Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski, Stanislaw R. Burzynski, Stanislaw Burzynski, Stan R. Burzynski, Stan Burzynski, S. R. BURZYNSKI, S. Burzynski, Arthur Burzynski, Hippocrates Hypocrite Hypocrites Critic Critics Critical HipoCritical
“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”
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 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
====================================== THE #Burzynski TWITTER WAR (#TwitterWar)
======================================
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 3:45pm – 20 Dec 12:
Odd contradiction in what #burzynski shills are saying. They say "he cures cancer" and "medical industry won't let him cure cancer". Which?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 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:
——————————————————————
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.
======================================
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
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
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 trials … fewer patients … if there is evidence … of partial response in clinical trials
�
I don’t want to get into any particular … agent … except let me point out … that … the information needs to be part … of clinical trials
�
3. We will accept … less information … up front –
�
4. we’re going to require further study AFTER … approval … because the science … has matured
�
5. The important – point … is that information needs to be gathered … through scientific means … through clinical – trials … and I think – that’s … that’s very important uhh very … important point
�
You can’t … just … use an agent here – or there … you have to use it … as part of a clinical trial … so we can get information … on whether the drug works
�
6. The uhh agency has … many … trials … has has approved trials … for patients … with antineoplastons
�
7. We are committed to providing expanded access … availability … for American patients for any drug … there’s reason to believe … may work
—————————————————————— 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.
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:
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:
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.”
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”
“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:
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/
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:
Didymus Judas Thomas' Hipocritical Oath Blog 