Critiquing: Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski, M.D., Ph.D, LIAR: Stanislaw Burzynski versus the BBC

Believe in Facts ???

Get out the popcorn !!!
Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski is a liar

Let me put that in bold for emphasis

Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski is a liar

Open wide and say ahhhhhhh …

Much better !!!

Some things just look much better when they come in 3’s

And that must be what “Orac” is god thinks, since he seems to live by the the edict of the 3 wise monkeys:
See No Evil

Hear No Evil

Speak No Evil
Of course, to Gorski, Evil is any truth which he disagrees with, which he acts like does NOT exist, and obviously can NOT find on the Internet with his Commodore 64, or whatever piece of garbage he’s using, which he must have set to block any websites he wishes to NOT see
Gorski, the Hypocrite, calls me a “CRANK”, which is especially hilarious, considering how much better my research is than his, without the bias





David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 3:24am – 14 Jul 13:

@Funkmon @HoracioHornblow Ha ha. It’s the rather pathetic crank Didymus Judas Thomas. That guy couldn’t buy a clue. #Burzynski
If I wanted to lower myself to Gorski’s level, I could delete comments from my blog
6/4/2013, Gorski must have evacuated this from deep within his bowels:
ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ
Stanislaw Burzynski versus the BBC
ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ
I was busy at the time reviewing the British Broadcasting Corporation’s Panorama bit on Burzynski:

The British are Coming, The British are Coming: Critiquing “Curing cancer or ‘selling hope’ to the vulnerable?”:

IT MAY NOT BE SCIENCE: Critiquing “Curing cancer or ‘selling hope’ to the vulnerable?”:
But now that I have some time, lets all enjoy Gorski’s LIES





While I DISS his MisDisInformation

Since the dates involved are important in exposing Gorski’s LIES, Gorski states:
“After yesterday’s epic deconstruction of the latest propaganda-fest from … Eric Merola, on his most admired subject, “brave maverick doctor” Stanislaw Burzynski”
(6/3/2013) in relation to Gorski’s cherry-picked “review” which I critiqued:

Critiquing: In which the latest movie about Stanislaw Burzynski “cancer cure” is reviewed
with Insolence:
Gorski posits:
“I needed something science-based to cleanse the rancid taste of intelligence-insulting nonsense from my mind”
My understanding of Gorski’s definition of #ScienceBasedMedicine is:

1. Visualize a Victim

2. Create biased blogposts utilizing:


b. Misdirection

c. Disinformation

d. Misinformation

e. MisDisInformation

Gorski advises:
“I was interviewed over the phone by a producer of the show and exchanged e-mails to answer questions”
I am NOT certain what qualifications BBC Panorama thought that Gorski has in order for him to be interviewed about Burzynski, unless they wanted the perspective of a LIAR

Gorski mentions “False balance”, which readers of his and / or my blog are all too familiar with when it comes to “Orac”

He whines that there is:
” … zero mention of how Burzynski recently managed to beat an effort by the Texas Medical Board to strip him of his medical license by throwing his employed doctors under the bus …”
This seems to be:




by Gorski, as anyone can read the case documents:
Burzynski: Texas Medical Board (TMB) and State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH):
and note that, as Richard A. Jaffe points out, Burzynski was:

1. NOT even in the USA during one of the patients care

2. there was no evidence that Burzynski met either patient

3. Burzynski was NOT the Doctor of Record for either patient

4. If the SOAH had an actual case, they could have gone after the actual Doctors of Record

What Gorski blogs is NOT worth the paper it is NOT written on

EVERYTHING Gorski blogs should be “Fact-Checked” for accuracy

He also ejects:
” … only the most superficial treatment of how in general it is considered unethical to demand payment from patients to participate in clinical trials”
though he provides NO basis in FACT for this statement

He also laments:
“No, and there isn’t any mention of how the Burzynski Clinic waged a campaign of harassment against bloggers who criticized Burzynski back in 2011”
What Gorski does NOT mention is that:

there isn’t any mention of how the bloggers waged a campaign of harassment against Burzynski

with their:




I find Rhys Morgan abnormally prehensile:
Gorski cries:
“Indeed, one of the victims of that harassment, Rhys Morgan, was interviewed by the Panorama crew, but he was informed that his interview was cut from the final version because it didn’t fit the narrative”
I thought it humorous when The Skeptics™ whined on Twitter that Rhys Morgan wasn’t going to make the cut

What was he going to say ?

How he copied all of his Burzynski blogsplats from other people’s blogs?

Gorski mentions:
“All you have to do is to read Saul Green’s reports on Quackwatch and in The Cancer Letter from the 1990s”
Of course, Gorski conveniently forgets to mention Green’s Confict-of-Interest, since Green was associated with a lawsuit against Burzynski

But then again, Gorski seems to have conveniently forgotten his own possible COI, which someone posted a link to on Twitter:
David Gorski’s Financial PHARMA Ties What He Didn’t Tell You:
Gorski fumes:
“One of them reminded me very much of the conversation with her NHS oncologist that Laura Hymas recorded and allowed Eric Merola to include in his propaganda piece, except that in video it is so much more intense”

“In this scene, the oncologist tries to point out to Ms. Petagine that he doesn’t know what Burzynski is doing or how to take care of her daughter when she returns”
I guess the National Heath Service oncologist is possibly like Gorski, and he doesn’t know what Burzynski is doing because he has NOT read Burzynski’s publications:

Critiquing: In which Orac does Stanislaw Burzynski propagandist Eric Merola a favor
Gorski flabbergasts:
“The report includes interviews with experts like Professor Richard Grundy of Nottingham Children’s Hospital”

“Grundy points out that Burzynski has not published the complete results of any of his phase II clinical trials”
What Gorski does NOT point out, is that for being a supposed “expert”, he sure does NOT give the impression that he’s taken the time to read Burzynski’s 2003-2010 phase II (2) clinical trials preliminary reports, in order to qualify as an “expert” on anything related to Burzynski

Gorski continues on as is his custom of being long-winded without much in the way of results:
” … how Burzynski has abused the clinical trial process to keep treating patients with antineoplastons without actually having to do the science that any other doctor would be required to do to validate a new treatment”
However, Gorski FAILS to address these issues:
WHAT IS MISDIRECTION? Critiquing “Antineoplastons: Has the FDA kept its promise to the American people ?”:
Gorski marches onward, jackbooted:
“Dr. Elloise Garside, a research scientists, echoes a lot of the questions I have, such as how Burzynski never explains which genes are targeted by antineoplastons, what the preclinical evidence supporting their efficacy are, or what the scientific rationale is to expect that they might have antitumor activity”

“(Yes, we’re talking prior plausibility, baby!)”
So, Gorski is saying that Dr. Elloise Garside has something in common with the “expert”, Professor Richard Grundy

Gorski rants on:
“The preponderance of evidence supports the contention that they dont’ work, but there is uncertainty, which Burzynski exploits to the max”
Amazing !!!

The United States Food and Drug Administration has authorized phase III (3) clinical trials, which means:
“[T]he emphasis in Phase 2 is on EFFECTIVENESS”

“Phase 3 studies begin if EVIDENCE of EFFECTIVENESS is shown in Phase 2″
Burzynski: The FDA’s Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective:
Gorski then blesses us with:
” … the claims in some of the Q&A’s after screenings of Eric Merola’s most recent movie that Burzynski’s papers have been rejected without being sent out for peer review”

“Studies submitted to journals won’t be published without going out for peer-review”

“Maybe he’s referring to some of the papers we’ve heard about from Mr. Cohen and others that were editorially rejected and not even sent out for peer review because the editor either didn’t think them appropriate or didn’t want to waste the reviewers’ time”
Gorski, who did a “review” of Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II (2), 6/3/2013, somehow magically “forgets” the very next day, that the documentary indicates that Burzynski submitted a phase II (2) clinical trial for publication, and was refused in 2 hours 8 minutes and 51 seconds, and Gorski is as silent as the dead about the lame reason given for NOT publishing it
See #12:
Critiquing: In which the latest movie about Stanislaw Burzynski “cancer cure” is reviewed
with Insolence:
How disingenuous, Gorski

Your opinion should mean




“Orac,” the false god continues on his rampage:
“In science, all that matters is what you publish, and Burzynski hasn’t published anything other than case reports, tiny case series, and unconvincing studies, mostly (at least over the last decade or so) in crappy journals not even indexed on PubMed”
Gorski gives NO reason for NOT doing what I have done on my blog, or any relevance of a publication NOT being listed on PubMed:
The #Burzynski B.S. App:
Gorski comes to what he must think is his penultimate moment:
“Without a doubt, the most effective part of the story is the segment in which Dr. Jeanine Graf of the Texas Children’s Hospital is introduced”

“Dr. Graf is the director of the pediatric intensive care unit there and has taken care of lots of Burzynski patients, as her hospital is “just down the road” from the Burzynski Clinic and these unfortunate children are brought to her hospital when they decompensate”

“Particularly damning is how Ms. Petagine said that the Texas Children’s Hospital Staff “were always cleaning up Burzynski’s messes.””

“If there’s one thing Panorama did right in this report, it’s showing how seeing so many already dying children show up in our ICU because of hypernatremia due to antineoplaston therapy will do that”
Again, Gorski FAILS to discuss:
“Perhaps the most devastating part of this segment was seeing Dr. Graf stating, point blank, that she’s never seen a Burzynski patient survive”
What is REALLY “devastating” is that Gorski is NOT able to indicate exactly how MANY patients this allegedly applies to, because, whereas Gorski’s fave reporter, Richard Bilton, wants to know how many Burzynski patients were treated in the phase II (2) clinical trials, he acts like Gorski’s “bud”, Dr. Peter A. Lipson, who also has had “issues” with consistency
Dr. Peter A. Lipson (and / or his Censor(s)) is a Coward: Critiquing “A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics”:
Gorski then rattles off:
“Burzynski smirks when asked how many patients he’s treated and how many have survived, dodging the question by saying that the FDA won’t let him until he’s published his results”

“Bilton tells him that’s not true; the FDA has told him that Burzynski can tell him as long as he doesn’t promote antineoplastons”

“Burzynski asks Bilton why he doesn’t have a letter from the FDA”
If Gorski had bothered to read all the comments I posted on his blog re my Burzynski research, he would know that Burzynski has every right to be wary

But Gorski’s arrogance, dismissiveness, and condescension make him his own worst enemy

He then faceplants:
“Burzynski then promises that antineoplastons will be approved “soon””

“(they almost certainly won’t)”
I guess Gorski can now see the future, and is all-knowing and omnipotent

But then again, “Orac” is god

“god” goes on to say:
“Ultimately, the Burzynski Clinic did release some results, stating that 776 patients with brain tumors were treated in trials and that 15.5% have survived five years”

“Of course, this is an utterly meaningless factoid”

“because we don’t know what kinds of tumors, what gradess, how they were treated beforehand, or any other confounding factors”
But this is because Gorski prefers NOT to pay attention; welcome to “Short Attention Span Theatre”, or seeming to NOT read Burzynski’s publications:
Colorado Public Television – PBS:
My Critique of Bob Blaskiewicz (Colorado Public Television – PBS CPT12):
Gorski posted comments on the Colorado Public Television (PBS) (CPT12) Facebook page where this was posted:
6/5/2013 Gorski continued his blatherskite:
Odds and ends left over after the Panorama Burzynski Clinic report: Burzynski versus his own SEC filing
This is where I start leading to heapin’ helpings of not-so-Respectful Insolence

Gorski posts:
“(stay classy, Stash, stay classy)”
I am NOT positive as to why a LIAR would advise Burzynski to “stay classy” when he has absolutely NO moral or ethical standing to do so

The proverbial “pot calling the kettle, black”

Gorski blathers:
” … in January the Burzynski Clinic removed all references to antineoplaston therapy on its website … “
As I stated up top, Gorski must have his computer set so that it will NOT access Burzynski’s website, since I posted this:

Burzynski updates Scientific Publications page:
This includes the link to Burzynski’s ANTINEOPLASTON publications, which Gorski claims do NOT exist on Burzynski’s website

Perhaps this helps explain Gorski’s lack of knowledge re antineoplastons

Gorski admits:
“Now I’m not a businessman, and I don’t understand anything but the very basics of business”
But then goes on to claim:
“but I do know cancer science”
Gorski goes on to comment on material which I posted on his blog

Comment #128 Didymus Judas Thomas

At the Tu-Quack Center Correcting Orac’s EPIC & Legendary Research

February 2, 2013
“Yet in the report, we read:”
On February 23, 2010, the Company entered into an agreement with Cycle Solutions, Inc., dba ResearchPoint (“Research Point”) to initiate and manage a 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”
It’s good to see that in JUNE, Gorski is finally catching up to what I posted on his blog in FEBRUARY

Gorski goes on to comment:
“Of course, given that after three years the clinical trial hasn’t been opened, more than likely no reputable institution wants to partner with the Burzynski Research Institute, and ResearchPoint collected its checks”
This is the same Gorski who allegedly blogged about the documentary which covered this issue, which he “supposedly” did a“review” on

Gorski, who above claimed that he does NOT understand “business”, suddenly puts on his “lawyer” hat
“There’s a lot of legalese and FDA bureau-speak, but the meaning should be fairly clear to a layperson”:

“Indeed, even the report seems to concede that antineoplastons will likely never be approved, even going so far to point out that “the Company cannot predict if and/or when it will submit an NDA [New Drug Application] to the FDA, nor can the Company estimate the number or type of additional trials the FDA may require.””

“Burzynski also warns that “there can be no assurance that an NDA for Antineoplastons, as a treatment for cancer, will ever be approved by the FDA.””

“That hardly sounds as though antineoplastons will be approved “soon.””
I find it remarkable that Gorski, while admitting above that he does NOT understand
“business”, seemingly expects the reader to believe that he understands “legalese”

Gorski bounds on in his new found knowledge as a “legal mastermind”:
“Another interesting tidbit in the SEC filing is Burzynski’s report of the results of several of his clinical trials”

“They aren’t really “results’ per se, in that the information presented really isn’t provided in a form that really allows other investigators to evaluate it and potentially replicate it”

“Basically it’s a big table listing Burzynski Research Institute clinical trials and response rates reported”

“One thing that I noticed right away is that in most trials, the number of evaluable patients is smaller, sometimes much smaller, than the number of patients accrued”

“This is a huge red flag”

“For instance, in trial BT-20, there were 40 patients accrued by only 22 were evaluable”

“This sort of dropoout rate is a huge red flag”

“We don’t know the reasons for this dropout rate”

“It could certainly skew the results, but even that’s impossible to tell from just a table of response rates and no further information”
ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ
The ONLY “HUGE RED FLAG” is how inept Gorski is
ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ
Gorski, you’re no Craig Masilow, but you are a LIAR
ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ ᅵ
I’ve done the 1st one for you

Pg. 96

2 patients unable to be evaluated

patient 2 didn’t have follow-up MRI to determine response

patient 11 died of intratumoral hemorrhage and duration of treatment too short for evaluation of response

















And THIS is the Gorski who has claimed to have reviewed almost all of Burzynski’s antineoplaston publications

“Personally, having pored over Burzynski’s publications … “

“I’ve searched Burzynski’s publications … “

My Critique of Bob Blaskiewicz (Colorado Public Television – PBS CPT12)

Skeptical Humanities
Learning is Cool

A Letter to the PBS Ombudsman about CPT12′s Airing of


Posted by Bob

PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler

“To understand the complexities and history involved takes a lot of work, far more than we could possibly expect of Mr. Getler”

(or, as I have proven, of YOU)

“That said, however, I do disagree with some of his conclusions”

(You could see that coming a mile away, couldn’t you?)

Getler starts off:

[ ” … It is about the decades-long struggle of a Polish-born physician and biochemist, Stanislaw Burzynski, who set up a clinic in Texas in 1976, to achieve acceptance for a cancer-cure therapy based on a treatment he developed based on what he calls “Antineoplastons.” [ANP]”

“I submit this is already wrong

There is little evidence that Burzynski is at all serious about developing antineoplastons for wider marketing”

THAT certainly explains the Phase III stuff

“If that were true, surely he would have managed to have completed and published a single advanced trial in 35 years

“If you look at the trials he’s been required to register at, you see over 60 trials, 1 completed, and none published


Bobby, where is the


Reference(s), and / or


that support your

“required to register”

statement ?


Are you a sociopath who thinks that people should believe you just because you blogged or twitted it ?

“This is important because he is restricted to giving his ANP in clinical trials

But he apparently abandons his trials, almost all of them

This is not normal”

Bobby, how many is

“almost all of them” ?

“He charges patients out the nose to participate in the clinical trials

This is not normal”

Does it cost as much as any of THESE ?

Cost cancer

2008 – Cost cancer insurance

Cost cancer chemo up-front






“This is not the behavior of someone who intends to market the product widely later and expects a return on an investment

It sure looks like someone taking the money while he can”

THAT sure explains THIS 7/5/2012 Marketing and Consulting Agreement contract:

“I put the word “documentary” in quotes above because while the actual film does indeed document very well Burzynski’s seemingly endless battle to win acceptance and approval for his treatment against the FDA, National Cancer Institute, patent challenges and big pharmaceutical companies — and includes very powerful filmed interviews with cancer survivors who say his treatment (in Texas, where it was allowed) saved them — it doesn’t have the kind of critical other-side that one is used to in other documentaries

That last part is true

the movie is one-sided”

Bobby, you do know that Eric Merola offered oncologist and self-described researcher, David H. Gorski

(@gorskon @oracknows @ScienceBasedMed #sciencebasedmedicine

the opportunity to appear in

Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business, Part II,

and he REFUSED, right ?

“Of course, why this is might be more apparent if Mr. Getler had realized that Merola’s cousin was a patient of Burzynski (she later died, of course) and that Merola raised funds for his cousin’s treatments on his website

Merola is not impartial

He has skin in the game

He has sunk an enormous amount into Burzynski”

Yeah, just like every other documentary film-maker or director of multiple movies re the same subject (Jaws, Terminator, Predator, Alien, etc.)

“Mr. Getler mentions that Shari Bernson, the person responsible for the programming and who appeared in fundraising spots, described the movie as “controversial.”

To someone on the outside, it may appear to be controversial

To someone who understands the science and process of publication and who has found endless descriptions of how patients end up making really, really bad choices out of desperation at that clinic, however, there is no controversy”

The “controversy” is “The Skeptics” who do NOT know how to “Fact-Check,” and instead “Insert Foot in Mouth”

“The fact remains that after 35+ years, the Clinic has never produced a single reproducible result that would constitute the barest minimum for serious consideration among experts

It just hasn’t”

That certainly explains the antineoplaston studies done in Poland, South Korea, Russia, Egypt, Japan, China, Taiwan (ROC), and the USA

That China published their most recent antineoplaston A10 study 10/1/2010

Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry

October 2010, Volume 286, Issue 1, pp 135-140

#Burzynski References: 5. – 6.

The Randomized Japan study is scheduled for publication THIS year

“Should that ever happen (I’m not holding my breath), then, hell, yes, we’ll be on board cheering the advance of science”

“But he has to play by the rules

And this is important too, playing by the rules that all real researchers abide to

Part of the FDA’s job is to ensure that Burzynski’s people are doing this

And on February 7th, they were doing just that; they were in the facility inspecting to make sure that Burzynski’s team was playing by the rules

In a FOIA release this week, the FDA revealed a number of things that had been found out and reported to the clinic by the time the movie aired

By law, the Clinic had 15 days to respond, so if they responded, it was before CPT12′s love-in

(The observational notes can be found here:”

“Two investigators observed:”

“The IRB [Institutional Review Board] used an expedited review procedure for research which did not appear in an FDA list of categories eligible for expedited review, and which had not previously been approved by the IRB”

“Specifically, your IRB routinely provided expedited approvals for new subjects to enroll under Single Patient Protocols.”

“[2 adults and 3 pediatric patients are mentioned]”

“The IRB approved the conduct of research, but did not determine that the risks to subjects were reasonable in relation to the anticipated benefits (if any) to subjects, and to the importance of the knowledge that might be expected to result”

“Specifically, your IRB gave Expedited Approval for several Single Patient Protocols (SPP) without all the information necessary to determine that the risk to subjects are minimized.”

“[4 examples follow]”

“The IRB did not determine at the time of initial review that a study was in compliance with 21 CFR Part 50 Subpart D, ‘Additional Safeguards for Children in Clinical Investigations.’”

“Specifically, an IRB that reviews and approves research involving children is required to make a finding that the study is in compliance with 21 CFR Part 50 Subpart D, ‘Additional Safeguards for Children in Clinical Investigations.’”

“Your IRB approved research involving children without documentation of the IRBs finding that the clinical investigation satisfied the criteria under Subpart D.””

“[3 examples follow and there is a note that this is a repeat observation that had been found in an Oct 2010 Inspection.]”

“The IRB did not follow its written procedure for conducting its initial review of research”

“Specifically, the IRB is required to follow its written procedures for conducting initial and continuing review”

“Your IRB did not follow your written procedures for conducting initial and continuing review because these subjects received IRB approval via an expedited review procedure not described in your Standard Operating Procedures”

“If your IRB would have followed your own SOP for initial and continuing review, the following subjects would have received review and approval from the full board rather than an expedited review.””

“[2 adults and 3 pediatric patients are listed.]”

“The IRB has no written procedures for ensuring prompt reporting to the IRB, appropriate institutional officials, and the FDA of any unanticipated problems involving risks to human subjects or others”

“Specifically, your current SOP-2012 v2-draft doc does not describe the requirements on Investigators on how unanticipated problems are reported to the IRB, Institutional Official, and the FDA, such as time intervals and the mode of reporting, or otherwise address how the prompt reporting of such instances will be ensured.”

“The IRB has no written procedures [in the SOP-2012 v2-draft doc] for ensuring prompt reporting to the IRB, appropriate institutional officials, and the FDA of any instance of serious or continuing noncompliance with theses [sic] regulations or the requirements or determinations of the IRB.”

“A list of IRB members has not been prepared and maintained, identifying members by name, earned degrees, representative capacity, and any employment or other relationship between each member and the institution.”

“You have to play by the rules”

So, NOT as bad as THIS 9 pager ?

“I’m not sure that this round of investigation is over yet, as the audience at the premier of the sequel was apparently told that the FDA was still on site”

“Researchers should not be playing fast and loose with the rules that protect children (a protected subject population, like prisoners and students–yeah, I’m IRB certified)”

“There should be procedures in place to see that proper oversight and reporting of unexpected events is ensured”

“Hell, there was apparently no document even saying WHO was on the IRB!”

“This is not a report on a serious research institution”

“It’s more like the observations of the IRB of a clown school”

How many more businesses with more IRB issues than Burzynski did you find during you intense “Fact-Finding” mission ?

“Back to Mr Getler’s letter:”

“On the other hand, Bernson’s sidekick on the in-studio, pledge-drive promotion who was interviewing the clinic spokesman, made me gag when she said,

“I’m Rebecca Stevens and I’m proud to be a journalist who asks the hard questions.”

There were no hard questions”

[I believe the question that followed up this statement was, “What is peer-review?”–RJB]

“And where Bernson may have gone too far, depending on who you believe, was in her statement that:

“Antineoplaston therapy has had significant success rates with terminal brain cancer patients and especially in children.”

No, she went too far no matter who you believe, and his next paragraph demonstrates this:”

“The National Cancer Institute, reporting last month on Antineoplastons, said, among other things:

“No randomized, controlled trials showing the effectiveness of antineoplastons have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals”

and that they are

“not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the prevention or treatment of any disease.”

how’s that controversial?

In light of this, how could Sherri possibly be right?

My bottom line is that CPT12 obviously has a right to show this film

Nobody questions that

“What we wanted, and what was offered to the station, was the opportunity to have an independent oncologist in the studio at the time of the broadcast, you know, to stir up the kind of informed discussion the station says they want to have instead of settling for two True Believers talking to two CPT12 pitch people”

“When the station had that opportunity, they walked away from it”

“That’s indefensible”

“Especially when you consider that the people we are worried about, patients and their families, may NOT be as discerning as your average viewer, as CPT President Willard Rowland suggests in his response to the ombudsman:

“The program’s airing is grounded in the station’s mission, specifically those portions about respecting our viewers as inquisitive and discerning citizens, addressing social issues and public concerns not otherwise adequately covered in the community, and cultivating an environment of discovery and learning.”

Some of them haven’t had good news since their diagnosis”

“Then they hear that some lone genius with the cure for cancer is operating in Houston and they are on the next flight down”

“I’ve seen it dozens of times, and I have hundreds more patients on deck to write about”

“These are vulnerable, vulnerable people who deserve the best information from their public broadcasters”

“I’m fairly disappointed by the tepid response, honestly”

“I have a hard time imagining that Mr. Getler, or Mr Willard Rowland for that matter, could possibly think that this program was anything but misleading if they spent a half hour at The OTHER Burzynski Patient Group, which chronicles, in patients’ own words, what goes on in that Clinic”

“All of the people told that getting worse is getting better”

“(for decades being fed the same line!),

the children having strokes

(unrelated to their tumors)

while on the medicine, the “terrifying” amounts of sodium that go into patients”

“The quasi-legalistic threats and phone calls to dissatisfied cancer patients”

“The untested chemo cocktails given to most of his patients”

“None of that was mentioned in the CPT12 fundraiser”

“Of course, that’s not Mr. Getler’s fight”


Maybe you should go here and explain the critics actions:

FACTS Burzynski critics do NOT like

FACTS the Burzynski critics don’t like

1. the Declaration of Helsinki;

30. addresses publishing human clinical trial data

It does NOT indicate WHEN the data should be published, leaving it open to interpretation as to if it should be done piecemeal, or when all trials re a specific drug or drugs are completed after Phase I, II, or III, for example

2. The Clinical Trials . gov web-site data re Burzynski is different than the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) web-site

3. Burzynski critics descended on the Colorado Public Television – PBS (#CPT12) Facebook page, but they sure did NOT stick around to address their unsubstantiated posts

4. Some critics resorted to adolescent-like name-calling and attempted “misdirection” by their use of words like:

“trolls,” “spammers,” “disingenuous,” “dishonest,” “profoundly dishonest,” “sheer stubborn stupid,” “stupid,” “spambot,” “fools,” “shills, “conman”

5. Critics continued their actions on the CPTV comments page

6. Critics who rant about scientific peer-reviewed journals and their “Impact Factors” did NOT know what to do about this:

National Cancer Institute
at the National Institutes of Health

Cancer Clinical Trials

15. “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 … ”

7. Critics didn’t know what to make of this:

The cult of “Misinformation” continued

Adam Jacobs

“Yes, of course he uses chemotherapy. He uses both conventional chemotherapy and antineoplastons. Antineoplastons, despite Burzynski’s attempts to paint them as being made of unicorn tears, are just another form of chemotherapy. They have toxic effects, mainly including hypernatremia, which can be fatal. The main difference between antineoplastons and conventional chemotherapy is that antineoplastons don’t work. As for where I get this information from, there are a great many sources, but this one is a good start:”
March 5 at 3:39pm

The Cult of “Misinformation”

Review of “disinformation,” “misinformation,” and “misdirection” posted by #Burzynski critics

Vicky Forster

“There is no evidence that his treatments are non-toxic and infact a fair bit to the contrary”
March 5 at 10:35am

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support “a fair bit to the contrary” statement

Adam Jacobs

“It is transparently obvious that your goal is to present misleading, biased information. As a result of that, real cancer patients may be harmed. You must clearly understand that now that you’ve read all the feedback above. The fact that you clearly don’t care about the fate of cancer patients is reprehensible”
March 5 at 10:39am

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support “present misleading, biased information,” ” real cancer patients may be harmed,” and “you clearly don’t care about the fate of cancer patients” statements

Scott Hurst

“Adam Jacobs gets this one exactly right. Seconded”
March 5 at 10:51am

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support this statement

Susan Scotvold Goodstein

“I completely agree with the other posters here. Airing a film that is nothing more than an advertisement / informercial for Burzynski’s 30 year medical scam is not presenting a fair and balanced program. I won’t be making any donation to your fund raising CPT12. This is NOT quality programming”
March 5 at 10:57am

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support “Airing a film that is nothing more than an advertisement / informercial” and “medical scam”

David H. Gorski

“Indeed. Colorado Public TV must think we’re complete idiots to think that such a transparent bit of self-serving PR-speak that is so at odds with the obvious reality would fly. The bottom line is that CPT is using a movie promoting an unproven cancer cure to raise money for its pledge drive. It is also featuring the film’s producer and a PR flack representing the subject of the film, all the while posting a “poll” whose very premise is false. (Oncologists are already trying to research less toxic therapies and have been for decades, while Burzynski’s antineoplastons are anything but “nontoxic.”) Then, when criticized, a PR flack for the station tries to feed critics a line of bull about being “neutral” and “telling both sides,” when the film certainly doesn’t do anything of the sort and CPT’s own actions belie its claim to be “neutral.”

Seriously, whoever you are speaking for CPT? Did you actually read that message you posted? Do you really think it’s believable? Disagreement I can handle; contempt for my intelligence kind of ticks me off”
March 5 at 10:58am

FAIL – Your alleged intelligence is at question here since you were given the opportunity to be in Part II of the Documentary, and you prefer to snipe from behind the safety of your keypad

David H. Gorski

“Actually, when CPT does that, I think that David Irving would be the best guy for them to get to comment after the movie. Then, the next week, they can play “Loose Change” and find a 9/11 Truther or two to comment …”
March 5 at 11:03am

FAIL – You believe the 911 party line?

NOT surprising

Robert Blaskiewicz

“How awful does your feedback need to be before you realize that you are going to endanger your viewership?”
March 5 at 12:25pm

241 – Yes
97 – No
2 – Undecided

Catherina Becker

“This is incredibly disappointing and CPT’s answer is lame. To prey on desperate, dying people, encouraging them to fund raise, risk hundreds of thousands of dollars of debts, for life threatening humbug must be the vilest phenomenon in Medicine. To support such behaviour by running adverts for these vultures is equally vile”
March 5 at 12:34pm

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support “prey on desperate, dying people” and “ife threatening humbug” statements

Rene F. Najera

“CPT12, There are no two sides to science. Either the Burzinski treatments work or they don’t. Either he publishes his results so that oncologists and scientists can look at the evidence or he doesn’t. Yes, you are correct in that it is controversial, thought-provoking, etc. But how will you justify it if one, just one person forgoes evidence-based treatment to go pay thousands of dollars to the Burzinski clinic to be allowed into a clinical trial that has not been shown to work? How is that “journalism” or how does it serve the public interest?

I’d have more respect for you if you called it what it is: AN INFOMERCIAL”
March 5 at 12:35pm

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support “INFOMERCIAL” and supposed threat that someone “forgoes evidence-based treatment”as if they can’t think for themselves and need you to “save them”

Footy Stuff

“This gives away the real motivation for the film as its a selling tool for the clinic. If it were a real review of new cancer therapies why isn’t there some balance in the form of a range of oncologists giving their view. Don’t be bought by the conspiracy rubbish – no mainstream Dr or group from a reputable University or department has been able to reproduce his data, a central tenant of medical science. His clinic is virtually unique in charging patients their life savings for treatment that is unproven. This is underhand and preys nj the desperate and broken”
March 5 at 1:35pm via mobile

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support “oncologists giving their view,”
“no mainstream Dr or group from a reputable University or department has been able to reproduce his data,” “charging patients their life savings” and “underhand and preys nj the desperate and broken”statements

Karl Mamer

“CPT a better poll might be “how many of you will cancel your plans to donate to PBS if we run this dangerous informercial? How many who have never donated will now donate?” Oh well. Seems to me people donate to PBS because it’s a small oasis of good science reporting. You’re abusing your privileged access to the public airwaves by running a one sided informercial”
March 5 at 1:39pm

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support “dangerous informercial”
and “running a one sided informercial” statements

Adam Jacobs

“I think some people here are confused. No-one is saying we shouldn’t research non-toxic cancer therapies. All we are saying is that Burzynski is not doing that: he uses toxic chemotherapy, but pretends that it’s non-toxic. Really not the same thing”
March 5 at 3:21pm

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support “he uses toxic chemotherapy” statement

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

David H. Gorski

” Nonsense! You’re using the film to raise money for your pledge drive, and you’re featuring a discussion with the producer and a representative from the Burzynski Clinic with no countering opinion from real experts in oncology. What you are doing is, in essence, a big infomercial for the Burzynski Clinic, without a hint of critical analysis. So what if you lob Eric Merola the occasional softball question. Is anyone going to ask him why Burzynski is promoting his work through a guy who makes corporate promotional videos for a living, instead of through the scientific literature?”
March 5 at 10:40am

FAIL – You were offered the opportunity to appear in:

Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business (Part II)

1. Lead,
2. follow, or
3. get out of the way

3. is what you chose

If you were really, truly concerned, you failed to Carpe Diem

Keir Liddle and the Cult of MISINFORMATION

#Burzynski critic blogs:

The Anti Burzynski Movement?

Posted by Skeptic News

By Keir Liddle

“As Edzard Ernst puts it”

“Ad hominem attacks are signs of victories of reason over unreason“:

“Ersnt treats this tactic as a sign skeptics and critics are winning the argument

That those who resort to these tactics aren’t in fact insulting us but rather they are complementing the strength and rigour of our arguments

They can find no reasoned argument or rational rebuttal to the points or criticisms raised so they resort to insults or fantastical conspiracy theories to dismiss and defame their critics”

“As for the accusation that I have been involved in spreading MISINFORMATION?

Well all the articles I have written on Burzynski link to the sources they base their arguments on

To those who would believe that I am spreading MISINFORMATION I invite you to go back to the sources and read through them, don’t rely simply on the cherry picked and neatly presented resources available from Eric Merola on the Burzynski Movie site

See what everyone has to say and then make up your mind”

Burzynski clinic responds to criticism! (Sort of)

Posted by Endless Psych

By Keir Liddle

“Problematically for Burzynskis publishing ambitions the STABLE DISEASE category is not recognized by FDA as a measure of response”

Is this Burzynski critic “spreading MISINFORMATION” ?

Guidance for Industry – Food and Drug Administration

Guidance for Industry

Clinical Trial Endpoints for the Approval of Cancer Drugs and Biologics

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration

Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER)

Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER)

May 2007 Clinical/Medical

“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)

“Also, STABLE DISEASE can be more accurately assessed by TTP or PFS analysis (see below)”
(Pg. 11 of 22 = actual pg. 8 of PDF)
Oh where, oh where, has The 21st Floor gone? Oh where, oh where, can it be?

Colorado Public Television – PBS

On 3/7/2013, Colorado Public Television 12 – PBS (broadcasted a version of “Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business” (Part I)

Before showing the Documentary; which won the Documentary Channel’s “Best Of” Award,” people were encouraged to engage on their Facebook page

Let’s review some of the “disinformation,” “misinformation,” and “misdirection” posted by #Burzynski critics, shall we ?

Darren Woodward

by what measure are antineoplastines non-toxic, certainly medically they are toxic, much as the proponents pretend that they aren’t
March 4 at 6:14pm

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support “toxic” statement

Robert Blaskiewicz

ANP is toxic as anything! It gives people insanely high sodium, and Burzynski is currently not allowed to be dispensed by Burzynski because, according to a patient, it killed someone. This is not harmless stuff. This is not non-toxic. And most of Burzynski’s patients never qualify for his trials. That’s the lure. They all end up taking tons of chemo used off label
March 4 at 7:58pm

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support “toxic” and “tons of chemo” statements

Robert Blaskiewicz

One of the people who voted in this poll was threatened by someone who was hired by Burzynski. It was covered in the international press. That’s not in the infomercial, is it?
March 4 at 8:05pm

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support statement

Val Perry Rendel

Do I think magic voodoo bullshit should be used to profiteer from human suffering and desperation? Hang on, let me see if anything else good is on TV that night…….uh, no
March 4 at 8:17pm

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support “magic voodoo bullshit,” and “profiteer from human suffering and desperation” statements

R.d. Walker

He’s a fraud
March 4 at 8:21pm

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support statement

Val Perry Rendel

You’re not going to get much of a “debate” by presenting only one very, very slanted side
March 4 at 8:30pm

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support statement

Amber Sherwood K

If they were non-toxic and actually treated cancer, maybe. Presenting a propaganda film that only shows one very distorted side of the story isn’t discussion
March 4 at 9:43pm

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support “propaganda film” and “one very distorted side” statements

Amy Hochberg Beaton

I think Burzynski has proved multiple times over that his $*&% doesn’t work and he is not running a legitimate trial
March 4 at 9:45pm

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support statement

Adam Jacobs

Your question is completely unrelated to the infomercial you are going to broadcast. Burzynski absolutely does not research “non-toxic” treatments. Mostly, he uses conventional chemotherapy, but in a rather amateurish way, using unproven combinations of drugs. The treatment that has made him famous, antineoplastons, is highly toxic and has been known to kill people. BTW, did you know that he’s recently removed all mention of antineoplastons from his website, and that there are rumours that he has stopped using antineoplastons for any new patients?
March 5 at 1:58am

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support “infomercial,” “he uses conventional chemotherapy, but in a rather amateurish way,” “antineoplastons, is highly toxic and has been known to kill people,” and “there are rumours that he has stopped using antineoplastons for any new patients” statements

Paul Morgan

Antineoplaston chemotherapy – despite the claims of Burzynski and his shills – are far from being non-toxic. They contain vast quantities of sodium, which results in patients having to ingest vast quantities of water to counteract the overpowering thirst generated by taking in so much sodium. Some patients have become grossly hypernatraemic (high serum sodium), others profoundly hypokalaemic (low serum potassium). Others have developed renal failure. All these TOXIC SIDE EFFECTS are extremely hazardous and life-threatening. If you consider antineoplastons to be non-toxic, you are seriously deluded. If you think antineoplastons are not chemotherapy, you are also wrong. Burzynski even referred to antineoplastons as chemotherapy in the 1994 trial that resulted in him being convicted of fraud. As for his “gene-targeted” therapy, firstly Burzynski is simply using a cocktail of chemotherapy drugs in a random and haphazard manner with no thoughts as to the potential interactions and unpredictable toxicity of his mix of chemotherapy drugs. As for being “gene-targeted”, his approach could be described as “gene-targeted” in the same way as the military regard carpet bombing as being a precision strike
March 5 at 2:20am

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support numerous statements

William M. London

Colorado Public Television plans to “present in order to evoke conversation.” But presenting Burzynski’s anti-cancer fantasies (especially without sufficient opportunity for experts to offer rebuttals) in order to evoke conversation is about as warranted as presenting a flat-earth promoter in order to evoke conversation about the cosmos. Colorado Public Television functions as an infomercial broadcast service for false medical prophets (who profit from Colorado Public Television’s irresponsibility). Is any health scheme too sensational, too preposterous, and too reckless to be featured on Colorado Public Television? Apparently not. Defunding is deserved
March 5 at 3:23am

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support numerous statements

Scott Myers

It’s irresponsible to air an infomercial when an investigative expose is warranted.
March 5 at 4:18am via mobile

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support “infomercial” statement

David James

do I feel that you should just promote the Burzyński clinic with no actual evidence of effectiveness for the treatments offered, then no! Why you haven’t even got an independent oncologist on the show is completely beyond me. You run the risk of genuinely endangering people’s lives by exposing them to unproven and ridiculously expensive treatment modalities
March 5 at 5:40am

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support “You run the risk of genuinely endangering people’s lives by exposing them to unproven and ridiculously expensive treatment modalities” statement

Obviously believes that individuals are not capable of making decisions for themselves

I refer to:

legislation called the “Access to Medical Treatment Act”

The proposed bill specifies that an individual can be treated with any medical treatment the individual desires, if:

1) the practitioner agrees to treat that individual; and

2) the administration of such treatment does not violate state licensing laws

In response to consumer protection concerns raised by opponents of the bill, proponents, such as Widener University Law Professor Michael Cohen, argue that,

“[T]he bill permits only treatments provided by legally authorized providers and that do not unreasonably and significantly alter patient health

It incorporates informed consent requirements…and also prohibits false or misleading labeling and forbids commercial advertising” [43]

The hearings held in the Senate involving the bill involved many of the major players in the Burzynski case

Among those testifying were Shawn and Desiree McConnell, of Fountain Hills, AZ, the parents of 7-year-old Zachary McConnell, a patient who was given permission by the FDA to intially use antineoplastons, only to find the drug “yanked away” months later [44]

[44] Zachary originally qualified for a “compassionate exemption” due to the seriousness of his brain tumor, but the FDA rescinded the exemption shortly thereafter

In a prepared statement, Mr. McConnell made a passionate and compelling case for the bill:

“I realize that my son’s treatment is “controversial” because of things that have nothing to do with the medicine’s abilities, but with lawyers and rules which govern the WAY a drug is approved

That is irrelevant, because to seek curative measures on their own should be encouraged

But current FDA law looks upon us all as desperate minions too stupid or confused to think for ourselves…”

Access to Medical Treatment Act, Hearings on S#1035 before the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee , 7/30/1996 (testimony of Shawn McConnell)

1997 – The Criminalization of Innovation:

FDA Misdirection in the Najarian and Burzynski Cases
RTF (Rich Text File):