Tag Archives: Conspiracy Theory

Pete Cohen chats with Richard A. Jaffe, Esq.

Posted on by
Reply

======================================
4/2012 – Pete Cohen chats with Rick Jaffe
(33:59) 11/9/2012
Richard A. Jaffe, Esq.
======================================
How did you meet Dr. Burzynski?

A long time ago in 1988, um, he hired us to represent him in his Medical Board case, so, uh, started working for him then, and then there got to be more and more work, and, uh, at some point it was so much work, it was just easier for me to be down here
So I moved from New York to Texas, mostly just to, to represent him, and my wife was in the oil industry, so, it was a “no brainer” for her to move down here too

And how, were you intrigued by this whole case ?
I mean, did you work out straight away that this guy was genuine, and there was really something here ?

No (laugh)
How do you know, you know ?
At the time we represented, uh, a number of a alternative health practitioners around the country, and we heard a lot about Burzynski, but you don’t really know
I mean, um, um, there are a lot of stories out there
Every doctor seems to have a few patients, uh, that were helped
So initially, I mean, how do you know ?
His operation was larger than most of any, uh, health practitioners, alternative health practitioners in the country, and, uh, seemed a lot more sophisticated, but, uh, it’s not really until you dig in the medical records of the patients that you really see what’s going on
I mean, that’s what you really need
I mean,
It’s not really even, it’s
’cause this whole thing about anecdotal evidence, that everyone has testimony
so every doctor
You know what I mean ?
anybody
Even charlatans have testimony
people
one or two people
or 3 or 4 that’ll come, and say w
they were cured, and maybe, maybe the patients really believe that to be the case, but, um, oftentimes there’s other explanations
Prior treatment, um, the nature of the disease
Sometimes it’s such that their natural, the natural history is not straight linear, um, but after looking at some of the medical records, I mean, you know, I think
it’s just,
uh, anybody would become a believer, and indeed, I mean, government, government doctors have come down here and looked at

some of the records, and they were convinced that, that the treatment was causing remissions in some brain cancer patients

So, I mean, obviously lawyers, I imagine many lawyers all over the world would often take on a case, when they know, possibly the guy isn’t telling the truth, but they can see there’s still a story, and they, they, they, they, uh, represent that person, but for you, I suppose
that when you realized that there really was a story here, did you kind of get, emotionally caught up in this whole thing and think: “Right, th this guy’s got a cure for cancer, and I I need to bring this to, bring him to just, not bring him to justice, but, clear his name
Well, I think with Burzynski, more so than any client I’ve ever represented
He represents a unique constellation of medical services
He’s the only guy in the world doing what he’s doing with antineoplastons and now with this treatment, so, it’s really different
Uh, you know, with Burzynski, most of the patients, are in bad shape
They’re either dying, uh, they, or they have a disease for which there is no known cure, you know, like a lot of these brain tumors
So, even from the beginning, what’s different is their are many, many patients back then who were on the treatment, that uh, that felt that without this treatment they were going to die, and so that, that’s much different, than the average, any kind of lawsuit
Right ?
So th th these lawsuits, the Burzynski cases back then and now, uh, these cases matter, in a, in a deeper, and fundamental, and personal way than most anything, well I think that any lawyer does
I mean, any criminal defense lawyer, who defends an individual, is defending that person’s, uh, liberty
Alright ?
Versus incarceration
But here it, it wasn’t so much, or, it wasn’t exclusively about Burzynski, it was really about all these other patients, and they certainly believe they needed him, and, uh, uh, many of them, obviously did
So, so that, that, that’s a whole ‘nother dimension, which typically we lawyers don’t get involved in
So, I mean, it’s a responsibility but also a great privilege to be working on these kinds of cases

You’ve been representing him for how long ?

For a long time
Since 1988, continuously

And can you believe this is still going on ?

Well, you know, uh, it’s, you know, it’s, it’s just ongoing
I mean, until there’s a cure for cancer, for all cancer, either done by acknowledged

or, uh, uh, to be Burzynski’s cure or somebody else’s
I mean, this is ongoing
And I guess the problem is, you know, ultimately, there’s nobody yet
Not even Burzynski has the cure for every cancer or
even every stage, or even ev, every, ev, ev, every person that had cancer
So, because it’s such a tough battle, and because, it doesn’t work on everyone
So you have these open questions
Ah, so, so,
Yeah, I mean, I guess, I, I can’t believe he’s still messing around with these clinical trials
I mean, I think that if the drug didn’t have his name attached to it, it’d probably would have been approved by now
So, and I think, so that, that’s unfortunate, I think, that when you fight the FDA, and even if you win, you know, the F, the repercussions, you know, you know I, you know I
Hopefully the drug will be approved, sometime in the future, but, but who knows ?

So, um, why do you think, why was it, I mean, obviously I came over here as you know, for this case, which is now not going ahead at the moment
Why, why, why is that ?
Wha, what has the judge, said ?

Well, of course, you have to (under)stand, this case involves a different type of treatment
It doesn’t involve antineoplastons,the drug Dr. Burzynski invented, and your friend is receiving, and it involves a new approach to cancer, which is sort of like personalized medicine, where they take a bunch of FDA approved drugs, that have shown some promise, on a particular cancer, but are not, uh, approved for that indication, and based on these early clinical trials showing promising results for genetic testing they give these combinations of FDA approved drugs, off-label to patients, and that’s really what the, this case is about, and, uh, you know I think, I don’t think they, they never had a case
I mean, they never had a case
The, the main allegation, in each, of the 2 patients involved, is that they used this treatment, which wasn’t sufficiently tested, and was non-therapeutic, and whatnot, and we had a, what I would call a dry run
We presented the evidence to the Board, or 2 members of the Board, in both of these cases
In each, in each case, the Board members felt that the treatment, was within the standard of care, given the advanced condition of the patient, or one patient, and given how rare the other patient’s tumor was
So, we had our dry run in each case, and the Board found in our favor on the main charge
They had some technical issues with medical records or whatnot, and, uh, the Board basically said, they took the position, ok, agree to some kind of sanction on these little charges, or, or we’re going to go after you on everything
So, we refused the honor, and, uh, the Board then charged him with the same thing that they already cleared him with, or on, and, and so we had to do, you know, basically the same case again, and, uh, the irony in, is in these 2 cases Burzynski wasn’t even in the country
He was, he was, he was away for, uh, in both, for both cases, when the patientscame
So, uh, the question is how do you hold someone responsible
Even if you own the clinic, for treatment administered and prescribed, by other doctors, and that concept of vicarious liability does not, uh, exist in jurisprudence, and in the law governing professional re, responsibility, anywhere in this country
So, the Board’strying to start that
You know, I think they just got in over their heads, they
Most people just knuckle under
You know, most people don’t, are afraid to go to court, so they’ll sign anything just to, you know, not to go forward, but, you know, Burzynski faced serious stuff
I mean, he set, faced, 5, 10, 15 years in jail
So he wasn’t going to be intimidated, by the Medical Board, and he refused to give in
So when I told the Board at the time, and I told them all along, they have no case, and o on the merits they have no case
We already won, and they have no case now, and, and slowly I think, the Board is starting to understand that

And what sort of a person would you say Dr. Burzynski is ?

Well I think he’s a complicated person
I mean, I think, uh, uh, you know, he, I think like a lot of mavericks; I represent a lot of mavericks around the, uh, uh, country
One of the main characteristics of these guys, is that they have absolute and total certainty, in what they believe in, in what they do, um, and no doubt
Uh, they all think they’re right
They all think that history is going to vindicate them
Now, I’ve represented some people where I personally doubt (laugh) that, uh, uh, that belief, but not in Dr. Burzynski’s case
I mean, I think he’s all, he’s definitely helping people
He’s definitely, uh, uh, uh, making, extending people’s lives, and curing some people that otherwise would have died, and so I think he, and so I think he happens to be right
So, uh, you know, so, but, but he’s a human
He’s got a big ego
He thinks he’s, uh, he thinks he has made an important, contribute to medicine, and he’s not shy about sharing that sentiment
So, uh, I think, and I think that he’s, uh, not American
So he comes with a completely different mentality towards, say, the government
Alright, he grew up in communist Poland, where everyone, where everyone, has to work around, the government, and I think that’s much harder here, and, you know, I think he has expectations that, that he would have a lot more freedom, than it turned out he had, too, and he thought he would not have to deal with the kind of government, uh, rigamarole that you have to deal with in communist, Poland

And, and how do you think it might all pan out for him ?
I mean, I know you don’t have a crystal ball, but if you could look, 5 or 10 years down into the future, and, do you think that he will have got somewhere, to be accepted in the medical (?) of oncology ?

Well, I certainly hope so
I mean, 5, 10 years from now
I mean, I think, at a minimum, what’s going to happen, there will be many, many patients who will be alive, and continue to be alive because of him
Some, will have their lives extended
Some will be cured
Some wi, won’t be cured, and will die
So, I think that’s for sure, going to happen
You know, is there going to be an end to, uh, all this ?
We had a period of maybe 10 years where there was very little action with the Board, but, uh, you know, it’s hard, frankly, I mean, just in, and again my perspective, like I’m in a, like a, a sergeant in the trenches, in trench (laugh) warfare
So, it’s hard for me to see the big picture
I mean, I just keep fighting these battles, and there’s one, after another, after another
So this is really just the latest, and on there’s civil lawsuits, and then there are people on the Internet, and then, you know, there could be more Medical Board investigations
So, lo, look there are a lot of people who don’t like what he’s doing
They think what he’s doing is either unethical or wrong, or shouldn’t be giving drugs, these drugs to people, except under clinical trial conditions, and, you know, he has detractors, and he has a lot of supporters
I mean, uh, mostly amongst the patients he’s cured
So, I don’t know that, that, that is gonna resolve itself
I mean, ultimately, he’s one of the few people in the country, that, or maybe the only person in the country that does what he does, and, it’s not the way medicine is practiced, in this country, typically
Right, and, you know, I think what he does, is, is more, is more patient oriented, in a sense that, once you’ve been told you’re terminal, why should you just get the palliative care that a medical oncologist thinks, you know, they should be given
even though when, no one ever gets cured of chemotherapy, once it’s palliative, once you have stage 4, solid tumor

Mmm

I mean, they give chemotherapy for what they call palliative reasons, which means, not curative
So, this concept of giving, just conventional chemotherapy to make you feel better, extend your life 9 weeks, I mean, y, not everyone wants to do that
Some people want a shot for a real cure, and, you know, based on the evidence with antineoplastons
, I mean, he seems to be giving people that shot, and curing some of the people
So, you, you know, I don’t see how, this thing gets resolved
Up until the time that the
treatment, the
antineoplastons is approved by the FDA and, you know,
it’s, it’s hard to see a clear path, for that, for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is financial
I mean, it takes dozens of 10’s of millions of dollars

Mmm

or 10, 100’s of millions
So, I mean, someone has to finance the clinical trials
The drug companies aren’t interested right now
They’d just as soon, buy a drug that’s been fully tested
So, I mean, the drug company response has not been overwhelming, because, even though this phase 2 phase, have resolved, and, and, uh, they have excellent results, the drug companies want to wait and see
So, uh, it’s, it’s big money
I don’t think there’s any way in the world Dr. Burzynski, himself, can fund phase 3
I mean, he, he funded everything else now, but phase 3 are, is a much bigger stage involving dozens and 100’s of patients, and that’s just within the financial means of any individual

it seems like it’s unlikely that its going to happen right
I mean, even from the point of view of, what, with phase 3 trials, they’ll be with children

with brainstem gliomas, right
and the FDA’s saying they’ve got to have radiation

Yeah I, um,
I unfortunately, I haven’t been involved in that process
I just see the result, and I, I, I just don’t see how any parent agrees to that, you know

I don’t see how any parent agrees to it
I don’t see how clinical investigator, agrees to do it
Um, I don’t know
I got so, I got some questions of the FDA as to, why they forced him into this particular protocol
I mean, I don’t know
I don’t have any facts or evidence, but I, I, just doesn’t make any sense to me

what’s you’re about that ?

I don’t know
I mean, I, it just doesn’t seem to me, that it’s a, that it’s a fair clinical trial that

Mmm

either an investigator would find ethical, or a patient, or a family, would agree to have their patient treat, their, their kid treated under
I mean, it just doesn’t make any sense to me
I mean, it’s worse than
I mean, both phases, both phases, both arms of the study, you get radiation
It’s radiation alone versus radiation with his stuff
So, I mean, it just doesn’t make any sense to me, given, given the clinical, the phase 2 clinical trial results

So just a, so just a few things, like, you know I’m going to talk about big Pharma, and then talk about the FDA

Right

They talk about the many people as if they’re one person, but, you know, they’re obviously a collective group of individuals who work for an organization, right ?

Well, I mean, I think, the concern is, that the FDA now, by statute is, in no small part funded, by the pharmaceutical industry
It’s like “Pay as you go”
So the, the pharmaceutical ind, industry now, pays for, the processing of the clinical trials by the FDA
So, and then you have the whole concept of the revolving door
You have a lot of government officials going into the drink, uh, drug companies
So I think that’s another problem
So, I mean, you know, I think conspiracy is too strong of a word, m, but, you know, I will say, I don’t think the system’s set up, for an individual like Burzynski, to get a drug approved
I, I, I just don’t see
There’s no support for that
I mean, the days
I mean, it’s like, Einstein, you know ?
He sat in a patent office, and, and doodled, and had his little theory
He could never get his, stuff published today, you know ?
Where did he go to school
?
Where was he teaching, you know ?
So Burzynski has a lot of the same problems
They say he doesn’t publish, but, they won’t let him publish
So, uh, or they won’t let him publish , in, in the mainstream journals
So, I, I, I think though, I think the, I think the system, has a strong bias, against a guy with a discovery
So, that’s not quite saying, there’s a conspiracy, but it’s, it’s sort of along the same lines, and, you know, the conspiracy implies some kind of, um, intentionality on the part of one or two, or some small group or coterie of people, and I don’t know, I don’t think that’s really the case
I think what happens is, the institutions are such that, they allow certain things, and disallow certain things
Alright ?
I think that’s just
there’s no
I don’t think there’s any 2, 3, 4, or some, coterie of Rocka, they’re like a Rockefeller conspiracy
People are saying that there are 12 industrials
That they control the world
I mean, I don’t see that happening, but, the whole system is such that, you know, it’s, it’s
I guess what, uh
The, there’s a book by, uh, a, a, Thomas Kuhn, the Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and he talks about, normal science, and how science progresses, in terms of paradigm shifts
So, normal scientific medicine, works, uh, by big institutions doing, studies about combinations of drugs, after drug companies, invent mostly, modifications of existing drugs, and, less commonly, completely new drugs, and, uh, less commonly, different classes of drugs
So, you have a whole, you have a whole pipeline from a drug company, a whole, uh, uh, mechanism of testing, by the universities, funded by the pharmaceutical company, uh, all the pharmaceutical companies, and that, that just doesn’t lend itself, to one guy, sitting someplace in Houston, or wherever, and having a drug, put through that process
That just doesn’t happen
Burzynski is, so far as I can tell, the only person, to ever completed, a phase 2 trials on a drug he invented
I don’t think that’s ever happened, before, and I don’t think it’ll ever happen again

Ah, was it ’98, was it the chairman, uh

Kessler ?

Kessler
I saw, an interview he gave, press, a press conference where he was explaining about, being able to fast-track
The FDA trying to make it possible to fast-track, you know, drugs that have shown, you know, positive, rather than going through all of this sort of clinical trial, and there’s a guy in the, in the press conference who started asking questions about Burzynski

Right

and you could just see quite clearly he was very uncomfortable

Right

asking questions about, uh, about Dr. Burzynski
How do you think someone like him,
would view, someone like Dr. Burzynski ?

Not favorably
I think that, uh,

Do you think they must know ?
Do you think they must, even he, let’s just say, if he were on his own, he, he knows there’s something there
That he’s obviously got something

I,
I don’t know, uh
I think, that, the guys in conventional medicine, because Burzynski came from orthodox medicine
He was at Baylor
He was a researcher at Baylor
So, I think, they’re not going to Burzynski, is that, he didn’t go about it, the way, other physicians would have done it, other scientists would have done it
So normally what would happen, is, uh, uh, I mean, I think the critical, point in his story is that, when he was at Baylor, and his, uh, professor was supporting him, this Unger, left, you know, they had space for him
They wanted him to go in the Oncology, uh, Department, but, they wanted the patent, to his drug, and he wouldn’t do it
So, that would have been the more conventional approach
You give up the patent rights, you become part of the team, then some big institution, uh, uh, shepherds the drug through, and then they find some drug company support, who will split the patent with the university
So, had he done that, uh, you know, I think the drug woulda been approved by now, but, you know, it was his drug
He came to America with it, and he wasn’t going to give it all away
So, I mean, I just think that’s, you know, I mean and that’s, you know, I think he wasn’t expecting that kind of thing in America
Maybe in communist Poland, but not in America
So I think that really, you know, set him down the path of being a, a, an alternative health practitioner

And wha, wha, what was it like for you when, uh, winning, the case, in was it, 199, 3, 1998 ?

’97

1997

Well, you know, there wasn’t just one case
I mean, I mean, it was everyone
I mean, I analogize it to, like whack-a-mole, or whack-a-rat, you know
You have, like a rat come out of, of a hole, and you bang him, and one comes out of this hole, and all of a sudden you’ve got 2, and then 3, and, so, you know, during the early ’90’s, I mean, I mean, there were 3 grand juries, uh, we had the Medical Board action, which went to hearing in ’93
The Texas Department of Health sued him in ’92
Half a dozen insurance companies had sued, uh, uh, sued him for, for some, for Racketeering
Uh, Texas Air Quality Department went after him
I’m trying to think who else
So, all of this happened, over the course of 3, or 4, or 5 years, and it was just, continuous, and so, one agency would, would get active, and then, they get beaten down
Then somebody else would come, uh, come up, and surface, and indeed, I mean, you know, it, you know, some of them flat out said they were waiting to see what happened, with this oth, wha, what happened with this other agency, and they weren’t gonna do anything, and then when they got tired, they decided, that this new agency had to do something
So, I mean, that was flat out, what happened
So, yeah, I mean, it culminated in the criminal case, I suppose, but even there it was up and down
I mean, the judge ordered, uh, ordered, prohibited him from giving the treatment to anybody else, because the Texas Medical Board case, ultimately went against us, and then we had to go Congress, and Congress forced the FDA to put all his patients on clinical trials which made the Medical B, Board case moot, and then we won the criminal case
So, after we won the criminal case in, uh, ’97, things got quiet for a little bit
So that, that, that was good
I mean, it was quiet
I mean, relatively quiet, and then, uh, lately in the last couple years it’s been very active again

So the worst case scenario would have been
What would have been the worst case scenario ?

For when ?

And this, this
What could have happened this week if the case had gone ahead ?

Well, the worst case scenario would be, there would be a finding, that, that it’s a depart, it’s a departure from the standard of care to use, uh, off-label drugs, that haven’t been approved by the
FDA for an indicated use, and you can’t use the combination of the drugs until someone gives the stamp of approval saying that their safe and effective, which means, you know, you couldn’t, it couldn’t, you couldn’t give the treatment anymore to patients
So you have 100’s of patients that are on this multi-agent gene-targeted therapy, and ultimately that form of treatment is only available at the Burzynski Clinic
I mean, I don’t think that even clinical trials
Burzynski, depending on how you look at it, he’s a few years ahead of, of, uh, well, even the clinical trials
I mean, they’re some clinical trials now on different kinds of cancer where they’re doing 1, 2, or 3 agents
He’ll use 4 or 5, albeit, lesser dosages
So he’s treated 1,000’s of patients like that, but there’s no place else in the world where people can get, the treatment
So it’s kinda the same thing as back in the ’90’s
We have people on drugs, uh, which are unavailable, uh, and, only available through Burzynski
So, if he couldn’t give them, to people, then they wouldn’t get ’em, and, they’re terminal, and, they’re doing well
I mean, or they’re not going to do as well, or they’re going to die
So, it’s, I guess it, it’s sort of the same thing here, ah, uh, only, uh, the irony is all these drugs are, approved by the FDA, and most cancer patients get off-label, uh, drugs
Drugs off-label
So that’s, very common in cancer
It’s just that not common with the drug used on these patients, and in the combinations used

So, this finally
Whe, when you’ve, uh, won these cases, I mean, there must be, it must be good, right ?
It must be good feeling

I had a good feeling last week
I mean, I mean, you know, or I’ve been working non-stop, for months, every day
I mean, there’s no day off in this kind of stuff
It’s just constant
It’s just, his war
There’s always something to do, and then I’m a solo practitioner
So, when the judge cut the heart of the Board’s case out, I’ve been telling the Board, that they can’t, that they have no basis to, to, to bring charges against him, for several years, since 2010
, 2009, and they’re not listening, and, and, I was pretty sure that once you had a judge look at the case, they would, rule in our favor, you know, but the problem is the Board is, like a law unto themselves, and they think they can do anything, and, uh, they just changed the law, in September
So actually, the Board has no recourse
They, they used to be able to change findings of facts, and conclusions of law, but as of September, 2011, they can no longer do so
So, if the, judges’ ruling s, uh, stands, as I think they will, their only remedy is going to be to appeal to a State District Court, and they’re not used to that, because they, like exercising, uh, complete authority
So, they’re in a new position, and I’m sure this is the 1st case, that they’ve ever, not gotten what they want to, from, from a judge, administrative law judge, and not being able to correct it
So, I mean, that, this is a good ti, completely new experience for the Board, and I feel bad for them (both: laughing)

You, you, you do
As a Board they all sit down, and as a group of people, and talk about Dr. Burzynski, and, and, and work out how they’re gonna bring him down, and then ?

Well, that’s more the conspiracy
I, I, I, I think that, some of the Board members, may know of him
He, but, but, but like I say, he’s appeared in front of these informal settlement conferences, and basically, individually they, I mean, exonerate him, of, of the main charges, but I, I, I think that, you know, when we talk about the Board, the Board other than these a, acting informal settlement conferences, where you have one Board member, and one member of some district disciplinary review committee, we’re not really talking about the Board members, these doctors, and lay members of the Board, we’re talking about the Board staff, and that’s the lawyers and administrators of the Board, and I think, you know, I don’t know
I have some, uh, uh, they need to clean house
I mean, they’re getting some very, very bad legal advice, and I, I just think the legal advice at the top, is, is, is horrible, and, and they need to make some dramatic changes, and I think it would be better for the people of Texas if they, just did some house cleaning with the administrative staff there

And what do you think about the way that, uh, Dr. Burzynski’s been , what’s the word, in England, he’s got a very bad press there

(Alright ?)

and, um, why do you think that is ?

Uh, why, well, I mean, look
I mean, I think, people have opinions
They’re,
they have the right to express opinions
I mean, I think, uh, some of his agents did some things that I think, were not wise, in retrospect
I mean

Mhmm

Uh,

The stuff with the, this kid, this blogger

Yes

(?)

And I think that, uh
I think you have to be very careful, about what you tell people that are expressing opinions, and, you know, I mean, I, I, I think, you know, I think there’s a reason why, lawyers get involved in these cases, and should be involved, and I think what happens is, you know, I think there was a, you know, a well meaning, individual, who just went too far, and I think stirred things up unnecessarily so
You know, I mean, I think someone who had some legal training, acting on Burzynski’s behalf, might not have made some of the, you know, just faux pas that were made
So, I mean, that stirred, some things up, and I think

(?) stirred something up that was already there ?
You know, ’cause, I know, I’ve spoken to so many people in the U.K., and, uh, and you find very few people that have anything positive to say
In fact, a friend of mine who’s a famous doctor on television, when I was here, he was on British television with a little girl, and her father, who were trying to, uh, raise money to, um, come over here and, um, in fact, they couldn’t come anywhere, come, they couldn’t come anyway, because, the, uh, FDA said that this type of brain tumor, she couldn’t be treated anyway
But this doctor, who’s a friend of mine said, uh, Dr. Burzynski is, you know, he’s a medical pioneer
He’s, uh, uh, he said that and then literally, for 2 months, non-stop, I think especially on Twitter, they said that he never should have said this, and the guy is a quack, and he’s a, he’s a fraud, and

So your, your friend got in trouble for saying that he’s a pioneer ?

He didn’t get in trouble, but I mean he got a lot of bad press, for speaking on television with this child next to him, saying that, Dr. Burzynski was, you know, a pioneer, and pioneers often have a hard time, and

Right, right

And, you know, you look at Twitter, uh, you probably don’t
You could be (laugh) and you just see, it’s probably, probably the only, 30, hard, hard core people, who spend, all of their time, trying to

Yeah, I think that’s right
I think it’s a very small group, of people, that are making pretend it’s a big movement
I mean, we’ve looked, at some of the traffic
We’ve analyzed some of the traffic
I don’t even think it’s 30
I think it’s more like, 3, or 4, or 5, that are creating things, and then someone had some friend who’s an actor, who has, you know, 3 million followers, and all
So it’s really a very small group of people, but historically, medical doctors who have stood up for Burzynski, have had negative consequences
We had, someone from the National Cancer Institute, NIH testify, this Nick Patronas, and he got in a lot of trouble for doing that
So, you know, it’s not, it’s, unfortunately, you know, speaking up for Burzynski can have, uh, negative career consequences, or, or just some bad P.R., but that’s, part of being a pioneer
It doesn’t mean that, uh, Burz, I mean, if anything, I mean, it shows, it shows that’s like the medical mafia
Yeah
So, that’s what I call, the church of medical orthodoxy
So, that’s what I call
So

Well I, I think it’s gonna be so interesting when I get this film broadcasted, to see what kind of reaction we get
It, it’s just a story I felt I had to (?)

Where are, where are you going to try and get it ?

I’m going to try and get it
I know people at the BBC

Right

I’ve worked in television
So I’m going to try

Oh really, (?)

I’m gonna try those avenues, but you know what ?
Even if it doesn’t

You have cable
You have some kind of public access ?

Yeah
I’ve, I’ve worked in television for years
So I’ve, I have a very good stab at getting it out there, but if I don’t, I’ll get it broadcasted on the Internet

Oh sure
You do, do a YouTube or something, or do what Merola did as a documentary

(?)

That’s had an amazing impact

Yeah
He’s making a sequel
Eric was just over in England

Oh really ?

I looked after him when he came over

Yeah
He wanted to talk to some of the patients and doctors

Eric, I said, ah, you know, so, we’ll see
But listen, I really appreciate the opportunity to ah

Ok, no problem

really, to be able to talk to you
======================================

======================================
http://www.richardjaffe.com
======================================

Yes! Weekly: Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business Part II

Posted on by
Reply

6/20/2013 Mark Burger published a review:
——————————————————————
http://www.yesweekly.com/triad/article-16162-burzynski-cancer-is-.html
——————————————————————
As could be expected, The Skeptics™
showed up
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “I’m afraid you’ve fallen for Dr Burzynski’s PR efforts here”
——————————————————————
LIE: The documentary film is by Eric Merola, NOT “Dr. Burzynski’s Public Relations”
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “In reality, Dr B is a quack and a charlatan of the worst order, and the movie is nothing more than a desperate attempt to try to sell his snake oil to the gullible”
——————————————————————
LIE: After reading through the comments, this sounds like the infamous lying Professor Robert J. (Bob) Blaskiewicz of University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire, “infamy”, who is a charlatan of the first order, and belabors his ignorance by referring to “snake oil”, which as far as I know, has never been approved for phase III clinical trials, unlike Dr. Burzynski’s antineoplastons A10 (Atengenal) and AS2-1 (Astugenal)
——————————————————————
Bob Blaskiewicz (Blatherskitewicz), Faux Skeptic Exposed!:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/bob-blaskiewicz-blatherskitewicz-faux-skeptic-exposed/
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “You have to ask why he’s never published any data showing that his treatment works”
——————————————————————
LIE: What people should ask is why does “Professor” @rjblaskiewicz and his other Skeptic pals continue posting idiotic statements like this on the Internet and social media (Twitter) ?
——————————————————————
Critiquing David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/critiquing-david-h-gorski-md-phd-facs-www-sciencebasedmedicine-orgeditorial-staffdavid-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “Well, if you believe everything the movie tells you, then perhaps you think it’s because of a huge global conspiracy that prevents him from publishing in any journal anywhere in the world”
——————————————————————
If you want to talk Jesse Ventura type “conspiracy theory”:

1. Why are The Skeptics™ like you too afraid to debate ?

2. Why did your “pal” David H. “Orac” Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS block me on his blog for questioning his infallibility ?

3. Why did Forbes delete my comments when I questioned The Skeptics™? regarding your “pal” Gorski’s “bud”, Peter A. Lipson, MD’s article ?

4. Why did The Skeptics™ Josephine Jones block me from her blog ?

5. Why did The Skeptics™ Adam Jacobs block me from his blog ?

6. Why did The Skeptics™ Guy Chapman block me from his blog ?

7. Why did The Skeptics™ Keir Liddle block me from his blog ?

8. Why do The Skeptics™ whine to Twitter in order to get Twitter to suspend the accounts of people who question them ?

9. Why did Wikipedia block me, using lame excuses ?

10. Why did reddit act like wiki’s little bitch and delete my posts and block my comments because this reddiot davidreiss666 whined like a little bitch ?
——————————————————————
overview for DidymusJudasThomas (reddit.com)

submitted 4 days ago by davidreiss666 to reportthespammers

1 comment
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “Even if you are sufficiently conspiracy minded to believe that’s true, then it still doesn’t explain why he hasn’t published his results on the clinicaltrials dot gov website, where most of his trials are recorded as either “ongoing”, “withdrawn”, or “unknown status””
——————————————————————
Did you NOT appear on the below blog talk radio show with your “pal” Gorski who said at 29:00 that Burzynski should NOT publish the information himself ?
——————————————————————
Ep09 – Talking Burzynski – David Gorski and Bob Blaskiewicz 05/29/2013
Skeptic Canary Show – BlogTalkRadio
May 29, 2013 … This week, join your hosts as we talk about Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski and the Burzynski Clinic. Well be joined by two special guest, Doctor David Gorski and Bob Blaskiewicz
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/…/ep09–talking-burzynski–david-gorski-and-bob-blaskiewicz
——————————————————————
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/skepticcanary/2013/05/29/ep09–talking-burzynski–david-gorski-and-bob-blaskiewicz
——————————————————————
http://goo.gl/7pWIj
——————————————————————
http://bit.ly/15lv5zG
——————————————————————
Critiquing the #SkepticCanary: “The Skeptics™” (SkeptiCowards©) Bob Blatherskitewicz and the so-called, “self-proclaimed” “CANCER RESEARCHER”:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/critiquing-the-skepticcanary-the-skeptics-skepticowards-bob-blatherskitewicz-and-the-so-called-self-proclaimed-cancer-researcher/
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “Only one of his trials is recorded as being completed, and that one doesn’t reveal it’s results”
——————————————————————
Did you notice that your above 5/29/2013 appearance was BEFORE this article was published 6/20/2013 ?
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “The fact is that Burzynski keeps is actual research data an extremely closely guarded secret”
——————————————————————
Like THIS ?
——————————————————————
Critiquing: Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski, M.D., Ph.D, L.I.A.R.:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/07/critiquing-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-m-d-ph-d-l-i-a-r/
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “If is treatment were actually effective, do you seriously think he’d do that?”
——————————————————————
RATS!!!. Like this ?
——————————————————————
Burzynski: Oh, RATS!!!
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/26/the-lancet-oncology-peer-review-team-d-12-01519-fail-2/
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “Burzynski likes to cultivate his conspiracy theories because it helps his business of scamming vulnerable cancer patients”
——————————————————————
Is that like The Skeptics™ like to LIE to people ?
——————————————————————
Critiquing: In which the latest movie about Stanislaw Burzynski “cancer cure” is reviewed…with Insolence:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/critiquing-in-which-the-latest-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-cure-is-reviewed-with-insolence-2/
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “For Burzynski, at least, cancer is indeed serious business”
——————————————————————
And for you, it must be a joke, considering how you are too much of a coward to debate questions like these
——————————————————————
QUESTIONS the Critics and Cynics, “The Skeptics™” do NOT want to ANSWER:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/23/questions-the-critics-and-cynics-the-skeptics-do-not-want-to-answer/
======================================
JEFF: “it has been tested independently in other countries, as the film shows”
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “The Japanese study remains unpublished, Jeff, just like all the over 60 studies Burzynski has started”

“Even if it were published, it would need to be replicated”
——————————————————————
Really ? Why not try pointing out where these studies were replicated before the FDA allowed these drugs to be used ?
——————————————————————
Burzynski: Why has the FDA NOT granted Accelerated Approval for Antineoplastons A10 (Atengenal) and AS2-1 (Astugenal) ?
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/burzynski-why-has-the-fda-not-granted-accelerated-approval-for-antineoplastons-a10-astengenal-and-as2-1-astugenal/
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “Merola manipulated by voice, face and even what I said in his movie and never asked for my comments”

“Sure, he misrepresented me to my new employers, but that doesn’t actually count as consulting me, now does it?”

“The “birthday surprise” in the movie was a fundraiser for a children’s cancer research hospital that raised over $15K, something I’m rather proud of, actually”
——————————————————————
Nice TRY with your LIE
——————————————————————
Critiquing Bob Blaskiewicz (#Burzynski Cancer is Serious Business, Part II):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/critiquing-bob-blaskiewicz-burzynski-cancer-is-serious-business-part-ii/
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “I’d encourage you to look at the other side of the story at The OTHER Burzynski Patient Group”

“These are far more typical outcomes”
——————————————————————
Do you mean this one of a number of your blogs which I just critiqued ?
——————————————————————
Critiquing https://theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/24/critiquing-httpstheotherburzynskipatientgroup-wordpress-com/
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “You might also see what Merola got wrong/faked at the anp4all website”
——————————————————————
Oh, do NOT worry

I will critique this one also, and let people see what YOU got wrong
======================================
ADAM JACOBS: “Jeff, you say it has been “tested independently in other countries”, but how do you know?”

“Because the movie says so?”

“Well, it would, wouldn’t it?”

“Come back and tell me about these so-called “independent tests” when they’ve been published”

“Until then, there is no reliable evidence that they actually happened”
——————————————————————
Adam Jacobs also known as @DianthusMed also known as Dianthus Medical of London, why don’t YOU come back and tell me when YOU learn how to read ?
——————————————————————
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/
======================================
TOMMIE TAYLOR: “The worst conspiracy in the world and the most profitable is the mainstream medical procedures of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation”

“Chemo and radiation destroy the immune system to the point that the body cannot heal”

“It is a crime against humanity to allow only these therapies”
======================================
ADAM JACOBS: “You do know that Burzynski uses chemotherapy, don’t you?”

“Antineoplastons themselves are a form of chemotherapy, but actually most of Burzynski’s patients don’t get ANPs anyway: they just get conventional chemotherapy”
——————————————————————
Adam, have you blocked anyone else from your blog since you blocked me because you are a coward ?
——————————————————————
The Burzynski Skeptics:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/the-burzynski-skeptics/
======================================

WHAT IS MISDIRECTION? Critiquing “Antineoplastons: Has the FDA kept its promise to the American people ?”

Posted on by
Reply

March 29, 1996
�
Then United States Food and Drug Administration Commissioner, David Kessler told the American people:
�
1. We will eliminate unnecessary paperwork … that used to delay or discourage … cancer research … by non-commercial clinical investigators
�
2. The … FDA’s initiatives … will allow …the agency … to rely on smaller trials … fewer patients … if there is evidence … of partial response in clinical trials
�
I don’t want to get into any particular … agent … except let me point out … that … the information needs to be part … of clinical trials
�
3. We will accept … less information … up front –
�
4. we’re going to require further study AFTER … approval … because the science … has matured
�
5. The important – point … is that information needs to be gathered … through scientific means … through clinical – trials … and I think – that’s … that’s very important uhh very … important point
�
You can’t … just … use an agent here – or there … you have to use it … as part of a clinical trial … so we can get information … on whether the drug works
�
6. The uhh agency has … many … trials … has has approved trials … for patients … with antineoplastons
�
7. We are committed to providing expanded access … availability … for American patients for any drug … there’s reason to believe … may work
——————————————————————
BOTTOM LINE:
——————————————————————
Everything else is MISDIRECTION
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/antineoplastons-has-the-fda-kept-its-promise-to-the-american-people
——————————————————————
A. What is the FDA’s definition of “unnecessary paperwork”?
�
B. What is the FDA’s definition of “smaller trials”?
�
C. What is the FDA’s definition of “fewer patients”?
�
D. What is the FDA’s definition of “evidence … of partial response“?
�
E. What is the FDA’s definition of “less information … up front”?
�
F. What is the FDA’s definition of “we’re going to require further study AFTER … approval”?
�
G. What is the FDA’s definition of “We are committed to providing expanded access … availability … for American patients for any drug … there’s reason to believe … may work”?
======================================
2003 – 2009 Phase II preliminary
——————————————————————
2003 – Phase II
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12718563
Drugs R D. 2003;4(2):91-101
(Drugs in R and D / Drugs in Research and Development)
�
2003: Protocol – recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma
�
12 – Patients Accrued
10 – Evaluable Patients
�
2 / 20% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
3 / 30% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
3 / 30% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
2 / 20% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
======================================
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/scientific-publications.html
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
1. 10/2003
�
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
�
Burzynski, S.R., Weaver, R.A., Bestak, M., Lewy, R.I., Janicki, T.J., Jurida, G.F., Paszkowiak, J.K., Szymkowski, B.G., Khan, M.I.
�
Phase II study of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in children with recurrent and progressive MULTICENTRIC GLIOMA
�
A preliminary report
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/970.pdf
Neuro-Oncology. 2003; 5: 358
Volume 5 Issue 4 October 2003
�
10/2003 – Protocol – MULTICENTRIC GLIOMA
�
12 – Children Patients Accrued
10 – Evaluable Patients
(9 months-17 years / 9 – median age)
�
4 / 33% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
2 / 25% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
4 / 33% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
0 / 0% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
1 / 9% – # and % of Patients Nonevaluable due to only 4 weeks of treatment / lack of follow-up scans
======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
16. 2003
�
DRUGS IN R&D
Drugs in R and D
(Drugs in Research and Development)
�
BT-11
BRAIN STEM GLIOMA
�
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/pubmed/12718563
Burzynski, S.R., Lewy, R.I., Weaver, R.A., Axler, M.L., Janicki, T.J., Jurida, G.F., Paszkowiak, J.K., Szymkowski, B.G., Khan, M.I., Bestak, M.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12718563
Drugs R D. 2003;4(2):91-101
Drugs in R&D 2003;4:91-101
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/960.pdf
�
Pgs. 91-92 and 95
�
3/1996 – Protocol – recurrent diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (3/1996 – 5/1999 enrolled / Pg. 94)
�
12 – Patients Accrued (6 males / 6 females)
(4-29 years / 10 – median age)
10 – Evaluable Patients
�
2 / 20% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
3 / 30% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
3 / 30% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
2 / 20% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
======================================
2004 – Phase II
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15563234
Drugs R D. 2004;5(6):315-26
(Drugs in R and D / Drugs in Research and Development)
�
2004: Protocol – incurable recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma
�
12 – Patients Accrued
(9 – median age)
11 – Evaluable Patients
�
4 / 33% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
3 / 25% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
4 / 33% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
0 / 0% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
2. 10/2004
�
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
�
BT-20
Patients With GLIOBLASTOMA MULTIFORME (GBM)
�
Weaver, R.A., Burzynski, S.R., Bestak, M., Lewy, R.I., Janicki, T.J., Szymkowski, B., Jurida, G., Khan, M.I., Dolgopolov, V.
�
Phase II study of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in recurrent GLIOBLASTOMA MULTIFORME
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1218.pdf
Neuro-Oncology. 2004; 6: 384
Volume 6 Issue 4 October 2004
Abstracts from the Society for Neuro-Oncology Ninth Annual Meeting, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, November 18-21, 2004
�
Pg. 385
�
10/2004 – Protocol – glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) which recurred or progressed post surgery, radiation therapy, and / or chemotherapy
�
22 – Evaluable Patients
(6 men / 16 women / 27-63 /47 – median age)
�
1 / 4.5% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
1 / 4.5% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
12 / 54.5% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
8 / 36.5% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
3. 10/2004 (DBSG)
�
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
�
Burzynski, S.R., Weaver, R. Bestak. M., Lewy, R.I., Janicki, T., Jurida, G., Szymkowski, B., Khan, M., Dolgopolov, V.
�
Long-term survivals in phase II studies of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in patients with diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1219.pdf
Neuro-Oncology. 2004; 6: 386
Volume 6 Issue 4 October 2004
�
60 patients
(31 didn’t meet admission criteria to the study and were treated under Special Exception (SE))
�
10/2004 – Protocol – patients with diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (DBSG)
�
29 – Evaluable Patients
�
7 / 24% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
6 / 21% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
6 / 21% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
10 / 34% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
——————————————————————
31 – Evaluable Patients: Special exception (SE)
�
5 / 16% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
2 / 6% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
16 / 52% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
8 / 26% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
4. 10/2004 (AT/RT of CNS)
�
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
�
BT-14
�
CHILDREN WITH RHABDOID TUMOR OF THE CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM
�
Burzynski, S.R., Weaver, R. Bestak. M., Janicki, T., Jurida, G., Szymkowski, B., Khan, M., Dolgopolov, V.
�
Phase II studies of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in children with atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumors (AT/RT) of the central nervous system
�
A preliminary report
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1146.pdf
Neuro-Oncology. 2004; 6: 427
Volume 6 Issue 4 October 2004
Abstracts from the Eleventh International Symposium on Pediatric Neuro-Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts, June 13-16, 2004
�
10/2004 – Protocol – children with atypical teratoid / rhabdoid tumors (AT / RT) of the central nervous system
�
11 – Children Patients Accrued
8 – Evaluable Patients
(7 treated under Special Exception (SE))
�
2 / 25% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
1 / 12.5% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
1 / 12.5% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
4 / 50% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
5. 10/2004
�
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
�
BT-12
�
CHILDREN WITH PRIMITIVE NEUROECTODERMAL TUMORS (PNET)
�
Burzynski, S.R., Weaver, R. Bestak. M., Janicki, T., Szymkowski, B., Jurida, G., Khan, M., Dolgopolov, V.
�
Treatment of PRIMITIVE NEUROECTODERMAL TUMORS (PNET) with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP)
�
Preliminary results of phase II studies
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1147.pdf
Neuro-Oncology. 2004; 6: 428
Volume 6 Issue 4 October 2004
Abstracts from the Eleventh International Symposium on Pediatric Neuro-Oncology
�
10/2004 – Protocol – PRIMITIVE NEUROECTODERMAL TUMORS (PNET)
�
17 – Patients Accrued
15 – Evaluable Patients
(12 months – 23 years / 6 – median age)
�
3 / 20% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
2 / 13.4% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
5 / 33.3% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
5 / 33.3% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
17. 2004
�
DRUGS IN R&D
Drugs in R and D
(Drugs in Research and Development)
�
Burzynski, S.R., Weaver, R., Lewy, R., Janicki, T. Jurida, G., Szymkowski, B., Khan, M., Bestak, M.
�
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/pubmed/15563234
Drugs R&D 2004;5(6):315-326.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15563234
Drugs R D. 2004;5(6):315-26
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1194.pdf
�
incurable recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma
�
Pg. 320
�
3 – treated under Special Exception (SE) granted by the US FDA
�
Pgs. 317 and 320
�
7/31/1996 – (7/31/1996 – 4/3/2002 as of 3/1/2004) Protocol – children with recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma (MCG)
�
Pg. 317
�
BT-13
�
children with low-grade astrocytoma
�
BT-23
�
children with visual pathway gliomas

�
Pgs. 317 and 320-321
�
12 – Children Patients Accrued (Pgs. 315-316)
(9 months – 17 years / 9- median age)
(6 – male / 6 – females)
10 – Evaluable Patients (Pg. 315)
�
4 / 33% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
3 / 25% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
4 / 33% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
0 / 0% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
1 / 9% – # and % of Patients Non-evaluable
——————————————————————
Pg. 325
�
Compare: Chamberlain and Grafe. [38]
�
1995 – Protocol – solitary recurrent chiasmatic hypothalamic gliomas treated with oral etoposide

�
14 – Patients Accrued
14 – Evaluable Patients
�
1 / 7% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
4 / 29% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
3 / 21% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
6 / 43% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
�
Pg. 326
�
38. Chamberlain MC, Grafe MR. Recurrent chiasmatic-hypothalamic glioma treated with oral etoposide. J Clin Oncol 1995; 13: 2072-6
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7636550/
J Clin Oncol. 1995 Aug;13(8):2072-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7636550/
Department of Neurosciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, USA.
http://m.jco.ascopubs.org/content/13/8/2072.long
Arch Neurol. 1995 May;52(5):509-13.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7733847/
Department of Neurosciences, University of California-San Diego, USA.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7733847/
Arch Neurol. 1995;52(5):509-513. doi:10.1001/archneur.1995.00540290099024.
http://archneur.jamanetwork.com/Mobile/article.aspx?articleid=593460
——————————————————————
Compare: The Pediatric Oncology Group. [39]
�
10/2000 – Protocol – solitary progressive optic pathway tumors with carboplatin
�
50 – Patients Accrued
50 – Evaluable Patients
�
2 / 4% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
37 / 74% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
11 / 22% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
�
39. Mahoney DH, Cohen ME, Friedman HS, et al. Carboplatin is effective therapy for young children with progressive optic pathway tumors: a Pediatric Oncology Group phase II study. Neuro-oncol 2000; 2: 213-20
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11265230/
Neuro Oncol. 2000 Oct;2(4):213-20.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11265230/
Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1920597/
�
http://neuro-oncology.oxfordjournals.org/content/2/4/213.full.pdf
======================================
2005 – Phase II
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15911929
Integr Cancer Ther. 2005 Jun;4(2):168-77
(Integrative Cancer Therapies)
�
2005: Protocol – recurrent disease or high risk
�
13 – Patients Accrued
(1-11 – age / 5 years 11 months – median age)
13 – Evaluable Patients
�
3 / 23% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
1 / 8% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
4 / 31% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
5 / 38% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
——————————————————————
(Updated 2007)
http://www.cancer-therapy.org/CT/v5/B/HTML/42._Burzynski,_379-390.html
2005 – Protocol – incurable recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma
�
13 – Patients Accrued
�
3 / 23% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
1 / 8% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
4 / 31% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
5 / 38% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
======================================
2006 – Phase II
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16484713
Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Mar;5(1):40-7
(Integrative Cancer Therapies)
�
2006: Protocol – high-grade pathology (HBSG)
�
– Patients Accrued
18 – Evaluable Patients
�
2 / 11% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
2 / 11% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
7 / 39% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
7 / 39% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
BT-03
�

�
BT-11
�
BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (BSG)
�
BT-18
�
6. MIXED GLIOMA
�
ADULT PATIENTS WITH MIXED GLIOMA
�
“mixed glioma”, a type of primary malignant brain tumor (PMBT)
�
BT-22
�
8. CHILDREN WITH PRIMARY MALIGNANT BRAIN TUMORS
�
CAN-01 (CAN-1)
�
PATIENTS WITH REFRACTORY MALIGNANCIES
�
19. 3/2006
�
Burzynski, S.R., Janicki, T.J., Weaver, R.A., Burzynski, B. Targeted therapy with Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 of high grade, recurrent, and progressive BRAINSTEM GLIOMA. Integrative Cancer Therapies 2006;5(1):40-47
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16484713
Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Mar;5(1):40-7
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16484713
DOI: 10.1177/1534735405285380
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/5825.pdf
�
http://m.ict.sagepub.com/content/5/1/40.long?view=long&pmid=16484713
Pgs. 40-41
�
4 phase 2 trials
�
BRAINSTEM GLIOMA (BSG)
�
patients with inoperable tumor of high-grade pathology (HBSG)
glioblastoma
�
recurrent diffuse intrinsic glioblastomas and ANAPLASTIC ASTROCYTOMAs of brainstem
�
Pg. 43
�
BT-03 – 1 / female
BT-11 – 13 (8 males/5 females)
BT-18 – 1 / female
BT-22 – 2 / females
CAN-01 – 1 / female
�
Pg. 44
�
High-grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem gliomas
�
Pgs. 40-42 and 44-45
�
7/12/1988 (7/12/1988 – 11/13/2003 as of 6/10/2005) – Protocol – recurrent diffuse intrinsic glioblastomas and anaplastic astrocytomas of the brainstem high-grade pathology (HBSG)
�
18 – Evaluable Patients (Pgs. 40-43)
(8 males / 10 females / 2-42 / 10 – median age / Pgs. 42-43)
�
2 / 11% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
2 / 11% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
7 / 39% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
7 / 39% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
BT-11
�
BRAIN STEM GLIOMA
�
8. 10/2006
�
Burzynski, S.R., Janicki, T.J., Weaver, R.A., Szymkowski, B.G., Khan, M.I., Dolgopolov, V. Treatment of multicentric BRAINSTEM GLIOMAs with antineoplastons (ANP) A10 and AS2-1. Neuro-Oncology. 2006; 8:466.
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/2105.pdf
Volume 8 Issue 4 October 2006
Abstracts for the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO)
�
Brainstem gliomas and multicentric tumors (MBSG)
�
10/2006 – Protocol – Brainstem gliomas and multicentric tumors (MBSG)
�
19 – Evaluable Patients
3.9 – 40.8 years (9.2 – median age)
(90% less than 18 years old)
�
2 / 11% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
1 / 5% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
7 / 37% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
9 / 47% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
======================================
2007
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1252.pdf
2004 – Protocol – small group of patients with progressive LGA, ANP
60% – % of Patients Showing Complete Response
10% – % of Patients Showing Partial Response
——————————————————————
2004 – Protocol – 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
10 – Evaluable Patients {(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}
60% (6) – % and # of Patients Showing Complete Response {24 (11) next closest}
10% (1) – % and # of Patients Showing Partial Response {60% (9) best other study}
30% (3) – % and # of Patients Showing Stable Disease + MR = minor response {70% (14) best other study}
0% (0) – % and # of Patients Showing 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
——————————————————————
2004 – Protocol – 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
30 – Evaluable Patients
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
27% (8) – % and # of Patients Showing Complete Response
20% (6) – % and # of Patients Showing Partial Response
23% (7) – % and # of Patients Showing Stable Disease
30% (9) – % and # of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
——————————————————————
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}
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
BT-11
�
BRAIN STEM GLIOMA
�
9. 4/2007 (NDBSG)
�
Burzynski, S.R., Weaver, R.A., Janicki, T.J., Jurida, G.F., Szymkowski, B.G., Kubove, E. Phase II studies of Antineoplastons A10 and AS 2-1 (ANP) in children with newly diagnosed diffuse, intrinsic BRAINSTEM GLIOMAs. Neuro-Oncology 2007; 9:206.
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/4021.pdf
Volume 9 Issue 2 April 2007
Abstracts from the Twelfth International Symposium on Pediatric Neuro-Oncology
�
4/2007 – Protocol – newly diagnosed diffuse, intrinsic BRAINSTEM GLIOMAs (NDBSG)
�
20 – Evaluable assessable children Patients
(3 months-20 years – age)
�
6 / 30% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
2 / 10% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
4 / 20% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
8 / 40% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
BT-11
�
BRAIN STEM GLIOMA
�
Special exception (SE)
�
13. 12/2009 (DBSG)
�
Burzynski, S.R., Janicki, T.J., Weaver, R.A., Szymkowski, B., Burzynski, G.S. Phase II study of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 in patients with BRAINSTEM GLIOMA. Protocol BC-BT-11. Neuro-Oncology 2009, 11:951.
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/8639.pdf
Volume 11 Issue 6 December 2009
Abstracts from the Third Quadrennial Meeting of the World Federation of Neuro-Oncology (WFNO) and the Sixth Meeting of the Asian Society for Neuro-Oncology (ASNO)
May 11-14, 2009
Yokohama, Japan
�
12/2009 – Protocol – BRAINSTEM GLIOMAs
�
40 – Patients Accrued
28 – Evaluable Patients
(23 children / 5 young adults)
�
5 / 18% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
4 / 14% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
12 / 43% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
7 / 25% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
——————————————————————
Special exception (SE)
�
12/2009 – Protocol – BRAINSTEM GLIOMAs
�
52 – Evaluable Patients
(40 children / 12 young adults)
�
5 / 10% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
2 / 4% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
28 / 54% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
17 / 32% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
——————————————————————
BT-11 and special exception (SE)
92% – diffuse intrinsic brainstem gliomas (DBSG)
�
Overall survival (OS) – 2 years:
42% – special exception (SE)
36% – BT-11
�
Overall survival (OS) – 5 years:
19% – special exception (SE)
25% – BT-11
======================================
Compare: standard radiation therapy in combination with chemotherapy (RAT) (Mandell et al. 1999)
�
2% – % of Patients Showing Complete Response
31% – % of Patients Showing Partial Response
�
Mandell LR, Kadota R, Freeman C, et al. There is no role for hyperfractionated radiotherapy in the management of children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic brain stem tumors: results of pediatric oncology group phase III trial comparing conventional vs. hyperfractionated radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;43:959-964.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10192340/
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999 Mar 15;43(5):959-64.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10192340/
International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
Volume 43, Issue 5, 15 March 1999, Pages 959–964
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036030169800501X
Department of Radiation Oncology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
6/1992 – 10/1997
�
Overall survival (OS):
7% – 2 years
0% – 5 years
=====================================
COMBINED:
——————————————————————
Overall survival (OS) – 2 years:
——————————————————————
42% – antineoplastons: special exception (SE)
�
36% – antineoplastons: BT-11
�
7% – standard radiation therapy in combination with chemotherapy (RAT)
——————————————————————
Overall survival (OS) – 5 years:
——————————————————————
25% – antineoplastons: BT-11
�
19% – antineoplastons: special exception (SE)
�
0% – standard radiation therapy in combination with chemotherapy (RAT)
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Break The Walls Down:
http://youtu.be/aAoJ1FY9kM8
——————————————————————
And “THAT’s The BOTTOM LINE”
Because Stone Cold Said So
http://youtu.be/v2KLaaykD5g
——————————————————————
IT’s GO TIME
Time To Play The Game:
http://youtu.be/xskJaEF-cuE
——————————————————————
Break The Walls Down:
http://youtu.be/JAG55VxlQeI
=====================================

Wikipedia, you’ve sprung a Wiki Leak

Posted on by
Reply

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM
onforb.es/11pwse9
Dr. Peter A. Lipson (@palMD), posted a biased article:
http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW
A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics
on Forbes (#Forbes)

One “lilady” decided to bite off more than she could chew, when she posted:

lilady 3 weeks 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
and:

lilady 3 weeks 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
If “lilady” thought that I “opened” a “huge tin of Spam, months ago!,” I hope she truly enjoys the huge tin of spinach that I opened on Wikipedia:

(This “lilady” has stated her stance on “Orac’s” “Oracolytes” blog, making it clear that this “lilady” is just another one of “The SkeptiCowards,” along with “Orac,” Guy Chapman, Boris Ogon, etc.)

The list of “The SkeptiCowards,” expands exponentially

guychapman (Guy Chapman) Critiquing “The Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics (page 9):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/05/guychapman-guy-chapman-critiquing-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics-page-9/
I show JzG what a “FACT” is: Burzynski: FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions): Clinical Trial Results:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/i-show-jzg-what-a-fact-is-burzynski-faq-frequently-asked-questions-clinical-trial-results/
Wikipedia, what’s your motivation?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/wikipedia-whats-your-motivation/
WikipediA or WikipediAin’t ?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/wikipedia-or-wikipediaint/
Wikipedia, your Burzynski BIAS is showing:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/18/wikipedia-your-burzynski-bias-is-showing/
Having successfully proven that Jimmy (“Alabamy Jimbo“) Donal Wales’ Wiki Leaks Wikipedia was BIASED when it came to the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzynski_Clinic
Burzynski Clinic
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzynski_Clinic
article, I decided to:

Do The “Alabamy Right” Thing

(Unlike Wikipedia: Statement Of Principles)

[[WP:SOP]] “Statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales:

(Wikipedia: Doing The Right Thing)

1. Doing The Right Thing takes many forms, but perhaps most central is the preservation of our shared vision for the neutral point of view policy and for a culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty.”

Time for a huge tin can of Alabamy WhoopA$$

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Didymus Judas Thomas

Pages in category “Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Didymus Judas Thomas”

The following 10 pages are in this category, out of 10 total. This list may not reflect recent changes (learn more).

User:166.205.55.18
User:166.205.55.23
User:166.205.55.24
User:166.205.55.30
User:166.205.55.40
User:166.205.68.19
User:166.205.68.25
User:166.205.68.43
User:166.205.68.44
User:166.205.68.49
Last modified on 25 February 2013, at 00:06
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Didymus_Judas_Thomas
NICE TRY, WikipediAin’t!
redd.it/1efn0f
Read THIS:
http://redd.it/1efn0f
(Wikipedia: Neutral Point Of View)

“[[WP:NPOV]] “History of NPOV:” (Content # 6). “The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered,” references.” Thank you very much. 166.205.55.30 (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/21/2013l”
http://www.reddit.com/tb/1efn0f
WikipediA or WikipediAin’t ?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/wikipedia-or-wikipediaint/
Did you see THAT WikipediAin’t?
http://po.st/xLSBJ7
THAT’s IP address:

166.205.55.30

User:166.205.55.18
User:166.205.55.23
User:166.205.55.24
»→User:166.205.55.30←«
User:166.205.55.40
User:166.205.68.19
User:166.205.68.25
User:166.205.68.43
User:166.205.68.44
User:166.205.68.49

Let’s see where else WikipediAin’t Ain’t managed to “Do The Right Thing,” shall we?

2/12/2013 and 2/13/2013, 2 purported Wikipedian’s “outed” themselves on “Orac’s” blog (Dr. David H. Gorski, @oracknows, @gorskon, @ScienceBasedMed,
http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence, http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org,
#sciencebasedmedicine)

#174 – SW – February 12, 2013
[…]
anti-Burzynski “bloggers”
[…]
These individuals are also responsible for “gate keeping” the Wikipedia Page on The Burzynski Clinic.

This issue, as well as the identities of those involved, will be covered in great length in the new 2013 “Chapter 2″ documentary.
[…]
You will notice the “anti-Burzynski bloggers” refuse to do that or adhere to reputable sources.
[…]
As one of those “gate keeping” wikipedians I find this quite laughable – not only the threat of “covering” my identity, but also the suggestion that bloggers and wikipedians (there may be an overlap, but I can assure you that I’m not a blogger) refuse to check and adhere to reputable sources

#203 – novalox – February 13, 2013

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

Should be entertaining to see his attempts at this.

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

Have fun with that
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/02/08/will-the-fda-finally-slap-down-stanislaw-burzynski-for-good
Neither of these individuals has had the testicular fortitude to bring their “A Game” and post comments or reply to questions on MY blog; which is different than “The Censoring Skeptics” blogs (Have fun with THAT):

Dr. David H. Gorski, @gorskon, @oracknows, @ScienceBasedMed,
http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence,
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org,
Adam Jacobs (@DianthusMed), http://dianthus.co.uk/blog, @_JosephineJones, http://josephinejones.wordpress.com, Dr. Peter A. Lipson, (@palMD), Peter A. Lipson, Musings on the intersection of Articles Bias and Censorship, A Film Producer A Cancer Doctor And Their Critics,
Guy Chapman, guychapman, @SceptiGuy, @vGuyUK, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg, Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales, http://www.jimmywales.com, (@jimmy_wales), 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, Keir Liddle,(@Endless_Psych), http://www.thetwentyfirstfloor.com/, @rjblaskiewicz (rjblaskiewicz, Bob Blaskiewicz FauxSkeptic Exposed!, R.J. Blaskiewicz), http://www.skepticalhumanates.com
who censor others; which I do NOT do on my blog, since I actually believe in “Free Speech,” Walk the Walk, and Talk the Talk

WikipediAin’t apologist, Guy Chapman, posted:

“Ne’s like a rash over the blogs and twitter, he’s also been banned from Wikipedia which has a more robust attitude to sockpuppets and block evasion than some services.”
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg/2013/03/burzynski-another-fact-blind-troll-who-predicted-that/
“Ne’s”?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Didymus_Judas_Thomas&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop
Guy Chapman is a Coward
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Didymus_Judas_Thomas
Chapman makes EXCUSES and hides behind his keypad, rather than respond to questions

Critiquing “Burzynski: Another fact-blind troll, who predicted that?”:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/critiquing-burzynski-another-fact-blind-troll-who-predicted-that
“The U.S. v. Article’~ court stated that the FDA’s responsibility was to protect the ultimate consumer, which included protection of “the ignorant, the unthinking and the credulous.”‘

“the ignorant

the unthinking and

the credulous.”‘

SW and novalox, which are you?

Boris Ogon

“You are right now having a live “debate” in front of more than 10,000 people, and nothing you have presented suggests that you would be more coherent in person.”

4,089 views

Not so much

Waiting for the 10,000

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

The dishonesty of Guy Chapman, “The Skeptics” shill

Posted on by
Reply

The dishonesty of Guy Chapman,
“The Skeptics” shill
(@SceptiGuy @vGuyUK)

Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:53am – 12 Apr 13:
http://t.co/qGmGL5TcRO

https://twitter.com/dianthusmed/status/322648544412565504
“The dishonesty of Eric Merola, Burzynski shill”

“The fundamental characteristic of science is honest discourse”

“Dissenting opinion is encouraged, engaging with dissenting views is pretty much mandatory, at least if they are well founded”

“Skeptics usually follow the same principle with blog comments and the like”

“Obvious trolls do not usually get shut down unless their agitation becomes a significant burden on the site”

Obviously, “TROLLS” is a term that “The Skeptics” label anyone who questions their “infallibility” with, in order to supposedly buttress their questionable “reasoning” for not dealing with the questions they do not want to deal with, before they quickly change the subject

“This is by stark contrast with the world of quackery where nasty reality is not often not allowed to intrude”

As opposed to the stark contrast with the world of “The Skeptics” where nasty “rational reasoning” is not often allowed to intrude

“A new worst offender has come up in the shape of Burzynski shill and conspiracy whacknut Eric Merola”

As opposed to Guy Chapman who believes that a steel building like WTC7 collapsing is perfectly rational when hundreds and hundreds of architects and engineers disagree with him and he is unable to offer any example of any other steel building collapsing under such similar circumstances, or whether he is an architect or engineer more qualified that the aforementioned ones

Be that as it may,
maybe that’s how people think in the UK

“Merola ran a Q&A session around a screening of his propaganda movie”
http://youtu.be/zfZW8YVya0c

“Some skeptics attended”

Like the “Skeptic Mule” who could not bother taking a minute out of their life to find out how the first movie was funded though it was clearly disclosed on the movie web-site
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/2050-qburzynski-iiq-is-more-of-the-same.html
A blog which I awarded the first ever “PigASSus award for their adolescent voting option which allows viewers to vote on comments so that they are minimized and have to be maximized to view

If your viewers are so insecure that they need a voting option so they can “see no evil,” maybe you are too insecure to be running a blog:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/finally-james-randi-educational-fund-jref-wins-an-award-that-they-richly-deserve
“When they challenged on the provable absence of any randomised controlled trials, or any published outcomes from the sixty Phase II trials registered by Burzynski, there was an immediate cut to sinister music and obfuscatory web links that have already been addressed, content that does not address the issue f RCTs or failure to publish”

This is because individuals like Guy Chapman make a conscious decision to NOT do Internet searches in order to “Fact Check” before they “Insert Foot in Mouth”

3/28/3013 I had already addressed the Randomized question on my blog:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/burzynski-the-antineoplaston-randomized-japan-phase-ii-clinical-trial-study
3/26/2013 I had already addressed the Phase II clinical trials on my blog:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/my-critique-of-bob-blaskiewicz-colorado-public-television-pbs-cpt12
“This Gish Gallop is a standard tactic of Burzynski shills – every time they are challenged on the lack of published evidence they come up with the same list of conference abstracts, junk journals and so on, and every time they get the same response: that is not proper published evidence, where is the trial data?”

Not “proper published evidence” per WHO?

YOU?

YOU-WHO, you do NOT get to decide what is “proper published evidence”

“To find Merola editing a video to blatantly misrepresent the position of the reality-based community is hardly a surprise”

I am NOT quite certain what “reality” YOU are living in

“Needless to say, people asked questions in the Comments section of the YouTube video”

“And needless to say the comments were deleted”

If it was “needless to say,” why did you “say” it?

“Not just deleted, the commenters were immediately and summarily blocked from making any comment whatsoever on that video”

Reminds me of Orac’s YouTube video:
David H. Gorski – Quackademic Medicine, which had a video stream, and now does NOT have a video stream

“Hilariously, he then claimed that “skeptics don’t want to argue” – despite the fact that we have been arguing with him constantly on Twitter over these self-same misrepresentations!”

“Prize for best exposure of this idiocy goes to Adam Jacobs:”

THIS is the same Adam Jacobs who “creates” excuses for censoring comments, using “misinformation” and “disinformation” (MisDisInformation) and “misdirection,” as he did when I commented on Guy Chapman’s comments on his blog

Adam Jacobs March 16, 2013 at 8:40 am

“In the interests of transparency, I should point out that Didymus has left another comment which I’ve not approved

This is not something I do lightly:

I hate to censor comments, and believe firmly that everyone should have their say

However, the comment I consigned to the spam bin was another long, pointless, rambling one, with many irrelevant links

It doesn’t say anything of importance that Didymus hasn’t already said in his previous comments

I fear that Didymus is simply trying to make these comments unreadable by posting large quantities of irrelevance, and that’s something I really don’t think I can allow

Any future comments from Didymus with similar quantities of distraction material will be treated similarly”
http://dianthus.co.uk/burzynski-qa

Quidama (@IamBreastCancer) tweeted at 7:00pm – 9 Apr 13:
https://twitter.com/IamBreastCancer/status/321774683940851712

rjblaskiewicz:
https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/313725494170361856

rjblaskiewicz:
https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/313741293576667137

rjblaskiewicz:
https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/310589187797700608

Post #199 – Orac – 2/13/2013

“BTW, a certain commenter has been flooding the threads over the last 12 hours

His most recent comments are all in the moderation queue, but with more than 40 over the last 12 hours I probably won’t be releasing the vast majority of them, given how repetitive and inane they are

That would be a lot of annoying and obnoxious idiocy to release in such a short period of time, and if you look further upstream in this comment thread you’ll see that there’s already plenty of that from him there

Enough’s enough. I’m more tolerant of trolls and just plain obnoxious commenters than almost any blogger you’ll come across, but this is getting ridiculous”
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/02/08/will-the-fda-finally-slap-down-stanislaw-burzynski-for-good
“It’s astounding that Merola thinks he can get away with this kind of nonsense”

Yet “The Skeptics” have no qualms about trying to “get away with this kind of nonsense”

“Pretending that the ruthless suppression of any awkward questions like “where are the randomised controlled trials” and “where are the published results of the clinical trials conducted on humans, per the Helsinki Protocol” somehow equates to us not wanting to debate”

And yet curiously, Guy does NOT point out that the Declaration of Helsinki does NOT require a certain timetable be followed
http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3
“I think this is going to get really ugly when BBC’s Panorama runs an actual documentary (rather than a propaganda film) that is apparently in the works”

One man’s “propaganda” is another man’s “propergenda”

“This was expected soon but seems to be delayed, possibly because of the FDA raid about which Burzynski’s shills have made dark mumblings, and which was immediately followed by the removal of all reference to antineoplastons and trials from the content of the Burzynski clinic website”

THAT sure explains THIS:
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/scientific-publications.html
Which is another item I had already addressed on my blog:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/burzynski-updates-scientific-publications-page
“Tijuana beckons”

Or, probably in your case, Mad Dog 20/20
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg/2013/04/the-dishonesty-of-eric-merola-burzynski-shill

Critiquing the Skeptics re “Funny how you never see Orac and this person in the same place at the same time”

Posted on by
Reply

“Funny how you never see Orac and this person in the same place at the same time”

#1 – Marc Stephens Is Insane – 3/30/2013

“Eric Merola and DJT have already resorted to making fun of Orac’s “friend’s” presentation on the #burzynski thread

“They are now disputing the “sugar does not feed cancer” claim that is raised in the video”

“NOW DISPUTING” ?

I do NOT need to waste my time “DISPUTING” the

“sugar does not feed cancer”

claim

That has already been done by organizations in the USA, as I noted here; the bottom 1/4th:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/critiquing-david-h-gorski-quackademic-medicine

#2 – Marc Stephens Is Insane – 3/30

“To wit, the twit:”
http://twitpic.com/cffrfv

Does this mean that some poor sod has to suffer through an Orac’s “friend’s”

“Alternative sleep therapy”

video in order to determine where THIS reference came from?

It’s NOT like ORAC’s “friend” did NOT already do a fabulous job at estranging the whole “Faith-Based” segment of society

Gorski, care to repeat your little insignificant presentation at the Southern Baptists’ Convention, for example?

#8 – Neil B. Feldman – Rockville, MD – 3/30

“Orac, I am the fellow in the audience (with stage IV RCC on Sutent) who asked about nutrition and the fact that marginalizing this vital subject just pushes it further into the arms of sCAMers”

The man I mentioned at “20.” of my “Critiquing David H. Gorski – Quackademic Medicine” blog post

#9 – David James – 3/30
http://www.skeptical.gb.net
“MSII – I think you’ll find Orac’s friend has posted this as a direct conciquence of Eric and DJT linking to it”

“Conspiracy Theorist” David James; as can be expected from a fair number of “Skeptics,” as a “conciquence” of being a “Skeptic,” gets it WRONG

I did NOT link to it on Twitter

THAT, was Eric

“Personally, I think it’s odd that you only ever see them in the same place at the same time… I mean seriously guys, get a room!!”

I suggest a “Time-Out” for you in your own “get a” personalized rubber room

#10 – JayBee – Everywhere Else –
3/30

“MSII #5:
Jake’s appearance was neat and clean enough

I was more entertained by his attempts to engage Dr. Gorski after the meeting by loudly and repeatedly asking”

“Since when is everywhere else a geographical location?”

There were much better subjects that could have been “broached” with Orac’s “friend”

Like:

“Would you like some sugar with your Black Crowes?

#11 – Melissa G – 3/30

“Orac, your “friend’s” HEAVY SIGHS at the Quackademic medicine during the presentation were the most awesome part!”

Ohhh, trust me

THAT was NOWHERE near close to being:

“the most awesome part!”

“Poor Jake

He just absolutely does not understand the meaning of cherry-picking”

Do NOT worry

Do NOT be afraid

Orac’s “friend” provided him with a plethora of examples of:

“cherry-picking”

“You TOTALLY pwned him … “

“Someone” got “pwned,” his name begins with the Big “O,” and he resides behind a CAM (Clear And Magic) curtain, in the “Land of Oz,” similar to the Emperor who has no clothes

” … he pulled out of his arse”

EXACTLY!!!

#13 – S – 3/30

“Jake’s appearance was neat and clean enough

I was more entertained by his attempts to engage Dr. Gorski after the meeting by loudly and repeatedly asking”

“Since when is everywhere else a geographical location?”

Is there an ECHO ECHo ECho Echo echo in here from #10?

#22 – Alain – 3/30

” … for some peoples, it’s all about me, myself and I”

Or in Orac’s and his “friend’s” case:

it’s all about @OracKnows, @gorskon and @ScienceBasedMed

#39 – Quokka – Pretoria South Africa – just for a change – 4/1

“Posting here will make a difference to others who are beginning to question”

Maybe as long as you do NOT begin to

“question”

Orac and his “Oracolytes”
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/03/30/funny-how-you-never-see-orac-and-this-person-in-the-same-place-at-the-same-time