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
David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., F.A.C.S. is an academic (i.e.: egg-head, paper-pusher, apparatchik) surgical oncologistspecializing in breast surgery and oncologic surgery
Gorski is no H.G. Wells
Wellscould, at least, tell a convincing lie; as he did in War of the Worlds
Gorski’d likely #fail as his evil half-brother, “H.G. #Fails”, in World War Peed, and probably didn’t think his readers would get the double-entendre’
Gorski is more famouser for pie in the sky
He’ll never be likened to Samuel Langhorne Clemens, or receive a “Mark Twain Award”
He’s an unlicensed Hackademic Quackademic who believes that bad press is good press, any press is good press
Gorski is the “Guy” who felt he was Scroogled by Google, when he and his public relations (P.R.) team; which reside in the hyperthalamus section of his brain, decided on 12/5/2012 to go pure pseudononsense pseudononscience:
Critiquing: Stanislaw Burzynski: On the arrogance of ignorance about cancer and targeted therapies [1]
wherein he quoted
Dr Burzynski:
“I published the review article in a peer-reviewed journal almost 20 years ago on the principles of personalized gene-targeted therapy”
====================================== Gorski:
“Curious as to just what the heck Burzynski was talking about here, I searched PubMed for this alleged review article”
“I couldn’t find it on PubMed”
“His only publications from the 1990s had nothing to do with cancer as a “genetic disease” or “personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy” and everything to do with antineoplastons”
“Perhaps Burzynski proposed this “revolutionary”
new idea in a peer-reviewed article that’s not indexed in PubMed, but if he did I couldn’t find it using Google and Google Scholar”
“I was in graduate school 20 years ago, and was taught back then that cancer was primarily a genetic disease.. ”
“There’s a term called “oncogene,” which describes genes that, when either mutated or too much is made, can result in cancer” ======================================
====================================== Gorski would have the reader suspend belief, and believe that he’s notsmarter than a fifth-grader; which is entirely plausible
That he could not do a search on the words:
antineoplastons
oncogenes
Burzynski
and find anything whatsoever ======================================
======================================
and that he did not have the cranial capacity to access the Burzynski Clinic web-site’s Scientific Publications page: ======================================
======================================
The United States Food and Drug Administration(FDA) did NOT have any problem finding it ======================================
====================================== Pg. 24
1997 – Burzynski. S.R. Antineoplastons. oncogenes and cancer. Anti-Aging Medical Therapeutics, Vol.1. Klatz RM.
Goldman R. (Ed). Health Quest Publication 1997; Marina del Rey, CA. USA
——————————————————————
======================================
This, from a doctor, eager to prove to the world, just how smart he is, because of:
—————————————————————— 12/.5/2011 – “positions I hold at an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center“[2] ======================================
====================================== 12/13/2012 – “positions I hold at an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center“[3] ======================================
====================================== 3/7/2013 – “my last two jobs have been at NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers“[4] ======================================
====================================== 11/2/2012 – “Personally having pored over Burzynski’s publications” [5] ======================================
====================================== 2/18/2013 – “I’ve read many of Burzynski’s papers” [6] ======================================
====================================== 6/5/2013 – “I do know cancer science” [8] ======================================
====================================== 6/10/2013 – “I do know cancer science” [9] ======================================
====================================== 6/7/2013 – “Unlike Mr. Merola, I am indeed very concerned with getting my facts correct” [10] ======================================
======================================
The same “Guy” who claimed:
Burzynskinever explains which genes are targeted by antineoplastons ======================================
======================================
A statement which I showed to be incorrect, by pointing out at least 18 different Burzynskiscientific publications which did what Gorski claimed they did NOT [11-12] ======================================
======================================
When Dr. David H. Gorski said:
—————————————————————— “Personally having pored over Burzynski’s publications”–11/2/2012
“I’ve read many of Burzynski’s papers”–2/18/2013
“I’ve searched Burzynski’s publications”–5/8/2013
——————————————————————
exactly what did he mean by “pored over,” “read,” and “searched”?
Some Bill Clintonesque definition designed to try and stump anyone who’s not smarter than a fifth-grader ?
(“It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is,’ is”)
You don’t have to be smarter than a fifth-grader to understand that ifDr. Gorski actually did what he said he did, that he should have been able to conclude without any hint of doubt, thatBurzynskiexplains which genes are targeted by antineoplastons
Where was your head ?
Was your head in Mississippi?
Was your head like a hole ?
Or was your head so far up your “Show Me State” pal Robert J.(don’t call me “Bobby”)Bob (I’m not a doctor, I just pretend like I’m one on the otherburzynskipatientgroup (TOBPG) and houstoncancerquack) blatherskite Blatherskitewicz(known liar) Blaskiewicz’s AstroTurf campaign, that you couldn’t see what you were not doing ?
This is a guywho has been funded by:
a) the Department of Defense(DOD)
b) the NIH (National Institutes of Health)
c) the Conquer Cancer Foundation of ASCO
and
d) the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
and this is the kind of supposed “Science-Based Medicine”(SBM)“results” he produces ?
This guy is proclaimed as:
“a prolific essayist and managing editor of Science-Based Medicine, a highly-respected blog that exposes non-scientific research and practices”
A “highly-respected blog”?
really ?
Really ??
REALLY ???
You’ve gotta be kiddin’ me !!!
“For the last ten years, he has been a major voice — as himself and pseudonymously — for science-based medicine”
You mean that “Orac”Hack ?
“Dr Gorski also runs an active research laboratory at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute”
Research ?
Is it similar to his “research” which I exposed here?
And yet, after showcasing such “brillianot” research skilz, Tuesday, 7/30/2013, Dr. Gorski was appointed / named program co-director of Michigan Breast Oncology Quality Initiative(MiBOQI); a state-wide initiative to improve the quality of breast cancer care using evidence-based guidelines[13]
He “will be involved in many aspects of the quality initiative”
Let’s hope that one of those aspects is NOT the “research” one
“Dr. Gorski has the breadth and depth of knowledge to effectively lead our very strong Breast Multidisciplinary Team,” said Dr. Bepler
“I have every confidence that Dr. Gorski will continue this very high standard of care.”
Perhaps Dr. Bepler is out-of-touch with reality when it comes to Gorski’s “research” and “standard of care” abilities
I wonder how long it is before his effort at infiltrating evidence-based guidelines with his Science-Based Medicine, raises its ugly hypocritical head ?
During the Holidays, maybe Dr. Gorski will have time to celebrate his promotion with his wife with an evening out, and before he pops the surprise to her about his retirement plans for Castro’s Cuba, he can take her by the hands, stare into her eyes with his big brown eyes; they have to be brown, right (?), because he’s so full of “it,” (?) and tell her these heart-warming words:
Darling, I know, that you know, that what I do brings home the bacon, and so it makes a difference in Michigan
In fact, I wanted to let you know how much of a difference I’m helping to make
1997 thru 2001, African American women breast cancer death rates per 100,000 in Michigan; as reported in the American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures for African Americans, 2005-2006, listed Michigan as the state tied with the 20 most breast cancer cases per 100,000, with 36.2
I’m proud to announce that for the last 2 reporting periods (2011-2014), covering 2003 thru 2009, Michigan is no longer tied with the state with the 20 most cases of breast cancer per 100,000
Michiganis now the state with the 11th most cases of breast cancer in African American women, which rose .5 from 33.8 to 34.3 over the last 2 reporting periods
And that’s not all
African American womenbreast cancer incidences inMichigan, per 100,000, rose from 119.0, 2000 thru 2004 as reported in the 2007-2008 report, up .4 to 119.4, 2006 thru 2010, as reported 2013-2014
Additionally, African American womenbreast cancer death rates inMichigan, per 100,000, rose from 33.8 for 2003 thru 2007, as reported for 2011-2012, up .5 to 34.3 for 2006 thru 2010, reported 2013-2014
And furthermore, breast cancer incidences in Michigan, per 100,000, were 119.4 for African American women for 2006 thru 2010, reported 2013-2014, and 118.7 for 2006 thru 2010 for white women, reported 2013-2014
So African American womenhad .7 more breast cancer incidences thanwhite women
And also, the breast cancer death rates inMichigan, per 100,000, was 34.3 forAfrican American women 2006 thru 2010, reported 2013-2014, 11.5 more than the 22.8 for white women for 2006 thru 2010, as reported 2013-2014
And I thought you’d be very pleased to know that the estimated new breast cancer cases in women inMichigan, rose from 6,120 in 2008, to 8,140 in 2013
An increase of 2,010
And, Michiganwent from being the state with the 9th most cases of estimated new breast cancer cases, to the 8th
And as if that were not enough great news for you, the estimated breast cancer deaths in women inMichigan, rose from 1,350 in 2004, to an additional 10 more women, 1,360 in 2013
And just like with the estimated new women breast cancer cases, again, Michiganwent from being the state with the 9th most cases of estimated breast cancer deaths, to the 8th
And last, but certainly not least, Michigan cancer death rates dropped from 25.8 in 2008, 1.8 to 24.0 in 2013
However, Michiganwent from being the state tied with the 18th most cancer cases per 100,000, to the state tied with the 11th most
But don’t worry honey
If you’re white like me, because you’re in Michigan, the breast cancer incidence for you per 100,000, went from 133.9 for 1998 thru 2002, as reported 2005-2006, down 15.2 to 118.7 for 2006 thru 2010, as reported 2013-2014
And, even better, white death rates in Michigan per 100,000, dropped from 27.3 for 1996 thru 2000, as reported 2003-2004, 4.5 to 22.8 for 2006 thru 2010, as reported 2013-2014
And best of all, sweetie, if you do get breast cancer and you’re white, you have a 9% better 5-year overall survival rate (69% – whites / 60% – African Americans, and for each stage of diagnosis for most cancer sites)
And I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that life expectancy is lower forAfrican Americans than whites among women (77.2 vs. 80.9 years) (2013-2014)
If that’s not job security for me, I don’t know what is
The mistake that Gorski made is that he did not take into account that this is not the age of Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini, etc
In this day and age, people canNOT get away with adopting lying as a part of a strategy, because the NSA is watching, and so are We, the People
Remain calm
Germans subjugated themselves to Hitler, the Soviets, Stalin, Italians, Mussolini, Cubans to Castro, and none of them were worth subjugating oneself to
None of them were worth being put on a pedestal
None of them were greater than you or I
Gorski is NOT the greater good
Gorski has a degree in “B.S.” from the University of Michigan
I do not have a “B.S.” degree
I’m the one NOT full of“B.S.”
Now that sounds like a story ripe for a journalistic investigation
So, I guess that means Bob Blaskiewicz’s fave “journalist,” Liz Szabo, and USA TODAY, are out of the running for this type of “reporting”
But look on the bright side:
“In his new role, he will work with the Samuel Silver, M.D., Ph.D., who is the MiBOQI program director, as well as assistant dean for Research and professor of Internal Medicine/Hematology-Oncology at the University of Michigan Medical School”
Maybe “the Samuel Silver, M.D., Ph.D.” will be GorskGeeks“checks and balances” ====================================== “Our only goal is to promote high standards of science in medicine” ====================================== http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/
======================================
====================================== Such risible hyperbole would induce fits of laughter in me if it weren’t such a complete lie ======================================
I’m just glad dad got outta Kellogg country while he could
—————————————————————— P.S.: Per Dr. David H. Gorski, anything which might erroneously be perceived as a lie about Burzynski, is NOT anything wrong, per Wayne State University[14] ======================================
David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., F.A.C.S., is a racist and a natural born killer
That’s right !
Dr. Gorski hates #cancer
He’s a bigot when it comes to breast cancer
Gorski sleeps, breathes, and blogs about breast cancer
He is an academicsurgical oncologistspecializing in breast surgery and oncologic surgery(Surgical Oncology Attending) at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, Michiganspecializing in breast cancer surgery, where he also serves as team leader for the Breast Cancer Multidisciplinary Team(MDT) at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Center, Co-Chair, Cancer Committee, Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Center, medical director of the Alexander J. Walt Comprehensive Breast Center at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Center(2010-present), Co-Leader of the Breast Cancer Biology Program, and the American College of Surgeons Committee on Cancer(ACS CoC) Cancer Liaison Physician as well as Associate Professor of Surgery at the Wayne State University School of Medicine; Faculty (2008-present), and member of the faculty of the Graduate Program in Cancer Biology at Wayne State University, MiBOQI project director(clinical champion) for Karmanos Cancer Center, site project director of the Michigan Breast Oncology Quality Initiative, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, a partnership between Karmanos and the University of Michigan, the new program co-director(Co-Medical Director) of the Michigan Breast Oncology Quality Initiative(MiBOQI); a state-wide initiative to improve the quality of breast cancer care using evidence-based guidelines, serves as the co-director of the Comprehensive Breast Center and is co-leader of the Breast Cancer Biology Program at Karmanos and Wayne State University School of Medicine, a Wayne State University Physician Group surgeon and chief of the Section of Breast Surgery(Breast Surgery Section) for the Wayne State University School of Medicine (2009-present), serves as an associate professor of surgery and Oncology at Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan, and Treasurer and on the Board of Directors, and also serves the Institute for Science in Medicine as head of its childhood immunization committee
Prior to joining Karmanos and Wayne State University School of Medicine, was an associate professor of surgery at The Cancer Institute of New Jersey and the UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, NJ, as well as a member of the Joint Graduate Program in Cell & Developmental Biology at Rutgers University in Piscataway, N.J.
1984 – Graduation with Honors and High Distinction in Chemistry
1994 – MetroHealth Medical Center Resident Research
He attended the University of Michigan Medical School, received his B.S. in chemistry from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, medical degree (M.D.) from the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, University of Chicago Fellowship, Surgical Oncology, Case Western Reserve University / University Hospitals Case Medical Center Internship, General Surgery, Case Western: Reserve University / University Hospitals Case Medical Center Residency, General Surgery, and received his Ph.D. in cellular physiology at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio
1998 – American Board of Surgery
Assistant Professor of Surgery UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey
1999 – 2006: Assistant Professor of Surgery
1999 – 2008: Active, Surgical Oncology and General Surgery
2005 – 2006: Active, Surgical Oncology and General Surgery
2007 – American Society of Clinical Oncology Advanced Clinical Research
2007 – Conquer Cancer Foundation of ASCO and Breast Cancer Research Foundation Advanced Clinical Research Award in Breast Cancer
2006 – 2008: Associate Professor of Surgery
Faculty, General Surgery, St. Peter’s University Hospital, New Brunswick, New Jersey
Attending Surgeon, Trauma Services, Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, Illinois
2015 – Michigan State Medical License (Active through)
2015 – Ohio State Medical License (Active through)
Managing Editor of the Science-Based Medicine weblog, as well as a once-weekly contributor
SBM exists to take a skeptical, science-based view of medicine in general and in particular the infiltration of pseudoscientific practices into medicine, even in academic medical centers
These entities must have felt lucky to add a University of Michigan alum to their toolbox, a wolverine; a creature also known as a glutton or skunk bear
Who would doubt that Gorski would be a gluttonfor punishment when it comes to raising a big stink about breast cancer issues?
Surely he was aware: Detroit, Michigan; the most populous city in the state of Michigan, with a population of 701,475 (2012) (9,883,360 – Michigan), 575,321 (81.4%) being African American (Black); a little less than six times the national average (82.7% – 2010 / about 83% – 2012) (Michigan – 14.2% – 2010), 369,616 Females (52.7% – 2012 / 53% – 2010) (Michigan 50.9%)
No doubt he knew that the most recent American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures, noted:
——————————————————————
• Studies have documented unequal receipt of prompt, high-quality treatment for African American women compared to white women
• African Americans more likely to be diagnosed at later stage of disease when treatment choices are more limited and less effective
• African Americans and other racial minorities are underrepresented in clinical trials, which makes it more difficult to assess efficacy of cancer therapies among different racial/ethnic groups
• African Americanshave highest death rate and shortest survival of any racial and ethnic group in US for most cancers
• Life expectancy lower for African Americans than whites among women (77.2 vs. 80.9 years)
• Higher death rate in African American women compared to white womenoccurs despite lower cancer incidence rate
• Racial difference in overall cancer death rates is due largely to cancers of the breast and colorectum in women
• African American womenhave higher death rates overall and for breast and several other cancer sites
• African Americanscontinue to have lower 5-year survival overall:
69% – whites 60% – African Americans
and for each stage of diagnosis for most cancer sites
• Evidence aggressive tumor characteristics more common inAfrican American than white women
—————————————————————— Gorskiworked tirelessly to address the problem, by appearing on TV, radio, Internet radio, in articles and on his blogs
Soon, the locals were remarking about the “Gorski Patient Group” web-site which was set up to display anecdotal stories of breast cancer patients who were “cured” by Gorski
How has his hard work paid off ?
—————————————————————— Are these Dr. David H. Gorski’s “success stories” ?
—————————————————————— African American women breast cancer death rates per 100,000 (MICHIGAN)
—————————————————————– 34.3☝2005_-_2009 (State with 11 most) 2013-2014
33.8👇2003_-_2007 (State with 11 most) 2011-2012
34.7👇2001_-_2005 (State with 17 most) 2009-2010
35.4👇2000_-_2003 (State with 19 most) 2007-2008
36.2👇1997_-_2001 (State tied with 20 most) 2005-2006
—————————————————————— BREAST CANCER
—————————————————————— WHITE-INCIDENCE-MICHIGAN (per 100,000)
——————————————————————
118.7👇2006_-_2010 (2013-2014)
120.1👇2004_-_2008 Incidence (2011-2012)
124.3👇2002_-_2006 (2009-2010)
129.9👇2000_-_2004 (2007-2008) 133.9☝1998_-_2002 (2005-2006) 132.1☝1996_-_2000 (2003-2004)
—————————————————————— WHITE-MORTALITY-MICHIGAN (per 100,000)
——————————————————————
22.8👇2006_-_2010 (2013-2014)
23.4👇2003_-_2007 Mortality (2011-2012)
23.8👇2002_-_2006 (2009-2010)
24.6👇2000_-_2004 (2007-2008)
25.9👇1998_-_2002 (2005-2006)
27.3👇1996_-_2000 (2003-2004)
—————————————————————— AFRICAN AMERICAN-INCIDENCE-MICHIGAN (per 100,000)
—————————————————————— 119.4☝2006_-_2010 (2013-2014)
119.2👇2004_-_2008 Incidence (2011_-_2012) 121.0☝2002_-_2006 (2009-2010)
119.0👇2000_-_2004 (2007-2008)
120.6👇1998_-_2002 (2005-2006) 121.4☝1996_-_2000 (2003-2004)
—————————————————————— AFRICAN AMERICAN-MORTALITY-MICHIGAN (per 100,000)
—————————————————————— 34.3☝2006_-_2010 (2013-2014)
33.8👇2003_-_2007 Mortality (2011-2012)
34.6👇2002_-_2006 (2009-2010)
35.0👇2000_-_2004 (2007-2008)
36.0👇1998_-_2002 (2005-2006)
36.9👇1996_-_2000 (2003-2004)
—————————————————————— HISPANIC-INCIDENCE-MICHIGAN (per 100,000)
——————————————————————
80.1👇2006_-_2010 (2013-2014) 92.7☝2004_-_2008 Incidence (2011-2012)
—————————————————————— HISPANIC-MORTALITY-MICHIGAN (per 100,000)
—————————————————————— 15.8☝2006_-_2010 (2013-2014) 14.26☝2003_-_2007 Mortality (2011-2012)
—————————————————————— INCIDENCE-MICHIGAN (per 100,000) COMBINED
—————————————————————— 119.4☝2006_-_2010 AFRICAN AMERICAN (2013-2014)
118.7👇2006_-_2010 WHITE (2013-2014)
80.1👇2006_-_2010 HISPANIC (2013-2014)
—————————————————————— MORTALITY-MICHIGAN (per 100,000) COMBINED
—————————————————————— 34.3☝2006_-_2010 AFRICAN AMERICAN (2013-2014)
22.8👇2006_-_2010 WHITE (2013-2014) 15.8☝2006_-_2010 HISPANIC (2013-2014)
—————————————————————— MICHIGAN – Estimated New Breast Cancer Cases:
—————————————————————— 8,140☝2013 (State with 8th most)
7,710👇2012 (State with 8th most) 7,890☝2011 (State with 8th most) 7,340☝2010 (State with 8th most) 6,480☝2009 (State with 8th most)
6,120👇2008 (State with 9th most)
7,210👇2005 (State with 9th most)
7,270👇2004 (State with 9th most) 7,500☝2003 (State with 8th most) 7,300☝2002 (State with 8th most)
—————————————————————— Are these Dr. David H. Gorski’s “success stories” ?
—————————————————————— MICHIGAN – Estimated Breast Cancer Deaths:
—————————————————————— 1,360☝2013 (State with 8th most) 1,350☝2012 (State with 8th most)
1,320 – 2011 (State with 9th most)
1,320👇2010 (State with 10th most) 1,350☝2009 (State with 9th most)
1,310 👇2008 (State with 9th most)
1,320 👇2007 (State with 9th most)
1,360 👇2006 (State with 9th most) 1,380☝2005 (State with 9th most)
1,350👇2004 (State with 9th most)
1,400 – 2003 (State tied with 8th most) 1,400☝2002 (State tied with 8th most)
—————————————————————— MICHIGAN – Cancer Incidence Rates
——————————————————————
120.3 – 2013 (State with 32nd most)
120.3👇2012 (State with 30th most)
122.2👇2011 (State with 24th most)
124.2👇2010 (State with 17th most)
127.0👇2009 (State with 11th most)
128.8👇2008 (State with 13th most)
129.4👇2007 (State tied with 18th most)
132.4👇2006 (State with 14th most) 133.5☝2005 (State with 13th most) 132.0☝1996_-_2000 (State with 14th most) 2004 129.8☝1995_-_1999 (State with 23rd most)(31st State’s) 2003
109.9👇1994_-_1998 Michigan – Cancer Incidence Rates (2002) 132.0☝1996_-_2000 (State with 14th most) (2004) 129.8☝1995_-_1999 (State with 23rd most) (2003) 109.9☝1994_-_1998 (State with 20th most) (2002)
—————————————————————— MICHIGAN – Cancer Death Rates:
——————————————————————
24.0👇2013 (State tied with 11th most)
24.4👇2012 (State tied with 13th most)
24.5👇2011 (State tied with 16th most)
25.1👇2010 (State tied with 12th most)
25.3👇2009 (State tied with 17th most)
25.8👇2008 (State tied with 18th most)
26.6👇2007 (State tied with 14th most)
27. 5 – 2006 (State tied with 12th most)
27.5👇2005 (State tied with 13th most)
28.4👇1996_-_2000 (State tied with 14th most) (2004) 29.5☝1995_-_1999 (State tied with 14th most) 2003 24.8☝1994_-_1998 (State with 14th most) 2002
——————————————————————
The problem, is that, when the Hippocratic Oath
was mentioned, Gorski may have opted for the Hypocrite Oath
Rather than address the BILLIONS of dollars in fines which Big Pharma racked up, and Pharma’s seeming dedication to getting members of the unwitting public, to take medications for symptoms which they were not approved for; and thus possibly experience adverse effects those drugs cause, Gorski chose to NOT comment about his goose that might lay the golden (parachute) nest egg
Instead, he tried the Tricky-Dickytrickle-down theory of Hackademic Mudicine(“Quackademic Medicine”); which did NOT work when Richard Milhous (“War on Cancer”) Nixon was told:
“There’s a cancer on the Presidency”
What Gorski seems hilariously oblivious to, is that his opprobrium; to turn a phrase, applies to him:
—————————————————————— (.3:16)
——————————————————————
When he mentions:
“ineffective and potentially harmful medical practices that were not, that are not supported by evidence”
he may as well be saying, in regards to surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation:
“ineffective and potentially harmful medical practices that were, that are supported by evidence“
(the evidence that they do NOT work for everyone)
—————————————————————— (.3:42)
——————————————————————
To use his own words, he seems:
“confused, at best”
—————————————————————— (.4:45)
——————————————————————
He also displays:
“an animosity toward reason”
—————————————————————— (.4:49)
—————————————————————— “Nothing’s changed within 30 years
If anything, it’s worse”
—————————————————————— (.6:45)
——————————————————————
He states:
“Alternative = unproved”
There goes “Alternative Rock,” or the “alternative” to an attemptedGorskijoke: “happiness is a warm gun”
I’m somewhat surprised that Gorski has yet to classify antineoplastons as “Homeopathy: Ultra-diluted chemotherapy”
—————————————————————— (28:15)
——————————————————————
But he does rant that rival Cleveland Clinic where he had his residency, has been infiltrated by the Q.M.
—————————————————————— (39:10)
——————————————————————
And that his alma-mater, the University of Michigan has also queued in the “Quackademic” line
—————————————————————— (44:00)
——————————————————————
He bemoans the mighty wolverine:
“Again my alma-mater”
“I hang my head in shame”
—————————————————————— (44:10)
——————————————————————
And to add injury to insult, his “former employer,” UMDNJ(University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey)-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, has also been bitten by the Quackademic Duck
I’m sure Gorski will be able to formulate a usual factoid #fail for his #failure to “cure” cancer, vis-a-vis “Orac”, the literary Hack, braying in the wilderness and awaiting his Red Badge of Courage
Maybe “too many people copulating” in Detroit, or too many Louisiana hurricane Katrina survivors added to the sandbox
Is Gorski a racist?
That’s up to all the African American women in Detroit, Michigan, to decide
Maybe he’s just a really bad hypocrite
NOr, maybe he needs to spend less time on the “hypocuresy,” and more time on the “CURE”
Maybe the African American women of Detroit, Michigan, and the United States of America should ask Gorski:
What have you done for me lately ?
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— “And, make no mistake about it, antineoplastons (ANPs) are chemotherapy, no matter how much Burzynski tries to claim otherwise”
—————————————————————— NO, Gorski, the United States’ 5th Circuit Court of Appeals claimed that antineoplastons (ANPs) are:
“…an unapproved drug, not ordinary “chemotherapy”
no matter how much YOU try to claim otherwise
What are you ?
A Saul Green closet communist who does NOT believe what the United States’ Federal Courtsrule ?
——————————————————————
——————————————————————
“Indeed, it was a blatant ploy, as Burzynski’s lawyer, Richard Jaffe, acknowledged, referring to one of his clinical trials as a “joke” and the others as a way to make sure there was a constant supply of new cancer patients to the Burzynski Clinic“
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— ” … in 1997, his medical practice was expanded to include traditional cancer treatment options such as chemotherapy, gene targeted therapy, immunotherapy and hormonal therapy in response to FDA requirements that cancer patients utilize more traditional cancer treatment options in order to be eligible to participate in the Company’s Antineoplaston clinical trials“
“As a result of the expansion of Dr. Burzynski’s medical practice, the financial condition of the medical practice has improved Dr. Burzynski’s ability to fund the Company’s operations”
—————————————————————— GorskGeek, my citations, references, and / or links, beat your NON-citations, NON-references, and / or NON-links ====================================== AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY:
CANCER FACTS & FIGURES (2002-2014) ======================================
2002_-_2003 – 1 of every 4 deaths
====================================== Deaths – United States of America
—————————————————————— 2013 – almost 1,600 a day 2002-2012☝1,500+ a day
—————————————————————— Expected to Die – United States
—————————————————————— 2013☝580,350_-_(3,160 more than 2012)
2012☝577,190_-_(5,240 more than 2011)
2011☝571,950_-_(2,460 more than 2010)
2010☝569,490_-_(7,150 more than 2009)
2009👇562,340_-_(3,310 less than 2008) 2008☝565,650_-_(6,000 more than 2007)
2007👇559,650_-_(5,180 less than 2006)
2006👇564,830_-_(5,450 less than 2005) 2005☝570,280_-_(6,580 more than 2004
2004☝563,700_-_(7,200 more than 2003)
2003☝556,500_-_(6,000 more than 2002)
2002☝555,500
—————————————————————— Estimated All Cancer Deaths (Women)
——————————————————————
2013👇273,430 (1,940 less than 2012) 2012☝275,370 (3,850 more than 2011)
2011☝271,520 (1,230 more than 2010)
2010☝270,290 (490 more than 2009)
2009👇269,800 (1,730 less than 2008) 2008☝271,530 (1,430 more than 2007)
2007👇270,100 (3,460 less than 2006)
2006👇273,560 (1,440 less than 2005) 2005☝275,000 (2,190 more than 2004)
2004☝272,810 (2,210 more than 2003)
2003☝270,600 (3,300 more than 2002)
2002_-_267,300
—————————————————————— Estimated cancer deaths – African Americans expected to die from cancer:
——————————————————————
2013👇64,645 – 22.6% (2013-2014) 2011☝65,540 (About) (2011-2012)
2009☝63,360 (About) (2009-2010)
2007☝62,780 (About) (2007-2008)
—————————————————————— Estimated Breast Cancer Deaths (Women)
—————————————————————— 2013☝39,620 (14%) (110 more than 2012)
2012👇39,510 (14%) (10 less than 2011)
2011👇39,520 (15%) (320 less than 2010)
2010👇39,840 (15%) (330 less than 2009)
2009👇40,170 (15%) (310 less than 2008) 2008☝40,480 (15%) (20 more than 2007)
2007👇40,460 (15%) (2007-2008) (510 less than 2006) 2006☝40,970 (15%) (560 more than 2005)
2005☝40,410 (15%) (300 more than 2004)
2004☝40,110 (15%) (310 more than 2003)
2003☝39,800 (15%) (200 more than 2002)
2002 – 39,600 (15%)
—————————————————————— Estimated Deaths from Breast cancer expected to occur among African American women:
—————————————————————— 6,080☝2013 – 19% (2013-2014)
6,040☝2011 – 19% (2011-2012)
6,020☝2009 – 19% (2009-2010)
5,830☝2007 – 19% (2007-2008)
5,640☝(2005-2006)
5,640 – 1969-2002 – 18.4% – 2005 (2005-2006) ====================================== New Cancer Cases Expected to be diagnosed – USA
—————————————————————— 2013☝1,660,290 – (21,380 more than 2012)
2012☝1,638,910 – (42,240 more than 2011)
2011☝1,596,670 – (67,160 more than 2010)
2010☝1,529,560 – (49,810 more than 2009)
2009☝1,479,350 – (42,170 more than 2008)
2008👇1,437,180 – ( 7,740 less than 2007) 2007☝1,444,920 – (45,130 more than 2006)
2006☝1,399,790 – (26,880 more than 2005)
2005☝1,372,910 – ( 4,870 more than 2004)
2004☝1,368,030 – (33,930 more than 2003)
2003☝1,334,100 – (49,200 more than 2002)
2002☝1,284,900
—————————————————————— Estimated New Cancer All (Women)
—————————————————————— 2013☝805,500 – (14,760 more than 2012)
2012☝790,740 – (16,370 more than 2011)
2011☝774,370 – (34,430 more than 2010)
2010☝739,940 – (26,720 more than 2009)
2009☝713,220 – (21,220 more than 2008)
2008☝692,000 – (13,940 more than 2007)
2007👇678,060 – (1,450 less than 2006) 2006☝679,510 – (16,640 more than 2005)
2005👇662,870 – (5,600 less than 2004) 2004☝668,470 – (9,670 more than 2003)
2003☝658,800 – (11,400 more than 2002)
2002_-_647,400
—————————————————————— Estimated New invasive Breast Cancer Cases: (Women)
—————————————————————— 2013☝232,340 (29%) (5,470 more than 2012)
2012👇226,870 (29%) (11,610 less than 2011) 2011☝238,480 (30%) (31,390 more than 2010)
2010☝207,090 (28%) (14,720 more than 2009)
2009☝192,370 (27%) (9,910 more than 2008)
2008☝182,460 (26%) (3,980 more than 2007)
2007👇178,480 (26%) (2007-2008) (34,440 less than 2006) 2006☝212,920 (31%) (1,680 more than 2005)
2005👇211,240 (32%) (4,660 less than 2004) 2004☝215,900 (32%) (4,600 more than 2003)
2003☝211,300 (32%) (7,800 more than 2002)
2002_-_203,500 (31%)
—————————————————————— Estimated new cases – new cancer cases expected to be diagnosed among African Americans:
—————————————————————— 2013☝176,620 (2013-2014)
2011☝168,900 (About) (2011-2012)
2009👇150,090 (About) (2009-2010) 2008☝182,460 (26%)
2007_-_152,900 (About) (2007-2008)
—————————————————————— Estimated new cases of in situ breast cancer expected to occur:
—————————————————————— 64,640☝(2013) (1,340 more than 2012)
63,300☝(2012) (5,650 more than 2011)
57,650☝(2011) (3,640 more than 2010)
54,010👇(2010) (8,270 less than 2009)
62,280👇(2009) (5,490 less than 2008) 67,770☝(2008) (5,740 more than 2007-2008)
62,030☝(2007-2008) (50 more than 2006)
61,980☝(2006) (3,490 more than 2005-2006)
58,490👇(2005-2006) (900 less than 2004) 59,390☝(2004) (3,690 more than 2003)
55,700☝(2003) (1,400 more than 2002)
54,300☝(2002)
—————————————————————— Estimated New Cancer Cases – African Americans – Breast
—————————————————————— 2013☝27,060 – 33% (2013-2014)
2011☝26,840 – 34% (2011-2012)
2009☝19,540 – 25% (2009-2010)
2007☝19,010 – 27% (2007-2008)
19,240 – 1979-2001 – 29.9% – 2005 (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— Estimated new cases of in situ breast cancer expected to occur = detection of below # of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS):
——————————————————————
54,944 (2013)
85% (2003-2012)
88% (2002)
1998-2002 accounted for about 85% of in situ breast cancers diagnosed (2005-2006)
1980-2001 – Incidence rates of DCIS increased more than sevenfold in all age groups, although greatest in women 50 and older (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH
——————————————————————
2013 – breast cancer expected to be most commonly diagnosed cancer in women
—————————————————————— BREAST CANCER – 2nd
——————————————————————
2013 – Breast cancer 2nd most common cause of cancer death among African American women, surpassed only by lung cancer (2009-2012)
(2007)
——————————————————————
2003 – Breast cancer is 2nd among cancer deaths in women
2002-2003: 2nd leading cause of death
2002 – Breast cancer 2nd leading cause of death
————————————-
Breast cancer most common cancer among African American women
New Cases: Breast cancer most commonly diagnosed cancer among African American women
—————————————————————— BREAST CANCER – AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN
——————————————————————
34% – African American women most common cancer (2011-2012)
African American Women Most common cancer (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2005 – African American women – more likely to die from at any age
—————————————————————— ESTIMATED WOMEN BREAST CANCER DEATHS
——————————————————————
19% – number of cancer deaths breast cancer in women (2007-2012)
——————————————————————
since 1990 – Death rates from breast cancer steadily decreased in women (2009-2010)
since 1990 – death rate from breast cancer in women decreased (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
1.9% – 2000-2009 cancer mortality rate for women of all races combined declined annually (2012-2013)
——————————————————————
1990-2006 – death rate from breast cancer in women decreased (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2.2% – 1990-2004 cancer mortality rate for women of all races combined decreased annually (2007-2008)
decline larger among younger age groups (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
2.3% – 1990-2002 rate decreased annually – percentage of decline larger among younger age groups (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2.3% – 1990-2000 breast cancer death rates decreased annually (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1992-1998 – mortality rates declined significantly
largest decreases in younger women, both white and black (2002)
——————————————————————
1.6% – 1975-1991 – Breast Cancer Death Rates Increased annually (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
0.4% – 1975-1990 – breast cancer death rates increased annually (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
0.4% – 1975-1990 death rate for all races combined increased annually (2005-2008)
——————————————————————
rate for women of all races combined decreased annually (2007-2008)
decline larger among younger age groups (2007-2008)
—————————————————————— BREAST CANCER – OLDER WOMEN
——————————————————————
Older women much more likely to get breast cancer than younger women
—————————————————————— % FEMALE BREAST CANCER DEATH RATES (age)
——————————————————————
97% – 1998-2002 – age 40 and older (2005-2008)
96% – 1996-2000 – age 40 and older (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— WOMEN YOUNGER than 50
——————————————————————
3.0% – under age of 50 – Mortality from breast cancer declined faster for women (annually from 2005-2009) regardless of race/ethnicity (2013)
——————————————————————
2.3% – 1990-2001 Breast Cancer Death Rates decrease
largest decrease in < 50 (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
3.7% – 1991-2000 under 50 breast cancer Death rates decreased (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
3.3% – 1990-2004 – death rates decreased per year among women younger than 50 (2005c-2008)
——————————————————————
2.3% – 1990-2002 Death rates from breast cancer declined average per year in all women combined, with larger decreases in younger (<50 years) women (2006)
—————————————————————— WOMEN 50 and older
——————————————————————
1.2% – 50 and older – decrease in breast cancer death rates smaller in African American than white women (2009-2010)
——————————————————————
2.0% – 50 and older – 1990-2004 – death rates decreased per year among women (2005-2008)
—————————————————————— WHITE WOMEN
——————————————————————
2.1% – 2000-2009 – breast cancer death rates declined per year in white women
——————————————————————
2.6% – 1992-2000 – breast cancer Death rates Whites (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2.4% – 1990-2004 female breast cancer death rates declined per year in whites (2005-2008)
——————————————————————
early 1980’s – Breast Cancer Death Rates equal – African American / White (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN – ALL CANCERS
——————————————————————
1.5% – since 1999 – Death rates among women (African Americans for all cancers combined) per year have been decreasing (2011-2012)
—————————————————————— AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN BREAST CANCER DEATHS
——————————————————————
black women more likely to die of breast cancer than white women (2012-2013)
——————————————————————
2005-2006 African American women more likely to die from breast cancer at every age
——————————————————————
41% – 2005-2009 African American women had higher death rate than white women despite lower incidence rate
39% – 2003-2007 – African American women had higher death rate than white women, despite lower incidence rate (2011-2012)
difference accounts for more than one-third (37%) of overall cancer mortality disparity between African American and white women (2011-2012)
37% – 2001-2005 – African American women had higher death rate than white women (2009-2010)
higher breast cancer mortality rate among African American women compared to white women occurs despite lower incidence rate (2009-2010)
difference accounts for more than one-third (37%) of overall cancer mortality disparity between African American and white women (2009-2010)
higher breast cancer mortality rate among African American women compared to white women occurs despite lower incidence rate (2007)
notable, striking divergence in long-term breast cancer mortality rates trends between African American and white women (2005-2008)
36% – by 2004 – death rates higher in African Americans than white women (2007-2008)
37% – by 2002 – death rates higher in African American women than white women (2005-2006)
36% – 2000-2003 – death rates higher in African American women than white women (2007)
difference accounts for one-third of excess cancer mortality experienced by African American women compared to white women (2007)
32% – 2000 – Breast Cancer Death rate higher in African American women even though had lower incidence rates (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN – 50 and older
——————————————————————
1.2% – 50 and older – 1992-2012 – per year – women (2011-2012)
2.0% – 50 and older – Breast Cancer Death Rates – per year (2009-2010)
——————————————————————
1.2% – 50 and older – decrease in breast cancer death rates smaller in African American than white women (2009-2010)
1.1% – 50 and older – 1991-2007 – African American women Breast cancer death rates declined annually (2007)
2.0% – 50 and older – 1990-2000 – breast cancer Death rates decreased (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1990 – 50 and older – Breast Cancer Death Rates Increase predominantly due to
—————————————————————— AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN – under 50
——————————————————————
2.0% – 1992-2012 – decrease larger in women under 50 – declined thereafter per year (2011-2012)
1.9% – 1992-2009 – decrease larger in women under 50 – declined thereafter per year (2009-2010)
resulted in growing disparity
3.3% per year – larger decreases in women younger than 50 – Breast Cancer Death Rates (2009-2010)
——————————————————————
1.9% – 1991_-_2007 – decrease larger in women under 50 – African American women Breast cancer death rates declined annually per year
—————————————————————— AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN
——————————————————————
2000-2009 – death among females, rate of decline similar
As result, overall racial disparity narrowed
——————————————————————
2000-2009 death rate declined faster among African Americans females rate of decline than whites
1.5% – 2000-2009 African Americans females rate of decline per year (2013-2014)
1.4% – 2000-2009 whites rate of decline per year (2013-2014 )
——————————————————————
1.4% – 2000-2009 – breast cancer death rates declined more slowly per year in African American women
——————————————————————
1990-2002
African American women benefited less than white women from advances (2005-2008)
——————————————————————
1.1% – breast cancer death rates African Americans (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1.6% – 1995-2004 – female breast cancer death rates declined per year in African Americans (2007-2008)
1.0% – 1990-2002 female breast cancer death rates declined per year – African Americans (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
early 1990s – Death rates among African Americans for all cancers combined have been decreasing (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
breast cancer death rates have declined more slowly in African American women compared to white women, which has resulted in growing disparity (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
gap much smaller among women
racial difference in overall cancer death rates due largely to cancers of breast and colorectum in women
racial disparity has widened for breast cancer in women (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
early 1980s – disparity in breast cancer death rates between African American and white women began in (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
early 1980s – breast cancer death rates for white and African American women approximately equal (2007)
——————————————————————
30% – early 1980’s-2000 – disparity between African American and white Deaths (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
early 1980s – disparity in breast cancer death rates between African American and white women appeared (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
early 1980s – breast cancer death rates for white and African American women
similar (2011-2014)
equal (2009-2010)
early 1980’s – Breast Cancer Death Rates equal – African American / White (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1.5% – 1975-1992 – Breast cancer death rates among African American women increased annually (2009-2012)
1.6% – 1975-1991 – African American women Breast cancer death rates increased annually (2007)
——————————————————————
1975-2007 – death rates for all cancers combined continued to be substantially higher among African Americans than whites (2011-2012)
—————————————————————— AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN BREAST CANCER DEATH RATE RATIOS per 100,000 women
——————————————————————
35.4 – African American – 1997-2001 – Breast Cancer Death Rate Ratios per 100,000 (2005-2006)
26.4 – White – 1997-2001 – Breast Cancer Death Rate Ratios per 100,000 (2005-2006)
1.3 – African American / White Ratio – 1997-2001 – Breast Cancer Death Rate Ratios per 100,000 (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— HISPANIC / LATINA WOMEN
——————————————————————
2.4% – 1995-2004 female breast cancer death rates declined per year in Hispanics / Latinas (2007-2008)
1.8% – 1990-2002 female breast cancer death rates declined per year in Hispanics / Latinas (2005-2006)
1.4% – breast cancer Death rates Hispanics (2005-2006)
1990-2002
women of other racial and ethnic groups benefited less than white women from advances (2005-2008)
—————————————————————— ASIAN AMERICAN / PACIFIC ISLANDER WOMEN
——————————————————————
1995-2004 female breast cancer death rates remained unchanged among Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders (2007-2008)
1.1% – breast cancer Death rates Asian and Pacific Islanders (2005-2006)
1.0% – 1990-2002 female breast cancer death rates declined per year – Asian Americans / Pacific Islanders (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1990-2002
women of other racial and ethnic groups benefited less than white women from advances (2005-2008)
—————————————————————— AMERICAN INDIAN / ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN
——————————————————————
1995-2004 female breast cancer death rates remained unchanged among American Indians / Alaska Natives (2007-2008)
1990-2002 female breast cancer death rates did not decline in American Indian / Alaska Natives (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1990-2002
women of other racial and ethnic groups benefited less than white women from advances (2005-2008)
——————————————————————
breast cancer Death rates American Indian and Alaska Native – constant (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— DEATHS – 2007-2008
——————————————————————
40,460 – Deaths – All ages (2007-2008)
23,510 – Deaths – 65 and older (2007-2008)
16,950 – Deaths – Younger than 65 (2007-2008)
31,320 – Deaths – 55 and older (2007-2008)
9,140 – Deaths – Younger than 55 (2007-2008)
37,630 – Deaths – 45 and older (2007-2008)
2,830 – Deaths – Younger than 45 (2007-2008)
—————————————————————— MORTALITY (DEATH) RATES
——————————————————————
31.0 – Black – Mortality – 1992-1998 – Mortality Rates* by Site, Race, and Ethnicity (2002)
24.3 – White – Mortality – 1992-1998 – Mortality Rates* by Site, Race, and Ethnicity (2002)
14.8 – Hispanic – Mortality – 1992-1998 – Mortality Rates* by Site, Race, and Ethnicity (2002)
12.4 – American Indian / Alaskan Native – Mortality – 1992-1998 – Mortality Rates* by Site, Race, and Ethnicity (2002)
11.0 – Asian / Pacific Islander – Mortality – 1992-1998 – Mortality Rates* by Site, Race, and Ethnicity (2002)
—————————————————————— WHITE WOMEN – MORE LIKELY TO DEVELOP BREAST CANCER
——————————————————————
Combining all age groups, white (non-Hispanic) women more likely to develop breast cancer than black women
—————————————————————— PROBABILITY of DEVELOPING BREAST CANCER in NEXT 10 YEARS (Age)
—————————————————————— 20
——————————————————————
20 – 0.05% – 1 in 2,152 – Probability of developing Breast Cancer in next 10 years (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
20 – 0.05% – 1 in 1,985 – 2000-2002 probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years: † (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
20 – 0.05% – 1 in: 1,837 – probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years (2007-2008)
—————————————————————— 30
——————————————————————
30 – 0.44% – 1 in: 229 (2000-2002) probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years: † (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
30 – 0.43% – 1 in: 234 – probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
30 – 0.40% – 1 in 251 – Probability of developing Breast Cancer in next 10 years (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— 40
——————————————————————
40 – 1.46% – 1 in: 68 (2000-2002) probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years: † (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
40 – 1.45% – 1 in 69 – Probability of developing Breast Cancer in next 10 years (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
40 – 1.43% – 1 in: 70 – probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years (2007-2008)
—————————————————————— 50
——————————————————————
50 – 2.78% – 1 in 36 – Probability of developing Breast Cancer in next 10 years (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
50 – 2.73% – 1 in: 37 (2000-2002) probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years: † (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
50 – 2.51% – 1 in: 40 – probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years (2007-2008)
—————————————————————— 60
——————————————————————
60 – 3.82% – 1 in: 26 (2000-2002) probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years: † (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
60 – 3.81% – 1 in 26 – Probability of developing Breast Cancer in next 10 years (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
60 – 3.51% – 1 in: 28 – probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years (2007-2008)
—————————————————————— 70
——————————————————————
70 – 4.31% – 1 in 23 – Probability of developing Breast Cancer in next 10 years (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
70 – 4.14% – 1 in: 24 (2000-2002) probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years: † (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
70 – 3.88% – 1 in: 26 – probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years (2007-2008)
—————————————————————— LIFETIME RISK
——————————————————————
13.2% – 1 in 8 – 2005-2006 Currently, woman living in US has, or, lifetime risk of developing breast cancer
——————————————————————
13.22% – Lifetime risk – 1 in: 8 – 2000-2002 probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years: † (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
12.28% – Lifetime risk – 1 in: 8 – probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years (2007-2008)
—————————————————————— AFRICAN AMERICAN LIFE EXPECTANCY
——————————————————————
2007 – life expectancy lower for African Americans than whites among women
(76.5 vs. 80.6 years) (2011-2012)
—————————————————————— DEVELOPING INVASIVE BREAST CANCER
——————————————————————
1 in 8 – 2013 – chance of developing invasive breast cancer during lifetime
——————————————————————
1 in 8 – 12.3% – Currently, woman living in US has lifetime risk of developing breast cancer (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
about 1 in 11 – 1975
——————————————————————
1 in 11 – 1970s – lifetime risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
result of rounding to nearest whole number, small decrease in lifetime risk (from 1 in 7.47 to 1 in 7.56) led to change in lifetime risk from 1 in 7 previously reported in Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2003-2004 and Cancer Facts & Figures 2005 to current estimate of 1 in 8
Overall, lifetime risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer gradually increased over past 3 decades (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— INVASIVE BREAST CANCER – by age (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
178,480 – All ages
72,520 – 65 and older
105,960 – Younger than 65
124,300 – 55 and older
54,180 – Younger than 55
162,330 – 45 and older
16,150 – Younger than 45
—————————————————————— INVASIVE BREAST CANCER – by # (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
178,480 – All ages
162,330 – 45 and older
124,300 – 55 and older
105,960 – Younger than 65
72,520 – 65 and older
54,180 – Younger than 55
16,150 – Younger than 45
—————————————————————— INVASIVE BREAST CANCER
——————————————————————
0.3% – 1987-2002 – Incidence Trends: increased per year (2005-2006)
————————————-
—————————–
4% (almost) – 1980-1987 – increased (almost +4% a year) Incidence Trends (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— age 40-49
——————————————————————
Since 1987 – age 40-49 – incidence rates of invasive breast cancer have slightly declined (2005-2006)
3.5% – 40-49 (age) – 1980-1987 – incidence rates of invasive breast cancer increased among women per year – Incidence Trends: Invasive Breast Cancer (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— age 50 and older
——————————————————————
Since 1987 – 50 and older – incidence rates of invasive breast cancer have continued to increase among women, though at much slower rate (2005-2006)
4.2% – 50 and older – incidence rates of invasive breast cancer increased among women per year – Incidence Trends: Invasive Breast Cancer (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— Under 40
——————————————————————
Under 40 – remained essentially constant (2005-2006)
Since 1987 – younger than 40 – relatively little change in incidence rates of invasive breast cancer in women (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— Invasive Breast Cancer
——————————————————————
1975-2000 – Invasive Breast Cancer (2005-2006):
4% – 40 and older – increased 1980-1987 then stabilized (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1992-2002 – overall incidence rates did not change significantly among whites, African Americans, and Hispanics / Latinas (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1.3% – Hispanics – increased overall (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
0.9% – Whites – increased overall (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
African Americans – stabilized (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— Asian Americans / Pacific Islanders
——————————————————————
2.1% – 1992-2002 – Asian and Pacific Islanders – overall incidence rates increased overall (2005-2006)
1.5% – 1992-2002 – Asian Americans / Pacific Islanders – overall incidence rates increased per year (2005-2006)
trends in invasive female breast cancer incidence rates (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— American Indian / Alaska Natives
——————————————————————
3.7% – American Indian / Alaska Native – decreased overall (2005-2006)
3.5% – 1992-2002 – American Indian / Alaska Natives – overall incidence rates decreased per year (2005-2006)
trends in invasive female breast cancer incidence rates (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— essentially constant – Incidence Trends
——————————————————————
1973-1980 – essentially constant – Incidence Trends (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
African Americans more likely to be diagnosed at later stage of disease when treatment choices are more limited and less effective (2013-2014)
—————————————————————— MEDIAN AGE of DIAGNOSIS
——————————————————————
62 – median age of diagnosis for -white women
——————————————————————
57 – median age of diagnosis for African American women
—————————————————————— DIAGNOSIS at LOCAL STAGE
——————————————————————
61% – breast cancers diagnosed among white women at local stage (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
51% (Only about half) – of breast cancers diagnosed among African American women are local stage (2011-2014)
—————————————————————— MEDIAN AGE AT TIME OF BREAST CANCER DIAGNOSIS
——————————————————————
61 – 2000_-_2004 median age at time of breast cancer diagnosis (2007-2008)
61 – 1998_-_2002 median age at time of breast cancer diagnosis
——————————————————————
61 – means 50% of women who developed breast cancer were 61 or younger (2007-2008)
50% of women who developed breast cancer were age 61 or younger 1998_-_2002
——————————————————————
61 – 50% were older than 61 when diagnosed (2007-2008)
50% were older than age 61 when diagnosed 1998_-_2002
—————————————————————— 2005_-_2009 % / age DIAGNOSED with BREAST CANCER
——————————————————————
61 – median age for breast cancer diagnosis
0.0% – under age 20
1.8% – between 20-34
9.9% – between 35-44
22.5% – between 45-54
24.8% – between 55-64
20.2% – between 65-74
15.1% – between 75-84
5.7% – 85+
—————————————————————— 2005_-_2009 % / age DIAGNOSED with BREAST CANCER by % (SEER, 2012)
——————————————————————
24.8% – between 55-64
22.5% – between 45-54
20.2% – between 65-74
15.1% – between 75-84
9.9% – between 35-44
5.7% – 85+
1.8% – between 20-34
0.0% – under age 20
—————————————————————— IN SITU BREAST CANCER – by age (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
62,030 – All ages
21,510 – 65 and older
40,520 – Younger than 65
37,110 – 55 and older
24,920 – Younger than 55
54,390 – 45 and older
7,640 – Younger than 45
—————————————————————— IN SITU BREAST CANCER – by # (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
62,030 – All ages
54,390 – 45 and older
40,520 – Younger than 65
37,110 – 55 and older
24,920 – Younger than 55
21,510 – 65 and older
7,640 – Younger than 45
—————————————————————— NEW CASES – IN SITU BREAST CANCER
——————————————————————
increase observed in all age groups, although greatest in women 50 and older (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
Since 2000 – incidence rates of in situ breast cancer leveled off among women 50 and older (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
Since 2000 – incidence rates of in situ breast cancer have continued to increase in younger women (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
80% – 2000-2004 – Most in situ breast cancers are ductal carcinoma (DCIS), which accounted for about 80% of in situ breast cancers diagnosed (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
2000-2004 – Lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) less common than DCIS, accounting for about 10% of female in situ breast cancers diagnosed (2007-2008)
Similar to DCIS, overall incidence rate of LCIS increased more rapidly than incidence of invasive breast cancer (2007-2008)
increase limited to women older than age 40 and largely to postmenopausal women (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
1998-2002 accounting for female in situ breast cancers diagnosed (2005-2006):
12% – Lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) less common than DCIS
Similar to DCIS, overall incidence rate of LCIS increased more rapidly than incidence of invasive breast cancer
increase limited to women older than 40 and largely to postmenopausal women
——————————————————————
1980s and 1990s – Incidence rates of in situ breast cancer increased rapidly (2007-2008)
—————————————————————— New cancer cases in women expected to be newly diagnosed among African Americans:
——————————————————————
2013 – 82,080 (About)
——————————————————————
19% – breast cancer in women (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
2002 – Breast cancer ranks 2nd among cancer deaths in women
——————————————————————
2002-2003: 2nd leading cause of death
—————————————————————— African American women expected to die from cancer:
——————————————————————
African Americans have the highest death rate and shortest survival of any racial and ethnic group in the US for most cancers
(2007-2014)
African Americans have the highest mortality rate of any racial and ethnic group in the US for most cancers
(2005-2006)
——————————————————————
higher death rate in African
American women compared to white women occurs despite lower cancer incidence rate (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
African American women have higher death rates overall and for breast and several other cancer sites (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
15% – 2009 – death rate for all cancers combined continued to be higher in African American women than in white women (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
racial difference in overall cancer death rates is due largely to cancers of the breast and colorectum in women (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
overall racial disparity in cancer death rates decreasing (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
16% – 2007 – death rate for all cancers combined higher in African American women than white women (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
37% – by 2002 – death rates higher in African Americans than white women (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
since early 1990s – death rates among African Americans for all cancers combined have been decreasing (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
30% – early 1980’s–2000 – Deaths disparity between African American and white (2005–2006)
——————————————————————
1975-2009 – Despite declines, death rates for all cancers combined continued to be higher among African Americans than whites (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
1992-2014 – Breast cancer death rates among African American women declined
——————————————————————
1.4% per year – 2000-2009 – breast cancer death rates declined more slowly in African American women
——————————————————————
2.1% per year – 2000-2009 – breast cancer death rates declined white women
——————————————————————
early 1980s – breast cancer death rates for white and African American women similar
——————————————————————
1975-1992 – Breast cancer death rates among African American women increased
resulted in growing disparity
——————————————————————
through 1998 – breast cancer incidence rates among young white women continued to increase more slowly (2002)
——————————————————————
1980s – 4.5% per year increase (2002)
——————————————————————
As result, overall racial disparity narrowed (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
1992-1998 – mortality rates declined significantly – largest decreases in younger women, both white and black (2002)
—————————————————————— 1992-1998 – Incidence and Mortality Rates* by Site, Race, and Ethnicity (2002)
—————————————————————— Incidence
——————————————————————
115.5 – White
101.5 – Black
78.1 – Asian / Pacific Islander
50.5 – American Indian / Alaskan Native
68.5 – Hispanic
—————————————————————— Mortality
——————————————————————
31.0 – Black
24.3 – White
14.8 – Hispanic
12.4 – American Indian / Alaskan Native
11.0 – Asian / Pacific Islander
—————————————————————— Cancer Facts & Figures for African Americans 2005-2006
—————————————————————— 1995-2000 (2001) – Diagnosed
Female breast (2005-2006):
—————————————————————— Localized
——————————————————————
64% – White (2005-2006)
53% – African American (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— Regional
——————————————————————
35% – African American (2005-2006)
28% – White (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— Distant
——————————————————————
9% – African American (2005-2006)
5% – White (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— Unstaged
——————————————————————
3% – African American (2005-2006)
2% – White (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— 2005-2006 – Cancer Incidence Rates Ratios per 100,000 (1975-2001)
——————————————————————
1997-2001 – Breast (2005-2006)
143.2 – White (2005-2006)
118.6 – African American (2005-2006)
0.8 – African American / White Ratio (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— 2005-2006 – Cancer Death Rate Ratios per 100,000
——————————————————————
1997-2001 – Breast (2005-2006)
35.4 – African American (2005-2006)
26.4 – White (2005-2006)
1.3 – African American / White Ratio (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Most common cancer among African American Women (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
17% lower incidence rate in African American than White (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
under 40 – higher incidence rate in African American than White (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— 25 years incidence:
——————————————————————
1999-2001 – leveling off (2005-2006)
1986-1999 – less rapid increase (2005-2006)
1978-1986 – rapid increase (2005-2006)
1975-1978 – stable (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— Breast Cancer Death Rates Increased (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
1975-1991 – + 1.6% – annually (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1991 – decided annually: particularly in women younger than 50 (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— Breast Cancer Death Rates (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
early 1980’s – equal – African American / White (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2000 – 32% – higher African American (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Death rate higher in African American even though had lower incidence rates (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— Rate per 100,000
——————————————————————
White
African American
Asian or Pacific Islander
Hispanic
American Indian or Alaska Native
—————————————————————— 1996-2000 – Incidences:
140.8 – White
121.7 – African American
97.2 – Asian or Pacific Islander
89.8 – Hispanic
58 – American Indian or Alaska Native
—————————————————————— 1996-2000 – Deaths
35.9 – African American
27.2 – White
17.9 – Hispanic
14.9 – American Indian or Alaska Native
12.5 – Asian or Pacific Islander
—————————————————————— Estimated New In Situ Cases:
——————————————————————
2003_-_100 – < 30
2005 – 1,600 – Under 40
2003 – 2,100 – 30-39
2005 – 56,890 – 40 and older
2005 – 13,760 – Under 50
2003 -12,600 – 40-49
2005 – 44,730 – 50 and older
2005 – 37,040 – Under 65
2003 – 15,700 – 50-59
2005 – 21,450 – 65 and older
2003 – 11,500 – 60-69
2003 – 10,100 – 70-79
2003 – 3,500 – 80 +
2005 – 58,490 – All ages
TOTAL
2003 – 55,700
——————————————————————
2003_-_100 – 0.2%
2003 – 2,100 – 3.8%
2003 – 12,600 – 22.6%
2003 – 15,700 – 28.2%
2003 – 11,500 – 20.6%
2003 – 10,100 – 18.1%
2003 – 3,500 – 16.3
TOTAL
2003 – 100.0%
—————————————————————— Estimated New Invasive Cases:
——————————————————————
2003 – 1,000 – < 30
2005 – 9,510 – Under 40
2003 – 10,500 – 30-39
2005_-_201,730 – 40 and older
2005 – 45,780 – Under 50
2003 – 35,500 – 40-49
2005_-_165,460 – 50 and older
2005_-_123,070 – Under 65
2003 – 48,700 – 50-59
2005 – 88,170 – 65 and older
2003 – 43,100 – 60-69
2003 – 45,600 – 70-79
2003 – 27,000 – 80 +
2005_-_211,240 – All ages
TOTAL
2003 – 55,700 –
——————————————————————
2003 – 1,000 – 0.5%
2003 – 10,500 – 5.0%
2003 – 35,500 – 16.8%
2003 – 48,700 – 23.0%
2003 – 43,100 – 20.4%
2003 – 45,600 – 21.6%
2003 – 27,000 – 12.8%
TOTAL
2003 – 100.00%
—————————————————————— Deaths:
——————————————————————
2003_-_100 – < 30
2005 – 1,110 – Under 40
2003 – 1,300 – 30-39
2005 – 39,300 – 40 and older
2005 – 5,590 – Under 50
2003 – 4,300 – 40-49
2005 – 34,820 – 50 and older
2005 – 17,470 – Under 65
2003 – 7,000 – 50-59
2005 – 22,940 – 65 and older
2003 – 7,400 – 60-69
2003 – 9,500 – 70-79
2003 – 10,100 – 80 +
2005 – 40,410 – All ages
TOTAL
2003 – 39,800
——————————————————————
2003_-_100 – 0.3%
2003 – 1,300 – 3.3%
2003 – 4,300 – 10.8%
2003 – 7,000 – 17.6 %
2003 – 7,400 – 18.6%
2003 – 9,500 – 23.9%
2003 – 10,100 – 25.4%
TOTAL
2003 – 100.0
——————————————————————
1990 – Increase since predominantly due to women 50 and older
——————————————————————
1998-2002 accounting for female in situ breast cancers diagnosed (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
12% – Lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) less common than DCIS
Similar to DCIS, overall incidence rate of LCIS increased more rapidly than incidence of invasive breast cancer
increase limited to women older than 40 and largely to postmenopausal women
—————————————————————— 1990-2001 (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
2.3% – decrease
largest decrease in < 50
—————————————————————— 1998-2002 women aged 40 and older (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
95% – new cases
97% – breast cancer deaths
—————————————————————— 1996-2000 Women 40 and older (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
94% – New Cases
96% – Deaths
——————————————————————
0.3% per year – Incidence rates declined slightly among white females (2013-2014)
—————————————————————— 1996-2002 (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
20-24 – 1.3 per 100,000 lowest incidence rate – 1998-2002 (2005-2006)
75-79 – 499.0 per 100,000 highest incidence rate – 1996-2000 (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— 2005-2006
•
White women higher incidence of breast cancer than African American women after 35
African American women slightly higher incidence rate before 35
African American women more likely to die from breast cancer at every age
—————————————————————— 2005
White – higher incidence rate than African American women after 40
African American – slightly higher incidence rate before 40
African American women – more likely to die from at any age
——————————————————————
2005-2006 incidence and death rates from breast cancer lower among women of other racial and ethnic groups than white and African American women
——————————————————————
2000-2009 – stable among African American females (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
1975-1980 essentially constant (2005-2006)
1980-1987 + almost 4% per year (2005-2006)
1987-2002 + 0.3% per year (2005-2006)
• Incidence Trends
Invasive Breast Cancer (2005-2006):
1973-1980 – essentially constant (2005-2006)
1980-1987 – + almost 4% year (2005-2006)
1987-2000 – 0.4% year (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— 1980-1987 incidence rates of invasive breast cancer increased among women (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
40-49 (3.5% per year) (2005-2006)
50 and older (4.2% per year) (2005-2006)
Since 1987
50 and older – rates have continued to increase among women , though at much slower rate (2005-2006)
40-49 -rates have slightly declined (2005-2006)
younger than 40 – relatively little change in incidence rates of invasive breast cancer in women (2005-2006)
1975-2000 – Invasive Breast Cancer (2005-2006):
4% – 40 and older increased 1980 – 1987 then stabilized (2005-2006)
Under 40 – remained essentially constant (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— 2005-2006 trends in invasive female breast cancer incidence rates:
——————————————————————
1992-2002
(1.5% per year) – overall incidence rates increased in Asian Americans / Pacific Islanders (2005-2006)
(3.5% per year) – decreased in American Indian/Alaska Natives (2005-2006)
did not change significantly among whites, African Americans, and Hispanics/Latinas (2005-2006)
1992-2000 – Invasive (2005-2006):
2.1% – Asian and Pacific Islanders – increased overall (2005-2006)
1.3% – Hispanics – increased overall (2005-2006)
0.9% – Whites – increased overall (2005-2006)
3.7% – American Indian and Alaska Native – decreased overall (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
African Americans – stabilized (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
since 1990 – death rate from breast cancer in women decreased (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1975-1990
0.4% – death rate for all races combined increased annually (2005-2006)
•
1990-2002
2.3% – rate decreased annually
percentage of decline larger among younger age groups (2005-2006)
1990-2002
3.3% – death rates decreased per year among women younger than 50 (2005-2006)
2.0% – per year among women 50 and older (2005-2006)
African American women and women of other racial and ethnic groups have benefited less than white women from advances (2005-2006)
1990-2002 female breast cancer death rates declined (2005-2006):
2.4% – per year – whites (2005-2006)
1.8% – per year – Hispanics/Latinas (2005-2006)
1.0% – per year – African Americans and Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders (2005-2006)
did not decline in American Indian/ Alaska Natives (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
life expectancy lower for African Americans than whites among women (77.2 vs. 80.9 years) (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
As result, overall racial disparity narrowed (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
striking divergence in long-term mortality trends between African American and white females (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
early 1980s – disparity in breast cancer death rates between African American and white women appeared (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1975-1990 – Death (2005-2006):
0.4% – increased annually (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1990-2000
2.3% – decreased annually (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1991-2000
3.7% – under 50 decreased (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1990-2000
2.0% – 50 and older decreased (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— 1992-2000 – Death (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
2.6% – Whites (2005-2006)
1.4% – Hispanics (2005-2006)
1.1% – African Americans (2005-2006)
1.1% – Asian and Pacific Islanders (2005-2006)
American Indian and Alaska Native – constant (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— Probability of developing Breast Cancer in next 10 years:
——————————————————————
Age
——————————————————————
20 – 0.05% – 1 in 2,152 (2005-2006)
20 – 0.05% – 1 in 1,985 – 2000-2002 (2005-2006)†
——————————————————————
30 – 0.40% – 1 in 251 (2005-2006)
30 – 0.44% – 1 in: 229 – 2000-2002 (2005-2006)†
——————————————————————
40 – 1.45% – 1 in 69 (2005-2006)
40 – 1.46% – 1 in: 68 – 2000-2002 (2005-2006)†
——————————————————————
50 – 2.78% – 1 in 36 (2005-2006)
50 – 2.73% – 1 in: 37 – 2000-2002 (2005-2006)†
——————————————————————
60 – 3.81% – 1 in 26 (2005-2006)
60 – 3.82% – 1 in: 26 – 2000-2002 (2005-2006)†
——————————————————————
70 – 4.31% – 1 in 23 (2005-2006)
70 – 4.14% – 1 in: 24 – 2000-2002 (2005-2006)†
—————————————————————— Lifetime Probability (%) of Developing or Dying from Invasive Cancers by Race and Sex
—————————————————————— Developing
12.73 (1 in 8) – White (%) 2007-2009 (2013-2014)
10.87 (1 in 9) – African American (%) 2007-2009 (2013-2014)
Dying
3.25 (1 in 31) – African American (%) 2007-2009 (2013-2014)
2.73 (1 in 37) – White (%) 2007-2009 (2013-2014)
2005-2006 Currently, woman living in US has 13.2%, or 1 in 8, lifetime risk of developing breast cancer (2013-2014)
result of rounding to nearest whole number, small decrease in lifetime risk (from 1 in 7.47 to 1 in 7.56) led to change in lifetime risk from 1 in 7 previously reported in Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2003-2004 and Cancer Facts & Figures 2005 to current estimate of 1 in 8
2005-2006: Overall, lifetime risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer gradually increased over past 3 decades (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
13.22% – Lifetime risk – 1 in: 8
Comparison of Cancer Incidence Rates between African Americans and Whites
——————————————————————
123.2 – White Rate* 2005-2009 (2013-2014)
121.7 – White Rate* 2003-2007 (2011-2012)
130.6 – White Rate* 2001-2005 +
——————————————————————
118.1 – African American Rate* 2005-2009 (2013-2014)
114.7 – African American Rate* 2003-2007 (2011-2012)
117.6 – African American Rate* 2001-2005 +
——————————————————————
-5.1 – Difference† 2005-2009 (2013-2014)
-7.0 – Absolute Difference† 2003-2007 (2011-2012)
-13.1 – Absolute Difference† 2001-2005 +
——————————————————————
0.96 – Rate Ratio‡ 2005-2009 (2013-2014)
0.94 – Rate Ratio‡ 2003-2007 (2011-2012)
0.90 – Rate Ratio‡ 2001-2005 +
*Rates per 100,000 age adjusted to 2000 US standard population
†Difference is rate in African Americans minus rate in whites
†Absolute difference is rate in African Americans minus rate in whites
‡Rate ratio is unrounded rate in African Americans divided by unrounded rate in whites
‡Rate ratio is rate in African Americans divided by rate in whites based on 2 decimal places
+ Source: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, 17 SEER Registries 2000-2005, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 2008
—————————————————————— Comparison of Cancer Death Rates between African Americans and Whites
——————————————————————
31.6 – African American Rate* 2005-2009
32.4 – African American Rate* 2003-2007 (2011-2012)
33.5 – African American Rate* 2001-2005 +
——————————————————————
22.4 – White Rate* 2005-2009
23.4 – White Rate* 2003-2007 (2011-2012)
24.4 – White Rate* 2001-2005 +
——————————————————————
9.2 – Difference† 2005-2009
9.0 – Absolute Difference† 2003-2007 (2011-2012)
9.1 – Absolute Difference† 2001-2005 +
——————————————————————
1.41 – Rate Ratio‡ 2005-2009
1.39 – Rate Ratio‡ 2003-2007 (2011-2012)
1.37 – Rate Ratio‡ 2001-2005 +
*Rates per 100,000 and age adjusted to 2000 US standard population
†Difference is rate in African Americans minus rate in whites
†Absolute difference is rate in African Americans minus rate in whites
‡Rate ratio is unrounded rate in African Americans divided by unrounded rate in whites
‡Rate ratio is rate in African Americans divided by rate in whites based on 2 decimal places
+ Source: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, 17 SEER Registries 2000-2005, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 2008
—————————————————————— Stage Distribution for Selected Cancers in African Americans and Whites
Stage Distribution African Americans and Whites
—————————————————————— Localized
——————————————————————
61% – White 2002-2008
61% – White 1999-2006
62% – White 1996-2004 +
——————————————————————
51% – African American 2002-2008
51% – African American 1999-2006
51% – African American 1996-2004 +
—————————————————————— Regional
38% – African American 2002-2008
39% – African American 1999-2006
37% – African American 1996-2004 +
——————————————————————
32% – White 2002-2008
32% – White 1999-2006
31% – White 1996-2004 +
—————————————————————— Distant
——————————————————————
8% – African American 2002-2008
8% – African American 1999-2006
10% – African American 1996-2004 +
——————————————————————
5% – White 2002-2008
5% – White 1999-2006
6% – White 1996-2004 +
—————————————————————— Unstaged
——————————————————————
3% – African American 2002-2008
3% – African American 1999-2006
3% – African American 1996-2004 +
——————————————————————
2% – White 2002-2008
2% – White 1999-2006
2% – White 1996-2004 +
——————————————————————
+ Source:
Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, 17 SEER Registries, 1973-2005, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 2008
—————————————————————— Probability of Developing Invasive Cancers Over Selected Age Intervals among African Americans by Sex +
Probability of Developing Invasive Cancers:
—————————————————————— Birth to 39 (%):
——————————————————————
0.53 (1 in 189) 2003-2005 * +
0.44 (1 in 229) 1998–2000 (2004)
0.44 (1 in 228) 1997–1999 (2003)
0.44 (1 in 229) 1996–1997 (2002)
—————————————————————— 40 to 59(%):
——————————————————————
3.56 (1 in 28) – 40 to 59(%) 2003-2005 * +
4.14 (1 in 24) 1998–2000 (2004)
4.17 (1 in 24) 1997–1999 (2003)
4.17 (1 in 24) 1996–1997 (2002)
2.96 (1 in 34) – 60 to 69 (%) 2003-2005 * +
—————————————————————— 60 to 79 (%):
——————————————————————
7.53 (1 in 13) 1998–2000 (2004)
7.14 (1 in 14) 1997–1999 (2003)
7.14 (1 in 14) 1996–1997 (2002)
5.44 (1 in 18) – 70 and Older (%) 2003-2005 * +
—————————————————————— Birth to Death (%)
——————————————————————
9.91 (1 in 10) – Birth to Death (%) 2003-2005 * +
13.36 (1 in 7) 1998–2000 (2004)
13.3 (1 in 8) 1997–1999 (2003)
12.5 (1 in 8) 1996–1997 (2002)
*For people free of cancer at beginning of age interval
+ Source:
DevCan:
Probability of Developing or Dying of Cancer Software, Version 6.3.0. Statistical Research and Applications Branch, National Cancer Institute, 2008
——————————————————————
2005-2006 Currently, woman living in US has 13.2%, or 1 in 8, lifetime risk of developing breast cancer (2013-2014)
result of rounding to nearest whole number, small decrease in lifetime risk (from 1 in 7.47 to 1 in 7.56) led to change in lifetime risk from 1 in 7 previously reported in Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2003-2004 and Cancer Facts & Figures 2005 to current estimate of 1 in 8
——————————————————————
2005-2006: Overall, lifetime risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer gradually increased over past 3 decades (2013-2014)
—————————————————————— 5-YEAR SURVIVAL RATE – ALL
——————————————————————
Survival after diagnosis of breast cancer continues to decline after 5 years (2009-2010)
Survival after diagnosis of breast cancer continues to decline beyond 5 years (2006)
—————————————————————— 5-YEAR RELATIVE SURVIVAL LOWER
——————————————————————
5-year relative survival lower among women with more advanced stage at diagnosis (2007-2008)
5-year relative survival lower among women with more advanced stage of disease at diagnosis (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— 2005-2006 African American women with breast cancer less likely than white women to survive 5 years:
——————————————————————
90% – white
76% – African American
—————————————————————— Likely to survive 5 years (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
88% – White
74% – African American
—————————————————————— 5-YEAR SURVIVAL RATE – ALL STAGES – COMBINED
——————————————————————
89% – survival rate at 5 years for all stages combined (2009-2010)
——————————————————————
88% – all stages combined – 5 year
——————————————————————
77% – all stages combined – 10 year
—————————————————————— 5-YEAR RELATIVE SURVIVAL RATE for ALL CANCERS COMBINED
——————————————————————
63% – 2004
62% – 2002-2003
—————————————————————— 5-year Relative Survival Rates* for Cancers by Race and Stage
Five-year Relative Survival Rates* for Cancers by Race and Stage at Diagnosis
Five-Year Relative Survival Rates
5-year Relative Survival Rates (1995-2000 (2001) diagnosed) SEER 1975–2001 (2004)
—————————————————————— Localized
——————————————————————
99% – White 2002-2008 (2013-2014)
61% – White 1999-2006 (2011-2012)
99% – White 1996-2004 +
98% – White 1995–2000 (2005–2006)
——————————————————————
93% – African American 2002-2008 (2013-2014)
51% – African American 1999-2006 (2011-2012)
93% – African American 1996-2004 +
91% – African American 1995–2000 (2005–2006)
—————————————————————— Regional
——————————————————————
85% – White 2002-2008 (2013-2014)
32% – White 1999-2006 (2011-2012)
85% – White 1996-2004 +
82% – White 1995–2000 (2005–2006)
——————————————————————
73% – African American 2002-2008 (2013-2014)
39% – African American 1999-2006 (2011-2012)
72% – African American 1996-2004 +
68% – African American 1995–2000 (2005–2006)
—————————————————————— Distant
——————————————————————
25% – White 2002-2008 (2013-2014)
5% – White 1999-2006 (2011-2012)
29% – White 1996-2004 +
27% – White 1995–2000 (2005–2006)
——————————————————————
15% – African American 2002-2008 (2013-2014)
8% – African American 1999-2006 (2011-2012)
17% – African American 1996-2004 +
15% – African American 1995–2000 (2005–2006)
—————————————————————— All Stages
——————————————————————
90% – White 2002-2008 (2013-2014)
2% – White 1999-2006 (2011-2012)
90% – White 1996-2004 +
56% – White 1995–2000
(2005–2006)
——————————————————————
78% – African American 2002-2008 (2013-2014)
3% – African American 1999-2006 (2011-2012)
77% – African American 1996-2004 +
50% – African American 1995–2000 (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
*Survival rates based on patients diagnosed 2002-2008 followed through 2009
*Survival rates based on patients diagnosed 1999-2006 followed through 2007
Survival rates based on patients diagnosed 1996 – 2004 followed through 2005 +
Local:
invasive cancer confined entirely to organ of origin
Regional:
malignant cancer either
1) extended beyond limits of organ of origin directly into surrounding organs or tissues
2) involves regional lymph nodes by way of lymphatic system
3) both regional extension and involvement of regional lymph nodes
Distant:
malignant cancer spread to parts of body remote from primary tumor either by direct extension or by discontinuous metastasis to distant organs, tissues, or via lymphatic system to distant lymph nodes
+ Source:
Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, 17 SEER Registries, 1973-2005, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 2008
—————————————————————— Considering all races, 5-year relative survival:
Larger tumor size at diagnosis associated with decreased survival
among women of all races with regional disease, 5-year relative survival:
92% – tumors less than or equal to 2.0 cm
77% – tumors 2.1-5.0 cm
65% – tumors greater than 5.0 cm
—————————————————————— OVERALL 5-YEAR CANCER SURVIVAL RATE (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
55% – 1995-2000 (2005-2006)
27% – 1960-1963 (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— 5-YEAR RELATIVE SURVIVAL RATES
——————————————————————
89% – 5 year relative survival rates for women diagnosed with breast cancer after diagnosis (2007-2008)
88% – 5 year relative survival rates for women diagnosed with breast cancer after diagnosis (2005-2006)
87% – 5 year Breast Cancer Survival Rates after Diagnosis (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— age 75 + – 5 year relative survival rate among women diagnosed with breast cancer
——————————————————————
88% – 75 and older (2005-2006)
86% – 75 and over (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— age 65 + – 5 year relative survival rate among women diagnosed with breast cancer
——————————————————————
89% – 65-74 (2005-2006)
88% – 65 and over (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— 5-year relative survival rate among women diagnosed with breast cancer
——————————————————————
88% – 55-64 (2005-2006)
89% – 40-74 (2005-2006)
87% – 45-54 (2005-2006)
83% – 45 (less than) (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— 40 and older – 5-year relative survival rate
——————————————————————
89% – 40 and older – 5-year relative survival rate slightly lower among women diagnosed with breast cancer (2007-2008)
—————————————————————— younger than 40 – 5-year relative survival rate
——————————————————————
82% – before 40 – slightly lower among women diagnosed with breast cancer (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
82% – younger than 40 – slightly lower among women diagnosed with breast cancer before age 40 – may be due to tumors in age group being more aggressive (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— All – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis
——————————————————————
86% – 1992-1997 (2002) – 1974-1997
78% – 1983-1985 (2002) – 1974-1997
75% – 1974-1976 (2002) – 1974-1997
—————————————————————— WHITE WOMEN
——————————————————————
69% – white women (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
62% – white women (2007)
——————————————————————
90% – 1999-2006 white women (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
90% – 1996-2004 white women – 5-year relative survival rate for breast cancer diagnosed (2009-2010)
——————————————————————
90% – white women with breast cancer to survive 5 years (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
5-year survival greater among white women (2007)
——————————————————————
90% – 2002-2008 – overall 5-year relative survival rate for breast cancer diagnosed among white women
——————————————————————
88% – White women – Likely to survive 5 years (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
81% – White women – 5 year survivors: relative 5 year survival rate (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
62% – 1996-2004 – white women – 5-year relative survival rate for breast cancer diagnosed (2009-2010)
——————————————————————
90% – 1996-2002 – whites (2007) – 1974-1997 – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis (2002)
——————————————————————
90% – 1996-2002 – White – 5-Year Relative Survival – Breast 2007 (2007-2008) +
——————————————————————
89% – 1995-2000 – White – 5-year Relative Survival (1995-2000 (2001) Diagnosis) SEER 1975-2001 (2004) (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
87% – 1992-1997 – White – 1974-1997 – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis (2002)
——————————————————————
79% – 1983-1985 – White – 1974-1997 – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis (2002)
——————————————————————
75% – 1974-1976 – White – 1974-1997 – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis (2002)
—————————————————————— AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN
——————————————————————
78% – black women still living 5 years after getting disease (SEER, 2012)
——————————————————————
78% – 1999-2006 – 5-year relative survival rate for breast cancer diagnosed among African American women Survival and Stage at Distribution (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
76% – African American – 5 year survivors relative 5 year survival rate (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
74% – African American – Likely to survive 5 years (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
60% – African Americans – continue to have lower 5-year survival than whites overall and for each stage of diagnosis for most cancer sites (2013-2014)
African Americans continue to be less likely than whites to survive 5 years at each stage of diagnosis for most cancer sites (2009-2010)
Within each stage, 5-year survival also lower among African American women (2009-2010)
78% – 2002-2008 – overall 5-year relative survival rate for breast cancer diagnosed among African American women
77% – African American women with breast cancer less likely than white women to survive 5 years (2007-2008)
76% – African American women with breast cancer less likely than white women to survive 5 years 2005-2006
59% – 1999-2006 – African Americans continue to be less likely than whites to survive 5 years at each stage of diagnosis for most cancer sites (2011-2012)
77% – 1996-2002 – 5-Year Relative Survival – Breast – African American 2007 (2007-2008) +
77% – 1996-2002 – African American women (2007) – 1974-1997 – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis (2002)
72% – 1992-1997 – Black – 1974-1997 – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis (2002)
63% – 1983-1985 – Black – 1974-1997 – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis (2002)
63% – 1974-1976 – Black – 1974-1997 – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis (2002)
27% – 1960-1963 – overall 5-year relative survival rate among African Americans improved (2009-2014)
——————————————————————
1996-2002 – 5-Year Relative Survival – Breast 2007 – (Based on cancer patients diagnosed 1996-2002 followed through 2003) (2007-2008) +
(Source: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, 17 SEER Registries, 1975-2003, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 2006) (2007-2008)
—————————————————————— relative survival rates for women diagnosed with breast cancer (2005-2006):
•
88% – 5 years after diagnosis (2005-2006)
80% – 10 years (2005-2006)
71% – 15 years (2005-2006)
63% – 20 years (2005-2006)
• Breast Cancer Survival Rates after Diagnosis:
•
87% – 5 years (2005-2006)
77% – 10 years (2005-2006)
63% – 15 years (2005-2006)
52% – 20 years (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2005-2006 – 5-year relative survival rate slightly lower among women diagnosed with breast cancer before age 40
•
may be due to tumors in age group being more aggressive and less responsive to hormonal therapy:
•
82% – younger than 40 (2005-2006)
89% – 40 – 74 (2005-2006)
88% – 75 and older (2005-2006)
• 5 year relative survival rate (2005-2006):
•
83% – < 45
87% – 45 – 54
88% – 55 – 64
89% – 65 – 74
88% – 65 and over
86% – 75 and over
—————————————————————— 5 year survivors
relative 5 year survival rate (2005-2006):
•
81% – White
76% – African American
—————————————————————— 10 year survivors after diagnosis
relative 5 year survival rate (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
87% – White
85% – African American
—————————————————————— LOCALIZED CANCER INCIDENCE RATES RATIOS per 100,000 (1975-2001) – 1995-2000 (2001) – Diagnosed Female breast (2005-2006): Localized – Of all breast cancers diagnosed 2005-2006
——————————————————————
143.2 – White
118.6 – African American
0.8 – African American / White Ratio
——————————————————————
2005-2006 1995-2000 – 5-year Relative Survival (1995-2000 (2001) Diagnosis) SEER 1975-2001 (2004)
89% – White (2005-2006)
75% – African American (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2005-2006 1995-2000 – 5-year Relative Survival Rates (1995-2000 (2001) diagnosed) SEER 1975-2001 (2004)
Female breast
—————————————————————— Localized
——————————————————————
98% – White (2005-2006)
91% – African American (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— Regional
——————————————————————
82% – White (2005-2006)
68% – African American (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— Distant
——————————————————————
27% – White (2005-2006)
15% – African American (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— Unstaged
——————————————————————
56% – White (2005-2006)
50% – African American (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— LOCALIZED 5-YEAR RELATIVE SURVIVAL RATES (1995-2000 (2001) diagnosed) SEER 1975-2001 (2004) Female breast (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
98% – 1995-2000 – White
91% – 1995-2000 – African American
—————————————————————— LOCALIZED
——————————————————————
98% – 2010 – 5-year relative survival for localized breast cancer (malignant cancer that has not spread to lymph nodes or other locations outside breast) has increased (2009-2010)
98% – 2006 – 5-year relative survival for localized breast cancer (cancer not spread to lymph nodes or other locations outside breast) increased
98% – localized disease – 2005-2006 5-year relative survival lower among women with more advanced stage of disease at diagnosis: Considering all races
98% – 2005 – 5 year relative survival for localized
97% – 2004 – 5-year relative survival for localized breast cancer (cancer not spread to lymph nodes or other locations outside breast) increased
96% – 2002 – 5-year relative survival for localized breast cancer (cancer not spread to lymph nodes or other locations outside breast) increased
99% – 1996-2002 White – localized (2007-2008) *
94% – 1996-2002 African American – localized (2007-2008) *
80% – 1950s – 5-year relative survival for localized breast cancer (malignant cancer that has not spread to lymph nodes or other locations outside breast) has increased (2009-2010)
80% – 1950s – 5-year relative survival for localized breast cancer (cancer not spread to lymph nodes or other locations outside breast) increased (2006)
72% – 1940s – 5-year relative survival rate for localized breast cancer (cancer not spread to lymph nodes or other locations outside breast) increased (2002)
—————————————————————— 5-year relative survival rate for breast cancer diagnosed at local stage
——————————————————————
77% – 1996-2004 – African American women – 5-year relative survival rate for breast cancer diagnosed at local stage (2009-2010)
—————————————————————— LOCALIZED
——————————————————————
62% – 1996-2002 White – Localized – Stage Distribution – Female breast (2007-2008)
64% – White – Localized (2005–2006)
64% – 1995-2000 (2001) – White: Diagnosed Female breast (2005-2006): Localized – Of all breast cancers diagnosed
5% – 1995-2000 (2001) – White: Diagnosed Female breast (2005-2006): Localized – Of all breast cancers diagnosed
52% – 1996-2002 African American – Localized – Stage Distribution – Female breast (2007-2008)
53% – African American – Localized (2005–2006)
53% – 1995-2000 (2001) – African American: Diagnosed Female breast (2005-2006): Localized – Of all breast cancers diagnosed
—————————————————————— REGIONAL 5-YEAR RELATIVE SURVIVAL RATES (1995-2000 (2001) diagnosed) SEER 1975-2001 (2004) Female breast (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
82% – 1995-2000 – White
68% – 1995-2000 – African American
—————————————————————— REGIONALLY
——————————————————————
84% – cancer spread regionally, current 5-year survival (2009-2010)
81% – regional disease – 5-year relative survival lower among women with more advanced stage of disease at diagnosis: Considering all races 2005-2006
85% – 1996-2002 White – Regional (2007-2008) *
80% – cancer spread regionally
78% – 2002 – 5-year relative survival rate: breast cancer spread regionally
72% – 1996-2002 African American – Regional (2007-2008) *
——————————————————————
36% – 1996-2002 African American – Regional: Stage Distribution – Female breast (2007-2008)
30% – 1996-2002 White – Regional: Stage Distribution – Female breast (2007-2008)
35% – African American – Regional (2005–2006)
35% – 1995-2000 (2001) – African American: Diagnosed
Female breast (2005-2006): Regional – Of all breast cancers diagnosed
28% – White – Regional (2005–2006)
—————————————————————— REGIONAL TUMORS
——————————————————————
94% – Larger tumor size at diagnosis also associated with decreased survival among women of all races with regional disease, 5-year relative survival for tumors less than or equal (2007-2008)
92% – tumors less than or equal to 2.0 cm – Larger tumor size at diagnosis associated with decreased survival among women of all races with regional disease, 5-year relative survival
77% – tumors 2.1-5.0 cm – Larger tumor size at diagnosis associated with decreased survival among women of all races with regional disease, 5-year relative survival
65% – tumors greater than 5.0 cm – Larger tumor size at diagnosis associated with decreased survival among women of all races with regional disease, 5-year relative survival
—————————————————————— DISTANT
——————————————————————
27% – women with distant spread (metastases) 5-year survival (2009-2010)
27% – 1995-2000 – White – Distant 5-year Relative Survival Rates (1995-2000 (2001) diagnosed) SEER 1975-2001 (2004) Female breast (2005-2006)
26% – distant-stage disease – 2005-2006 5-year relative survival lower among women with more advanced stage of disease at diagnosis: Considering all races
28% – 1996-2002 White – Distant (2007-2008) *
21% – 2002 – 5-year relative survival rate: breast cancer distant metastasis
16% – 1996-2002 African American – Distant (2007-2008) *
28% – 1995-2000 (2001) – White: Distant – Diagnosed Female breast (2005-2006): Of all breast cancers diagnosed
——————————————————————
9% – 1996-2002 African American – Distant – Stage Distribution African Americans – Female breast (2007-2008)
9% – African American – Distant (2005–2006)
9% – 1995-2000 (2001) – African American: Diagnosed
Female breast (2005-2006): Localized – Of all breast cancers diagnosed
6% – 1996-2002 White – Distant – Stage Distribution Whites – Female breast (2007-2008)
5% – White – Distant (2005–2006)
—————————————————————— UNSTAGED
——————————————————————
56% – 1996-2002 – Unstaged – White (2007-2008) *
56% – 1995-2000 – White – Unstaged 5-year Relative Survival Rates (1995-2000 (2001) diagnosed) SEER 1975-2001 (2004) Female breast (2005-2006)
45% – 1996-2002 – Unstaged – African American (2007-2008) *
——————————————————————
3% – 1996-2002 African American – Unstaged – Stage Distribution Whites – Female breast (2007-2008)
3% – African American – Unstaged (2005–2006)
3% – 1995-2000 (2001) – African American: Unstaged – Of all breast cancers diagnosed – Diagnosed
Female breast (2005-2006)
2% – 1996-2002 White – Unstaged – Stage Distribution Whites – Female breast (2007-2008)
2% – White – Unstaged (2005–2006)
2% – 1995-2000 (2001) – White: Diagnosed Female breast (2005-2006): Unstaged – Of all breast cancers diagnosed
—————————————————————— ALL – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis
——————————————————————
90% – 1999-2006 (2011) – 1975-2006
87% – 1992-1999 (2004)
87% – 1992-1999 (2004) – 1974-1999
86% – 1974-1998 (2003)
86% – 1992-1998 (2003) – 1974-1998
86% – 1992-1997 (2002) – 1974-1997
79% – 1984-1986 (2011) – 1975-2006
78% – 1983-1985 (2004)
78% – 1983-1985 (2004) – 1974-1999
78% – 1983-1985 (2002) – 1974-1997
75% – 1975-1977 (2011) – 1975-2006
78% – 1974-1998 (2003)
75% – 1974-1976 (2004)
75% – 1974-1976 (2004) – 1974-1999
75% – 1974-1976 (2002) – 1974-1997
—————————————————————— WHITE WOMEN – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis
——————————————————————
91% – 1999-2006 (2011) – 1975-2006
90% – 1996-2002 (2007)
88% – 1992-1999 (2004)
88% – 1992-1999 (2004) – 1974-1999
88% – 1992-1998 (2003) – 1974-1998
88% – 1974-1998 (2003)
87% – 1992-1997 (2002) – 1974-1997
81% – 1984-1986 (2011) – 1975-2006
79% – 1983-1985 (2004)
79% – 1983-1985 (2004) – 1974-1999
79% – 1983-1985 (2002) – 1974-1997
76% – 1975-1977 (2011) – 1975-2006
75% – 1974-1976 (2004)
75% – 1974-1976 (2004) – 1974-1999
75% – 1974-1976 (2002) – 1974-1997
—————————————————————— AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis
——————————————————————
78% – 1999-2006 (2011) – 1975-2006
77% – 1996-2002 (2007)
74% – 1992-1999 (2004)
74% – 1992-1999 (2004) – 1974-1999
73% – 1992-1998 (2003) – 1974-1998
73% – 1974-1998 (2003)
72% – 1992-1997 (2002) – 1974-1997
65% – 1984-1986 (2011) – 1975-2006
64% – 1983-1985 (2004)
64% – 1983-1985 (2004) – 1974-1999
63% – 1983-1985 (2002) – 1974-1997
63% – 1974-1998 (2003)
63% – 1974-1976 (2004)
63% – 1974-1976 (2004) – 1974-1999
63% – 1974-1976 (2002) – 1974-1997
62% – 1975-1977 (2011) – 1975-2006
—————————————————————— COMBINED – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis
——————————————————————
91% – 1999-2006 – White Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
90% – 1999-2006 – All – 1975-2006 (2011)
90% – 1996-2002 – White Women (2007)
87% – 1992-1997 – White Women – 1974-1997 (2002)
86% – 1992-1997 – All – 1974-1997 (2002)
81% – 1984-1986 – White Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
79% – 1984-1986 – All – 1975-2006 (2011)
79% – 1983-1985 – White Women – 1974-1997 (2002)
78% – 1999-2006 – African American Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
78% – 1983-1985 – All – 1974-1997 (2002)
77% – 1996-2002 – African American Women (2007)
76% – 1975-1977 – White Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
75% – 1975-1977 – All – 1975-2006 (2011)
75% – 1974-1976 – All – 1974-1997 (2002)
75% – 1974-1976 – White Women – 1974-1997 (2002)
72% – 1992-1997 – African American Women – 1974-1997 (2002)
65% – 1984-1986 – African American Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
63% – 1983-1985 – African American Women – 1974-1997 (2002)
63% – 1974-1976 – African American Women – 1974-1997 (2002)
62% – 1975-1977 – African American Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
—————————————————————— COMBINED by YEAR – 1974-1997 – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis
——————————————————————
91% – 1999-2006 – White Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
90% – 1999-2006 – All – 1975-2006 (2011)
78% – 1999-2006 – African American Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
——————————————————————
90% – 1996-2002 – White Women (2007)
77% – 1996-2002 – African American Women (2007)
——————————————————————
87% – 1992-1997 – White Women (2002)
86% – 1992-1997 – All (2002)
72% – 1992-1997 – African American Women (2002)
——————————————————————
81% – 1984-1986 – White Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
79% – 1984-1986 – All – 1975-2006 (2011)
65% – 1984-1986 – African American Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
——————————————————————
79% – 1983-1985 – White Women (2002)
78% – 1983-1985 – All (2002)
63% – 1983-1985 – African American Women (2002)
——————————————————————
76% – 1975-1977 – White Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
75% – 1975-1977 – All – 1975-2006 (2011)
62% – 1975-1977 – African American Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
——————————————————————
75% – 1974-1976 – All (2002)
75% – 1974-1976 – White Women (2002)
63% – 1974-1976 – African American Women (2002)
—————————————————————— Stages (%) – 5-Year Relative Survival Rates by Stage at Diagnosis
——————————————————————
97.0% – 1992-1999 – Local (2004)
97% – 1992-1998 – Local (2003)
96% – 1992-1997 – Local (2002)
——————————————————————
88% – 2006 – All Stages (2006)
86.6% – 1992-1999 – All Stages (2004)
86% – 1992-1998 – All Stages (2003)
86% – 1992-1997 – All Stages (2002)
——————————————————————
81% – Regional (2006)
78.7% – 1992-1999 – Regional (2004)
78% – 1992-1998 – Regional (2003)
78% – 1992-1997 – Regional (2002)
——————————————————————
26% – 2006 – distant metastases (2006)
23.3% – 1992-1999 – Distant (2004)
23% – 1992-1998 – Distant (2003)
21% – 1992-1997 – Distant metastases (2002)
—————————————————————— *
——————————————————————
1996-2002 – 5-Year Relative Survival Rates (5-year relative survival rate among cancer patients diagnosed 1996-2002 followed through 2003) *
Female breast – (Source: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, 17 SEER Registries, 1973-2003, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 2006) (2007-2008)
Local:
invasive cancer confined entirely to organ
Regional:
malignant cancer
1) extended beyond limits of organ of origin directly into surrounding organs or tissues
2) involves regional lymph nodes by way of lymphatic system
3) has both regional extension and involvement of regional lymph nodes
Distant:
cancer spread to parts of body remote from primary tumor either by direct extension or by discontinuous metastasis to distant organs, tissues, or via lymphatic system to distant lymph nodes
Source:
Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, 17 SEER Registries, 1975-2003, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 2006 (2007-2008)
—————————————————————— 5-YEAR SURVIVAL – INVASIVE BREAST CANCER
——————————————————————
90% – 2002-2008 – women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer still living 5 years after getting disease (SEER, 2012)
—————————————————————— 10-YEAR SURVIVAL RATES
——————————————————————
Caution should be used when interpreting 10-year survival rates since they represent detection and treatment circumstances 5-17 years ago and may underestimate expected survival based on current conditions (2009-2010)
David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., FACS “Check My Facts”Hack “Orac”, finally ends his 11/15/2013 diatribe of Dr. Burzynski by USA TODAY’sLiz Szabo, Michael Stravato, Jerry Mosemak, and Robert Hanashiro, with:
—————————————————————— “The concluding section of the story tells us why we need to try:”
“No one told Josia’s parents about any of this”
“Not Burzynski”
“Not the FDA”
“Jose and Niasia Cotto had no idea that their son’s death prompted an investigation by the FDA, until they were contacted by USA TODAY”
“The Cottos had long believed that Burzynski could have cured their son if only they had taken Josia to see him first, before giving him radiation and chemotherapy”
“They had even hoped to launch a non-profit, A Life for Josia Foundation, to help other children with cancer gain access to Burzynski’s treatment“
“Now, they don’t know what to think”
——————————————————————
So what good did Gorski do here, if any ?
1. He offers no opinion as to if he thinks Burzynski should have been responsible for advisingJose and Niasia Cotto that Josia Cotto’sdeath prompted an investigation by the FDA
2. He offers no opinion as to if he thinks the FDA should have been responsible for advisingJose and Niasia Cotto that Josia Cotto’sdeath prompted an investigation
3. He offers no opinion as to if he thinks Burzynski could have cured Jose and Niasia Cotto’s son, Josia Cotto’s if only they had been able to take Josia to Burzynski first
4. He offers no opinion as to what he thinks about the FDA requiring Josia Cotto to receive radiation and chemotherapy, and them failingJosia, before he was able to utilize antineoplaston therapy
Gorski might as well NOT even be here if all he’s going to do is repost the same thing USA TODAY published, yet “say” absolutely NOTHING
Personally, I think it’s has to do with what was said during the JulyTAM 2013 twaddle, when the female panelist made a comment about “people without BALLS”
——————————————————————
Since I have mine, here’s what I think:
1. If there was a moral or legal duty to advise Jose and Niasia Cotto that the passing of Josiaprompted an investigation by the FDA, then it was the FDA’s responsibility
2. I think that if the FDA was NOT requiring patients like Josia Cotto to 1st be failed by conventional treatments like surgery, radiation, and / or chemotherapy, there is a chance that Burzynski’santineoplaston therapy could be more effective because of:
======================================
What USA TODAY, Liz Szabo, Michael Stravato, Jerry Mosemak, and Robert HanashiroDID NOT TELL YOU ABOUT:
—————————————————————— 12/2002 Burzynski interview [3]
—————————————————————— INTRAVENOUS
—————————————————————— 1. Treatment require strong commitment from patients as must be infused with Antineoplastons for many weeks or months ?
—————————————————————— 2. Perhaps 15% of patients taking intravenous infusions of Antineoplastons
—————————————————————— 3. Patients who have most advanced type of cancer will require heavy dosages
—————————————————————— 4. When give large dosages intravenously, have to watch fluid balance…and electrolyte balance
—————————————————————— 5. Intravenous infusion can deliver equivalent of 3,000 tablets a day
—————————————————————— ORAL – CAPSULES OR TABLETS
—————————————————————— 1. Most patients taking oral formulations
—————————————————————— 2. Capsules or tablets
—————————————————————— 3. Limitation of how much medicine can take by mouth
—————————————————————— 4. 50 or 60 tablets a day pretty much all you can take by mouth
—————————————————————— 5. When give orally, see practically no side effects at all
—————————————————————— 6. Patients may develop skin rash, which may last for day or two
—————————————————————— 7. Don’t see any delayed toxicity once treatment stops
—————————————————————— 8. Everything practically goes back to normal within day or two
—————————————————————— 9. Doesn’t even come close to adverse reactions that experience with chemotherapy
—————————————————————— FDA requirements
—————————————————————— 1. Most patients who come to us have received prior heavy radiation therapy, or chemotherapy
—————————————————————— 2. Usually die from complications from these treatments
—————————————————————— 3. Those who survive longest are patients who previously did not receive radiation therapy or chemotherapy
—————————————————————— 4. Longest survivor in this category is now reaching 15 years from time of diagnosis; and she’s in perfect health
—————————————————————— 12/10/1997 [4]
—————————————————————— 1. In addition to original family of Antineoplaston compounds
(the “Parental Generation”)
—————————————————————— 2. Development of 2nd generation of Antineoplastons
In cell culture experiments 2nd generation Antineoplastons developed have been shown to be at least
Thousand times more potent then Parental Generation
—————————————————————— 3. 3rd generation structurally altered Antineoplaston believe will exhibit markedly improved anticancer activity in human cancer cell lines resistant to
Parental Generation
————————————————————— 12/2000 Egypt antineoplaston study [5]
—————————————————————— 4 newpiperidinedioneA10 analogssynthesized and tested on human breast cancer cell line against prototype A10 and anti cancer drug tamoxifen and DNA binding capacity of compounds evaluated against A10
—————————————————————— “3B” and “3D” were several-fold more potent antiproliferative agents than A10 and tamoxifen and had significantly higher capacity to bind DNA than A10
————————————————————— 10/1/2001 Egypt antineoplaston study [5]
—————————————————————— Structural characterization of new antineoplaston (ANP) representatives
——————————————————————
Combination heat with pH modification had virtually no effect on obtained peaks, attesting to stability and purity of compounds
—————————————————————— One had superior affinity to DNA than
prototype ANP-A10
======================================
So, what do we know from this interview with Burzynskifrom over a decade ago, his 12/10/1997 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing and the antineoplaston research from Egypt ?
—————————————————————— 1. Oral (capsule and tablets): PRACTICALLY NO SIDE EFFECTS at all
—————————————————————— 2. Those who survive longest are patients who previously did NOT receive radiation therapy or chemotherapy
—————————————————————— 3. 2nd generation of Antineoplastons have been shown to be at least a THOUSAND TIMES MORE POTENT then Parental Generation
—————————————————————— 4. 3rd generation structurally altered Antineoplaston believe will exhibit markedly improved anticancer activity in human cancer cell lines resistant to Parental Generation
—————————————————————— 5. The research from Egypt shows promising results for binding to DNA
——————————————————————
I doubt Dr. Gorski will be blogging about the above, anytime soon, as it
DOES NOT FIT HIS NARRATIVE
====================================== 2000 – Thomas Navarro [3]
——————————————————————
What happened to Donna and Jim Navarro when they chose Burzynski’streatment over orthodox treatments ?
—————————————————————— 4 year oldThomas Navarrodiagnosed with medulloblastoma
—————————————————————— Operated on
—————————————————————— Tumor removed
—————————————————————— Scheduled for radiation therapy
—————————————————————— Parents knew he’d be damaged by radiation therapy
——————————————————————
Nobody his age survives this type of tumor anyway after radiation therapy
——————————————————————
Why they decided to go to Burzynski Clinic
—————————————————————— Could NOT treat him because FDA requires failure of radiation therapy for such patients
—————————————————————— Parents decided NOT to take any treatment
—————————————————————— Burzynski asked FDA several times to allow administration of Antineoplastons, because already had successful treatments for some other children without any prior radiation
—————————————————————— 5/2001 – developed numerous tumors
—————————————————————— Burzynski suggested to parents they should go for at least chemotherapy
——————————————————————
Went for chemotherapy to one of best centers in the country, Beth Israel Hospital in New York
—————————————————————— Chemotherapy was successful, but he almost died from it
—————————————————————— Severly affected his bone marrow
——————————————————————
Phone call from Thomas’s father telling Burzynski doctors thinking they won’t do anything else for him and Thomas will die within a week because of severe suppression of bone marrow
—————————————————————— Burzynski encouraged father to do whatever possible because such patients may turn around
—————————————————————— He turned around
——————————————————————
About month or two later developed 15 tumors in brain and spinal cord
——————————————————————
When close to death, nothing available, FDA called and allowed Burzynski to treat Thomas
—————————————————————— Treated Thomas
—————————————————————— Survived 6 months
—————————————————————— Tumors had substantially decreased
—————————————————————— 11/2001 – ultimately died from pneumonia
——————————————————————
Perhaps professor and chairman of oncology at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, Jan Buckner, professor and head of the division of bioethics at NYU Langone Medical Center, Arthur Caplan, chair of the Children’s Oncology Group, an NCI-supported research network that conducts clinical trials in pediatric cancer, pediatric oncologist and professor of pediatrics and pharmacology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Peter Adamson, David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., FACS, a/k/a GorskGeek, and “Orac”, ALL think that the 15 tumors Thomas Navarro had in his brain and spinal cord, which had substantially decreased under Burzynski’s antineoplaston therapy, were because of Pseudoprogression a/k/a Pseudo-Progression (psPD) and / or pseudoresponse, caused by chemotherapy ?
Is this what they mean by:
“In reality, the tumor was just returning to its previous size” ?
====================================== Dustin Kunnari [3]
——————————————————————
At 2 ½ years old, Dustin Kunnari had brain surgery
—————————————————————— Surgery removed only 75% of tumor
——————————————————————
Dustin’s parents, Mariann and Jack, were told Dustinwould only live 6 months
——————————————————————
Chemotherapy and radiation may extend life slightly, but at very high cost in quality of life with very serious side effects
——————————————————————
Mariann and Jack decided to look into alternatives
——————————————————————
Found out about Antineoplastons
——————————————————————
After only 6 weeks of intravenous treatment, MRI showed he was cancer free
—————————————————————— One year later another tumor appeared on MRI
——————————————————————
By this time Dr. Burzynski had developed more concentrated form of Antineoplastons
—————————————————————— After 5 months tumor was gone
——————————————————————
remained cancer free ever since
—————————————————————— Age 7 – taken off Antineoplastons
——————————————————————
To further complicate matters, oncologist kept threatening parents with a court proceeding to take Dustin away and force him to take Chemotherapy/Radiation treatment
——————————————————————
This continued for a year, even after success with Antineoplastons
—————————————————————— Age 12 at time of 12/2002 interview
——————————————————————
Perhaps professor and chairman of oncology at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, Jan Buckner, professor and head of the division of bioethics at NYU Langone Medical Center, Arthur Caplan, chair of the Children’s Oncology Group, an NCI-supported research network that conducts clinical trials in pediatric cancer, pediatric oncologist and professor of pediatrics and pharmacology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Peter Adamson, David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., FACS, a/k/a GorskGeek, and “Orac”, ALL think that the tumor David Kunnari had, which disappeared under Burzynski’s antineoplaston therapy, were because of Pseudoprogression a/k/a Pseudo-Progression (psPD) and / or pseudoresponse, caused by surgery ?
Is this what they mean by:
“In reality, the tumor was just returning to its previous size” ?
====================================== Paul Leverett [3]
—————————————————————— 5/1999 – diagnosed with glioblastoma multiforme grade 4 brain stem tumor
—————————————————————— Prognosis was would probably be dead before end of 1999
——————————————————————
Orthodox medicine gave him no hope of survival
—————————————————————— Given maximum amount of radiation was capable of receiving
——————————————————————
Slowed tumors growth slightly, but didn’t alter prospects for survival at all
——————————————————————
After research on Internet learned about Dr. Burzynski’sAntineoplastons
—————————————————————— 9/1999 – began taking Antineoplastons intravenously, administered by wife Jennie
——————————————————————
After 6 weeks tumor had grown by only 2 %, Glioblastoma’s normally double in size every 2 weeks
—————————————————————— 12/2000 – PET scan confirmed complete remission
——————————————————————
Stayed on Antineoplastonsuntil 8/2001 to ensure tumor wouldn’t reoccur
——————————————————————
Just under 20% tumor necrosis remaining in brain stem, which is probably scar tissue
——————————————————————
Oncologist (at MD Anderson, Houston) initially wanted to show scan’s to his hospitals (MD Anderson) tumor review board
——————————————————————
for whaever reason, refused further contact and didn’t go ahead with it
——————————————————————
Perhaps professor and chairman of oncology at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, Jan Buckner, professor and head of the division of bioethics at NYU Langone Medical Center, Arthur Caplan, chair of the Children’s Oncology Group, an NCI-supported research network that conducts clinical trials in pediatric cancer, pediatric oncologist and professor of pediatrics and pharmacology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Peter Adamson, David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., FACS, a/k/a GorskGeek, and “Orac”, ALL think that the glioblastoma multiforme grade 4 brain stem tumor Paul Leverett had, which disappeared under Burzynski’s antineoplaston therapy, were because of Pseudoprogression a/k/a Pseudo-Progression (psPD) and / or pseudoresponse, caused by radiation ?
Is this what they mean by:
“In reality, the tumor was just returning to its previous size” ?
====================================== Crystin Schiff [3]
—————————————————————–
Ric and Paula Schiff about torture their daughter Crystin had to endure during chemotherapy/radiation treatment
—————————————————————– Diagnosed with perhaps most malignant tumor known, rhabdoid tumor of the brain
—————————————————————–
Historically, there was no case of such a tumor ever having long response to chemotherapy or radiation therapy
—————————————————————–
Received extremely heavy doses of radiation therapy and chemotherapy, because nobody expected she would live longer than year or so
—————————————————————–
Was terribly damaged with this
—————————————————————–
Responded very well to Antineoplastons
—————————————————————– Complete response
—————————————————————— Died from pneumonia
—————————————————————— Immune system was wiped out, so when she aspirated some food, she died from it
—————————————————————– Autopsy revealed didn’t have any sign of malignancy
—————————————————————–
Particularly despicable story, because when Ric Schiff asked Dr. Michael Prados, then head of neuro-oncology at University of California at San Francisco Medical Center (UCSF), if he knew of any other treatment besides chemotherapy/radiation for Crystin’s brain tumor, Prados replied in the negative
But a few years before, he had sent you 14 letters documenting effectiveness of Antineoplastons on Jeff Keller, another patient with brain cancer
Is this true?
Yes, Jeff Keller had extremely malignant brain tumor
had high-grade glioma of the brain; failed radiation therapy and additional treatments
responded extremely well to our treatment
was one of patients whose case was presented to NCI
there was no doubt about his response
Dr. Prados knew about it
If he was dealing with hopeless tumor like Crystin Schiff, why didn’t he call us?
Do you know why Prados did not tell them about Keller’ssuccess with your treatment?
It’s hard for me to tell
It happens that Dr. Prados and Dr. Friedman, who became boss of FDA, came from same medical school
they work closely together, and perhaps there is something to do with general action against us
It would be inconvenient for Dr. Prados to say that treatment works if FDA was trying to get rid of us and when his friend was Commissioner of FDA at that time
Perhaps that’s the connection….
—————————————————————–
Perhaps professor and chairman of oncology at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, Jan Buckner, professor and head of the division of bioethics at NYU Langone Medical Center, Arthur Caplan, chair of the Children’s Oncology Group, an NCI-supported research network that conducts clinical trials in pediatric cancer, pediatric oncologist and professor of pediatrics and pharmacology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Peter Adamson, David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., FACS, a/k/a GorskGeek, and “Orac”, ALL think that the rhabdoid tumor of the brain Crystin Schiff had, which disappeared under Burzynski’s antineoplaston therapy, were because of Pseudoprogression a/k/a Pseudo-Progression (psPD) and / or pseudoresponse, caused by chemo and radiation ?
Gorski wants to play in the kitchen, but he can’t take the heat
2/18/2013, Gorski posted his 1st book report on Hannah Bradley
Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski’s cancer “success” stories [1]
The year 2012 was rung out and the year 2013 was rung in by news that “Orac” Check-My-Facts-Hack, propagandist for “brave maverick doctor” Dr. David H. Gorski, who claims that sugar doesn’t feed cancer [2], is releasing a sequel to his wildly successful hackumentary (in “The Skeptics™” underground, that is) “How Stanislaw Burzynski became Burzynski the Brave Maverick Doctor, part 1” [3] 😃
In fact, the sequel is coming out on BFD (Blogs For Dummies) on …, well …, just any day now ! 😳
I somehow doubt that GorsKon will send me a screenerBFD to review, but I did review the 4blogettes he posted on Science Based Medicine; home of: “Our only goal is to promote high standards of science in medicine” [4], and National Geographic’s(#NatGeo)Science blogs, because it easily falls into a genre that I like to refer to as medical propaganda posts, which are almost always made in support of dubious blogs re medical treatments 😊
Gorhac’s mostly lame jokes about proposed titles aside (e.g., Burzynski II:”“Pathetic Googleloo, Burzynski II:”This Time It’s Pee-Reviewed, or even Burzynski II: FAQ Harder), it’s very clear that in the wake of his decision to drop his “[I]f I had screwed up, I would have admitted it” [5]claim re Burzynski on a technicality, and his very own spin doctor named “BOrac, are planning on a huge publicity blitz, in which @gorskon will be portrayed as, yes, a “brave maverick doctor” whom “They” (as in the BPG (Burzynski Patient Group), 3’s company, and the Don’t Mess with Texas Board of Education, a.k.a “DJT”) tried to keep down but failed because he has The Natural Cure For Rancor“Two Turntables and a Mr. Microphone” 😝
I come back to this again because Gorac’s strategy for Burzynski II, as I pointed out, is going to involve “conversion stories” of “The Skeptics™” who didn’t believe in @oracknows magic “[I]f I had screwed up, I would have admitted it”, but do now, after Bob ‘n Weave Blaskiewicz proclaimed during the 9/28/2013 “Burzynski Discussion” Google+ Hangout:“I think that professionally he would make, he he he would follow-up on these things” (2:01:00)[6], claims that he’s 75% sure of the identity of someone who has been critical of his work (like me) [7], and, of course, sucky stories 😜
“DOHrac’s” 4 posts consists of four elements:
Bias, MisDisInformation, (anecdotes), including “EOrac’s” “sucky stories”, contrasted with a rehash of “conspiracy theories” from his “review” of the first movie about the “cancer destablishment” trying to suppress common sense with pseudononsense 😄
Never mind that, even if he were FDA-approved, he would be in the same class as “The Skeptics™” that are disdained on social media as being more for hyper-“bull” than anything else because they have been giving B.S. for a long time ☺
He states: “One notes that Burzynski’s protocol requires at least 18 months of near-continuous infusion of high doses of his antineoplastons“
Does Gorski provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support his claim ?
no
“mOResmACk” reminds me of Pink
That would be the Pink in Pink Floyd, singing: “We don’t need no edumacation”, because he’s like the churlish schoolboy so intent on getting on to make his 2nd mud pie, that he pulls a wanker on the 1st one
Maybe he should learn how to do real “cancer research” like I posted 8/21/2013 [8]
——————————————————————
10/2004 (Pg. 384) 4.3 months – median duration of administration
——————————————————————
11/2010 (Pg. iv72) 4.4 months – median duration of treatment
——————————————————————
10/2006 (Pg. 466) 4 1/2 months – median duration of i.v. ANP
——————————————————————
3/2006 (Pg. 40) 5 months – median duration of antineoplaston administration
——————————————————————
10/2004 (Pg. 428) 5.2 months – administered median
——————————————————————
12/2009 (Pg. 951) 5.4 months – median duration of treatment (ST)
——————————————————————
12/2009 (Pg. 951) 5.6 months – median duration of treatment (SE)
——————————————————————
10/2004 (Pg. 427) 5.7 months – average duration of ANP
——————————————————————
10/2008 (Pg. 821) 5.7 months – median duration of treatment
—————————————————————— 2003 (Pgs. 91 + 96) 6 months – median duration of treatment
——————————————————————
12/2008 (Pg. 1067) 6.5 months – median duration of treatment
——————————————————————
10/2003 (Pg. 358) 9.5 months – median duration of IV ANP
——————————————————————
7/2005 (Pg. 300) 9 1/2 months – median duration of administration
—————————————————————— 2004 (Pgs. 315 + 320) 16 months (1 year 4 months) average duration of intravenous ANP
——————————————————————
6/2008 (Pg. 450) 16.5 months (1 year 4.5 months) – median
——————————————————————
2004 (Pg. 320)
19 months – average duration of oral ANP
——————————————————————
6/2005 (Pgs. 168 + 170)
20 months (1 year 8 months) administered average duration
——————————————————————
10/2003 (Pg. 358)
28.6 months (2 years 4.6 months) – median duration of po ANP
After obtaining at least minor response (SD), the treatment continued with po ANP
——————————————————————
9/2004 (Pg. 257)
655 consecutive days – administration of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 with the exception of a few short interruptions
—————————————————————— Gorski continues:
“Attacks on skeptics and critics of Burzynski“
“If you don’t believe me, just read question #12 in Merola’s FAQ, in which he states,
“You will notice the ‘anti-Burzynski’ bloggers refuse to do that or adhere to reputable sources”
—————————————————————— Gorski, you did NOT even provide any “source” for your “claim” that:
” … Burzynski’s protocol requires at least 18 months of near-continuous infusion of high doses of his antineoplastons“
—————————————————————— Gorski adds:
“You might say, they are preying on desperate cancer patients and families of cancer patients by carelessly misleading their readers about Burzynski and his invention.””
—————————————————————— Gorski, let’s check and see where else YOU are “carelessly misleading” your “readers”
One marvels at your amazing level of protestation ッ
However, every movie needs a villain, and it doesn’t take “sidekick” abilities to guess why “The Skeptics™” are portrayed as villains
—————————————————————— Gorski gratuitously gabs on:
“Merola also direly accuses and threatens,
“In the worst case scenarios, some bloggers intentionally publish fabricated information to their readers in an attempt to curb new patients from going to the Burzynski Clinic“
“I can hardly wait”
—————————————————————— Gorski, did you mean to “intentionally publish fabricated information” ? 😮
—————————————————————— “Neither can, I bet, a fair number of lawyers“
—————————————————————— Gorski, who’s your lawyer ?
—————————————————————— Gorski plods onward:
“An attempt to reframe Burzynski’s enormous bills for his antineoplaston therapy and criticism that he’s making clinical trial subjects pay to be in his clinical trials”
—————————————————————— Gorski, BITE ME 🙂
Does Gorski provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support his claim ?
——————————————————————
CHEMOTHERAPY: 9/24/2012 – hospitals routinely marking up prices on cancer drugs 2 to 10 times over cost
Some markups far higher
nearly $4,500 for 240-milligram dose of irinotecan to treat colon or rectal cancer average sales price: less than $60
about $19,000 1-gram dose of rituximab to treat lymphoma and leukemia roughly 3 times average sales price
about $680 50 milligrams of cisplatin markup: more than 50 times average sales price
Avastin, about $90,000 a year http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/09/24/3549634/prices-soar-as-hospitals-dominate.html
——————————————————————
5/14/2012 – Oral anti-cancer medications generally considered pharmacy benefit
Instead of co-payment plan members often pay % of cost — up to 50% in some cases — with no annual out-of-pocket limit
drugs expensive often costing 10s of 1,000s of $s a year http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-05-14/national/35457286_1_lung-cancer-drug-drugs-work-multiple-myeloma-patients
——————————————————————
RADIATION: 1/4/2013 – new study most comprehensive cost analysis ever, compared costs and outcomes associated with various types of treatment for all forms of disease, ranged from $19,901 for robot-assisted prostatectomy to treat low-risk disease, $50,276 for combined radiation therapy for high-risk disease http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2013/01/13370/how-prostate-cancer-therapies-compare-cost-and-effectiveness
——————————————————————
3/15/2012 – Using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data, 26,163 women with localized breast cancer had undergone surgery and radiation 2001 to 2005
found Medicare billing for IMRT increased 0.9% diagnosed 2001 to 11.2% diagnosed 2005
average cost radiation treatment during 1st year $7,179 for non-IMRT $15,230 with IMRT
billing for IMRT more than 5 times higher in regions across nation where local Medicare coverage determinations favorable to IMRT compared to regions where unfavorable
“The new claim is that Burzynski isn’t making patients pay for his antineoplastons (see question #13 in Merola’s FAQ), just for “clinical management” (as if that weren’t incredibly transparent) Vindication”
—————————————————————— Gorski, “NEW CLAIM” ?
2/4/2013 my post #180 on YOUR blog addressed this “new claim” by referencing a 3/12/1996 note before you posted your article 2/18/2013 [9]
—————————————————————— 3/12/1996: 2nd – 4th paragraphs (2/4/2013 post #180)
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— Gorski, makes an excuse:
“The last time I discussed Merola’s forthcoming movie, I mentioned that he had contacted me in December and asked me to appear as a Burzynski critic“
“After consultation with skeptics with more media savvy than I, not to mention the PR department at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute (whom I thought it wise to give fair warning that one of their faculty might be featured as evil incarnate in a new documentary and to give the background on what it’s all about, in case there were press inquiries), I politely declined“
—————————————————————— Gorski is like fetid HOT AIR, all words and NO action
—————————————————————— Gorski fumes:
“While going on and on about how he thinks most of us have “good motives” and how we want to be the white knight riding in to save patients from quackery (a desire he somehow manages to convey with clear dismissiveness and contempt), Merola turns immediately around to claim that we don’t know what we’re talking about and we don’t read the literature“
—————————————————————— Gorski, YOU really “don’t know what” you’re “talking about” and I’m just getting warmed up 🙂
—————————————————————— Gorski has smoke coming out his ears:
“This, of course, is complete nonsense, as I’ve read many of Burzynski’s papers (such as they are), delved into ClinicalTrials.gov to look at his clinical trials, examined the plausibility of his claims from a scientific standpoint, and examined the literature from others, both on antineoplastons and related topics”
“I’ve dissected Burzynski’s claims for antineoplastons based on science, assessed his “personalized, gene-targeted cancer therapy” claims and found them wanting, and pointed out how what he is peddling isn’t really anything new at all (more on that later), all based on my knowledge, skills, and understanding of cancer as a breast cancer surgeon and researcher”
“No doubt that’s why Merola needs to discredit me“
—————————————————————— Gorski, Eric Merola does NOT need “to discredit” you
YOU have already done a yeoman’s job of discrediting yourself [10] 🙂
—————————————————————— Gorski posits:
“Other bloggers who have been critical of Burzynski might or might not have my scientific background, but they’ve delved just as deeply into his claims and the evidence for them, and, as I have, they’ve found them highly overinflated and largely not based in science”
—————————————————————— Gorski, unfortunately, is NOT able to name these “[o]ther bloggers”
—————————————————————— Gorski deposits:
“They’ve also taken on aspects of the Burzynski phenomenon, such what I consider to be his questionable ethics and finding out what happened to a lot of patients who trusted Burzynski, far better than I have”
“Merola’s dismissal of Burzynski’s critics is, quite frankly, insulting to them and to me.”
—————————————————————— Gorski fails to mention the very “questionable ethics” of his intrepid research bud Bob [11]
—————————————————————— Gorski rants:
“I don’t know what sort of attacks on the UK bloggers who produce the bulk of the skeptical blog posts about Burzynski are coming in Burzynski II, but when it comes to me no doubt Merola is referring to this bit of yellow journalism in 2010 from an antivaccine propagandist named Jake Crosby, entitled David Gorski’s Financial Pharma Ties:”
“What He Didn’t Tell You”
——————————————————————
Does Gorski provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support his claim that it’s:
“UK bloggers who produce the bulk of the skeptical blog posts about Burzynski” ?
“What He Didn’t Tell You” ?
NO
—————————————————————— Gorski blots:
“Predictable and tiresome attacks aside, Pete and Hannah’s video made me curious about the specific success stories that Merola will focus on as “proof” that Burzynski is on to something; so I decided I should look into their stories”
“On the surface to those not familiar with cancer they do look like success stories”
“If one digs deeper, the true story is a lot murkier”
—————————————————————— Doctor “G” omits, that once “one digs deeper”, HIS“story is a lot murkier”
—————————————————————— Gorski A.D.D.s:
“More importantly, as I will show, even if they really are success stories—which is not at all clear—they do not constitute convincing evidence of the general efficacy of Burzynski’s antineoplastons, nor do they justify what I consider to be Burzynski’s highly unethical behavior.”
—————————————————————— More importantly, as I will show, is what I consider to be Gorski’s highly unethical behavior
—————————————————————— Gorski flails away:
“I will start with Hannah Bradley’s story because I’ve watched the entire 40 minute video Hannah’s Anecdote (whose title is even more appropriate than perhaps Pete Cohen imagined when he made it)”
“The documentary ends triumphantly several months after the events portrayed during the bulk of the film with Hannah apparently having had a complete response to Burzynski’s antineoplaston therapy:”
——————————————————————
Let me just first say something before I begin my usual analysis
I love these reviews 😘
I really do
Yes, it’s true that GorsGeek can be a bit annoying with his seeming desire to validate everything he flogs about some perceived “offender,”as being applicable to him, but I want GorskGeek and “HOrac” to be able to live a long and full life together, growing old in each other’s company
I really do
In fact, I’d love to hang with these two and maybe buy them a pint or two at their local pub (except that it’s pointed out multiple times that GOrackGeek should no longer drink alcohol)
“Such is not my intent, but what are skeptics supposed to do?”
“Shy away from undertaking a dispassionate analysis of patient anecdotes used to promote dubious cancer therapies for fear of what patients will say?”
—————————————————————— Gorski, it might actually help IF you knew how to do a proper “dispassionate analysis” 😐
—————————————————————— Gorski cites from the Team Hannah blog
“Hannah’s treatment options are very limited and her life expectancy is for this type of tumour is normally around 18 months and this is why I started a mission to find people who had the same condition and are still alive today”
“I managed to track down a number of these people to speak to them.”
“In his movie, Pete points out that these people all led back to Burzynski“
Gorski interjects:
“Of course, as I’ve said before, dead patients don’t produce testimonials for alternative cancer cures“
——————————————————————
One wonders why Gorski even makes this comment as the number of patients Pete contacted re Burzynski’s “alternative cancer” cure, were obviously NOT dead 😮
—————————————————————— Gorski segues on to:
“Not long after they appear at the Burzynski Clinic, they meet with doctors there who tell them that Hannah’s most recent MRI scan showed progression of her tumor (around 8:30 in the movie)”
“Now, I’m not a radiologist, much less a neuroradiologist, but I wondered at all the enhancement on the superficial area of the brain, just under where her neurosurgeon must have raised the bone flap to remove what he could of the tumor“
“One wonders if much of the remaining enhancement could be still post-surgical and post-radiation change“
“Certainly, the tumor is cystic-appearing, and after surgery such cysts would likely shrink and be reabsorbed even if the tumor were to keep growing”
—————————————————————— Gorski, if you were NOT in a such a rush to post your blog article “ad homineming” Josh Duhamel, you could have taken the time to do proper “cancer research” and maybe listen to the 9/24/2012 @YouTube video of Pete Cohen talking with Neurosurgeon (Consultant) Juan F. Martinez-Canca (20:31)
After all, HE is an actual NEUROSURGEON
——————————————————————
——————————————————————
Or you could read the transcript I made of the video [12]
——————————————————————
Or you could have contacted him and asked questions http://www.neurokonsilia.com/About-Us.html
—————————————————————— Gorski tangents:
“Be that as it may, there were a number of things I found very interesting in this video”
“First, I notice that nowhere was there anything mentioned about enrolling Hannah on a clinical trial“
—————————————————————— Gorski, if you had let Hannah know you were going to do your article about her, she might have churned her 4/4/2013 article out faster just for you, where she advises:
“Luckily I was able to take part in a phase 2 clinical trial in Texas, USA”[13]
—————————————————————— Gorski stupefies:
“Given what a thorough videographer Pete obviously is, I find this omission very curious”
“Certainly, given how much detail he’s used in this video and in his vlogs I’d expect that if the subject of clinical trials was mentioned he would have included it”
—————————————————————— Gorski, if you were NOT so busy “getting the popcorn” as you “watched the entire 40 minute video Hannah’s Anecdote”, you might have actually noticed at (7:14):
—————————————————————— 12/12/2011 – Day 2 – Monday
Meeting with Dr. Yi and Dr. Greg Burzynski at Burzynski Clinic
—————————————————————— Dr. Greg Burzynski – “We have permission to start you on the antineoplastons”
“Mhmm”
Dr. Greg Burzynski – “which as you know are in the final stages of drug approval”
“Yeah”
Dr. Greg Burzynski – “Dr. Yi is the oncologist on this case”
—————————————————————— Gorski, did you SEE THAT ?
An ONCOLOGIST at the Burzynski Clinic, working with Burzynski
(No wonder you left that out !)
—————————————————————— Gorski ejects:
“The other thing that struck me was just how much Burzynski is full of it when he advertises antineoplastons as not being chemotherapy and, more importantly, as being nontoxic“
“At least a third of the video consisted of the difficulties that Hannah had with her treatment, including high fevers, a trip to the emergency room, and multiple times when the antineoplaston treatment was stopped“
“She routinely developed fevers to 102° F, and in one scene her fever reached 103.9° F“
“She felt miserable, nauseated and weak“
“I’ve seen chemotherapy patients suffer less”
—————————————————————— Gorski whines:
“I’ve seen chemotherapy patients suffer less”, but this is purely “anecdotal”
“At least a third of the video consisted of the difficulties that Hannah had with her treatment”
Let’s do the math, shall we ?
——————————————————————
In America (48 days)
12/11/2011 (Sunday) – 1/27/2012 (Friday)
[4:52 – 35:43]
—————————————————————— Burzynski Clinic 47 days – (7 weeks)
12/12/2011 (Monday) – 1/26/2012 (Thursday)
[5:37 – 35:43]
—————————————————————— 12/13/2011 (Tuesday) Day 3
after catheter – Hickman line surgery
(painful / really painful) [10:30]
—————————————————————— 12/14/2011 (Wednesday) Day 4
(feeling wrecked / absolutely wrecked) [10:52]
—————————————————————— 12/24/2011 (Saturday) Day 14
fever
bad breathing
uncontrollable chills couldn’t stop shivering all Saturday night [18:10]
—————————————————————— 12/25/2011 (Sunday) Day 15
fever
flu symptoms
bad breathing
headache
in bed
absolutely exhausted
little bit of swelling back of head [18:10]
—————————————————————— 12/27/2011 (Tuesday) Day 17
temp 102
temp down / up [19:04]
—————————————————————— 12/28/2011 (Wednesday) Day 18
exhausted
close to breaking / cracking [19:04]
—————————————————————— 12/29/2011 (Thursday) Day 19
hospital – E.R.
“I’m at my wits end”
“I don’t feel I can take anymore” [20:07]
—————————————————————— 12/30/2011 (Friday) Day 20
last week up & down
fever
chills
shaking
viral infection
bacterial infection
had to go to E.R. [20:22]
—————————————————————— 12/31/2011 (Saturday) Day 21
fever in middle of night
flu-like symptoms
temp 102 [21:53]
—————————————————————— 1/1/2012 (Sunday) Day 22
feel drunky
felt like completely drunk
double vision
Nurse said anti-seizure drug she hadn’t taken before
bit shaky [22:34]
—————————————————————— 1/15/2012 (Sunday) Day 36
antibiotics 1st day [24:33]
—————————————————————— 1/16/2012 (Monday) Day 37
over 102 Monday night
antibiotics 2nd day [25:24]
—————————————————————— 1/17/2012 (Tuesday) Day 38
fever
temp 101.8
throat infection
antibiotics been on 3 days [25:24]
—————————————————————— 1/20/2012 (Friday) Day 41
fever 104 (103.9) Friday night [26:54]
—————————————————————— 1/21/2012 (Saturday) Day 42
temp up to 104 (103.9)
Dr. on-call – Ibuprofen
102.5
yesterday afternoon (blood) rash ? [27:50]
—————————————————————— 1/23/2012 (Monday) Day 44
some itch [28:35] ======================================
47 days – Burzynski Clinic 31 days – treatmentNOTmentioned 16 days – treatment mentioned ====================================== 12/25/2011 (Sunday) Day 15 off ANP [18:10]
—————————————————————— 12/27/2011 (Tuesday) Day 17 back on ANP off ANP – temp 102
temp down / up [19:04]
—————————————————————— 12/28/2011 (Wednesday) Day 18 on ANP much smaller dose [19:04]
—————————————————————— 12/29/2011 (Thursday) Day 19
hospital – E.R. [20:07]
—————————————————————— 12/30/2011 (Friday) Day 20
last week up & down off on off on off ANP [20:22]
—————————————————————— 12/31/2011 (Saturday) Day 21
temp 102 [21:53]
—————————————————————— 1/15/2012 (Sunday) Day 36
antibiotics 1st day [24:33]
—————————————————————— 1/16/2012 (Monday) Day 37
over 102 Monday night
antibiotics 2nd day [25:24]
—————————————————————— 1/17/2012 (Tuesday) Day 38
temp 101.8 off ANP (If 102 take off ANP)
antibiotics been on 3 days [25:24]
—————————————————————— 1/20/2012 (Friday) Day 41
fever 104 (103.9) Friday night [26:54]
—————————————————————— 1/21/2012 (Saturday) Day 42 off ANP – temp up to 104 (103.9)
102.5 [27:50] ====================================== 5 – off ANP
May have beenoff ANP5 to 6 days out of 47? ====================================== 12/27/2011 (Tuesday) Day 17
temp 102
temp down / up [19:04]
—————————————————————— 12/29/2011 (Thursday) Day 19
hospital – E.R. [20:07]
—————————————————————— 12/31/2011 (Saturday) Day 21
temp 102 – in middle of night [21:53]
—————————————————————— 1/16/2012 (Monday) Day 37
temp over 102 Monday night
antibiotics 2nd day [25:24]
—————————————————————— 1/17/2012 (Tuesday) Day 38
temp 101.8
antibiotics been on 3 days [25:24]
—————————————————————— 1/20/2012 (Friday) Day 41
temp 104 (103.9) Friday night [26:54]
—————————————————————— 1/21/2012 (Saturday) Day 42
102.5 [27:50] ====================================== 6 days – temperature mentioned
temp 102 – temp down / up – 12/27/2011 102 in middle of night – 12/31/2011 102+ Monday night – 1/16/2012 temp 101.8 – 1/17/2012 104 (103.9) Friday night – 1/20/2012 102.5 – 1/21/2012 ====================================== Gorski scatterbrains on:
“I was also very puzzled at how the Burzynski Clinic could allow a cancer patient to linger with a fever of 102° F and sometimes higher, accompanied by shaking chills, in a temporary lodging without admitting her to the hospital“
——————————————————————
Does Gorski provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support his claim ?
“It’s not clear what sort of workup was done to evaluate Hannah either, what her white blood cell count was, or what her other labs were“
“Did they draw blood cultures?”
“Did they get urinalyses and cultures?”
“Did they do chest X-rays to rule out pneumonia?”
—————————————————————— Gorski, maybe you should have asked Wayne Dolcefino
Or maybe you should have gone to the Burzynski Clinic
Oh, wait
You think you know everything and could NOT learn anything by going there 😅
—————————————————————— Gorski at least gets one thing correct:
“It’s all very unclear, other than that she apparently was given some antibiotics at some point”
—————————————————————— 1/15/2012 Monday Day 36 antibiotics 1st day
—————————————————————— 1/16/2012 Tuesday Day 37 antibiotics 2nd day
—————————————————————— 1/17/2012 (Tuesday) Day 38 antibiotics been on 3 days
—————————————————————— Gorski wonders:
“Did she have the flu, given her flu-like symptoms, or was this due to her antineoplaston therapy?“
—————————————————————— Gorski, why not “speculate” like “The Skeptics™” usually do ?
—————————————————————— 12/24/2011 (Saturday) Day 14 fever
bad breathing
shivering all night
—————————————————————— 12/25/2011 (Sunday) Day 15 flu symptoms
breathing
headache
uncontrollable chills couldn’t stop off ANP absolutely exhausted
in bed
little bit of swelling back of head
—————————————————————— 12/27/2011 (Tuesday) Day 17 back on ANP temp 102 – off ANP temp down / up
—————————————————————— 12/28/2011 (Wednesday) Day 18 on ANP much smaller dose exhausted – close to breaking / cracking
—————————————————————— 12/29/2011 (Thursday) Day 19 hospital – E.R.
—————————————————————— 12/30/2011 (Friday) Day 20 last week up & down off on off on off fever
chills
shaking
viral infection
bacterial infection
—————————————————————— 12/31/2011 (Saturday) Day 21 temp 102 – fever in middle of night
Dr. SRB thinks flu-like symptoms or tumor actually breaking down
—————————————————————— 1/16/2012 (Monday) Day 37 temp 102+ Monday night
—————————————————————— 1/17/2012 (Tuesday) Day 38 throat infection temp 101.8 – fever – off ANP antibiotics been on 3 days
—————————————————————— 1/20/2012 (Friday) Day 41 104 (103.9) – fever – Friday night
—————————————————————— 1/21/2012 (Saturday) Day 42 temp up to 104
Dr. on-call – Ibuprofen 102.5 – off ANP yesterday afternoon rash
—————————————————————— Gorski ponders:
“The reaction of the clinic staff (i.e., rather blasé, even though at one point Hannah clearly demonstrates a change in mental status, appearing “drunk” and complaining of double-vision) made me wonder if this sort of problem was a common occurrence”
—————————————————————— Gorski, what’s the matter ?
Did you grab another handful of popcorn ?
—————————————————————— 1/1/2012 (Sunday) Day 22Burzynski Clinic feel drunky
felt like completely drunk
double vision
bit shaky Nurse said anti-seizure drug she hadn’t taken before [22:34]
—————————————————————— Gorski, what are some of the side-effects of “anti-seizure” medications ?
dizziness
double-vision
drowsiness
imbalance
loss of coordination
Problems with motor skills
Problems with tasks requiring sustained performance
nausea
slurred speech
staggering
mental disturbances
serious mood changes
—————————————————————— http://umm.edu/health/medical/reports/articles/epilepsy
—————————————————————— Gorski continues his assault on the popcorn:
“At another point, Pete and Hannah come to believe that the fevers might have been due to the tumor breaking down, which strikes me as implausible”
—————————————————————— Gorski, if it “strikes” you “as implausible”, then why did you ask, above ?
“Did she have the flu, given her flu-like symptoms, or was this due to her antineoplaston therapy?“
—————————————————————— 12/31/2011 (Saturday) Day 21 temp 102 – fever in middle of night Dr. SRB thinks flu-like symptoms OR tumor actually breaking down [21:53]
—————————————————————— Gorski blunders along:
“Later, she develops an extensive rash“
—————————————————————— 1/23/2012 (Monday) Day 44 Pete sent pic to Dr. SRB who gave name from pic and Pete verified [28:35]
—————————————————————— Gorski bumbles onward:
“It’s difficult to tell for sure what it is at the resolution of the video, but it looks like erythema multiforme, which is generally an allergic rash”
“What’s the most likely cause of such a rash?”
“Guess”
“Erythema multiforme is usually a drug reaction”
—————————————————————— Gorski, what can cause “Erythema multiforme” ?
“Does this mean that Burzynski’s antineoplaston treatment worked for Hannah?“
“Sadly, the answer is:”
“Not necessarily”
“It might have”
“It might not have”
“Why do I say this?”
“First, she didn’t have much residual disease after surgery and radiotherapy, and in fact it’s hard to tell how much is tumor and how much is postop and radiation effect“
—————————————————————— Gorski, I think it’s safe to say that neurosurgeon Dr. Martinez knows much better than you and your speculation
—————————————————————— Gorski
“Second, the median survival for anaplastic astrocytoma (which is a form of glioma) is around 2 to 3 years, and with different types of radiation therapy five year survival is around 15% or even higher”
—————————————————————— Gorski provides a link to a site which advises [14]:
High-grade tumors grow rapidly and can easily spread through the brain“
High-grade tumors are much more aggressive and require very intensive therapy
All patients with high-grade astrocytomas receive both radiation therapy and chemotherapy regardless of age
Prognosis is poor in this group of patients
—————————————————————— Gorski’s 2nd linked source advises [15]:
These highly aggressive tumors often occur in young adults and typically recur or progress to a grade 4 glioblastoma within several years of diagnosis, despite treatment with surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy
Tumor more resistant to therapy and patients have shorter median survival of only 2 to 3 years
—————————————————————— Gorski’s 3rd link [16] showcases his lame research as one has to read through almost the entire article to find the reference, which directs the reader to yet another publication [17]:
Gorski FAILS to advise the reader that the 2002 study is titled:
“Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) for previously untreated malignant gliomas“
Hannah Bradley’s WAS previously treated
Gorski also FAILS to advise the reader if this study included patients with grade 3 or 4 tumors
—————————————————————— Gorski claims:
“Thus, long term survival for patients with astrocytomas is not so rare that Hannah’s survival is so unlikely that the most reasonable assumption has to be that it was Burzynski’s treatment that saved her”
—————————————————————— Gorski, nice claim, but you did NOT really prove it
—————————————————————— Gorski suspects:
“More likely, Hannah is a fortunate outlier, although it’s hard for me to say even that because, at only two years out from her initial diagnosis, she’s only just reached the lower end of the range of reported median survival times for her disease”
—————————————————————— Gorski, the operative word is “outLIER”
Gorski then goes all “conspiracy theory” about a supposed “cryptic Facebook post”, a “vlog entry no longer exists”, “Hannah and Pete supposedly being “evasive”, “using vague terms”, a “little blip”, and “lack of new scans”
Next, little green “popcorn munchin'” men 👽
—————————————————————— 3/4/2013 Gorski drops “conspiracy theory, part II” on an unsuspecting audience [19]:
Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski’s cancer “success” stories update: Why is the release of the Burzynski sequel being delayed?
It’s no secret that I happen to NOT be on several mailing lists of “The Skeptics™”whose dedication to science is—shall we say?—questionable
As I delved deeper, I learned that Gorski’s evidence for the “questioning” of the anticancer efficacy of “antineoplaston therapy” doesn’t hold up; that his “questioning” of “personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy” is anything but; and that he’s an orphan now in what appears to me to be a strategy to bypass restrictions on his use of proper “cancer research “
The CliffsNotes version for those who don’t want to read Gorsack’s previous lengthy post is that he claims Hannah’s tumor, an astrocytoma (which is a form of glioma) did indeed appear to regress, but that regression can likely be explained by the surgery and radiation therapy that she had
Even then, however, he claims it would not be evidence that the antineoplastons saved her because there are occasional complete remissions in this tumor type, and long term survivors, although uncommon, are not so uncommon that Hannah must be evidence that antineoplastons are so miraculously effective that they saved her when conventional medicine could not
Gorski’s claims are anecdotal, as he failed miserably to provide the necessary citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support his claims
Gorski claims:
“I try very hard not to cross that line, and I think I’ve been successful, for instance, here”
But I proved again, above, how he fails and fails again with his “amateurish” attempts at proper “cancer research”
Similarly, Gorski realizes that it is very effective to appeal to emotions and cast Burzynski’s as heartless
Gorski inserts other Burzynski patients into his posts about Pete and Hannah
—————————————————————— GORSKI FAIL #1 – “One notes that Burzynski’s protocol requires at least 18 months of near-continuous infusion of high doses of his antineoplastons“
—————————————————————— GORSKI FAIL #2 – “The new claim is that Burzynski isn’t making patients pay for his antineoplastons (see question #13 in Merola’s FAQ), just for “clinical management” (as if that weren’t incredibly transparent) Vindication”
—————————————————————— GORSKI FAIL #3 – “First, I notice that nowhere was there anything mentioned about enrolling Hannah on a clinical trial“
—————————————————————— GORSKI FAIL #4 – “Certainly, given how much detail he’s used in this video and in his vlogs I’d expect that if the subject of clinical trials was mentioned he would have included it“
—————————————————————— GORSKI FAIL #5 – “The reaction of the clinic staff (i.e., rather blasé, even though at one point Hannah clearly demonstrates a change in mental status, appearing “drunk”and complaining of double-vision) made me wonder if this sort of problem was a common occurrence”
—————————————————————— GORSKI FAIL #6 – Well, I could add more … 🙂
——————————————————————
My apologies to the following co-authors if you ever had to check the “cancer research” of one: Gorski D., Gorski DH, D H Gorski,
—————————————————————— DJT – Didymus Judas Thomas
—————————————————————— BB – Bob Blaskiewicz
====================================== (0:12:00)
—————————————————————— DJT – Well a lot of the time I’m making fun of y’all’s favorite oncologist, the way he words his blogs, and uhmmm I cite specifically from the FDA, from from the National Cancer Institute, from these other scientific sources, from scientific publications
I give people specific information so they can fact-check me, unlike a lot of The Skeptics who just go out there and say things and publish things on social media, they provide no back-up for their uhhh sayings
—————————————————————— (0:13:00)
—————————————————————— DJT – And so I’ve tried to add those things and allow people to search, on specific things like publications, or what I posted about The Lancet, or specifically about The Skeptics, or specifically about the oncologist
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— DJT – Well the thing is, when you accepted this hangout, I published my newest blog article and I specifically listed all the information I had critiqued from you previously including Amelia, and I posted the specific Twitter responses by BurzynskiMovie; which is probably Eric, to your issues with Amelia, and he disagrees with what the oncologist posted, and so I pretty much let his Twitter responses stand to what the oncologist said
—————————————————————— 0:14:24
======================================
If it's true that #burzynski and his adman Merola have insinuated that parents are to blame for Amelia's death that's utterly disgusting.
====================================== DJT – Well what I find interesting about these other doctors is like like the doctors mentioned in the movie and BBC Panorama’s report and in some of these newspaper articles where they are mentioned again is that these doctors never do a review of Burzynski’s scientific publications and including our favorite oncologist who refuses to do so [4]
“I think” ====================================== 11/2/2012 – “Personally having pored over Burzynski’s publications” ======================================
DJT – Oh yeah he says he’s read everything but uh you know he claims that he’s uhmmm reviewed, reviewed uh Burzynski’s personalized gene targeted therapy but he, but then just a few months ago he admitted, you know, I don’t know where Burzynski says which genes are targeted by antineoplastons
And I pointed out which specific publications that Burzynski published, publications which specifically mention which genes are targeted by antineoplastons, and I said how can you claim that you’ve read and reviewed every Burzynski publication and you didn’t know which genes are targeted by antineoplastons when that’s specifically in the publications ?
To me that tells me that you do not know how antineoplastons work be because you just admitted you don’t know which genes Burzynski talks about
I mean that’s just funny as heck to me that he would say that [5]
—————————————————————— 0:25:07
—————————————————————— DJT – But the other issue is that Skeptics have posted on there that he could not get that accelerated approval until he had published a phase 2 trial and that is exactly not the case because other drugs have been given accelerated approval before their results were published in phase 2 clinical trial publications, cuz, so that question remains as well [6] ====================================== “Temodar and Avastin both had proper, completed, and published phase II trials before approval” ======================================
====================================== Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) tweeted at 10:44am – 31 Jul 13:
@TomLemley1 @AceofSpadesHQ @mikespillane The FDA won’t approve his drug until he ever finishes and publishes a trial. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?te…
And so when I critique an oncologist or any other Skeptic I always provide source material so people can always fact-check me and I specifically said that people should fact-check everything ummm that the oncologist should say because he has, I’ve proven him to be frequently incorrect about his information and misleading
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— 0:44:00
—————————————————————— DJT – The thing that’s funny is that people can say, ohhh Burzynski charges a lot, but the fact is, so does chemo, radiation, and some of these newspaper articles that have been published, and specifically in the movie, Burzynski 2, one of the people mentioned how much someone was paying for standard treatment
And I noticed our favorite oncologist didn’t comment about that in his movie review [7]
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— 1:11:04
—————————————————————— BB – “There’s something that that we don’t know, you’re coming, honestly we didn’t know what to expect when we talked to you”
“We, were looking at the design, of your web-site and wondering whether or not we would be able to get a a coherent sentence out of you, because the web-site is disorganized, uh”
“Um, at at at at least it’s the organization is not apparent to the readers“
“Um, and um according to”
—————————————————————— DJT
That’s like, that’s like saying that Gorski’s web-site is disorganized, his blog is like anti vaccine one day, Burzynski the next, blah blah blah
—————————————————————— BB – “No, that is tied together”
—————————————————————— 1:12:00
—————————————————————— BB – “But let me, we know that that the the, the central concern is Burzynski“ ======================================
This is so Hilarious
Bob, why don’t you give a detailed explanation of how my blog with all its different search functions, is more “disorganized” than yours, and how about an in-depth data-analysis of Gorski’s “Respectful Insolence” blog, listing the # of Burzynski articles versus other articles
Oh
By the way, if you have NOT yet figured it out, my entire blog is Burzynski related ====================================== DJT – Well I think that people who really believe in “Free Speech,” and when it’s done rationally, I mean, Gorski would never, really respond to any of my questions, so I
—————————————————————— BB – “Did he, did he leave them up ?”
“Did he leave them up ?”
—————————————————————— DJT – Well I know that he specifically removed a review I did uh of his review of Burzynski I on his web, on his blog
But he’s pretty much left a lot of my comments up that I’ve seen
Uh, but he never really responded to my questions about, what he based his beliefs upon
—————————————————————— 1:27:00
—————————————————————— BB – “Right, um, do you think that he is required to answer you ?”
—————————————————————— DJT – Well I would think, if you’re going to base your position on a certain thing, and then you can’t back it up with scientific literature, uh, you should answer, maybe not specifically to me, but answer the question
Answer to your readers [8]
—————————————————————— BB – “Right”
—————————————————————— DJT – You know, I can tell his readers come on my blog because it shows that they come on my blog
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— 1:34:00
—————————————————————— BB – “Um, you know, Gorski blogs under his real name, and is critical of uh, uh, also, let’s face it, everyone know, knows who “Orac” is”
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— 1:39:00
—————————————————————— BB – “Uh, what’s next for you”
—————————————————————— DJT – Well I’ll just keep reviewing the, any inaccurate statements I see posted
You know, it depends on if it’s Gorski, you know
Gorski’s gone on there and posted inaccurate stuff, and I call him out, you know he’s basically said on his blog, you know, if I do something inaccurate, you know, I’ll ‘fess up to it
====================================== ====================================== 6/3/2013 – “[I]f I had screwed up, I would have admitted it” ======================================
Well, I’ve pointed out where he’s done that and said “Hey, you said you were gonna ‘fess up to it”
If I said on my blog that I was going to ‘fess up to doing something wrong, and you caught me, well, then I should, come out and say, “Okay, you got me”
But Gorski won’t even do that, you know, he just continues to go on down the road, as if
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— 1:56:02
—————————————————————— DJT – Well, I’m sure, I’m sure Gorskiwould have a comment about that, as he’s commented previously about how he thinks uh Burzynski should publish
—————————————————————— BB – “Oh I, I I I certainly don’t think that he would put a lot of stock in it, but I, I, I know Dave Gorski enough, he wants this to work”
“He has patients who are dying, you know”
“And if if if let’s say that that Burzynski could get ah his gene-targeted therapy to work on breast cancer patients in in a reliable way, that would be, such a help to these people, that that Gorski’s trying to help”
—————————————————————— 1:57:10
—————————————————————— BB – “Um, yea, it doesn’t matter now whether or not Burz, whether or not Gorski agrees with how Burzynski publishes” ======================================
This is Laughable
Nowhere have I seen any indication from Gorski of a positive nature towards Burzynski [9] ====================================== DJT – Like I said before
Like I said before on my blog, you know, even if Burzynski publishes his phase 2 information, Gorski can just jump up and down and say, “Well, that just shows evidence of efficacy, you know, it’s not phase 3, so it doesn’t really prove it”
—————————————————————— 1:58:04
—————————————————————— DJT – So then he can go on, you know, for however many years he wants to
—————————————————————— BB – “But he is a, the thing is, the thing is, you thing you have to understand is Gorski, Gorski is a genuine expert, in matters re re regarding on oncology studies“
I mean, he has a”
—————————————————————— DJT – Well,
—————————————————————— BB – “He, He’s able to convince people, he’s able to convince people, on the strength of his record, to give him money to carry out research”
People who know what they’re talking about”
To give him money to carry out his research”
Right ?”
—————————————————————— DJT – This is, this is a guy who must phone it in because, he went in there and posted the old Josephine Jones response that, you know, no drugs had been approved by the FDA without their final phase 2 publication 1st being published, which was not a factual statement, and you’ve made the same statement
So I, I’m thinking that Gorski just bought her statement and took it and ran with it, and before he fact-checked it, and what, what happened, it was wrong
—————————————————————— 1:59:00
—————————————————————— DJT – I mean, Gorski needs to stop phoning stuff in, and check his sources before he posts stuff, because I’ve found many cases where, he hasn’t seemed to do that, and that’s why I question him
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— DJT – He’s done more than the case studies
He’s specifically given uh, almost all the information om an oncologist would want
And Gorski, and Gorski
—————————————————————— BB – “Except for a ph, completed phase 3 clinical trial”
——————————————————————
(laughing)
DJT – I mean, I love Gorski, but he comes up with these stupid excuses like, “Well, Burzynski is not an oncologist”
—————————————————————— 2:01:00
—————————————————————— DJT – Well, Gorski doesn’t go go in there and look at his other, his phase 2 clinical trial publications, as far as the preliminary reports, and look at the co-authors, and see if any of those guys are oncologists, and that they’re working with Gorski, I mean they’re working with Burzynski
I find that ridiculous
——————————————————————
Uh, Guy Chapman, “It’s a blog, not a peer-reviewed publication”
—————————————————————— BB – “Um, so, it it is kind of, slightly disingenuous to hold uh Gorski to the same . . standard that you would, it on his blog“
“I think that professionally he would make, he he he would follow-up on these things” ====================================== PROVE IT [10] ====================================== 2:03:03
—————————————————————— DJT – I mean, Gorski doesn’t want to deal with the issues
Hey, I’ve said it to Gorski
He liked to back his stuff up on the Mayo study, yet he wouldn’t, he wouldn’t uh debate about the Mayo study
He likes to say, “Well, Burzynski is not an oncologist,” but he won’t, say Hey, look at the publications, are any of the guys on the publications oncologists ?
We know that Gorski, we know that Burzynski works with oncologists in his practice
So, just because Burzynski himself is not an an oncologist, does not necessarily mean anything
Do we need to go out, onto PubMed, and, and review every particular person that’s published something about cancer and see if they’re all oncologists ?
Seriously
—————————————————————— 2:04:11
—————————————————————— DJT – I mean, Gorski will just
—————————————————————— BB – “Yeah, but they”
—————————————————————— DJT – post a lot of stuff without backing it up
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— 2:16:09
—————————————————————— DJT – What I defend, is that, y’all post stuff, a lot of Skeptics post stuff, including Gorski, and they do not back it up, with references, citations, or links
Gorski will just post stuff, like he did about saying, you know, the FDA would not approve, uh, accelerated approval, without a final phase 2 clinical trial being published, which was an incorrect statement, he did not provide any link
—————————————————————— BB – “Even if it’s true or false you, honestly though”
—————————————————————— DJT – We know it’s false
—————————————————————— BB – “Even if it’s true or false, in in that particular instance, you know, eh let’s just say that you’re right”
Gorski gets that point completely wrong”
It has no bearing on whether or not, ANP works”
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— 2:18:00
—————————————————————— DJT – You know, I don’t see why Gorski is afraid of debating issues
—————————————————————— BB – “I don’t think he is””
—————————————————————— DJT – on the Internet, on his blog
—————————————————————— BB – “I don’t think he’s afraid”
“I just think he’s got a lot going on”
“He is act, a full-time surgical oncologist and researcher”
“He does have insane am, he has to pick and choose his battles”
“And if, if if he saw that we were going to ultimately be circling around our same arguments again and again; kind of like we’ve done here, um, he uh, you, he doesn’t have time for that, I don’t think”
—————————————————————— 2:19:00
—————————————————————— BB – “I mean”
—————————————————————— DJT – Hey, he has time to post about, “Hey, uh, Burzynski got a Catholic award from somebody,” which, has nothing to do with antineoplastons, whatsoever
So, you know, he’s not focusing just in on,
“Do antineoplastons work, yes or no?,”
“When will Burzynski publish ?,” yes or no ?
You know, he’s putting all this ridiculous side junk, you know
