Dana-Farber Cancer Board Member discusses Dr. Burzynski, Antineoplastons, & Industry

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Board of Directors Member James Rappaport discusses Dr. Burzynski and The Cancer Industry
——————————————————————
“When you look at what is going on and how Dr. Burzynski’s being handled, it is clearly a function of, (?), anytime you have big business, big government, big labor, Big Pharma, Big Cancer Industry, whatever, they become so, wrapped up in protecting the institution; whatever it is, that they forget what their fundamental job is, you know, and what’s happened with Big Pharma and, and Big Cancer, is they kinda, you know, they’ve forgotten to be curious that there might be other op, opportunities and options out there, and they’re focused on protecting their turf”
——————————————————————
00:41 – Peer-review chauvinism
——————————————————————
“Most of the stuff is peer-reviewed, in order to get into, the starting gate, of their process”

“Well, if you’re all of the peers, are vested in one piece of the business, something new, is frightening, and is not going to be given the same shot, as something that’s within the construct of what they’re used to”

“That’s the problem, uh, and the idea that something different; less catastrophic to the body, um, could possibly, uh, work, would upset all of their training, all of their thinking, and, it, it’s very hard for them to, to to do that”
——————————————————————
01:24 – The anointed Evangelical Guardians of the Status Quo
——————————————————————
“The doctors I know and, and the clinicians I know, and, and these people are evangelical”

“I mean, they are hugely, vested and invested, in doing what they believe is very important and good work”

“It helps them get up in the morning, to go to work”

“So, folks who are, invested that kind of, uh, you know, zealous way, you know, are going to look at anything that isn’t within that, that, that, that vision, you know, they’re going to look askance at it”

“They’re going to look at, say that, that, that’s really weird, or, that’s a charlatan”

“What they were in essence saying is, that if you do, the Burzynski treatment regimen, you are foregoing the treatments that we know and understand, and thus we can’t, guarantee that you’re going to have a success”

“Well, you can’t guarantee that you’re going to have a success with chemotherapy, or the normal regimens of chemotherapy

“So, they came from a place of saying: ‘We are protecting you from going down and taking a, uh, the placebo approach,’ which is the way they look at it”

“The fact that it’s been effective, and the fact that, uh, you know, when you go through the numbers, uh, and the analysis, and you go through, uh, that if you’ve not gone through chemotherapy, and you go through the Burzynski’s treatment your odds are 2 or 3 times as high, even if you have gone through chemotherapy it’s 1 or 2 times as high”

“You know, those are, un, those are high enough numbers to push the needle, and, oh by the way, it’s less expensive, than Big Pharma
——————————————————————
02:56 – Protecting the business at all costs
——————————————————————
“Which is another big piece”

Big Pharma is protecting a huge, multi-billion dollar business, and they’re going to protect it to the death, even, to the adverse impact of patient outcomes”

“They won’t say it that way, and, but that fact of the matter is, if you’ve got an approach out here which could be significantly, less costly, and significantly less adversely impact-full, to the patient, um, then you’re gonna, um, you, you, you can understand why they’re, to doing”

“You don’t have to agree with it, but you can at least understand why they’re taking the position that they’re taking”
——————————————————————
03:34 – The fiber of an innovator’s background
——————————————————————
“I think that what is amazing is that Dr. Burzynski has had a vision, and a passion, and a zeal, for 40-odd years, put up with being called everything, short of, and probably even including ‘Witch Doctor,’ um, because of his firm belief that he can save people’s lives, and, and what that says about his character and his just his, the fiber of his backbone, to, um, to be willing to take that on”

“You know, you’re talking about a man who spent the last 40 years, um, you know, working on, on a different form of treatment that is more patient friendly, than chemotherapy

“You know, I explain to people about, you know, what chemotherapy is”

“What chemotherapy is, is putting poison in your body”

“Killing everything that is fast-growing in your body”

“Starting first with cancer cells”

“Then next with white-blood cells”

“Then with your hair”

“Then with your, you know, the inside lining of your mouth”

“Um, then your fingernails”

“I mean, you know, that, that’s what it’s meant to do, and what you essentially do is you give this chemotherapy to, as much as a person can take, uh, uh, uh, in order to, you know, in, in, in order to get out the other end where’ve you’ve killed cancer and hopeful not everybody else or the patient”

“That’s what it is”

“So, if you’ve got a different approach, which is, essentially is saying, well, you know, we’re not, we’re gonna go in and stop the cancer cells from growing and we’re going to actually, and, uh and work on shrinking them, without the ancillary effects, is pretty powerful, you know, and, uh, and you would think that, that, that, the Big Cancer Industry would say: ‘That’s something we outta be looking at'”

Burzynski needs to be given the right to prove the efficacy of his treatment, and if he can, uh, show that his treatments are as or more effective, and / or, significantly better for the patient, with better patient outcomes and, and limited side effects, he’s gotta be given that opportunity to compete out in the marketplace”

“That’s what America’s about”
======================================
12/4/2013Jim Rappaport, Board Member of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute discusses Dr. Burzynski and the obstacles he faces within a Cancer Ind (5:49)
——————————————————————

======================================
http://www.dana-farber.org/uploadedFiles/Library/modules/IRS_990_Form/dana-farber-board-of-trustees.pdf
——————————————————————
http://www.rappaportfoundation.org/about/board.html
——————————————————————
http://www.specialtyhospitalsofamerica.com/jim-rappaport/
——————————————————————
http://www.petangelworldservices.com/board.php?bio=rappaport
——————————————————————
http://www.newbostonfund.com/Company-Overview/Executive-Team/James-Rappaport.asp
——————————————————————

Advertisements

Critiquing: Joe Schwarcz: The cancer conspiracy unveiled

Joe Schwarcz ?

or

Joe Schmo ?

Our average Joe wrote a “crabby” piece in a SPECIAL TO THE (Montreal) GAZETTE JULY 31, 2013
http://www.montrealgazette.com/touch/story.html?id=8730138
Mr. Average Joe claims:

“Being in the science-communication business requires currency with both the scientific and pseudo-scientific gusts of information that blow through the Internet

Perhaps he’s getting a bad exchange rate when his piece crosses the border

Joe asserts:

“I subscribe to a large number…”

Well, reading his article lets the reader know what a “large number” of sundries he “subscribes to”

“[T]here is a conspiracy between “Big Pharma” and mainstream medicine to hide effective “natural” cancer cures from the public”

“Average” Joe mentions The Soviets, which is timely, since I have recently referred to Critics, Cynics, SkepTicks, The Skeptics™,
“#ScienceBasedMedicine” SkeptiCowards© as employing Soviet-style propaganda techniques; The Soviets apparently somehow had NOT managed to keep this crowning achievement from the West

“Average” Dr. Joe Show goes on to erupt:

“But you can take this to the bank

there is no conspiracy to keep cancer cures from the public

If you do want to look for a conspiracy, take a look at those who are trying to make a buck from promoting the notion that such a conspiracy exists”

what?! really? What??!! Really?? WHAT???!!! REALLY???

Hogwash!

Welcome to #MizTV and the #WhatFamily

Hey, Joe!

Explain THIS:
======================================
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/
======================================
Wikipedia, you’ve sprung a Wiki Leak:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/wikipedia-youve-sprung-a-wiki-leak/
======================================
Wikipedia, do you serve up Mud Pies with your Wikipedia Lies ?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/31/wikipedia-do-you-serve-up-mud-pies-with-your-wikipedia-lies/
======================================
Forbes Learns a Lesson, but Not the Right One: Censorship and Bias re: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/05/forbes-learns-a-lesson-but-not-the-right-one-censorship-and-bias-re-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/
======================================
Is Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski Down and Out in Detroit and an Ethically Bankrupt Researcher ?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/23/is-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-down-and-out-in-detroit-and-an-ethically-bankrupt-researcher-2/
======================================
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/
======================================
@TheRock says: “Just Bring IT”
======================================
joe.schwarcz@mcgill.ca
Joe Schwarcz is director of McGill University’s Office for Science & Society (mcgill.ca/)

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

Eric Merola revealed in Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II (2), at (1:29:53), that The Lancet Oncology Peer Review Team D-12-01519, in 2 hours 8 minutes and 51 seconds, refused to publish Burzynski’s 11/26/2012 phase 2 clinical trial Progression-Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS) re patients 8 – 16 years after diagnosis, results
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/critiquing-in-which-the-latest-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-cure-is-reviewed-with-insolence-2/
Here is the “back story” involving the Critics, Cynics, “The Skeptics™”, SkeptiCowards©
======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 5:12pm – 20 Dec 12:

@drpaulmorgan @dianthusmed Pick a medical journal Paul…

======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 5:28pm – 20 Dec 12:

@BurzynskiMovie @dianthusmed 1. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2. The Lancet Oncology. 3. New England Journal of Medicine. (1/2)

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

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

======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
John (@JohnDaily15) tweeted at 1:18pm – 16 Feb 13:

@BurzynskiMovie @dianthusmed @annacapunay if u want 2 see burzynski published data then ask the Lancet to pull their socks up @endless psych
https://twitter.com/JohnDaily15/status/303047378246705153
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 1:54pm – 17 Feb 13:

@SceptiGuy @sdmack Asked the Lancet yet Guy? #burzynski

======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 2:32pm – 18 Feb 13:

@gorskon @mrhawkes @BurzynskiSaves Ask the Lancet why it is not published, Gorski.

======================================
THE #Burzynski TWITTER WAR (#TwitterWar)
======================================
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 3:45pm – 20 Dec 12:

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

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

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:33pm – 20 Dec 12:

@drpaulmorgan Maybe if we tell him name of a good journal, he’ll pretend #burzynski published in it in his next movie?

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

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Burzynski: Japan publications:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/burzynski-japan/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Burzynski and AACR (American Association for Cancer Research):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/burzynski-and-aacr-american-association-for-cancer-research/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:41pm – 20 Dec 12:

======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 5:12pm – 20 Dec 12:

@drpaulmorgan @dianthusmed Pick a medical journal Paul…

======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 5:28pm – 20 Dec 12:

@BurzynskiMovie @dianthusmed 1. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2. The Lancet Oncology. 3. New England Journal of Medicine. (1/2)

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

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

——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 2:46am – 16 Feb 13:

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

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

======================================
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:59am – 16 Feb 13:

@BurzynskiMovie And why, pray tell, do you think the Lancet would know about #burzynski’s trials? Are you claiming he submitted there?

——————————————————————
Phil Harris (@Phil_Harris10) tweeted at 8:33am – 16 Feb 13:

@dianthusmed @annacapunay BurzynskiMovie Please explain why you refer to ‘The Lancet’ for info on #burzynski studies?

——————————————————————
Phil Harris (@Phil_Harris10) tweeted at 8:44am – 16 Feb 13:

@dianthusmed @BurzynskiMovie @annacapunay Can’t see any positive reference to #burzynski in the Lancet. What’s their point

——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 8:54am – 16 Feb 13:

@Phil_Harris10 I’m guessing @BurzynskiMovie thinks if he says #burzynski’s published in the Lancet, the fanbois will just believe it

——————————————————————
MedTek (@medtek) tweeted at 9:17am – 16 Feb 13:

@dianthusmed @Phil_Harris10 I suspect @BurzynskiMovie is saying that the Lancet has refused to publish #burzynski?

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
John (@JohnDaily15) tweeted at 1:18pm – 16 Feb 13:

@BurzynskiMovie @dianthusmed @annacapunay if u want 2 see burzynski published data then ask the Lancet to pull their socks up @endless psych
https://twitter.com/JohnDaily15/status/303047378246705153
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Steve Mack (@sdmack) tweeted at 6:32am – 17 Feb 13:

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

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

——————————————————————
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 9:24am – 17 Feb 13: .

======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 1:54pm – 17 Feb 13:

@SceptiGuy @sdmack Asked the Lancet yet Guy? #burzynski

======================================
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:28pm – 17 Feb 13:

@BurzynskiMovie If #Burzynski’s reference style is “have you asked the Lancet yet?” that might explain why he his publications are rejected

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 2:30pm – 18 Feb 13:

======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 2:32pm – 18 Feb 13:

@gorskon @mrhawkes @BurzynskiSaves Ask the Lancet why it is not published, Gorski.

======================================
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:32pm – 18 Feb 13:

——————————————————————
THE #Burzynski TWITTER WAR (#TwitterWar)
——————————————————————
Alan Henness @zeno001
Phil Harris @Phil_Harris10
Keir Liddle @endless psych
Guy Chapman @SceptiGuy
Adam Jacobs Dianthus Medical @dianthusmed
Dr. Paul Morgan @drpaulmorgan
MedTek @medtek
Dr. David H. Gorski (@gorskon)

——————————————————————
The majority of the above twits have tweeted on Twitter since the movie was available, and NONE of them have the “testicular fortitude” to provide a reason that The Lancet’s excuse for NOT publishing, is acceptable, including Dr. Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan), who suggested The Lancet

Eric Merola:

“All I can say to everyone reading this:”

“Think for yourself”

“Question everything, including me and my films”

@JoeRogan,

Question THIS!!!

“Joe Rogan Questions Everything”

@SyFy
======================================
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 4:30pm – 20 Dec 12:
@dianthusmed Neither claim having any evidence to support them. #Burzynski
——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:32pm – 20 Dec 12:
@drpaulmorgan I’d still love to know why @BurzynskiMovie is asking about journals. Guess we’ll have to wait until he’s asked his boss
——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:33pm – 20 Dec 12:
@drpaulmorgan Maybe if we tell him name of a good journal, he’ll pretend #burzynski published in it in his next movie?
——————————————————————
Alan Henness (@zeno001) tweeted at 4:33pm – 20 Dec 12:
@dianthusmed @drpaulmorgan @BurzynskiMovie That might take a while…
——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:34pm – 20 Dec 12:
@zeno001 @drpaulmorgan @BurzynskiMovie Yeah. Well, I’m certainly not holding my breath
——————————————————————
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 4:37pm – 20 Dec 12:
@dianthusmed @BurzynskiMovie I think it’s just obfuscation.
——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:39pm – 20 Dec 12:
@drpaulmorgan @BurzynskiMovie Yes, very likely. All designed to distract from important stuff on #burzynski, like bit.ly/vbUfgo
——————————————————————
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 4:40pm – 20 Dec 12:
@dianthusmed Like all those registered* Japanese trials? #Burzynski
*not registered anywhere
——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:41pm – 20 Dec 12:
@drpaulmorgan If by “registered”, you mean “fictitious”, then yes, exactly like that #burzynski
======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 5:12pm – 20 Dec 12:
@drpaulmorgan @dianthusmed Pick a medical journal Paul…
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 5:28pm – 20 Dec 12:
@BurzynskiMovie @dianthusmed 1. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2. The Lancet Oncology. 3. New England Journal of Medicine. (1/2)
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 5:32pm – 20 Dec 12:
@BurzynskiMovie @dianthusmed Do you want me to go on? How about #Burzynski picks from this list impactfactor.weebly.com/oncology.html
——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 2:46am – 16 Feb 13:
@annacapunay I see you’re supporting #burzynski. Can you explain why he won’t publish his data? 61 trials registered, none published. Why?
======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 4:26am – 16 Feb 13:
@dianthusmed @annacapunay #burzynski ask the Lancet, Adam.
======================================
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:59am – 16 Feb 13:
@BurzynskiMovie And why, pray tell, do you think the Lancet would know about #burzynski’s trials? Are you claiming he submitted there?
——————————————————————
Phil Harris (@Phil_Harris10) tweeted at 8:33am – 16 Feb 13:
@dianthusmed @annacapunay BurzynskiMovie Please explain why you refer to ‘The Lancet’ for info on #burzynski studies?
——————————————————————
Phil Harris (@Phil_Harris10) tweeted at 8:44am – 16 Feb 13:
@dianthusmed @BurzynskiMovie @annacapunay Can’t see any positive reference to #burzynski in the Lancet. What’s their point
——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 8:54am – 16 Feb 13:
@Phil_Harris10 I’m guessing @BurzynskiMovie thinks if he says #burzynski’s published in the Lancet, the fanbois will just believe it
——————————————————————
MedTek (@medtek) tweeted at 9:17am – 16 Feb 13:
@dianthusmed @Phil_Harris10 I suspect @BurzynskiMovie is saying that the Lancet has refused to publish #burzynski?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
John (@JohnDaily15) tweeted at 1:18pm – 16 Feb 13:
@BurzynskiMovie @dianthusmed @annacapunay if u want 2 see burzynski published data then ask the Lancet to pull their socks up @endless psych
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Steve Mack (@sdmack) tweeted at 6:32am – 17 Feb 13:
2013 – Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II (Feb 16, 2013 Trai…: youtu.be/wGJpDNrcSEo via @YouTube
——————————————————————
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 6:41am – 17 Feb 13:
@sdmack Extended paean to a man who has conducted over 60 trials and published none, then wonders why the medical world does not believe him
——————————————————————
Steve Mack (@sdmack) tweeted at 7:42am – 17 Feb 13:
@SceptiGuy
——————————————————————
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 9:24am – 17 Feb 13:
@sdmack Point refuted a thousand times. Most are conference proceedings or not peer reviewed. No credible per-reviewed #Burzynski pubs.
======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 1:54pm – 17 Feb 13:
@SceptiGuy @sdmack Asked the Lancet yet Guy? #burzynski
======================================
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:28pm – 17 Feb 13:
@BurzynskiMovie If #Burzynski’s reference style is “have you asked the Lancet yet?” that might explain why he his publications are rejected
——————————————————————
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:30pm – 17 Feb 13:
@BurzynskiMovie ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=(…+”Lancet”[Journal]
——————————————————————
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:35pm – 17 Feb 13:
@BurzynskiMovie Obviously you don’t mean ow.ly/hNgfB as it is in no way an endorsement of #Burzynski or his methods.
——————————————————————
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:37pm – 17 Feb 13:
@BurzynskiMovie You probably meant this extremely well argued piece: ow.ly/hNgla – directly relevant to #Burzynski.
——————————————————————
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:44pm – 17 Feb 13:
@dianthusmed @Phil_Harris10 @drpaulmorgan @medtek ow.ly/hNgE1 (not a study, an editorial, makes no claim to judgment re validity)
——————————————————————
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 1:05pm – 18 Feb 13:
Most abstracts submitted to conferences get a poster presentation. Were #burzynski abstracts for talks? I doubt it. @SceptiGuy @sdmack
——————————————————————
BurzynskiSaves (@BurzynskiSaves) tweeted at 1:24pm – 18 Feb 13:
@gorskon So there’s no peer-reviewed literature by #Burzynski in this list?Please say yes.. please say yes.. burzynskiclinic.com/publications.h… @sdmack
——————————————————————
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 2:11pm – 18 Feb 13:
@gorskon @SceptiGuy @sdmack Yes, many were (ex: Neuro-Oncology). You’d know that if you understood definition of *research*. #burzynski
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 2:16pm – 18 Feb 13:
——————————————————————
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 2:15pm – 18 Feb 13:
Funny, @BurzynskiMovie, but many of those #burzynski “studies” don’t show up on searches of PubMed. Not a good sign. @SceptiGuy @sdmack
——————————————————————
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 2:16pm – 18 Feb 13:
Funny, but no one I know ever said that #burzynski has “no” peer-reviewed studies. Learn to read, @BurzynskiSaves. @sdmack
——————————————————————
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 2:30pm – 18 Feb 13:
It’s easy for #burzynski to shut his critics up: Publish the data and show that it supports ANPs! @mrhawkes @BurzynskiSaves @BurzynskiMovie
======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 2:32pm – 18 Feb 13:
@gorskon @mrhawkes @BurzynskiSaves Ask the Lancet why it is not published, Gorski.
======================================

QUESTIONS the Critics and Cynics, “The Skeptics™” do NOT want to ANSWER

1. One “Orac” (Dr. David H. Gorski @oracknows @sciencebasedmed @gorskon #sciencebasedmedicine
http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org)
claimed:


“Burzynski naturally has lots of excuses for why the trial failed and tried to blame the investigators, but his complaints are not convincing.”

When I requested that he respond to Burzynski’s comments re the study, he would NOT touch it with the proverbial ZZ Top

“Ten-Foot Pole”

What Critic, Cynic, or one of “The Skeptics™” is going to show more Bravery and Courage than “Orac”?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
2. If antineoplastons do NOT work, why, after Dvorit D. SAMID learned of them from Burzynski, did all the research, clinical studies, and phase I, phase II, and phase III clinical trials really start to get underway on
PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINATE (PAG or PG)
PHENYLACETATE (PN)

and
PHENYLBUTYRATE (PB)?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
3. This individual claims to be a “cancer researcher”

If this individual’s “research” is so poor as a “cancer researcher,” what does that say about “research” re the “War on Cancer”?

My review of C0nc0rdance:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/23/my-review-of-c0nc0rdance/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
4. This individual claims to be a “Doctor,” “oncologist,” “breast cancer specialist,” and “cancer researcher”

If this individual’s “research” is so poor as a “cancer researcher,” what does that say about “research” re the “War on Cancer”?

Paging Doctor David H. Gorski, Paging Doctor David H. Gorski: There’s Mud in your Ears … Doktor Gorski?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/28/paging-doctor-david-h-gorski-paging-doctor-david-h-gorski-theres-mud-in-your-ears-doktor-gorski/
He did NOT even refer to the below publication by Burzynski regarding “Treatment of Recurrent Triple-Negative Breast Cancer:”

8/2011 – Successful Treatment of Recurrent Triple-Negative Breast Cancer with Combination of Targeted Therapies
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownload.aspx?DOI=10.4236/jct.2011.23050
Journal of Cancer Therapy, 2011, 2, 372-376
doi:10.4236/jct.2011.23050 Published Online August 2011
(http://www.SciRP.org/journal/jct)
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
5. Critics, Cynics, “The Skeptics™” state that Burzynski is NOT an oncologist, but can offer no explanation as to why this is supposedly “relevant,” they cannot explain if oncologists are somehow “better” than biochemists, nor do they want to answer the question:

“Does Burzynski work with any oncologists, and are any of them listed on his phase II clinical trial publications”?

http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/scientific-publications.html
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
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
6. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) Panorama program indicated that 776 Burzynski patients with brain tumours were treated in trials before 2008
http://t.co/nFpwlQg275
15.5% (120) survived more than 5 years

Critics, Cynics, “The Skeptics™”, what’s your survival rate?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
7. March 29, 1996

Then United States Food and Drug Administration Commissioner, David A. 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 trialsfewer 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 AFTERapproval … 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 accessavailabilityfor American patients for any drugthere’s reason to believemay work
——————————————————————
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”?

https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/what-is-misdirection-critiquing-antineoplastons-has-the-fda-kept-its-promise-to-the-american-people/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
8. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) Panorama program indicated that 776 Burzynski patients with brain tumours were treated in trials before 2008
http://t.co/nFpwlQg275
Is that what the FDA means by:

rely on … fewer patients?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
9. 4/27/2013 (37:20) Fabio stated that
Burzynski had provided the FDA with 2.5 million pages of clinical trial documents

Is that what the FDA means by:

“unnecessary paperwork”?

and

“less information … up front”?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
10. Is this what the FDA means by:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/what-is-misdirection-critiquing-antineoplastons-has-the-fda-kept-its-promise-to-the-american-people/
if there is evidence … of partial response in clinical trials?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
11. Why was the United States Food and Drug Administration requiring that radiation be used in the Phase 3 Clinical Trial when Burzynski has shown better results with antineoplastons when radiation is NOT used?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
12. Who wants to defend the excuse that The Lancet gave for NOT Publishing the documentation which Burzynski sent to them, which is referred to in Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business, Part II?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
13. Review Articles on Clinical Trials: 2. 2006 – Treatments for Astrocytic Tumors in Children: Current and Emerging Strategies. Pediatric Drugs 2006;8:167-178.
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1252.pdf
2006 Adis – Pediatr Drugs 2006; 8 (3)

pg 174

2.3. Targeted Therapy

1652 adults
335 children
[147]


indicates 1,799 Burzynski patients

Is that what the FDA means by:

rely on … fewer patients?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
13. The FDA approved phase III (3) clinical trials for Antineoplastons A10 (Atengenal) and AS2-1 (Astugenal); which means that they have shown evidence of effectiveness, yet they have NOT granted Accelerated Approval for them, even though they have done so for other treatments which had NOT yet published the final results of phase II (2) clinical trials, and which did NOT have as good Complete Response, Partial Response, Stable Disease, Minor Response, Progressive Disease, Objective Response, Progression-Free Survival, etc., rates:

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/

(Additional QUESTIONS being added)

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
References:

1.

Post #73 – Didymus Judas Thomas

At the Tu-Quack Center Oracles of Deny to Respond tree

1/30/2013

Post #52 – Orac

“You do realize that that means that the Mayo trial failed to find evidence of efficacy, just as I said, don’t you?”

“The default of a finding like that is that there is no evidence of efficacy, not that failure to have adequate numbers to show an effect means that there’s an effect there”

“If SRB wants to convince skeptics that his treatments work better than conventional therapy, let him publish the evidence in a peer-reviewed journal in a manner that it can be independently verified”

“Thus far, he has failed to do so.”

Orac, I thoroughly enjoyed; with a dismissive limp wrist, you posted:

“Burzynski naturally has lots of excuses for why the trial failed and tried to blame the investigators, but his complaints are not convincing.”
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/21/quoth-joe-mercola-i-love-me-some-burzynski-antineoplastons
Now, why don’t you tackle those ?’s?

1. “[T]he study tested a dosing regimen known to be ineffective.”

2. “[D]osages used in the study “were meant for the treatment of a single small lesion…”

3. “5 of the 6 evaluable patients had either multiple nodules or tumors larger than” said single small lesion.

4. “As the provider,” SRB “strongly suggested to the NCI that these patients receive a much higher dose, consistent with their greater tumor load.”

5. “[T]he study was closed when” SRB “insisted that the NCI either increase the dosage or inform the patients that the drug manufacturer believed that the treatment was unlikely to be effective at the dosages being used (letter to Dr M. Sznol, NCI, on 4/20/1995).”

6. “A review of the clinical data in the article … proves the validity of” SRB’s “position” per SRB

7. “Their study patients had extremely low plasma antineoplaston levels.”

8. SRB’s “phase 2 study dosage regimen produced plasma phenylacetylglutamine levels that are 35 times greater, phenylacetylisoglutamine levels 53 times greater, and phenylacetate levels 2 times greater than those reported…’”

9. “The clinical outcomes reported … based on their inadequate dosage schedule, differ dramatically from” SRB’s “phase 2 studies in which a higher dosage regimen was used.”

10. “They reported no tumor regression. In contrast, in 1 of” SRB’s “ongoing studies on protocol BT-9, 4 of 8 evaluable patients with astrocytoma had objective responses.’”

11. “The difference in outcomes is primarily due to the difference in dosage schedules,” per SRB

12. “Another factor that may have caused a lack of response in the study by … is that the duration of treatment was too brief.”

13. “Almost all the patients in their study received treatment for less than 30 days.”

14. “1 patient received only 9 days of treatment.”

15. “The current studies indicate that objective tumor responses are usually observed after 3 months of therapy.”

16. “An additional 8 months of treatment is usually needed to obtain a maximal therapeutic effect.”

17. “[A]mbiguities in the response evaluation and analysis in the article…”

a) “In 2 patients, tumor necrosis was attributed to “radionecrosis.””

b) “However, such an interpretation is clouded by the fact that antineoplaston-induced necrosis can be indistinguishable from radionecrosis.”

c) “Moreover, the analysis … could have highlighted the 2 patients with recurrent glioblastoma who survived for more than I year.”

d) “This is of interest because these patients typically have a life expectancy of 3 to 6 months.”

18. “It is regrettable that, at the time of the study … the sponsor, NCI, decided against the higher dosing regimen that I proposed and closed the study.”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/stanislaw-rajmund-burzynski-m-d-ph-d-and-freedom-of-speech/
IMPORTANT: The live “debate” that wasn’t-A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/important-the-live-debate-that-wasnt-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/
Post #85 – Orac – April 28, 2013

“Well, DJT tried to comment last night and got caught in the moderation trap.”

“I’m not letting DJT through.”

“He’s been banned for very good reason, and I will not rescind the ban.”
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/04/26/all-truth-comes-from-public-debate-a-corollary-to-crank-magnetism/
My below blog contained a copy of the comment I submitted to his blog:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/important-the-live-debate-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/
All Mr. Hinton would have to do is ask “Orac” to respond to my post 73 on his blog, and it would be all over, since “Orac” has adopted his “Hold the Mayo” attitude, and shows no indication that he would ever be brave enough to touch it with the proverbial ZZ Top

“Ten Foot Pole”

because he’s probably aware of what would happen if he did

One of “Orac’s” “Oracolytes” posted on Forbes (#Forbes):
onforb.es/11pwse9

http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW
“I already offered you a forum on a science blog to debate with a real respected surgical oncologist, with a guarantee that he never moderates the “debate”.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics
IMPORTANT: The live “debate”-A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/important-the-live-debate-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/
This is Dr. David H. Gorski’s blog

Dr. Gorski censored (blocked) my comments

We are supposed to believe that he’s now NOT going to block someone’s comments???
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/04/26/all-truth-comes-from-public-debate-a-corollary-to-crank-magnetism/
#66 – Didymus Judas Thomas

IMPORTANT: The live “debate”-A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics | Didymus Judas Thomas’ Hipocritical Oath Blog

April 27, 2013

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Seriously ? Gorski ? Let’s remember that it is YOU who would NOT answer my questions, and instead inacted your “Hold the Mayo” posture re post 73

Let’s review your

“deconstructed his “evidence” in depth before” claim

1/21/2013 Orac posted THIS blog:

“Quoth Joe Mercola:

I love me some Burzynski antineoplastons

Posted by Orac on January 21, 2013″

” … In particular, a multicenter phase II trial carried out by investigators at the Mayo Clinic was a big failure, with a median survival of 5.2 months in patients with anaplastic oligoastrocytoma, anaplastic astrocytoma, or glioblastoma multiforme that had recurred after radiation therapy”

“Burzynski naturally has lots of excuses for why the trial failed and tried to blame the investigators, but his complaints are not convincing”
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/21/quoth-joe-mercola-i-love-me-some-burzynski-antineoplastons
I challenged “Orac” about this and this reply was posted which included my point at the beginning of the reply:

1/29/2013

“An excellent explanation of how dubious Stanislaw Burzynski’s activities are”

Posted by Orac on January 28, 2013
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/28/an-excellent-explanation-of-how-dubious-stanislaw-burzynskis-activities-are
Post #52 – Orac

January 29, 2013

“CONCLUSION: Although we could not confirm any tumor regression in patients in this study, THE SMALL SAMPLE SIZE PRECLUDES DEFINITIVE CONCLUSIONS ABOUT TREATMENT EFFICACY.”

“You do realize that that means that the Mayo trial failed to find evidence of efficacy, just as I said, don’t you?”

“The default of a finding like that is that there is no evidence of efficacy, not that failure to have adequate numbers to show an effect means that there’s an effect there”

“If SRB wants to convince skeptics that his treatments work better than conventional therapy, let him publish the evidence in a peer-reviewed journal in a manner that it can be independently verified”

“Thus far, he has failed to do so”

I responded to Orac, quoting his reply at the beginning of my reply:

Post #73 – Didymus Judas Thomas

At the Tu-Quack Center Oracles of Deny to Respond tree

January 30, 2013

Post #52 – Orac

“You do realize that that means that the Mayo trial failed to find evidence of efficacy, just as I said, don’t you?”

“The default of a finding like that is that there is no evidence of efficacy, not that failure to have adequate numbers to show an effect means that there’s an effect there”

“If SRB wants to convince skeptics that his treatments work better than conventional therapy, let him publish the evidence in a peer-reviewed journal in a manner that it can be independently verified”

“Thus far, he has failed to do so”

Orac, I thoroughly enjoyed; with a dismissive limp wrist, you posted:

“Burzynski naturally has lots of excuses for why the trial failed and tried to blame the investigators, but his complaints are not convincing.”
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/21/quoth-joe-mercola-i-love-me-some-burzynski-antineoplastons
Now, why don’t you tackle those ?’s?

[SOURCE: Feb. 1999 Mayo Clinic Publication pg 2, 3 PDF]
http://burzynskimovie.com/images/stories/transcript/Documents/Feb99MayoClinicPubANP.pdf
2/1999 – A10 and AS2-1 – Phase II – Mayo Clinic Proceedings http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10069350
Phase II Study of Antineoplastons A10 (NSC 648539) and AS2-1 (NSC 620261) in Patients With Recurrent Glioma Objective:
http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)63835-4/fulltext
To assess the pharmacokinetics, toxicity, and efficacy of antineoplastons A10 (NSC 648539) and AS2-1 (NSC 620261)
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0025-6196(11)63835-4
Design:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025619611638354
We initiated a phase II trial in order to determine whether evidence of antitumor activity of A10 and AS2-1 could be documented
http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0025-6196/PIIS0025619611638354.pdf
Comment in Jun; 74 (6): 641-2
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2796.2003.01098.x/full
Mayo Clin Proc 74(2):9 (1999)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2796.2003.01098.x/references
1999 Elsevier Ltd.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1046/j.1365-2796.2003.01098.x/asset/j.1365-2796.2003.01098.x.pdf?v=1&t=hbs6xce2&s=3423e3cd1955667e8e8cdf33323faf0bd85b6a29
DOI: 10.4065/74.2.137
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1046/j.1365-2796.2003.01098.x/asset/j.1365-2796.2003.01098.x.pdf?v=1&t=hbrndkdf&s=e0af2d3bfb13841852d92a839d3a4932a5f4bb48
Mayo Clin Proc 1999; 74: 137–45

Burzynski responded by pointing out:

6/1999 – A10 and AS2-1 – SRB http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10377942
Efficacy of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1
S R Burzynski
Mayo Clin Proc 74 (6): 641-2 (1999),
Mayo Clin Proc. 1999 Jun; 74 (6): 641-2 Comment on Mayo Clin Proc. 1999 Feb; 74 (2): 137-45 PMID .10377942 Elsevier Science
http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)64143-8/fulltext
Mayo Clinic Proc. 1999; 74: 641–642 (letter) 74 (6): 641-2
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0025-6196(11)64143-8
Mayo Clin Proc 74 (6): 1 (1999), 1999 Elsevier Ltd.
http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0025-6196/PIIS0025619611641438.pdf
DOI: 10.4065/74.6.641

This was responded to:

6/1999 – Mayo Clin Proc 74(6):2 (1999), DOI: 10.4065/74.6.641-a
http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)64144-X/fulltext
Mayo Clinic Proceedings
Volume 74, Issue 6 , Pages 641-642, June 1999
http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0025-6196/PIIS002561961164144X.pdf
References:

1. SAMID D , Shack S, Sherman LT. Phenylacetate: a novel nontoxic inducer of tumor cell differentiation. Cancer Res . 1992; 52:1988–1992
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1372534/

http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/52/7/1988.abstract

http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/52/7/1988.full.pdf

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/52/7/1988
2. Danesi R, Nardini D, Basolo F, Del Tacca M, SAMID D . Myers CEo Phenylacetate inhibits protein isoprenylation and growth of the androgen-independent LNCaP prostate cancer cells transfected with the T24 Ha-ras oncogene. Mol Pharmacal. 1996; 49:972–979
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8649357/

http://m.molpharm.aspetjournals.org/content/49/6/972.long
3. Chang SM, Kuhn LG, Robins HI, et al. Phase II study of phenylacetate in patients with recurrent malignant glioma: a North American Brain Tumor Consortium report. J Clin Oneal. 1999; 17:984–990
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10071293/

http://m.jco.ascopubs.org/content/17/3/984.long
4. Thibault A, Cooper MR, Figg WD, et al. (SAMID D). A phase I and pharmacokinetic study of intravenous phenylacetate in patients with cancer. Cancer Res. 1994; 54:1690–1694
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8137283/

http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/7/1690.abstract

http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/7/1690.full.pdf

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/7/1690
PII: S0025-6196(11)64144-X

doi: 10.1016/S0025-6196(11)64144-X

1999 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research.
Elsevier Inc.

The above four (4) references in the response to Burzynski might be relevant if all that antineoplastons consisted of was phenylacetate

Phenylacetylglutaminate (PAG or PG) and Phenylacetate (PN) are metabolites of Phenylbutyrate (PB) and are constituents of antineoplaston AS2-1

Antineoplastons AS2-1 and AS2-5 are DERIVED FROM A10

AS2-1=4:1 mixture of PHENYLACETIC ACID (PA) and Phenylacetylglutamine (PAG or PG)

National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Antineoplastons
General Information:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/healthprofessional/page2
This is “what would happen” if “Orac” did have the “Bravery,” “Courage,” “Gumption,” “Intestinal Fortitude,” “Testicular Fortitude,” to address this issue:
http://burzynskimovie.com/images/stories/transcript/Documents/BurzynskiTriesToExposeNCI.pdf
Burzynski: Managing social conflict in complementary and alternative medicine research: the case of antineoplastons:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/burzynski-managing-social-conflict-in-complementary-and-alternative-medicine-research-the-case-of-antineoplastons/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
2.
Antineoplastons: Phenylacetylglutaminate (PG or PAG), Phenylacetate (PN), and Phenylbutyrate (PB):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/17/phenylacetylglutaminate-pg-or-pag-phenylacetate-pn-and-phenylbutyrate-pb/
Phenylacetylglutamine (PG or PAG):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/18/phenylacetylglutamine-pg-or-pag/
Phenylacetate (PN):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/18/phenylacetate-pn/
Phenylbutyrate (PB):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/18/phenylbutyrate-pb/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

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

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

Respectful Insolence

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

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

We’ve seen it time and time again

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

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

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

(in my not-so-humble opinion)

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

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

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

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

3/11/2013 “Orac” commented:

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

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

“C0nc0rdance” commented:

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

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

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

“What do you see?”

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

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

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

Forbes

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

“According to C0nc0rdance:

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

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

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

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

“Orac” proceeds:

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

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

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

“Could it be…Eric Merola?”

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

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

“Orac” states:

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

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

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

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

anarchic_teapot

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

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

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

“Orac,” ONLY one ?

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

A “FACT-CHALLENGED” video

“Orac” postulates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“It really is applicable here.”

“Orac” blathers on:

“There’s no grand conspiracy.”

“Orac” IS a denialist

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

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

“Orac” rants on

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

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

“There are more, of course.”

“Many more.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Let me also say this.”

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

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

“I also know that … Didymus Judas Thomas”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe he should “Mirror” his “Mirror”

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

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

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

“Orac’s” diatribe continues:

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

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

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

“Orac” the “ASSumptor”

The reason is, of course, clear.

Same as it ever was.

“Orac’s” tirade marches on

“One more thing:”

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

“One more thing:”

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

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

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

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

I have just the thing, too.

It’s called “FACTS”

“Orac” rattles off

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Orac” rattles on

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

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

“Orac, thankfully, is running out of steam:

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

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

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

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

“Spread the word”

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

Marc Stephens Is Insane in the Membrane:

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

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

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

“(he’s on his 10th account)”

(try again, MSII)

“so I checked out his latest incarnation.”

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

“This is truly hilarious.”

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

“(or “buds”)”

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

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

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

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

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

#56 – Orac – April 24, 2013

“Well, actually Peter and I are buds.”

“There’s no secret about that..”

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

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

Boris Ogon

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

3,934 views

Not so much

Waiting for the 10,000

Peter Lipson, Contributor

Musings on the intersection of science, medicine, and culture

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM

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

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

onforb.es/11pwse9

http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW

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

Musings on the intersection of Articles, Bias, and Censorship

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

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM

A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics

Allen Jones 1 day ago

“Interesting article.”

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

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

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

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

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

“Shameful!!!”

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

Shameful!!!”???

claire G 1 day ago

@Guy Chapman,

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

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

claire G, please expand on how THIS is “the FDA” “being very fair to Burzynski.”
http://burzynskimovie.com/images/stories/transcript/Documents/BurzynskiTriesToExposeNCI.pdf
“Despite the massive problems with hsi institutional review board, and his abject failure to publish results, they continued to allow him to register new trials.”

claire G, please expand on:

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

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

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

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

“You are so right.”

claire G, “you are so right”

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

Exactly HOW are you going to answer THOSE questions?

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

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

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

1/13/2009 Company announced Company had reached an agreement with FDA for Company to move forward with pivotal Phase III clinical trial of combination Antineoplaston therapy plus radiation therapy in patients with newly diagnosed, diffuse, intrinsic brainstem gliomas (DBSG)

Agreement was made under FDA’s Special Protocol Assessment procedure, meaning design and planned analysis of Phase III study is acceptable to support regulatory submission seeking new drug approval

2/1/2010 Company entered into agreement with Cycle Solutions, Inc., dba ResearchPoint to initiate and manage pivotal Phase III clinical trial of combination Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 plus radiation therapy (RT) in patients with newly-diagnosed, diffuse, intrinsic brainstem glioma

ResearchPoint is currently conducting feasibility assessment

ResearchPoint has secured interest and commitment from number of sites selected

Upon completion of assessment, randomized, international phase III study will commence”

Study’s objective is to compare overall survival of children with newly-diagnosed DBSG who receive combination Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 plus RT versus RT alone

” … only obstacles now are $300 million $s needed to pay for final phase of clinical testing-and FDA requiring children with inoperable brainstem glioma to also undergo radiation
treatment in Phase 3 trials, claiming it would be “unethical” not to do so”

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

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

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

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

claire G, THIS “special treatment?

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

claire G 1 day ago

@AstroturfWatch,

“Antineoplastons are dead.

No more in the USA.

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

“Ha!”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cancer Clinical Trials

15. What happens when a clinical trial is over?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

claire G, ask the FDA

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

claire G, I refer you to the above

Boris Ogon

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

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

3,932 views

Not so much

Waiting for the 10,000

Peter Lipson, Contributor

Musings on the intersection of science, medicine, and culture

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM

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

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

onforb.es/11pwse9

http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW

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

Musings on the intersection of Articles, Bias, and Censorship

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

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM

A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics

randy hinton 5 days ago

Hey Petey!

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

Petey!, responds:

guychapman 5 days ago

(citing randy hinton 5 days ago)

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

“The answer is in your own post.”

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

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

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

YOU remind me of this randy hinton comment:

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

And neither do YOU

Sharon Hill 5 days ago

“I am thrilled with this piece.”

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

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

But look on the bright side

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

It’ll be something you can tell the grandkids about

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

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

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

Sharon Hill, and I see that:

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

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

ovalwooki 5 days ago

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

ovalwooki, so, like YOU ?

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

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

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

ovalwooki, WHAT is:

“his horrible record of successful ” cures“ ?

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

ovalwooki, exactly WHAT does:

“As far as I know”

MEAN ?

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

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

randy hinton 5 days ago

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

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

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

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

guychapman 3 days ago

“That was 60 years ago.”

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

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

“By peerless I mean risible, of course.”

guychapman, so, like your comments, right?

JGC2013 4 days ago

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

JGC2013, “nly” ?

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

JGC2013, THAT certainly explains THIS:

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

JGC2013, THAT certainly explains THIS:

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

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

JGC2013, this is NOT a Rob Zombie film

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

JGC2013,

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

guychapman 4 days ago

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

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

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

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

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

Don’t Mess With Texas

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

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

AstroturfWatch 4 days ago

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

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

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

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

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

guychapman 3 days ago

“You don’t get it do you?”

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

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

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

Boris Ogon

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

3,932 views

Not so much

Waiting for the 10,000

| 4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM

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