood Cancer 2008;50:227–230
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pbc.21154/abstract
Pediatric Blood & Cancer
Volume 50, Issue 2, pages 227–230, February 2008
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pbc.21154/abstract;jsessionid=1C9E44F96D6558468F0D7EB45D50FE23.d04t03
Pediatric Blood & Cancer
Volume 50, Issue 2, Article first published online: 2 FEB 2007
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pbc.21154/full
The Pediatric Oncology Group (POG, now part of the Children’s Oncology Group)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pbc.21154/pdf
DOI 10.1002/pbc.21154
http://radonc.ucsd.edu/patient-info/treatment-options/cancer-types/pediatric-cancers/Documents/Pediatric-Paper-04.pdf
University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, USA
======================================
[4] 1/1/2005 – newly diagnosed diffuse brainstem glioma in children
======================================
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/pubmed/15565574
Cancer. 2005 Jan 1;103(1):133-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15565574
Cancer 103, 133-139
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.20741/abstract;jsessionid=6717837591CCC8FCBD8E46163808E221.d03t01
Cancer
Volume 103, Issue 1, pages 133–139, 1 January 2005
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.20741/full
Article first published online: 24 NOV 2004
References:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.20741/references
Cited By:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.20741/citedby
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.20741
Department of Hematology-Oncology, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA
======================================
[5] .10/21/2002 – paediatric pontine glioma
======================================
Treatment of paediatric pontine glioma with oral trophosphamide and etoposide
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12434281/
Br J Cancer. 2002 Oct 21;87(9):945-9
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12434281/
British Journal of Cancer (2002) 87, 945–949. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6600552
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2364312/
Published online 21 October 2002
http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v87/n9/full/6600552a.html
St. Hedwigs Klinik, Hämato/Onkologie, Steinmetzstr. 1–3, Regensburg, Germany
http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v87/n9/pdf/6600552a.pdf
======================================
[6] .9/15/1999 – brainstem gliomas
======================================
A Phase I/II study of carboplatin combined with hyperfractionated radiotherapy for
brainstem gliomas

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19990915)86:6%3C1064::AID-CNCR24%3E3.0.CO;2-1/full
Cancer 1999;86:1064–9
1999 American Cancer Society
Cancer
Volume 86, Issue 6, pages 1064–1069, 15 September 1999
Article first published online: 20 NOV 2000
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19990915)86:63.0.CO;2-1
======================================
[7] 3/15/1999 children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic brainstem tumors
======================================
There is no role for hyperfractionated radiotherapy in the management of
children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic brainstem tumors
: results of a Pediatric Oncology Group phase III trial comparing conventional vs. hyperfractionated radiotherapy
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10192340/
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999 Mar 15;43(5):959-64
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10192340/
International Journal of Radiation Oncology * Biology * Physics
Volume 43, Issue 5 , Pages 959-964, 15 March 1999
http://www.redjournal.org/article/S0360-3016(98)00501-X/abstract
Department of Radiation Oncology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY 10029-6574, USA
======================================
[8] 1/1998 – children with newly diagnosed diffuse pontine gliomas
======================================
Carboplatin and etoposide with hyperfractionated radiotherapy in children with newly diagnosed diffuse pontine gliomas: a phase I/II study
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9371386/
Med Pediatr Oncol. 1998 Jan;30(1):28-33
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9371386/
Medical and Pediatric Oncology
Volume 30, Issue 1, pages 28–33, January 1998
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1096-911X(199801)30:13.0.CO;2-2/abstract;jsessionid=94E4BFEF2606B89ADDD9682528353D47.d03t02
Article first published online: 7 DEC 1998
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1096-911X(199801)30:13.0.CO;2-2/pdf
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-911X(199801)30:13.0.CO;2-2
Department of Hematology-Oncology, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, University of Tennessee, Memphis, USA
Pediatric Oncology
======================================
[9] .9/15/1994 – children with brain stem gliomas
======================================
Outcome of children with brain stem gliomas after treatment with 7800 cGy of hyperfractionated radiotherapy. A Childrens Cancer Group Phase I/II Trial
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8082086/
Cancer. 1994 Sep 15;74(6):1827-34
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8082086/
Department of Neurology, Children’s National Medical Center, Washington, DC
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
The Burzynski Skeptics:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/the-burzynski-skeptics/
======================================
Perfessor Robert J. (Bob) Blaskiewicz Blatherskitewicz:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/31/the-burzynski-b-s-app/
======================================
Bob Blaskiewicz (Blatherskitewicz), Faux Skeptic Exposed!:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/bob-blaskiewicz-blatherskitewicz-faux-skeptic-exposed/
======================================
Critiquing the #SkepticCanary: “The Skeptics™” (SkeptiCowards©) Bob Blatherskitewicz and the so-called, “self-proclaimed” “CANCER RESEARCHER”:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/critiquing-the-skepticcanary-the-skeptics-skepticowards-bob-blatherskitewicz-and-the-so-called-self-proclaimed-cancer-researcher/
======================================
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/
======================================
My Critique of Bob Blaskiewicz (Colorado Public Television – PBS CPT12):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/my-critique-of-bob-blaskiewicz-colorado-public-television-pbs-cpt12/
======================================
“The Skeptics” (Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business, Part II):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/the-skeptics/
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

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

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 Skeptics™”, SkeptiCowards©
======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 5:12pm – 20 Dec 12:

@drpaulmorgan @dianthusmed Pick a medical journal Paul…

======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
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)

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

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

======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
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
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
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:

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

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

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
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?

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

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Burzynski: Japan publications:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/burzynski-japan/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Burzynski and AACR (American Association for Cancer Research):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/burzynski-and-aacr-american-association-for-cancer-research/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
——————————————————————
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…

======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
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)

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

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

——————————————————————
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?

——————————————————————
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?

——————————————————————
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

——————————————————————
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

——————————————————————
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?

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
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
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Steve Mack (@sdmack) tweeted at 6:32am – 17 Feb 13:

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

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

——————————————————————
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

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

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————
BurzynskiSaves (@BurzynskiSaves) tweeted at 1:24pm – 18 Feb 13:

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

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

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

——————————————————————
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:

——————————————————————
THE #Burzynski TWITTER WAR (#TwitterWar)
——————————————————————
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)

——————————————————————
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
——————————————————————
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
——————————————————————
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?
——————————————————————
Alan Henness (@zeno001) tweeted at 4:33pm – 20 Dec 12:
@dianthusmed @drpaulmorgan @BurzynskiMovie That might take a while…
——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:34pm – 20 Dec 12:
@zeno001 @drpaulmorgan @BurzynskiMovie Yeah. Well, I’m certainly not holding my breath
——————————————————————
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 4:37pm – 20 Dec 12:
@dianthusmed @BurzynskiMovie I think it’s just obfuscation.
——————————————————————
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
——————————————————————
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 4:40pm – 20 Dec 12:
@dianthusmed Like all those registered* Japanese trials? #Burzynski
*not registered anywhere
——————————————————————
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…
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
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)
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
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
——————————————————————
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?
——————————————————————
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?
——————————————————————
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
——————————————————————
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
——————————————————————
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?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
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
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
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
——————————————————————
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
——————————————————————
Steve Mack (@sdmack) tweeted at 7:42am – 17 Feb 13:
@SceptiGuy
——————————————————————
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
——————————————————————
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:30pm – 17 Feb 13:
@BurzynskiMovie ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=(…+”Lancet”[Journal]
——————————————————————
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.
——————————————————————
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.
——————————————————————
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)
——————————————————————
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
——————————————————————
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
——————————————————————
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:
——————————————————————
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
——————————————————————
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
——————————————————————
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.
======================================

Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part I (1)

Reviews and Awards:
__________________________________________
http://www.kpfa.org/events/burzynski-movie-fda-big-pharma-fight-doctor-who-has-cancer-cure
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
3/21/2010 – Garden State Film Festival, New Jersey
http://www.app.com/article/20100321/ENT01/100320023/Garden-State-Film-Fest-moviegoers-delight?nclick_check=1
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
3/25/2010 – The B Plot, The Coaster, Asbury Park, NJ
http://thebplot.wordpress.com/2010/03/25/is-there-a-cure-for-cancer-garden-state-film-festivals-burzynski-film-may-know-exclusive
4/1/2010 – The B Plot, The Coaster, Asbury Park, NJ
screened at the Garden State Film Festival last week
http://thebplot.wordpress.com/2010/04/01/burzynski-documentary-demonstrates-human-life-commoditized-audience-reaction
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
4/2010 – Newport Beach Film Festival, California
Humanitarian Vision Award 2010
http://newportbeachfilmfest.blogspot.com/2010/04/update-burzynski-2nd-screening-added_25.html?m=1
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
5/26/2010 – Yes! Weekly, Mark Burger
http://www.yesweekly.com/triad/article-9521-winston-salem-filmmaker-makes-waves-with-award-winning-medical-documentary.html
6/1/2010 – The Village Voice, Ella Taylor [51]
http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-06-01/film/quack-quack-goes-burzynski
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
2010 Rotten Tomatoes
42% of critics liked it
88% of users liked it
Average Rating: 4.6/10
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/mobile/m/burzynski_2010
__________________________________________
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/burzynski_2010
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
6/3/2010 – TrustMovies, James van Maanen
http://trustmovies.blogspot.com/2010/06/seek-out-bursynski-documentary-and.html?m=1
6/3/2010 – Variety, Ronnie Scheib
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117942914?refcatid=31
6/3/2010 – Film Threat, Phil Hall
http://www.filmthreat.com/reviews/22302
6/4/2010 – Kevin Thomas of the Los Angeles Times
http://184.173.15.174/~burzynsk/images/stories/Press_Media/Burzynski_latimes_BW.pdf
6/4/2010 – The New York Times, Jeannette Catsoulis
http://movies.nytimes.com/2010/06/04/movies/04burzynski.html?scp=1&sq=burzynski&st=cse&_r=0
6/16/2010 – EurPublisher
Excellent (4 stars)
http://www.eurweb.com/2010/06/eur-film-review-burzynski
6/17/2010 – Los Angeles Times, by Kevin Thomas
http://www.burzynskimovie.com/images/stories/Press_Media/Burzynski_latimes_BW.pdf
__________________________________________
http://184.173.15.174/~burzynsk/images/stories/Press_Media/Burzynski_latimes_BW.pdf
__________________________________________
http://moviereviewintelligence.com/movie-reviews/critics/kevin_thomas/1-1-2.html
__________________________________________
Science Guardian
“Burzynski”, whose limited, one week Oscar-qualifying run just ended at New York’s Cinema Village and in LA
http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/burzynski-alternative-medicine-pioneer-conquers-tumors-fda.htm
6/24/2010 – Dr. Joy Browne
Five stars. Joy meter: 5
http://www.burzynskimovie.com/images/stories/Press_Media/Joy_Brown_review.pdf
11/19/2010 – The Movie Film Show: Rated A
Mr. Movie rated 6th best film of 2010
Mr. Film rated 8th best film of 2010
http://www.moviefilmshow.com/movies-films/about/burzynski_the_movie
11/2010 – Townsden Letter, briefed by Jule Klotter
http://www.burzynskimovie.com/images/stories/Press_Media/Townsend_Shorts_Burzynski.pdf
Winter 2010-2011 – The Objective Standard:
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2010-winter/burzynski.asp
__________________________________________
ALIVE Documentary Award, New York
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:4TdKU8yqn4oJ:www.alivenewyork.org/uploads/1/0/3/3/10338129/aliveawardsfinal.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESi5cq6TtHVuyWQzVSbig8CHTiQAkAuTEiU-p2jYGOChV6hKmG3YuHSQgLAakM-Eli9RmDuDX0nQ22Nkz2lzT9bG-CIJTj5p52AMKwzmvAwqluSr6fpgziQzhXNERoIq6YkF6wtO&sig=AHIEtbSBvfjNFC9q281gTaotgApRk1WEwQ
__________________________________________
Official Selection in the Byron Beach International Film Festival (Australia)
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
2010 – Palm Beach Film Festival
http://www.pbifilmfest.org/past_festivals/2010/documentaries/burzynski
__________________________________________
http://www.thepalmbeachtimes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=230812
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
2010 – Honolulu, Hawaii
Accolade in Excelence Award 2010
__________________________________________
http://blog.bigmoviezone.com/docs/awards2010.pdf
__________________________________________
San Luis Obispo International Film Festival, California
http://www.visitslo.com/cm/Releases/Release-FilmFest.html
__________________________________________
1/5/2011 – Salem-News, Tim King (Oregon)
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/january052011/burzynski-cancer-tk.php
6/10/2011 – Salem-News, Tim King (Oregon)
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june102011/burzynski-film-tk.php
6/11/2011 – Mercola
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/06/11/burzynski-the-movie.aspx
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
6/15/2011 – Dr. Leonard Coldwell
http://drleonardcoldwell.com/2011/06/15/burzynski-cancer-is-serious-business
__________________________________________
http://drleonardcoldwell.com/tag/dr-burzynski
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
12/2011 – MedCity News
http://medcitynews.com/2011/12/does-burzynski-movie-buzz-come-at-the-worst-time-for-the-fda
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
2011 – Moondance International Film Festival
Feature Documentary Film Semi-Finalist 2011
http://moondancefilmfestival.com/02_festival.winners_film.html
__________________________________________
http://www.moondancefilmfestival.com/02_festival.winners_film.html
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Warsaw International Film Festival
__________________________________________
2011 – Winner! National Audience Award, HumanDoc Festival, Warsaw, Poland, 2011
2011 – Winner! Warsaw Audience Award, HumanDoc Festival, Warsaw, Poland, 2011
http://festival.humandoc.net/25?lang=en
__________________________________________
http://m.flickr.com/#/photos/humandoc/6644119765
__________________________________________
http://m.flickr.com/#/photos/humandoc/6644122939
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
2011 – Winner! Audience Award Best Documentary! documentary channel, 2011
2011 – Documentary Channel Best of Doc Award, 2011
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1752221/pg1
__________________________________________
http://blog.documentarychannel.com/post/15572363380/space-tourists-and-burzynski-cancer-is-serious
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
2013 – Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business Part II
Coming Early 2013 (Trailer time: .5:09)
http://www.burzynskimovie.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=74:airing-on-national-tv-now&catid=39:short-news-updates-front-page-photo
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
2012 – The Academy of Comprehensive Integrative Medicine
Lifetime Achievement Award, 2012
http://www.acimconnect.com/Resources/Awards.aspx
__________________________________________
http://www.acimconnect.com/Resources/Awards/StanislawBurzynskiAwardPage.aspx
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Burzynski Clinic
Legal issues
2010 film
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burzynski_Clinic&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop

Wikipedia, your Burzynski BIAS is showing

As I have proven previously, Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia is BIASED, when it comes to the Burzynski Clinic Wikipedia article:
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 “FACT” 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 “The 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.” — 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 sources—sources that have a reputation for being accurate.”

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

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

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

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

“the ignorant

the unthinking and

the credulous.”‘

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

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

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

JzG claims there is a “misleading factoid”

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

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

It is a “FACT” that:

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

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

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

guychapman (Guy Chapman) Critiquing “The Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics (page 9)
redd.it/1dpsj6
(Guy Chapman, @SceptiGuy, @vGuyUK, guychapman)

http://redd.it/1dpsj6
Wikipedia apologist Guy Chapman’s United Kingdom “blahg:”
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg
Wikipedia, what’s your motivation?:
redd.it/1dk974
WP
http://t.co/N7ErbunCV2
JzG are you related to Guy Chapman?

I consider him to be a coward

Wikipedia’s “Neutral” policy history clearly indicates:

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

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

(Wikipedia: Neutral Point Of View)

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

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

One JzG|Guy commented on Wikipedia:

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

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

and:
>
> “There is unlikely to be any dispassionate debate over ANPs while Burzynski
> continues with his unethical practices.” JzG|Guy User:JzG/help|Help!
> 12:43, 26 December 2012
>
> Continues with his unethical practices.? Yet TMB/SOAH had their
> case dismissed? Is WP judge, jury, & executioner?

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

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

Wikipedia’s “Neutral” policy history clearly indicates:

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

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

(Wikipedia: Neutral Point Of View)

As the old military saying goes:

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

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

JzG posits:

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

WHAT “completed” trial is JzG referring to?

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

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

11/25/1997 – FORM 10-SB
http://pdf.secdatabase.com/2573/0000950110-97-001598.pdf
ME-2 PHASE II STUDY OF ANTINEOPLASTONS A10 AND AS2-1 IN PATIENTS WITH MALIGNANT MELANOMA
8 40
7/26/96 – Revised
10/4/96 – Revised
4/14/97 – Revised

11/1/1999 – First received

5/23/2009 – Last updated

5/2009 – Last verified
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/archive/NCT00003509
Burzynski Clinical Trials (The SEC filings):
redd.it/1e2f2i
5/1/2012 Certain prospective protocols which have reached a Milestone:
http://redd.it/1e2f2i
Antineoplaston Therapy in Treating Patients With Stage IV Melanomau
Melanoma (Skin)
Drug: antineoplaston A10
Drug: antineoplaston AS2-1
Phase II / Phase 2
COMPLETED
Age 18 and over
Protocol IDs
CDR0000066552
BC-ME-2, NCT00003509

http://cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/BC-ME-2
2009_05_26 Study Changes Recruitment status, Recruitment, Misc.
1 clinical_study study_id
2
is_fda_regulated Yes
is_section_801 Yes
delayed_posting No
resp_party name_title Stanislaw R. Burzynski
name_title organization Burzynski Clinic
organization resp_party

Fm: Active, not recruiting
To: COMPLETED

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

date
Fm: 2008-01
To: 2005-02

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

http://clinicaltrials.gov/archive/NCT00003509/2009_05_26/changes
“COMPLETED:”

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

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

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

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

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

Division of Endocrinology, Mayo Clinic

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

Supportive Care in Cancer
February 2013

DOI
10.1007/s00520-013-1734-6

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

JzG continues:

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

JzG ignores:

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

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

Cancer Clinical Trials

15. What happens when a clinical trial is over?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Critiquing “The Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics (page 11)

onforb.es/11pwse9

http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics
Didymus Judas Thomas, Contributor

Musings on the intersection of Articles, Bias, and Censorship

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

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM

A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics

Allen Jones 1 day ago

“Interesting article.”

“Since there are two competing sides here I decided to do a bit of research on Burzynski and his treatment.”

“Success seems to be defined in terms of anecdotes only.”

“And after a continued search there seems to be just as many anecdotes of failures for this treatment.”

“Reading the website “the other Burzynski patient group” that outline all the heart wrenching failures of this treatment was difficult.”

“My conclusion is that this Burzynski is a quack of the lowest level.”

“Shameful!!!”

Allen Jones, I really can NOT adequately express how convincing your “alleged” “bit of research” sounds

Shameful!!!”???

claire G 1 day ago

@Guy Chapman,

(claire G, I really can NOT adequately express how convincing your use of @Guy Chapman is, considering as how “Guy Chapman” has gone by “guychapman” in all 18 of his “erudite” posts)

“It seems to me that actually the FDA are being very fair to Burzynski.”

claire G, please expand on how THIS is “the FDA” “being very fair to Burzynski.”
http://burzynskimovie.com/images/stories/transcript/Documents/BurzynskiTriesToExposeNCI.pdf
“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.”

claire G, please expand on:

“they continued to allow him to register new trials.”

Exactly WHEN did “they continued to allow him to register new trials” “[d]espite the massive problems with hsi institutional review board”?

Please advise WHERE
“his abject failure to publish results”
was a condition for him “to register new trials.”

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

“You are so right.”

claire G, “you are so right”

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

Exactly HOW are you going to answer THOSE questions?

“That cracking sound you hear is the FDA bending over backwards to accommodate Burzynski!”

claire G, please explain exactly HOW was the FDA requiring radiation in the phase 3 clinical trial, bending over backwards to accommodate Burzynski!”

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended 5/31/2010:

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

” … 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 “unethical” not to do so”

“For all the whining and complaining by Burzynski fans that he’s been so hounded and mistreated by the FDA,”

claire G, please pontificate on THIS:
http://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wiki-site.com/index.php/Main_Page
“I’ve never seen any doctor be allowed that much time and leeway to conduct clinical trials.”

claire G, please advise, what doctor has been allowed the next most “time and leeway to conduct clinical trials,” after Burzynski?

“The big question in many people’s minds is, WHY has Burzynski been given this special treatment?”

claire G, THIS “special treatment?

Antineoplastons: Has the FDA kept its promise to the American people ?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/antineoplastons-has-the-fda-kept-its-promise-to-the-american-people
claire G, any questions NOW?

claire G 1 day ago

@AstroturfWatch,

“Antineoplastons are dead.

No more in the USA.

Only the rich, powerful, and the affluent who are “in the know” can get it now (no longer in the USA).”

“Ha!”

“So what you mean then is that nothing has really changed?”

claire G, are you indicating that antineoplastons were NOT available in the USA?

“It was always only either the very wealthy or those who could scrap together the $200,00.00 from donations who could afford antineoplastons.”

claire G, are you indicating that EVERY antineoplaston patient has had to “SCRAP together the $200,00.00”?

“By not publishing his research so that it could be peer reviewed and approved by the FDA Burzynski assured that antineoplastons would not be covered by insurance.”

claire G, please provide your citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) which support your:

“By not publishing his research so that it could be peer reviewed and approved by the FDA

Burzynski: What happens when a clinical trial is over?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-what-happens-when-a-clinical-trial-is-over
National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH)

Cancer Clinical Trials

15. What happens when a clinical trial is over?

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

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

Burzynski: FAQ: Clinical Trial Results
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/burzynski-faq-clinical-trial-results/
Trial results are not always publicly available, even after a clinical trial ends

U.S. National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/services/ctresults.html
Burzynski: The FDA’s Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-the-fdas-drug-review-process-ensuring-drugs-are-safe-and-effective
“The FDA’s Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective”

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

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

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

“These studies gather more information about safety and EFFECTIVENESS, studying different populations and different dosages and using the drug in combination with other drugs”
http://www.fda.gov/drugs/resourcesforyou/consumers/ucm143534.htm
Burzynski: Declaration of Helsinki:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-declaration-of-helsinki
World Medical Association
http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3
PDF:
http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/17c.pdf
PDF:
http://www.who.int/bulletin/archives/79(4)373.pdf
National Institutes of Health-HISTORY:
http://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/helsinki.pdf
The Declaration of Helsinki doesn’t indicate WHEN results MUST be published

“If you were sitting on this effective cure for cancers that affect children especially, wouldn’t you want to do whatever it took to make it available to anyone who needed it?”

claire G, ask the FDA

“Isn’t that what an ethical, caring, humanitarian would do?”

claire G, I refer you to the above

Boris Ogon

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

Peter Lipson, Contributor
Musings on the intersection of science, medicine, and culture

3,932 views

Not so much

Waiting for the 10,000

Peter Lipson, Contributor

Musings on the intersection of science, medicine, and culture

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM

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

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

onforb.es/11pwse9

http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics
Didymus Judas Thomas, Contributor

Musings on the intersection of Articles, Bias, and Censorship

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

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM

A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics

randy hinton 5 days ago

Hey Petey!

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

Petey!, responds:

guychapman 5 days ago

(citing randy hinton 5 days ago)

“WHY DID 230 CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL’S TURN DOWN BURZYNSKI’S PHASE 3 BRAINSTEM GLIOMA TRIAL???”

“The answer is in your own post.”

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

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

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

YOU remind me of this randy hinton comment:

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

And neither do YOU

Sharon Hill 5 days ago

“I am thrilled with this piece.”

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

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

But look on the bright side

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

It’ll be something you can tell the grandkids about

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

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

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

Sharon Hill, and I see that:

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

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

ovalwooki 5 days ago

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

ovalwooki, so, like YOU ?

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

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

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

ovalwooki, WHAT is:

“his horrible record of successful ” cures“ ?

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

ovalwooki, exactly WHAT does:

“As far as I know”

MEAN ?

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

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

randy hinton 5 days ago

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

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

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

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

guychapman 3 days ago

“That was 60 years ago.”

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

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

“By peerless I mean risible, of course.”

guychapman, so, like your comments, right?

JGC2013 4 days ago

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

JGC2013, “nly” ?

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

JGC2013, THAT certainly explains THIS:

Burzynski – The Antineoplaston Randomized Japan Phase II Clinical Trial Study:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/burzynski-the-antineoplaston-randomized-japan-phase-ii-clinical-trial-study
“In which case he’s a fraud, exploiting desparate people for his own personal gain.”

JGC2013, THAT certainly explains THIS:

“Orac” and the “Oracolytes” Cult of Misinformation:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/orac-and-the-oracolytes-cult-of-misinformation/
“Or 2) antineoplastons DO work, and Burzinsky does have clinical evidence demonstrating efficacybut rather than publish the results of trials (allowing independent oncologists can first confirm and then adopt antineoplatosn therapy) he’s chosen not to publish in order to maintain a lucrative monopoly on antineoplaston herapy, offering it only to the small subset of cancer patients who afford to pay exorbitant fees to be treated at his clinic and effectively denying millions of other cancer patients access to a cure for their cancer.”

JGC2013, THAT certainly explains THIS:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/critiquing-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics-page-9/
“In which case he’s a monster.”

JGC2013, this is NOT a Rob Zombie film

My 1st-hand Review of Orac’s 2nd-Hand Review – Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business, Part II:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/my-1st-hand-review-of-oracs-2nd-hand-review-burzynski-cancer-is-serious-business-part-ii
“I personally can’t envision any third posibility. Can anyone else?”

JGC2013,

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

guychapman 4 days ago

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

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

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

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

Travel Tex
http://www.traveltex.com/
“Texas. It’s like a WHOLE OTHER COUNTRY”

Don’t Mess With Texas

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

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

AstroturfWatch 4 days ago

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

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

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

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

Bruce H. Cohen, MD Bio – The United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation
http://www.umdf.org/site/c.8qKOJ0MvF7LUG/b.8047243/k.612C/Bruce_H_Cohen_MD_Bio.htm
Dr. Cohen joined Cleveland Clinic’s department of Neurology, in Cleveland, Ohio , in 1989

guychapman 3 days ago

“You don’t get it do you?”

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

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

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

Boris Ogon

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

3,932 views

Not so much

Waiting for the 10,000

| 4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM

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

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

onforb.es/11pwse9

http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics
Didymus Judas Thomas, Contributor

Musings on the intersection of Articles, Bias, and Censorship

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

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM

A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics

guychapman 5 days ago

“Ah yes, a 1996 news story based on claims from the clinic.”

guychapman, would you like an opportunity to re-read the below and try again?

junkeeroo 1 week ago

The Washington Times, December 5, 1996:

Doctor’s lifesaving effort could land him in prison
– FDA ignores cancer drug’s success

HOUSTON – Federal prosecutors concede that a cancer doctor they will put on trial here in January for using an innovative but unapproved drug has been “saving lives.”

guychapman, that’s NOT

“…claims from the clinic”

“Bold claims, too. Since then he’s registered 61 clinical trials.”

guychapman, that’s NOT taking into consideration the 72 clinical trials listed on the Securities and Exchange (SEC) filings for

11/25/1997 – Form 10-SB

11/25/1997 – Company sponsoring 72 Phase II clinical trials conducted pursuant to INDs filed with FDA which are currently ongoing

“Where are the published results that back his claims?”

guychapman, HERE:

Burzynski Clinical Trials (The SEC filings):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/11/burzynski-clinical-trials-2
guychapman,

“The FDA is a large organisation made up of all kinds of people from clerks to political appointees.”

“No whistleblowers.”

guychapman, how do YOU know?

Surely YOU do NOT expect people to believe something just because you posted it?

Considering your stellar track-record

Where is your independent reliable citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s)?

“Great conspiracy, really well controlled.”

guychapman, I posted this on your “blahg:”
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg
and it was censored (removed)”:

Are you a coward like “Orac,” @gorskon, @oracknows, @ScienceBasedMed, Dr. David H. Gorski?
http://burzynskimovie.com/images/stories/transcript/Documents/BurzynskiTriesToExposeNCI.pdf
“Especially since it necessarily also covers MSKCC, NCI, ACS, CRUK and dozens of other organisations.”

guychapman, where are their reliable independent antineoplaston clinical studies?

“I think the number of people engaged in actively suppressing Burzynski’s miracle cure must be in the hundreds of thousands by now and includes lab technicians, scientists, doctors, regulators, politicians and charities in at least ten countries.”
http://t.co/N7ErbunCV2
guychapman, like THIS?
redd.it/1dk974
Wikipedia, what’s your motivation?
http://redd.it/1dk974
Didymus Judas Thomas’
http://www.reddit.com/tb/1dk974
Hipocritical Oath Blog
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/wikipedia-whats-your-motivation/
“Conspiracies that watertight could give you the world on a plate.”

“I mean, Watergate only involved a handful of people and it was busted almost immediately.”

guychapman, 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

guychapman 5 days ago

You don’t really understand the scientific concept of proof do you?

guychapman, you do NOT really understand the concept of proof, do you?

“That probably explains why you are swallowing Burzynski’s PR hook line and sinker.”

guychapman, NO, unlike you, I actually reviewed things and am able to provide “citations,” “references,” and / or “links”

“In order to claim that he can cure incurable tumours, he needs to publish high quality clinical trial evidence in peer-reviewed journals.”

guychapman, where is your “citation(s),” “reference(s),” and / or “link(s)”?

“He needs to publish his science in a way that others can understand and replicate.”

guychapman, do you mean, like THIS?

Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski Publications:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/stanislaw-rajmund-burzynski-publications
Burzynski updates Scientific Publications page:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/burzynski-updates-scientific-publications-page
Antineoplastons, which were first described by Burzynski:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/antineoplastons-which-were-first-described-by-burzynski
Burzynski: Poland antineoplaston publications:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-poland-antineoplaston-publications
Burzynski: South Korea antineoplaston publications:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-south-korea-antineoplaston-publications
Burzynski: Russia antineoplaston publications:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-russia-antineoplaston-publications
Burzynski: Egypt antineoplaston publications:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-egypt-antineoplaston-publication
Burzynski: Japan antineoplaston publications:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/burzynski-japan
Burzynski: China antineoplaston publications:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-china-antineoplaston-publications
Burzynski and China / Taiwan, ROC:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/burzynski-china-taiwan-roc
Burzynski and Taiwan, ROC
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/burzynski-taiwan-roc
Burzynski, China, and Dvorit D. Samid:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/burzynski-china-dvorit-d-samid
Burzynski, Ming-Cheng Liau, and Gi-Ming Lai:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/02/24/burzynski-ming-cheng-liau-gi-ming-lai
Review Article: Antineoplastons:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/review-article-antineoplastons
Burzynski – The Antineoplaston Randomized Japan Phase II Clinical Trial Study:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/burzynski-the-antineoplaston-randomized-japan-phase-ii-clinical-trial-study
“The people who need to understand and replicate his work in order to validate it, have been complaining for two decades and more that he has failed to do this.”

guychapman, WHO are “The people”?

“The appeal to conspiracy as an excuse for failure to publish any compelling results is a stable feature of quackery.”

guychapman, YOU ARE part of the “conspiracy” as long as you remain silent and play “dumb” about things like “censorship” and “bias” by Wikipedia; who you are the “apologist” for, and Forbes

“It is not a feature of science as such.”

And neither is your ignorance and inability to provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s)

guychapman 5 days ago

“That was 1996. Since then he’s registered 60 phase II and eon phase III clinical trials.”

guychapman, “eon”?

“Of these he has completed only one, and has failed to publish any meaningful data from any”

guychapman, where is your in-depth review of these publications?

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

Drugs R D. 2003;4(2):91-101
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12718563
Drugs R D. 2004;5(6):315-26
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15563234
Integrative Cancer Therapies

Integr Cancer Ther. 2005 Jun;4(2):168-77
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15911929
Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Mar;5(1):40-7
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16484713
2007
http://www.cancer-therapy.org/CT/v5/B/HTML/42._Burzynski,_379-390.html

http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1252.pdf
Critiquing “The Skeptic” Burzynski
redd.it/1dld1j
Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer
http://redd.it11dld1j
Doctor, And Their Critics (page 8)
http://www.reddit.com/tb/1dld1j

https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/03/critiquing-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics-page-8/
“(which is in contravention of the Helsinki Protocol governing human trials).”

guychapman, exactly WHERE does the Declaration of Helsinki indicate THAT?

Burzynski: Declaration of Helsinki
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-declaration-of-helsinki
“There’s only so much cherry picking you can do.”

guychapman, YOU are the “cherry-picking” King

“The scientific consensus is based on the totality of evidence, or rather in this case the totality of lack of credible evidence.”

guychapman, YOU have NOT provided “credible evidence” of anything, other than your own ignorance:

The dishonesty of Guy Chapman, “The Skeptics” shill
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/12/the-dishonesty-of-guy-chapman-the-skeptics-shill
guychapman 5 days ago

“PDJT aka “Astroturfwatch” – the irony of a contributor to an astroturfing campaign of the magnitude of Burzynski’s calling skeptics for non-existent astroturfing is amusing.”

guychapman, are you related to, or know this “lilady”?

Orac, a lilady, the
redd.it/1dgqa1
Oracolytes: “The Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A
http://redd.it/1dgqa1
Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And
http://www.reddit.com/tb/1dgqa1
Their Critics:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/01/orac-a-lilady-the-oracolytes-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/
because you sound similar to lilady with your ASSumptions
“You say:”

“Find just one, any single cure for this tumor type and you can’t, outside of Antineoplastons”

guychapman, NO, “you” did NOT say that, since I am NOT “you”

(Forbes)

Didymus Thomas 5 days ago

As former President Ronald Reagan used to say: “Well, there you go again.”

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

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

2. I am NOT AstroTurfWatch.

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

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

“What you mean is:”

“Find just one, any single cure for this tumor type and you can’t, including Antineoplastons”.

guychapman, when are you going to show whether you are just a coward or not, and PROVE IT?

“Because the point about which you are in denial is that there is no credible evidence that antineoplastons cure anything.”

guychapman, WHAT does this indicate?

The FDA’s Drug Review Process:

Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective

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

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

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

“These studies gather more information about safety and EFFECTIVENESS, studying different populations and different dosages and using the drug in combination with other drugs”
http://www.fda.gov/drugs/resourcesforyou/consumers/ucm143534.htm
“The endlessly repeated list of low quality publication does not come anywhere close to filling in the gap which ought to be filled by the sixty-one human trials he never published – and all the available evidence indicates he never had any intention of doing so.”

guychapman, WHAT does this indicate?

The “FACT” one should know is that clinicaltrials . gov does NOT contain the same data as the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) cancer . gov web-site:

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

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

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

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

“I don’t think he cares any more about the Helsinki Declaration than he does about any other area of medical ethics.”

guychapman, have you even read the Declaration of Helsinki?

Because if you had, you should be able to indicate which section supports your comment

WHAT was that you were saying about “ethics”?

guychapman 5 days ago

“There’s an interesting parallel with Burzynski here.”

guychapman, there’s an interesting parallel with guychapman, Guy Chapman, @SceptiGuy, @vGuyUK, and the Wikipedia Guys: JzG|Guy and Guy (Help!)
http://t.co/N7ErbunCV2
Wikipedia, what’s your motivation?
redd.it/1dk974
Didymus Judas Thomas’
http://redd.it/1dk974
Hipocritical Oath Blog
http://www.reddit.com/tb/1dk974

https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/wikipedia-whats-your-motivation/
“Hoxsey, too, used patient anecdotes and conspiracy theories to sustain his business in the absence of credible evidence for a cure;”

guychapman, thank you for bringing up the issue of:

“absence of credible evidence”

THAT describes you to a “T”

If the shoe fits, wear it

“How do you recommend we should tell the difference between Burzynski and his shill Merola, and the palpable fraud and quack Hoxsey?”

guychapman,

“How do you recommend we should tell the difference between guychapman and his shill Guy Chapman, and the palpable fraud and quack @SceptiGuy / @vGuyUK?”

Guy (Help!)

User:JzG/help|Help!

Trust me, Guy, nothing can help YOU

Boris Ogon 6 days ago

“One interesting element is that Merola himself hasn’t shown up to defend his vexatious DMCA claim, which he has effectively admitted to be meritless by offering to drop it if c0nc0rdance can somehow get the after-the-fact third-party mirrors to not include his E-mail address.”

Boris Ogon, did you entirely ignore the Forbes article?

"A well-known “vlogger” who goes by the handle “C0nc0rdance” reports receiving a DMCA take-down notice from Eric Merola after posting a video critical of Burzynski."

"According to C0nc0rdance:
He objected to my “Fair Use” of a small low-res image of his movie poster.”

“Instead, he drops a post on his Facebook page complaining about this article and mischaracterizing the situation, and 10 minutes later, his adherents appear and start babbling incoherently.”

Boris Ogon, are you referring to THIS?

My review of C0nc0rdance:
redd.it/1dm31j

http://redd.it/1dm31j

http://www.reddit.com/tb/1dm31j

https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/23/my-review-of-c0nc0rdance
Mr. Ogon, I guess you were too lazy to type it, sort of like your “research”?

Burzynski, The Movie shared a link.
about an hour ago

“Wow, and people say the “Skeptics” (aka Astroturf campaign) aren’t powerful and with the system behind them.”

“This is what happens when I take down a YouTube video making false claims against my film and Burzynski as well as illegally using copyrighted images of me without permission within (not to mention publishing my personal emails in which I received countless profanity filled threats also in their YouTube post, and they claim “we” threaten – this is the system fighting back, hard):

“Again, Eric: Section 512(f) isn’t entirely toothless.”

Mr. Ogon, though your “research,” IS

"Send some more bogus takedowns and see what happens."

Mr. Ogon, do you mean THIS?

Dr. Peter A. Lipson (and / or his Censor(s)) is a Coward: Critiquing

“A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics:”
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
Dr. Lipson does not opine about the manufactured “hysteria” activities by the Burzynski “Critics,” that occurred on Twitter, YouTube, and other social media sites, which entailed this “fact-challenged” video being “mirrored” (duplicated), a ridiculous amount of times

Boris Ogon 5 days ago

For anyone unfamiliar with the tiresome tactic of “Didymus [Judas] Thomas” of trying to drive signal-to-noise ratio into the ground while being completely unable to respond coherently, this is not a bad place to start:
http://goo.gl/f59kT
He was eventually blocked under the “Competence is Required” policy and started shooting off typically garbled E-mails to Jimmy Wales demanding personal attention.

Mr. Ogon, do you have a relationship with Wikipedia?

Mr. Ogon, did you research THIS on Wikipedia?

[“Remedies may be appealed to, and amended by, Jimbo Wales, …”

([[WP:AP]] Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy 2.9 Appeal of decisions)]

Mr. Ogon, are you referring to THIS?
http://t.co/N7ErbunCV2
Wikipedia, what’s your motivation?
redd.it/1dk974
Didymus Judas Thomas’
http://redd.it/1dk974

http://www.reddit.com/tb/1dk974
Hipocritical Oath Blog
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/wikipedia-whats-your-motivation/
Mr. Ogon, why don’t you bring your coward self over to my blog where I do NOT censor comments, and let’s find out how you do under Sunshine and Blue Sky?

Boris Ogon

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

3,907 views

Not so much

Waiting for the 10,000

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM

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