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?

Advertisements

Critiquing: Is Eric Merola issuing bogus DMCA takedown notices against critics of Stanislaw Burzynski?

4/19/2013, “The “Skeptics” high priest, “Orac,” delivered a sermon on “demount,” to the “Oracolytes”

Respectful Insolence

Posted by Orac on April 19, 2013
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/04/19/eric-merola-issuing-bogus-dmca-takedown-notices-against-critics-of-stanislaw-burzynski/
If there is one aspect of cowards like “Orac” and “The Skeptic” Critic “Oracolytes” that is noteworthy, it’s “cowardice”

True, such a tendency is a human trait, but it’s one that seems to be cranked up to 11 in “Orac” and “The Skeptic” Critic “Oracolytes”

We’ve seen it time and time again

Most often, it takes the form of some sort of Twitter and / or blahg or blog bullying, such as when “The Skeptics” bit off more than they could chew by censoring (deleting and /or blocking) comments on:
onforb.es/11pwse9
Forbes (#Forbes)
http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW
“Speech is best countered by more speech”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics
Peter Lipson article:

“A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics”

Fortunately, they were ignominiously Faux Skeptic Revealed!, and had to retreat like the scum that they are

(in my not-so-humble opinion)

Over and over and over and over again, the story is the same

A “Skeptic” Critic aims the light of reason into a crevice of unreason and pseudo-nonsense, the target of that light doesn’t like it and, instead of slithering back under the rock from which he came, decides to try to abuse the social media system to get back at “The Skeptics” Critics

In “The Skeptics” universe, thuggery is a feature, not a bug, of wankery and tu-quoc quoankery

1/28/2013, “Orac” linked to and embedded a mischaracterized “excellent” YouTube video by C0nc0rdance

3/11/2013 “Orac” commented:

“(although we do have C0nc0rdance)”
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/three-myths-about-stanislaw-burzynski-and-the-skeptics
“Orac” requested that I comment on the video:

#6 – Didymus Judas Thomas – At the Tu-Quack Center IMAX 3-D Video Viewing Velodrome – January 28, 2013

“C0nc0rdance” commented:

#49 – c0nc0rdance – January 29, 2013
@Orac
“Many, many thanks for sharing my video.)…”

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/28/an-excellent-explanation-of-how-dubious-stanislaw-burzynskis-activities-are/
My review of C0nc0rdance
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/23/my-review-of-c0nc0rdance
“Orac” continues:

“Go to my link right now and try to play the video.”

“What do you see?”

“This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Merola Productions, LLC.”

“Yes, apparently Eric Merola has issued a DMCA takedown notice against C0nc0rdance, and Google, as it so often cravenly does, simply complied.”

“At least, that’s what C0nc0rdance has stated, and I have no reason not to believe him.”

Forbes

“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.”

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):

“Orac” proceeds:

“In fact, C0nc0rdance posted a brief video explaining what was going on, but if you go to that link you will rapidly find this notice:”

“This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube’s policy against spam, scams, and commercially deceptive content.”

“Gee, I wonder who complained to YouTube about that video so rapidly, given that it hadn’t been up more than a day or so before it was taken down?”

“Could it be…Eric Merola?”

“That would be my first guess, of course.”

If there’s one thing “Orac” is practiced at, it’s “ASSuming;” just like his “Oracolytes:”. lilady, Guy Chapman, frozenwarning, Dr. Paul Morgan, and his “pal,” Dr. Peter A. (“bud”) Lipson

“Orac” states:

“Already, C0nc0rdance’s video about the Burzynski Clinic has been mirrored here, here, and here.”

“Orac” forgets THESE:
http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=CLmz2oiMyZo&feature=em-comment_reply_received

dougal445 (@dougal445) tweeted at 1:16am – 19 Apr 13:

I’m Disgusted by #Burzynski . What cunt.would #FalseDMCA
@c0nc0rdance https://t.co/pBWb9RNgaF ?

anarchic_teapot

_1.�Doesn’t exist
http://t.co/jtnN
_2.�doesn’t exist
http://t.co/mLgHMSGGL
_3.�MrGreycoat
http://t.co/roroHefVNE
_4.�MrGreycoat
http://t.co/GSX5xOge6j
_5.�ozmoroid
https://t.co/6XPitEyTim
_6.�ozmoroid

_7.�Andy Goodall
http://t.co/bjjTcYfGEA
_8.�Error loading video
http://t.co/NIaXgWdxlx
_9.�Baud2Bits
http://t.co/8b2nFvetbc
10.�Baud2Bits
http://t.co/j4geupr3nH
11.�Baud2Bits
http://t.co/rekWcb5NvL
12.�Baud2Bits
http://t.co/hTT89FUmvt
13.�Baud2Bits
http://t.co/EezKROfR8y
14.�Error loading video
http://t.co/GGMWILcXme
15.�C0nc0rdance
http://t.co/fWdj0Bbdcq
16.�C0nc0rdance
http://t.co/agVHvPzajx
17.�C0nc0rdance
http://t.co/PFsYB1mCjc
18.�C0nc0rdance
http://t.co/61iCQhrBTk
19.�C0nc0rdance
http://t.co/GGbCjGJKfz
20.�C0nc0rdance
http://t.co/CombhoX7av
21.�C0nc0rdance
http://t.co/fXFxkxGwUR
22.�C0nc0rdance
http://t.co/RbFluWw2JD
23.�C0nc0rdance
http://t.co/g63k2qGybT
24.�Error loading video
http://t.co/p5fR0S7STF
25.�C0nc0rdance
http://t.co/Qns5Fn8RQc
26.�C0nc0rdance
http://t.co/QZ3Eqx5FTo
27.�C0ncordance
http://t.co/sbAKMY5mu6
28.�Error loading video
youtube.com/watch?v=deR4AL…
29.�dprjones
https://t.co/pBWb9RNgaF
30.�QualiaSoup
https://t.co/iBubSS6uIw
31.�QualiaSoup
https://t.co/OPMXmbVpNK
32.�10sodot
http://t.co/Z5uxPeYPuD
33.�Jim Jesus
http://t.co/LBnYWVckjo
34.�Martolives
http://t.co/M1jduVHLnq
35.�tech dirt
http://t.co/IB7ixha9vv
36.�skepticallypwnd
http://t.co/S9HYdeIyWq
37.�Andrew Skegg
http://t.co/1noQFrZ6lj
38.�Andrew Skegg
http://t.co/YlcfCa02PU
39.�Eron2828
http://t.co/mvDtFiou6C
40.�danbuzzard . net
http://t.co/rRd1qaLidQ
41.�danbuzzard . net
http://t.co/Nrfd3bPxCm
42.�littlegreenfootballs
http://t.co/YlH52VxxHY
43.�MP3
http://t.co/H8LyVOAEe5
44.�scienceblogs
http://t.co/9i2nloJqqS
45.�scienceblogs
http://t.co/L8qrgRBxtF
46.�scienceblogs
http://t.co/Pj4cPig3xy
47.�scienceblogs
http://t.co/YjV1CJaWt2
48.�scienceblogs
http://t.co/VhdK8AseXd
49.�scienceblogs
http://t.co/3GVlm97Ucz
50.�scienceblogs
http://t.co/ScI9q9AQIsa
51.�scienceblogs
http://t.co/j5ZFKmadGS
52.�scienceblogs
http://t.co/TvXQKnC2wp
53.�scienceblogs
http://t.co/tTKkEd7B5O
54.�scienceblogs
http://t.co/8mJQ3n0tMF
55.�skeptical humanities
http://t.co/WDfUPtBpmz
56.�skeptical humanities
http://t.co/aMJ1HaUTfh
57.�skeptical humanities
http://t.co/EGhiG5WgQA
58.�skeptical humanities
http://t.co/Fwkd7x2E0C
59.�Comments
http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=0q6GbLm06yQ
60.�https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&hl=en&ei=6fmIUcTQC5TI9gS2j4H4Cw&q=c0nc0rdance+youtube+burzynski&oq=c0nc0rdance+youtube+burzynski&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.3…46763.55955.0.56950.10.10.0.0.0.0.895.4832.2j1j4-1j5j1.10.0…0.0…1c.1.12.mobile-gws-serp.s3LsCjdggyg
“Orac” posits:

“I’ll embed one of these mirrored versions of the video for your viewing pleasure.”

“Orac,” ONLY one ?

“It’s really worth taking a look at because it explains the essence of skeptical objections to Burzynski concisely and clearly, so that everyone can understand:”

A “FACT-CHALLENGED” video

“Orac” postulates

“No doubt Mr. Merola will take the mirroring of C0nc0rdance’s video as “evidence” of some sort of grand conspiracy by “The Skeptics,” given that he has repeated claims about such grand conspiracies at both of his Q&As after screenings of his new movie.”

“Orac” knows all about “conspiracy,” so much so that his cowardice has been revealed for all to see, HERE:

“Orac” and the “Oracolytes” Cult of Misinformation:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/orac-and-the-oracolytes-cult-of-misinformation/
And after “Orac” has digested THAT, there’s always 2nd’s

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

Forbes Learns a Lesson, but Not the Right One: Censorship and Bias re: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/05/forbes-learns-a-lesson-but-not-the-right-one-censorship-and-bias-re-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/
And 3rd’s

Wikipedia, what’s your motivation?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/wikipedia-whats-your-motivation/
“Orac” continues, blissfully unaware in his “alternate universe”

“Mr. Merola, assuming he really was the one issuing this DMCA takedown notice, should Google the “Streisand effect.””

“Orac” is so self-engorged that he does NOT even comprehend, that after the preceding, he and “The Skeptic” “Oracolytes” initiated a reverse Barbara Streisand Effect

“It really is applicable here.”

“Orac” blathers on:

“There’s no grand conspiracy.”

“Orac” IS a denialist

“There never has been, as getting skeptics—excuse me, “The Skeptics”—to paddle in the same direction on anything is much like the proverbial herding of cats.”

“Orac” is oblivious to the “fact” that it’s notably referred to as “lemmings in Sheeple’s clothing”

“Orac” rants on

“Mirroring like this and more people writing about the criticisms that Merola has tried to suppress is just what happens on the Internet, in particular on social media, whenever a person being criticized tries to use legal thuggery to silence or eliminate that criticism.”

“The examples are legion and include the ones I briefly mentioned at the beginning of this post.”

“There are more, of course.”

“Many more.”

“Orac” just described what Forbes, Wikipedia, and “The Skeptic” “Oracolytes” are experiencing

“In an case, although I’m not a lawyer there was nothing in C0nc0rdance’s video that I could see that was anything more than obvious fair use.”

“Orac” would most likely NOT ever be even close to being a lawyer, since lawyers are bound by ethical rules, and “ethics” is NOT one of “Orac’s” strong suits

“Early in the video there was a scene showing a shot that included a low resolution shot of the poster for Eric Merola’s Burzynski propaganda movie.”

“Later, there was another shot with that poster, and some random images associated with Merola’s filmmaking business as well as a photo of what looked like him.”

“Quite honestly, if I were C0nc0rdance, I’d just re-edit the video to remove the Burzynski Movie poster and any images of Merola, replacing them with either cartoons or a blank screen with a notice that the images had to be removed because Merola had issued a highly dubious DMCA takedown notice.”

“Let me also say this.”

“I know that Eric Merola obsessively reads pretty much everything I write about Burzynski; so I know he’ll see this.”

And here is where “Orac” truly showcases his ASSumption abilities:

“I also know that … Didymus Judas Thomas”

“(whose identity I’m probably about 75% sure of and whose Twitter handles mutate as fast as the genome of cancer cells)”

(“Orac,” considering your past track record of NOT being anywhere near 75% correct about alot of things re this subject-matter, I can NOT wait to learn what your “75% sure” ASSumption is)

“Orac” proceeds down the wide and straight aisle of ASSumption:

“also obsessively read anything posted about Eric Merola or Stanislaw Burzynski on any social media.”

If “Orac” was anywhere close to being 75% sure, I would have already reviewed “Doubtful News,” which received “free pub” on Forbes

“Finally, I believe that people like Eric Merola are hypocrites, feeling free to paint “The Skeptics” as “white supremacists” and puppy-eating evildoers to their heart’s content”

“Orac” truly should take time to check his “Mirror”

Maybe he should “Mirror” his “Mirror”

“(from what I’ve heard about Merola’s second Burzynski movie, in it skeptics are all but portrayed as Satan Incarnate)”

“Orac,” Satan was exceedingly beautiful, so there is NO way “The Skeptics” can be “Satan Incarnate”

“Orac,” I understand that a lot of “The Skeptics” claim their official religion as Atheism, so I can understand why “The Skeptics” would NOT be up on “Satan for The Skeptic Dummies”

“Orac’s” diatribe continues:

“but running like whipped puppies to the DMCA when either they or Burzynski are criticized, no matter how civil, reasonable, or science-based that criticism is”

“(and C0nc0rdance’s video was all of the above).”

“Orac” referring to the YouTube video by C0nc0rdance as “reasonable, or science-based” shows “Orac” for what he is

“Orac” the “ASSumptor”

The reason is, of course, clear.

Same as it ever was.

“Orac’s” tirade marches on

“One more thing:”

“Orac,” we know that where you are considered, it’s never just:

“One more thing:”

“If Eric Merola, Stanislaw Burzynski, and his crew of sycophants, toadies, and lackeys are offended by my opinion, my characterization of them that I have based on analyses of Burzynski’s claims and observation of the behavior of Burzynski and his propagandist Eric Merola, they should try something different to shut me up.”

“Orac,” I already know how to shut you up

All anyone has to do is mention my Post #73 on your blog, and that shuts you right up, because you have NO reponse for THAT

“Orac” reminds me of his “Oracolyte,” Guy Chapman (guychapman on Forbes, @SceptiGuy, @vGuyUK), who thought that because his BIASED 18 “Fact-Challenged” verbose comments were posted on Forbes, that that translates into his non-citation(s), non-reference(s), and / or non-link(s), being “credible”

I have just the thing, too.

It’s called “FACTS”

“Orac” rattles off

“Publishing the results of some of Burzynski’s allegedly completed phase II trials for the scientific community comes to mind first.”

“If Burzynski really has the goods, as Merola and company claim, then he can best shut up critics by bringing the science—solid, convincing science, that is.”

“I’ve said it before many times, and I’ll say it again:”

“I can be convinced by strong preclinical and clinical evidence.”

“I have yet to see anything resembling strong evidence from Burzynski.”

“Orac” is a coward, and has yet to publish a thorough review of Burzynski’s 2003-2007 phase II clinical trial preliminary reports

“Orac” rattles on

“At least, if he has such evidence he hasn’t published it yet, preferring to publish a mixture of case reports, tiny case series, unimpressive basic science, and the like in bottom-feeding journals, some of which aren’t even indexed in PubMed.”

“Orac” is unable to provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) that give any cloak of credibility to his above blogsplat comment

“Orac, thankfully, is running out of steam:

“A conspiracy among editors of journals is not the reason, contrary to the claims in the second Burzynski movie.”

“Nor is a conspiracy of skeptics—excuse me, “The Skeptics”—the reason why trying to suppress criticism will boomerang on Merola.”

“It’s all because of Burzynski’s own behavior and Merola’s willingness to distort, misinform, and slime Burzynski critics.”

“Orac,” like the “spiritual” leader of “The Skeptics,” ends his sermon with:

“Spread the word”

But this blogpost would NOT be complete without including the ravings of one

Marc Stephens Is Insane in the Membrane:

#55 – Marc Stephens Is Insane – April 24, 2013

“I realized I posted these comments in the wrong Count Stan thread.”

“I haven’t paid any attention to the lunatic rantings of DJT for weeks, but Guy Chapman just updated the list of his sockpuppet Twitter spam accounts”

“(he’s on his 10th account)”

(try again, MSII)

“so I checked out his latest incarnation.”

“He’s now been reduced to writing poems and limericks about the Forbes article and his “free speech” being censored by Dr. Peter Lipson.”

“This is truly hilarious.”

“The man has deep, deep psychological problems:”
https://twitter.com/QbertQbert
“From what I can glean from his incoherent babble, he posted a comment on the Forbes article that purported to have uncovered some conspiracy that Dr. Lipson and Orac are friends”

“(or “buds”)”

“and that prompted Dr. Lipson to delete the comment.”

“As far as I know, the authors of Forbes articles doen’t even have the power to delete comments, so maybe Forbes smelled the crazy and deleted the comment themselves.”

“It’s not quite along the same lines as Alex Jones’s conspiracy rantings about the Boston bombings, false flag attacks and “The Craft” but loony tunes nonetheless.”

“Since DJT has already proven to be a 9/11 truther, he probably also believes that Navy Seals planted the Boston bombs with the cooperation of the FBI and the two brothers were just “patsies” who were set up and/or framed.”

M.S.I.I. is a Master Specialist In Inaccuracies

#56 – Orac – April 24, 2013

“Well, actually Peter and I are buds.”

“There’s no secret about that..”

(“Orac” fails to mention that his “bud,” Dr. Peter A. Lipson (@palMD) did NOT disclose his relationship with Dr. David H. Gorski (“Orac,” @oracknows, @gorskon, @ScienceBasedMed, #sciencebasedmedicine,
http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence, http://www.sciencebasedmedicine. org)

Yet, some of “The Skeptics” rant that Eric Merola did NOT disclose a relatives’ relationship with Burzynski

Boris Ogon

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

3,934 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”

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

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

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

What did Forbes do to rectify this embarrassing blunder?

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

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

Thursday, 5/2/2013-ATTEMPT 1:

Didymus Thomas 30 minutes ago

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

Reply

Didymus Thomas 20 minutes ago

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

Didymus Thomas 4 hours ago

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

Reply

Didymus Thomas 15 minutes ago

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

Reply

Didymus Thomas 9 minutes ago

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

Reply

Didymus Thomas 1 minute ago

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

Friday, 5/3/2013-ATTEMPT 2

(Note how I shortened the comment):

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

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

Share your comment:

Saturday, 5/4/2013-ATTEMPT 3

Note how I further shortened the comment):

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

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

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

Forbes posted the 1 below comment out of the above:

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

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

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

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

– = 70
+ = 44

+ = 25 more

(pg. 1)

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

(pg. 2)

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

(pg. 3)

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

(pg. 4)

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

(pg. 5)

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

(pg. 6)

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

(pg. 7)

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

(pg. 8)

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

(pg. 9)

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

(pg. 10)

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

(pg. 11)

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

(pg. 12)

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

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

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

_1-Sarah (neutral)

“The Skeptic” Critics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan)

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

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

Dr. David H. Gorski (“Orac”)

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

Boris Ogon (@borisogon)

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

3,921 views

Not so much

Waiting for the 10,000

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM

A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics

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

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

onforb.es/11pwse9

http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW

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

Musings on the intersection of Articles, Bias, and Censorship

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

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM

A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics

guychapman 5 days ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FDA’s Drug Review Process:

Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective

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

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

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

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

guychapman, do you mean THIS ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

guychapman, are you referring to THIS ?

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

Cancer Clinical Trials,

15. What happens when a clinical trial is over?”

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

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

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

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

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

“I have some questions for the Burzynski fans.”

guychapman, I have some questions for you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“My rough guess is a few hundred thousand.”

“Can you give a better estimate with reasons?”

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

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

guychapman, THIS:

“High Dose ANPA chemotherapy IV drip”

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

“(nausea, hypernatraemia, stroke etc)”

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

guychapman, THIS:

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

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

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

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

Division of Endocrinology, Mayo Clinic

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

Supportive Care in Cancer
February 2013

DOI
10.1007/s00520-013-1734-6
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00520-013-1734-6
HYPERNATREMIA in the U.S.:

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

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

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

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

Let’s put this in perspective

FACT: Some sources indicate:

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

{12 quarts = 384 ounces = 11.356 liters}

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

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

{30 ounces in 24 hours = 720 ounces}

[720 ounces = 22.5 quarts per day]

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

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

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

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

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

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

guychapman, HERE:

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

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

recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma

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

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

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

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

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

incurable recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma

6 patients were diagnosed with pilocytic astrocytoma

4 with low-grade astrocytoma
1 with astrocytoma grade 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

13 children with recurrent disease or high risk

6 (46%) survived more than 5 years

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

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

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

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

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

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

22% – overall survival at 5 years

17+ years maximum survival for a patient with anaplastic astrocytoma

5+ years for a patient with glioblastoma

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

18 – evaluable

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

2007 – Recent clinical trials in diffuse intrinsic brainstem glioma

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

(Forbes)

Boris Ogon 1 week ago

(citing AstroturfWatch)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2006 Adis – Pediatr Drugs 2006; 8 (3)

pg 172

Treatments for Astrocytic Tumors

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

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

pg 177

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

This is the 2004 publication, NOT 2003

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

pg 172

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

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

pg 177

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

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

pg 173

1.4.3 Targeted Therapy

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

pg 176

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

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

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

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

30 evaluable patients with recurrent and progressive DBSG

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

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

pg 175

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

pg 173

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

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

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

“The results are compiled in table II.”

pg 174

2.3. Targeted Therapy

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

1652 adults
335 children
[147]

pg 178

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

pg 174

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

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

pg 169

1.1.4. Targeted Therapy

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

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

LGA = Low-Grade Astrocytomas

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

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

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

pg 176

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

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

guychapman, YOU just did

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

Where are they published?

guychapman, if you have NOT yet figured THAT out…

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

“How do you account for this repeated error?”

guychapman, WHERE is the documentation?

Boris Ogon

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

3,919 views

Not so much

Waiting for the 10,000

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM

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

Critiquing “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”

Wikipedia, what’s your motivation?

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM

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

http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW

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

by:

“Speech is best countered by more speech”

Peter Lipson:

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

lilady 4 days ago

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

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

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

“Or are you one of DJT’s sockies?”

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

I replied to lilady’s comment and ASSumption re:

“You and Randy Hinton are sounding suspiciously alike”

Didymus Thomas 4 days ago

As former President Ronald Reagan used to say:

“Well, there you go again.”

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

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

2. I am NOT AstroTurfWatch.

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

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

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

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

lilady 4 days ago

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

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

I replied to lilady’s “day old fish:”

Didymus Thomas 3 days ago

1. Do you have a point ?

2. Do you have a relationship with Wikipedia?

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

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

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

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

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

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

lilady rejoined:

lilady 3 days ago

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

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

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

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

“…ignorant in basic science and cancer treatment”

I felt that the honor should be bestowed upon a lilady

Didymus Thomas 3 days ago

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

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

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

3. WP claims to have a neutral policy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boris Ogon

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

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

3,875 views

Not so much

I wanted to assist Mr. Ogon in reaching his goal

Waiting for the 10,000

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Wikipedia: Neutral Point Of View)

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

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

arbcom-appeals.en.lists.wikimedia.org

and should be changed to:

arbcom-appeals-en@lists.wikimedia.org

here is the response I received:

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

On 3 February 2013 06:56, Didymxs Thomas

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

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

“Yours,”

“Anthony (AGK)”
“BASC”

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you “Guy”

Your 15 seconds of “Fame” starts

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

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

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

(Surely, JZG|Guy is NOT the same individual as Guy?)
>
> “There is unlikely to be any dispassionate debate over ANPs while Burzynski
> continues with his unethical practices.” JzG|Guy User:JzG/help|Help!
> 12:43, 26 December 2012
>
> Continues with his unethical practices.? Yet TMB/SOAH had their
> case dismissed? Is WP judge, jury, & executioner?

>
> “What they mean is that nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it,
> which necessarily means that it’s not considered in the least
> promising.” Guy (Help!) 3:54 pm, 24 December 2012, Monday
>
> Nobody else is doing meaningful work on it? Ignores independent research
> done in Poland, Russia, Korea, Egypt, Japan, & China which
> specifically reference SRB’s publications in their publications
> re antineoplastons & phenylacetylglutamine (PG); which is AS2-5, &
> includes phase III trials published in China & continued research being
> published in China 12/17/2012?

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

>
(Surely, Guy Chapman, @SceptiGuy, @vGuyUK, JZG|Guy, guychapman, and Guy are NOT all the same individual?)

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

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

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

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

What do you NOT understand about THIS?

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

(Wikipedia: Neutral Point Of View)
>
Boris Ogon

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

…and there had only been

3,799 views

Not so much

Waiting for the 10,000

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM

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

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