“The Skeptics” are “debatable”

In the aftermath of the Google+ Hangout …

I remember seeing one of “The Skeptics™” continuing to twit at a pro-Burzynski Twitter user, after they were asked to stop

If I find it I’ll post it here



Guy, what’s your point ?

That I’m giving “The Skeptics™” some of their own “medicine” and they don’t like it ?

@SceptiGuy, Is it true that a “Skeptic™” sucker is born every minute ?

Because if you believe Wikipedia’s lies, “Orac” has something for sale

I’m waiting for someone to “prove it”

Guy, you have absolutely NO credibility:

2 – Terminated (Withdrawn due to slow enrollment)

7 – Withdrawn (Study withdrawn prior to enrollment)

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

Now research the 52

Guy Chapman, you are the epitome of “massive cognitive dissonance”

After all, you thought I was “Astroturfwatch” based on absolutely nothing


Awwwwwww … and if she posts garbage as she has also done in the past, I will call her out on it

Except I never said that, and you can’t prove I said that

Maybe I should misquote you ?

David, this is the first question for Bob:

3/4/2013 – 7:58pm – You posted on Colorado Public Television (CPT12):

“ANP is toxic as anything!”

So you’re saying what ?

ANP is as toxic as water ?

David, do you understand that question, or is it too difficult for you ?

David James, try this:


@StortSkeptic, I’ve tried to make it as easy as possible for “The Skeptics™” to leave comments on my blog without having to authenticate/sign in

Why don’t you grow some “grapefruits” and ask away ?

Why can’t you think the way you twit ?

David, where’s your citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) that support your position as to when you think Burzynski was required to publish ?

Trust me

I thoroughly enjoyed the rest while Bob yapped away about things he’s blogged about already, and I’ve already blogged about

Yeah … waiting for those citations, references, and / or links

Actions speak louder than words 🙂
Bobby Blaskiewicz Bows Up ‘Bout Burzynski:


Critiquing Wikipedia: Burzynski Clinic, Colorado Public Television (CPT12), and Public Broadcasting System (PBS)

[1] – Wikipedia, which is behind on updating the “propaganda” on their Burzynski article, posted:

Legal issues

2010 film, Burzynski – Cancer is Serious Business

[2] – “A showing of Burzynski by CPT12 only generated a handful of complaints to the PBS Ombudsman

“These mostly concurred with earlier reviewers of the film that the movie displays a serious lack of objectivity”

[3] – “Some CPT staffers were also criticized for failing to ask Eric Merola any of the hard questions”[65]

[4] – What Wikipedia fails to advise the reader is how many times “The Skeptics™” lied, misinformed, disinformed, and / or did NOT provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support their claims, did NOT respond to questions, used adolescent excuses and / or instead of addressing one issue per comment, posted numerous multiple issues in each comment which required research to address each issue, and thus #FAILED on the CPT12 Facebook page

[5] – [6] – Here is a list of “The Skeptics™” who participated in this questionable behavior

Darren Woodward (Sebastian Armstrong @spikesandspokes on Twitter)
Val Perry Rendel
Amber Sherwood K
Amy Hochberg Beaton
Robert Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz)
Adam Jacobs @DianthusMed)
Paul Morgan (@DrPaulMorgan)
William M. London
Scott Myers
David James (@StortSkeptic)
Guy Chapman (@SkepticGuy)
Karl Mamer
David H. Gorski (@gorskon @oracknows @ScienceBasedMed)
Adam Levenstein
Rene F. Najera
Tsu Dho Nimh
Jen Keane
Vicky Forster
Scott Hurst
Susan Scotvold Goodstein
Catherina Becker
Footy Stuff

Oh, wait

That would take too much time since it was about all of “The Skeptics™”
[1] – Burzynski Clinic – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[2] – 3/23/2013 – My review of “Burzynski: A note to the PBS ombudsman”:
[3] – [65] – 3/22/2013 – PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler – Cancer Is ‘Serious Business.’ Is the ‘Documentary’?
[4] – 3/7/2013 – Colorado Public Television 12 – PBS (broadcasted a version of “Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business”(Part I)
#CPT12 @ColoPublicTV
[5] – 3/9/2013 – Colorado Public Television – PBS:
[6] – 3/26/2013 – My Critique of Bob Blaskiewicz (Colorado Public Television – PBS CPT12):

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 clinicaltrials.gov, 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 http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org)

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.”

Aaaand…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

David H. Gorski and the Cult of “MISINFORMATION”

Colorado Public Television 12 – PBS: Part II
Review of “disinformation,” “misinformation,” and “misdirection” posted by #Burzynski critics

Guy Chapman

“I think non-toxic treatments for cancer would definitely merit investigation if anybody ever came up with one. Burzynski hasn’t, that’s for sure”
March 5 at 5:52am

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

Karl Mamer

“Please, leave the interpretation of the evidence to the appropriate medical bodies. Your 4 years in J school do not make you qualified to interpret scientific research or the standard of care”
March 5 at 5:55am

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support “interpretation” and / or ”
interpret” statements, since no where was it stated that they would be interpretating anything; at least that this critic bothered to NOT point out

David H. Gorski

“Nontoxic treatments are being researched and discussed Antineoplastons, however, are neither nontoxic nor an effective treatment. In fact, they’re definitely toxic. People have developed a dangeros condition called hypernatremia (too high a sodium level) as a result of antineoplaston treatment”
March 5 at 5:56am

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support “Nontoxic treatments are being researched and discussed,” “Antineoplastons, however, are neither nontoxic nor an effective treatment,” and “In fact, they’re definitely toxic” statements

Re the “hypernatremia”statement, I posted a question to the critic, which he did NOT respond to:

David H. Gorski

Is hypernatremia common ?

The frequency, cost, and clinical outcomes of hypernatremia in patients hospitalized to a comprehensive cancer center
Support Care Cancer. 2013 Feb 13. [Epub ahead of print]
Division of Internal Medicine, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA

hypernatremia in the U.S.:
The frequency, cost, and clinical outcom… [Support Care Cancer. 2013] – PubMed – NCBI
March 6 at 3:15am

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?