A Message to Guy “Can’t Git-R-Done” Chapman

Guy “Crapman” Chapman is a SkeptiCoward©

I’m NOT “Astroturfwatch” you twit
“Guy” blogged another one of “The Skeptics™” #Fails [1]

He has a blog full of essentially misinformation, disinformation, misdirection, and lies regarding Burzynski, but the gist of it is that so far he has demonstrated to the entire world that he is that “Guy”, that “Yellow-Back” Chap, man, who has NOT demonstrated that he has the “Grapefruits”, to answer for his actions [2-4]

He claims my blog is “full of essentially incoherent commentary,” yet he offers NO explanation as to why it is that since its inception 2/14/2013, the Didymus Judas Thomas’ Hipocritical Oath Blog has had 9,626 visitors

Where’s your stats, Guy ?

Lets “review” his latest piece of propaganda and Dezinformatsiya, shall we ?
“The FDA approved a phase 3 trial, therefore Burzynski’s antineoplastons definitely work”
#fail [5]

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

“Phase 3 studies begin if EVIDENCE of EFFECTIVENESS is shown in Phase 2″
“The Lancet rejected publication of the sole paper known to have been sumbitted from the one completed phase 2 trial, therefore there is a global conspiracy to suppress Burzynski”
#Fail [6]

Bob Blaskiewicz postulated during the Google+ Hangout on Saturday, that this is a generic, usual, normal course-of-business rejection letter

NO such example is on Al Gore’s Internet

Whose got one ?

Even in a Tweet, everybody must include all caveats and the full body of knowledge with footnotes, or stand convicted of lying

Do NOT post deceptive Twits:



@SceptiGuy, on 5/25/2013, what did you NOT understand about her 5/23/2013 Cease and Desist Tweet ?

A trial at a reputable cancer center once took several years to complete and publish, therefore failure to complete and publish a single trial in 40 years means nothing

So, does this mean you wanted Burzynski to publish the phase 2 clinical trial final results before the trials were finished ?
“Failure to participate on a partisan blog means you refuse to debate”
#FAil [7]

Is this just another one of “The Skeptics™” Red Herring’s you like to use ?

The About page on my blog is crystal clear:

“The decision is that he is neither guilty nor innocent doesn’t mean he doesn’t need to do work within his practice, and the FDA obviously needs to pursue things as well

As I said on the Saturday Google+ Hangout, I consider myself to be a Skeptic Skeptic [8]

In other words, if you are going to be a true Skeptic, at least police yourself and “fact-check” before you insert foot-in-mouth and spread misinformation, disinformation, misdirection, and / or lies all over social media

Making lame excuses for NOT debating on my blog is like an atheist stating that they would NOT debate on Earth because creationists claim it was created by God
“Failure to complete and publish trials is the single biggest reputational issue Burzynski has and it cannot be waved away or covered with a fig leaf of a single rejected paper”

“If you can’t understand why this is a problem, then we’re all wasting our time even talking to you”
#FaIL [9]

YOUR failure to provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) from the Declaration of Helsinki, United States Food and Drug Administration, National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), or any other source to support your claim as to when you think Burzynski is required to publish, says it all
“The average time from commencement of a trial to completion is 3-5 years”

“If a trial is going to be completed and published, very few take longer than 8 years to final publication”
3/29/1996, then United States Food and Drug Administration Commissioner, David Kessler told the American people [10]:

2. The … FDA’s initiatives … will allowthe agencyto rely on smaller trialsfewer patients … if there is evidence … of partial response in clinical trials

A. What is the FDA’s definition of “smaller trials”?

B. What is the FDA’s definition of “fewer patients”?

Burzynski’s 2006 publication lists 1652 adults and 335 children (1,799 Total) [11]

“A quick sample says that the first 60 of Burzynski’s phase 2 trials were all registered on the same day”

“1 November 1999, presumably following the consent decree which forbade him from administering antineoplastons outside of a registered clinical trial”
fAil [11]

If you’re correct; which is rare, 3/29/1996, why did then US FDA Commissioner, David Kessler tell the American people [10]:

6. The uhh agency hasMANY … trials … has has approved trialsfor patientswith antineoplastons ?

Why does Burzynski’s 11/25/1997 SEC Form 10-SB filing list 72 phase 2 clinical trials ? [12]

Could it be because you are wrong ?
“The trial that completed, was finished in February 2005”
Are you certain ? [13]


“The single phase 3 trial is withdrawn”
Guy, did you contact the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) like I did, where they advised me: “Not every cancer clinical trial taking place in the United States is listed on our NCI Clinical Trials Database” ? [14]
“I do not choose to debate on DJT’s blog”
Guy, can you see the yellow stripe down your back ?

(I won’t say “spine,” because you haven’t shown that you have one)
“He has a long history of misrepresenting differences of opinion as evidence of deceit (e.g. his claim that 0/61 is evidence that I can’t count, rather than what tit is, brevity during a rapid exchange of suggested questions during a Google hangout, where the person to whom the suggestion is made, is fully aware of the full context of 0/1/61 published/complete/registered”
Guy, why don’t you just PROVE IT ?



Guy, hasn’t ONE been completed ?

You wanted him to publish before the clinical trials were finished ?
“So that kind of stuff is not the actions of an honest broker”
Guy, what do you call all of your above FAILS?
“I wouldn’t expect DJT to debate here, nor would I be interested in giving him a platform; am happy to debate in an open forum where there are comprehensible questions and some sort of moderation to prevent tactics such as the Gish gallop”
Talk about “Gish galloping”

First you post: I wouldn’t expect DJT to debate here … “

and then you posted: ” … nor would I be interested in giving him a platform …”

which just shows that you were NOT sincere when you posted your 1st comment

What you are basically saying when you posted: ” … I am happy to debate in an open forum where there are comprehensible questions and some sort of moderation to prevent tactics such as the Gish gallop, is that you are NOT competent enough to call “Gish gallop” and prove it during any debate

You want “Mommy” to protect you from someone who is more intelligent than you are ?

That’s what I hear you saying
“Sorry, your blog is not an “open forum” and the majority of what’s written there is gibberish”
I understand you

My blog is meant for intelligent people who can grasp ideas, dry wit, and other concepts humans use to communicate with each other

Unfortunately, I take it you are NOT like the other 9,600* people who have visited my blog
“I recommend you stop trying to satirise someone else’s style and instead write in your own words”
Why would I take any advice from you ?

You’re one FAIL after another

I’ll satirize (and spell it correctly) that Ph.D. FAIL “Orac” all I want
“And read them back, if necessary to a friend, so that you get the general air of “what the hell does that even mean?””

“knocked out of it”
It’s readily apparent who needs to check them self

Because you act as if you’ve been “knocked out of it” for quite some time

Maybe you should wear a helmet
“Twitter is about rapid-fire debate”
What the problem is ?

“The Skeptics™” think Twitter is a “debate forum”, but you do NOT have the cranial capacity to “debate”

What “The Skeptics™” do is called “mental bastardization”
“Don’t pretend that any statement is ever intended to be a nuanced and scientifically rigorous statement of the prevailing consensus view, because it isn’t, and it’s not pretending to be”
As far as I’m concerned, the vast majority of your twits are “pretending”
“It’s fair to ask for a source or a clarification, it’s grossly misleading to cherry-pick individual tweets and misrepresent a lack of detail as deliberate malfeasance”
The FACT is, a plethora of your twittering has as its source, your posterior
“That’s the kind of tactic that gets you ignored and dismissed as a mendacious time-sink; if that’s the image you’re striving for then fine but I don’t think it is”
Everyone already knows what you are

Guy “Crapman”
“There you go”
I could NOT have said it better myself
“And now, if you don’t mind, I will get on with other things”




Prove I spammed 🙂

Are you a man ?

Or are you a

SkeptiCoward© ?




[1] – 10/2013 – A Message to DJT
[2] – 3/24/2013 – Critiquing “Burzynski: Another fact-blind troll, who predicted that?”:
[3] – 4/12/2013 – The dishonesty of Guy Chapman, “The Skeptics” shill:
[4] – 5/5/2013 – guychapman (Guy Chapman) Critiquing “The Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics (page 9):
[5] – 4/25/2013 – Burzynski: The FDA’s Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective:
[6] – 9/30/2013 – Bob Burzynski Skeptic Sez Multiforme Manuscript Meme Message Memorable:
[7] – About | Didymus Judas Thomas’ Hipocritical Oath Blog
[8] – 10/3/2013 – “The Skeptics™” Definition of “Debate”:
[9] – 4/25/2013 – Burzynski: Declaration of Helsinki:
[10] – 6/8/2013 – WHAT IS MISDIRECTION? Critiquing “Antineoplastons: Has the FDA kept its promise to the American people ?”:
[11] – Treatments for Astrocytic Tumors in Children: Current and Emerging Strategies. Pediatric Drugs 2006;8:167-178. (Pediatr Drugs 2006; 8 (3)), 2.3. Targeted Therapy, pg. 174
8/21/2013 – Critiquing David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
[12] – 7/9/2013 – Burzynski: The Original 72 Phase II Clinical Trials:
[13] – 6/26/2013 – Burzynski: The Clinical Trials:
[14] – 4/26/2013 – Burzynski: Not Every Cancer Clinical Trial Taking Place In The United States Is Listed On Our NCI Clinical Trials Database:


Antineoplastons: Has the FDA kept its promise to the American people ?

FDA Commissioner’s comments





March 29, 1996

4:17 – 6:17

We will eliminate unnecessary paperwork … that used to delay or discourage … cancer research … by non-commercial clinical investigators

I’d be happy to take a few questions


Yes I … Will uhh … FDA’s initiatives …
that you announced today expedite the current review of antineoplastons … treatments


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

We will accept … less information … up front – we’re going to require further study AFTER … approval … because the science … has matured

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


Will will patients uhh who have taken other forms of of … of cancer treat – treatments; chemo or radiation treatments … uhh be allowed to participate for trials of antineoplastons


The uhh agency has … many … trials … has has approved trials … for patients … with antineoplastons

We are committed to providing expanded access … availability … for American patients for any drug … there’s reason to believe … may work


2003 – 2007 Phase II preliminary

2003 – Phase II
recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma
Phase 2
phase II
antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1

6 months median duration of treatment

of all 12 patients
2 years / 33.3% – Survival
2 / 17% – alive and tumour free for over 5 years since initial diagnosis

from the start of treatment
5 years – 1 alive for more than
4 years – 1 alive for more than

Only mild and moderate toxicities were observed, which included

3 cases of skin allergy

2 cases of:

single cases of:

Protocol – recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma
12 – Patients Accrued
10 – Evaluable Patients
2 / 20% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
3 / 30% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
3 / 30% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
2 / 20% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease

2004 – Phase II

Drugs R D. 2004;5(6):315-26

incurable recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma

antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 (ANP)

9 – patients’ median age

6 patients were diagnosed with pilocytic astrocytoma

4 with low-grade astrocytoma
1 with astrocytoma grade 2

1 case of visual pathway glioma, a biopsy was not performed due to a dangerous location

16 months – The average duration of intravenous ANP therapy

19 months – The average duration of oral ANP

1 patient was non-evaluable due to only 4 weeks of ANP and lack of follow-up scans

1 patient who had stable disease discontinued ANP against medical advice and died 4.5 years later

10 patients are alive and well from 2 to >14 years post-diagnosis

Only 1 case of serious toxicity of reversible tinnitus, of 1 day’s duration, was described

Protocol – incurable recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma
12 – Patients Accrued
– Evaluable Patients
33% – % of Patients Showing Complete Response
25% – % of Patients Showing Partial Response
33% – % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
0 / 0% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease

2005 – Phase II

Integr Cancer Ther. 2005 Jun;4(2):168-77

13 children with recurrent disease or high risk

6 (46%) survived more than 5 years

Protocol – recurrent disease or
high risk
– Patients Accrued
– Evaluable Patients
23% – % of Patients Showing Complete Response
8% – % of Patients Showing Partial Response
31% – % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
38% – % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease

2006 – Phase II

Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Mar;5(1):40-7

Brainstem glioma carries the worst prognosis of all malignancies of the brain

Most patients with brainstem glioma fail standard radiation therapy and chemotherapy and do not survive longer than 2 years

Treatment is even more challenging when an inoperable tumor is of high-grade pathology (HBSG)

patients with inoperable tumor of high-grade pathology (HBSG) treated with antineoplastons in 4 phase 2 trials

39% – overall survival at 2 years
22% – overall survival at 5 years

17+ years maximum survival for a patient with anaplastic astrocytoma

5+ years for a patient with glioblastoma

39% – Progression-free survival at 6 months

5+ year survival in recurrent diffuse intrinsic glioblastomas and anaplastic astrocytomas of the brainstem in a small group of patients

18 – evaluable
4 – glioblastomas
14 – anaplastic HBSG

14 – diffuse intrinsic tumors
12 – recurrence
6 – did not have radiation therapy or chemotherapy

Antineoplastons, A10 (A10I) and AS2-1 injections

5 months median duration

Responses were assessed by gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography

Antineoplastons tolerated very well
1 case of grade 4 toxicity (reversible anemia)

Protocol – high-grade pathology (HBSG)
– Patients Accrued
18 – Evaluable Patients
11% – % of Patients Showing Complete Response
11% – % of Patients Showing Partial Response
39% – % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
39% – % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease

FDA Commissioner David Kessler