Eric Merola’s conspiracy-mongering and more of Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski’s cancer “success” stories
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 5:23am – 15 Apr 13:
http://t.co/8Fb4GD7hkK’s-cancer-“success”-stories-part-2
Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) tweeted at 5:52am – 15 Apr 13:
ScienceBasedMed (@ScienceBasedMed) tweeted at 12:28pm – 15 Apr 13:
http://t.co/5MNwcmHEPW
ScienceBasedMed (@ScienceBasedMed) tweeted at5:35pm – 15 Apr 13:
http://t.co/5MNwcmHEPW
Because promoting it once just isn’t good enough
4/15/2013 David H. Gorski tweeted away about his blog, about Eric Merola’s second movie, about Stanislaw Burzynski, Burzynski: Cancer Is A Serious Business, Part 2
A ?
Or, as they might say in Toronto, Canada,
Aye ?
Maybe this is the “screening” title, as opposed to:
“Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II”
@Gorskon mentions the “Skeptic Mule,” Brian Thompson, from the James Randi Educational Foundation (jref)
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/2050-qburzynski-iiq-is-more-of-the-same.html
@OracKnows implies that he took advantage of his supposedly “awesome” commentary about his experience on the JREF Swift Blog,
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/finally-james-randi-educational-fund-jref-wins-an-award-that-they-richly-deserve
and his “alleged” “COPIOUS notes,” which I referred to in my blog:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/my-1st-hand-review-of-oracs-2nd-hand-review-burzynski-cancer-is-serious-business-part-ii
Gorski dishonestly demonizes what he refers to as “them” (i.e., Eric Merola) and mentions the skeptics promoted in Burzynski II, all with a heapin’ helpin’ of conspiracy-mongering
In this post, I will delve into a little more detail about the fundamental intellectual dishonesty behind Orac’s conspiracy-mongering
In particular, note how everything I said in my previous posts about what went on at the Q&A is verified, and, in fact, you now have the details
I will try to mention the specific time points to refer to as I go along
Also note that there is a segment at about the 47:45 mark in which JREF’s Brian Thompson (blurred out but still recognizable) speaks with the husband of one of Burzynski’s patients that is worth watching and that I will briefly discuss further into this post
3 things
3 things got me to thinking that I was probably due to write about Stanislaw Burzynski and his “Conspiracy Theory” propagandist Gorski again
The 1st thing, of course, was Gorski’s blog
The 2nd thing was the Q&A video
The 3rd thing was a rather odd online encounter that I had with @gorskon a couple of days ago
It was so bizarre that it left me scratching my head and thinking that @gorskon really needs to look at how he appears online
Either that, or he’s losing it
Regular readers probably remember that a couple of weeks ago I posted a shameless self-plug featuring a link to a YouTube video of a talk he did for the National Capital Area Skeptics on March 9 (which I can’t resist embedding my 21 point skidoo review blog again, for those of you who might not have seen it—forgive me):
Critiquing David H. Gorski – Quackademic Medicine
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/critiquing-david-h-gorski-quackademic-medicine
apparently Merola saw the video too
It didn’t take long at all for @gorskon to get himself hence to Twitter to start tweeting:
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 10:08pm – 12 Apr 13:
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 7:34pm – 13 Apr 13:
which made me want to be sure to immortalize it
I’m not sure if it was embarrassment or a stab of conscience, but Gorski’s immortal comments where he mentions that Eric Merola had contacted him about appearing in Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part 2, is now gone from his blog, or hiding from me:
Didymus Judas Thomas
#52 – Didymus Judas Thomas
At the Tu-Quack Center ScienceBasedMedicine Room
January 15, 2013
Don’t worry Orac, no one is going to mistake you for Vincent Kennedy McMahon; HE actually has a Gigantic Pair of Grapefruits! I find it amazing that you can communicate with EM about getting to say what you want to say, but then amazingly can’t communicate about not wanting any videos, music, pictures, or whatever else “Conspiracy Theory” misgivings you fear. It’s not about “Carpe Diem” for you, it’s about “Carpe Don’t!!” That’s just a “Piss-Poor” excuse!!!
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/14/the-story-of-sean-olaighin-patient-of-dr-stanislaw-burzynski
Gorski asks:
“On the other hand, what’s worse than being a white supremacist?”
Rubbishing the work of multiple M.D.’s and an oncologist ?
Posting
“Misinformation” ?
“Disinformation” ??
(Mis•Dis•Information)
“Misdirection” ???
@ScienceBasedMed
“Apparently I’m also a puppy eater”
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 12:07pm – 6 Apr 13:
http://t.co/CUJkMpw6jP
Maybe he meant you throw
“puppy Heaters” ?
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 2:29pm – 30 Mar 13:
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 2:33pm – 30 Mar 13:
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 8:35am – 31 Mar 13:
Such is life
However, @gorskon’s ill-considered Twitter adventures got me interested in what he might be up to again, as did learning that he blogged about a Q&A after a screening of Burzynski II in Toronto
Gorski blogged:
“As with Merola’s screening at San Luis Obispo on March 10, this screening in Toronto, which occurred on April 5, was attended by at least one skeptic, who was kind enough to do the same thing our colleagues did in California and provide me with notes”
I wonder if they were “COPIOUS notes” like he “allegedly” received previously?
I hope that my discussion of these blog comments, and Q&A’s and of these twits will serve, along with my previous discussions, as educational background for those who attend further screenings of the Burzynski movie, for example the upcoming screening on April 27 at the Newport Beach Film Festival
Davey doubles down on the conspiracy-mongering
“The very first thing I noticed upon viewing the YouTube video of the Q&A from March was that the sheer conspiracy mongering that Merola engages in was not adequately captured by the notes”
Those “alleged” “COPIOUS notes”?
THAT is truly, truly over the top
Gorski continues:
“For instance, take a look at the segment beginning at about the 13:56 mark, in which Merola discusses how former senior advisor to President Obama David Axelrod allegedly watched the film”
“Merola repeated this very same story near the very beginning of his Q&A in Toronto, although he apparently did preface it with a disclaimer to the effect of something like, “I have no proof of this”
“You can believe me or not.”
“Clearly, the David Axelrod story is going to be a regular feature of Merola’s movie publicity tour, and Merola plans on using it at every Q&A”
“I can only hope that my reporting on it last time led him to add that little disclaimer”
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 12:27pm – 30 Mar 13:
This is not a mistake
Another “delusion of grandeur”?
Gorski proceeds:
“More importantly, I would love to see whether David Axelrod will actually respond to this, particularly now that we have evidence that Merola is telling this story other than reports of promoters of science-based medicine who were brave enough to go into the veritable lions’ den a month ago”
“Brave enough” ?
“Lions’ Den” ??
really ? Seriously ?? REALLY ???
So, as opposed to you (NOT) appearing in Burzynski 2?
Gorski questions:
“Can you imagine how some of them would react to a pharmaceutical company advertising off-label uses for its drugs?”
Oh, wait
We don’t have to imagine it
We already know
It would be like Orac commenting on a pharmaceutical company being fined $3 BILLION?
Gorski blathers on
“Next up, if you don’t believe me when I told you last time just how much Merola despises anyone whom he considers to be a member of “The Skeptics,” just mosey on over to the segments at the 21:25 and 35:45 marks”
“At the 21:25 mark, Merola is asked, “How did you discover the skeptics’ group and how did you gain access to the videoconference and do you know anything else about them?””
Merola’s answer:
“Sure”
“Basically, these guys have no shame whatsoever”
“They have no problem letting everybody know their names and putting themselves out there”
“I really believe that the lower tier guys, like the guys that you saw, they put that on YouTube and were very proud of it”
“I went through a lawyer to get legal clearance to make sure I was safe”
“That’s why they’re blurred out and their names are hidden”
Gorski blogospheresplats:
“If you want to know the utter intellectual dishonesty of this answer, realize that the segment that Merola included in his movie of “skeptics plotting” was nothing more than a clip taken from the Virtual Skeptics podcast (episode 13, to be precise) in which Bob Blaskiewicz was talking about Burzynski and his plans to raise money for St. Jude’s for Burzynski’s 70th birthday in January”
What David fails to do is describe this birthday “present” in detail as I did on my blog:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/critiquing-bob-blaskiewicz-burzynski-cancer-is-serious-business-part-ii
Gorski blatherskites on:
“Also note the disconnect between the movie, which, according to reports, implies that skeptics—excuse me, “The Skeptics,” to use Merola’s term in his movie—are some shadowy cabal, while in the Q&A he admits that this stuff is on YouTube”
As if Bobby (Blatherskitewicz) Blaskiewicz’s and pals’ YouTube videos and blog which Merola specifically described as:
” … the LOWER TIER guys, like the guys that you saw, they put that on YouTube … ”
are the relevant part of the so-called
“shadowy cabal”
But none of that matters anyway because, apparently:
Skeptics are calling me an actress or an actor
Sheila Herron (@Ac2cSheila) tweeted at 1:54pm – 31 Mar 12:
Skeptics are saying I’m laundering money
Peter Bowditch (@RatbagsDotCom) tweeted at 8:09pm – 19 Feb 13:
What is going on?”
Gorski posits:
“I wonder if I’m one of the “guys at the top.””
“If I am, this is the first I’ve heard of it”
Don’t worry Davey
It’s a long way to the top if ya wanna Rock and Roll
and, you haven’t even made it to the chorus line
In other words, you’re not even
off, Off, OFf, OFF Broadway yet
“The Skeptics” (Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business, Part II)
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/the-skeptics
Gorski blathersplats on:
“He goes on to complain about how skeptics have “completely hijacked” Burzynski’s Wikipedia page and how he really really wanted to “call them out,” but for “legal reasons” and “running time.””
Is THAT all you’ve got ?
THIS is just the tip of the bucket list:
“The Skeptics:” Your problem is, Wikipedia IS censored
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/the-skeptics-your-problem-is-wikipedia-is-censored
But Gorski knows this, because when he blocked my comments on his blog, suddenly 2 “alleged” “gatekeepers” got “brave”
#174 – SW – 2/12/2013
[…]
anti-Burzynski “bloggers”
[…]
These individuals are also responsible for “gate keeping” the Wikipedia Page on The Burzynski Clinic
This issue, as well as the identities of those involved, will be covered in great length in the new 2013 “Chapter 2″ documentary
[…]
You will notice the “anti-Burzynski bloggers” refuse to do that or adhere to reputable sources
[…]
As one of those “gate keeping” wikipedians I find this quite laughable – not only the threat of “covering” my identity, but also the suggestion that bloggers and wikipedians (there may be an overlap, but I can assure you that I’m not a blogger) refuse to check and adhere to reputable sources
#203 – novalox – 2/13/2013
Now, let’s just wait and see djt make accusations of persecution and unfairness
Should be entertaining to see his attempts at this
Oh, BTW, djt, if you are still reading this, I was one of the Wikipedia editors who reported you for your trolling behaviors there
Have fun with that
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/02/08/will-the-fda-finally-slap-down-stanislaw-burzynski-for-good
Gorski splats:
“About 18 months ago, Burzynski made the huge mistake of siccing his attack Teacup Chihuaha Marc Stephens on a teen skeptic in the U.K. by the name of Rhys Morgan”
🙂
Oh !
The infamous “teen skeptic,” @rhysmorgan ?
TheSkeptiCritic (@TheSkeptiCritic) tweeted at 8:12pm – 16 Apr 13:
https://twitter.com/TheSkeptiCritic/status/324329482712391680
http://rhysmorgan.co/blog
http://rhysmorgan.co/burzynski-morally-reprehensible
http://thewelshboyo.wordpress.com
So, where’s your “FACTS” that “PROVE” that Burzynski “sicced” anyone on him?
Don’t have any as usual ?
Gorski rants on:
“When someone like Merola promises to slime me in a movie that will see international distribution, I take notice”
You mean you knew from the beginning that it would have “international distribution”?
Gorski racks up more frequent “conspiracy-mongering” flyer miles
“Around the 35:45 mark, Merola is asked who is paying “The Skeptics” and whether it’s been investigated”
Merola’s response:
“Yeah, I’ve done a lot of that myself, but frankly as you can imagine for legal reasons I just didn’t want to call them out”
“I’m not going to call them out”
“Not yet”
“I know who most all of them are”
“I know what they’re doing”
“But for legal reasons, because these guys are vicious and do not care about the truth—they only care about winning—and I don’t want to give them any reason to damage me any further or at all, frankly”
“So, yes, it’s been done, but they’re slippery, slippery people, and I’m not going to go any farther than that”
“But that would be a great thing, to have someone do a separate investigative report on just these guys, because most people—the festival staff, most people that watched it—said, “I’ve never even heard of these guys”
“I didn’t even know they existed.””
“Then they go back online, and they realize, wow, so they’re the ones doing all the damage online”
“They’re the ones doing this and that”
“That’s the best I can answer that”
“I’ve been trying to be careful myself, because they’re really nasty people”
Gorski theorizes:
“I was struck by how paranoid this sounded, even more so than I had expected based on reports I received”
Too bad you weren’t able to eruditely explain in detail how it’s supposedly “paranoid”
Gorski rambles:
“I was also further struck at how Merola describes Burzynski critics, who according to him are more than happy—proud, even—to “put their names out there” as “spineless,” when he himself has decided for legal reasons not to “name names.””
What would you like better ?
Liars ?
Cowards ??
Dissimulators ???
Gorski rattles off:
“One can’t help but wonder if maybe—just maybe—the reason Merola’s lawyers told him not to “name names” is because they realized that much of what he says is likely to be libelous”
Would you like me to do some of it for him?
Gorski ruminates:
“Certainly, I consider it so from what I’ve been able to gather”
But then again, you don’t believe in “Free Speech” on your blog
Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D and “Freedom of Speech”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/stanislaw-rajmund-burzynski-m-d-ph-d-and-freedom-of-speech
Gorski insists:
“In any case, what really bothers Merola is he knows damned well that I’ve actually read nearly every paper I can get my hands on about antineoplastons”
“I also have the skill set to analyze them, and I wasn’t impressed”
Like I have NOT been impressed by your lack of “fact-checking” and NOT backing up what you twit and blog about?
Gorski postulates:
” … their willingness becomes particularly problematic in the case of Tori Moreno”
“Moreno is a Burzynski patient from the late 1990s who is now 14 years old”
“She appeared in the video above and is scheduled to appear again with Eric Merola at the Newport Beach Film Festival screening, along with her parents”
“She was clearly nervous on stage, and it was clearly her father who was driving the bus, so to speak”
“I must admit that I have a real problem with her being used this way”
And in reference to adults he comments:
” … they are considered competent to make their own decisions with respect to speaking out”
“Such is not the case with an underage teen like Tori Moreno”
“From my point of view, poor Tori is being used as nothing more than a prop by Eric Merola and, sadly, her father to be presented as “living proof” that Burzynski’s therapy works”
So, Gorski “thinks” (?) Tori is NOT “competent” to make her “own decisions with respect to speaking out”
But is she?
(“Such is not the case with an underage teen like Tori Moreno”)
Well, NOT if you’re “Dr. Free Speech”
And that’s something that needs to be said publicly
Gorski thinks we’re supposed to be impressed by:
“According to the NCI, treatment options include:”
“Therapeutic options include watchful waiting; …”
which refers to patents with dates from 2004 and 2005 re a Burzynski patient being treated about 10 years before those patents, in 1995
So what to make of all this?
Lessons for those who would oppose “The Skeptics”
Gorski’s comments re:
The Q&A session at San Luis Obispo and what I’ve learned about the Q&A session after the Toronto screening of Burzynski II provide many lessons for unbiased individuals and critics of skeptics who don’t “fact-check”
First and foremost, to me, at least, is the lesson that David H. Gorski can’t be trusted
He is a true believer, and he despises fact-checking
For instance, he clearly plans on repeating that Eric Merola clearly plans on repeating an “unbelievable” story about David Axelrod, even though there is NO indication that David’s done due diligence
Like below where he states:
“He demonstrates time and time again that he does not understand science, clinical trials, or why science-based oncologists do not take Burzynski seriously”
I guess the people that work at these places do NOT “take Burzynski seriously” either:
3/2011 – PHASE II TRIAL of tipifarnib and radiation in CHILDREN with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic pontine GLIOMAS
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21339191
University of California—San Francisco
Children’s Hospital Boston, Massachusetts
St Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee
Seattle Children’s Hospital, Seattle, Washington
Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Children’s National Medical Center, Washington, DC
Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Ohio
Neuro Oncol (2011) 13 (3): 298-306
doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noq202
http://neuro-oncology.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/3/298.full
Neuro Oncol (2011) 13 (3): 298-306. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noq202
5.723 Impact Factor
REFERENCE:
25. ↵ BURZYNSKI SR
Treatments for astrocytic TUMORS in CHILDREN: current and emerging strategies
Paediatr Drugs. 2006;8:167-178
http://link.springer.com/article/10.2165%2F00148581-200608030-00003
Pediatric Drugs
May 2006, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 167-178
He’s using every tool at his disposal and is willing to cherry pick and distort information, and in general demonstrate no regard for the truth
In other words, one thing that anyone who wants to criticize Gorski should know is that Gorski is not convincible, not trustworthy, and likely to use whatever internet sources he has to attack, and anyone who wants to confront Gorski at a Q&A with a critical question needs to be prepared for the types of spin he will bring to bear
In particular, that includes not giving him what I like to call a “weasel” opening that allows him to attack based on one mistake and ignore everything else
He’s very good at that
Gorski ejaculates:
“The problem is the quality (more specifically, the lack thereof) and utterly unconvincing nature of Burzynski’s publications”
“He publishes in bottom-feeding journals and has not yet published a completed phase II clinical trial”
“That’s plenty bad enough”
“Burzynski has only published abstracts and partial reports on phase II trials, none of which are particularly convincing”
“His publications are all, as far as I’ve been able to tell, crap, and I’ve read nearly all of them”
This leaves one to wonder why DHG does NOT cite any US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), or National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) document that supports his position as to the RELEVANCE of the Impact Factor of any journal Burzynski has or may publish in, nor does he back up his comments re the Preliminary Reports that Burzynski has published re the Phase II clinical trials:
Drugs in R & D (Drugs in Research and Development)
2003 – Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma: a preliminary report
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12718563
Drugs R D. 2003;4(2):91-101
6 months median duration of treatment
of all 12 patients
2 years / 33.3% – Survival
2 / 17% – alive and tumour free for over 5 years since initial diagnosis
from start of treatment
5 years – 1 alive for more than
4 years – 1 alive for more than
Only mild and moderate toxicities were observed, which included
3 cases of skin allergy
2 cases of:
anaemia
fever
hypernatraemuia
single cases of:
agranulocytosis
hypoglycaemia
numbness
tiredness
myalgia
vomiting
2003 – Protocol – recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma
12 – Patients Accrued
10 – Evaluable Patients
2 / 20% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
3 / 30% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
3 / 30% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
2 / 20% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
2004 – Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in children with recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma : a preliminary report
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15563234
Drugs R D. 2004;5(6):315-26
incurable recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma
antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 (ANP)
9 – patients’ median age
6 patients were diagnosed with pilocytic astrocytoma
4 with low-grade astrocytoma
1 with astrocytoma grade 2
1 case of visual pathway glioma, a biopsy was not performed due to a dangerous location
16 months – The average duration of intravenous ANP therapy
19 months – The average duration of oral ANP
1 patient was non-evaluable due to only 4 weeks of ANP and lack of follow-up scans
1 patient who had stable disease discontinued ANP against medical advice and died 4.5 years later
10 patients are alive and well from 2 to >14 years post-diagnosis
Only 1 case of serious toxicity of reversible tinnitus, of 1 day’s duration, was described
2004 – Protocol – incurable recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma
12 – Patients Accrued
33% – % of Patients Showing Complete Response
25% – % of Patients Showing Partial Response
33% – % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
0 / 0% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
Integrative Cancer Therapies
6/2005 – Long-term survival of high-risk pediatric patients with primitive neuroectodermal tumors treated with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15911929
Integr Cancer Ther. 2005 Jun;4(2):168-77
13 children with recurrent disease or high risk
6 (46%) survived more than 5 years
2005 – Protocol – recurrent disease or high risk
23% – % of Patients Showing Complete Response
8% – % of Patients Showing Partial Response
31% – % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
38% – % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
3/2006 – Targeted therapy with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 of high-grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem glioma
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16484713
Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Mar;5(1):40-7
Brainstem glioma carries the worst prognosis of all malignancies of the brain
Most patients with brainstem glioma fail standard radiation therapy and chemotherapy and do not survive longer than 2 years
Treatment is even more challenging when an inoperable tumor is of high-grade pathology (HBSG)
patients with inoperable tumor of high-grade pathology (HBSG) treated with antineoplastons in 4 phase 2 trials
39% – overall survival at 2 years
22% – overall survival at 5 years
17+ years maximum survival for a patient with anaplastic astrocytoma
5+ years for a patient with glioblastoma
39% – Progression-free survival at 6 months
5+ year survival in recurrent diffuse intrinsic glioblastomas and anaplastic astrocytomas of the brainstem in a small group of patients
18 – evaluable
4 – glioblastomas
14 – anaplastic HBSG
14 – diffuse intrinsic tumors
12 – recurrence
6 – did not have radiation therapy or chemotherapy
Antineoplastons, A10 (A10I) and AS2-1 injections
5 months median duration
Responses were assessed by gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography
Antineoplastons tolerated very well
1 case of grade 4 toxicity (reversible anemia)
2006 – Protocol – high-grade pathology (HBSG)
18 – Evaluable Patients
11% – % of Patients Showing Complete Response
11% – % of Patients Showing Partial Response
39% – % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
39% – % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
2007 – Recent clinical trials in diffuse intrinsic brainstem glioma
Review Article
http://www.cancer-therapy.org/CT/v5/B/HTML/42._Burzynski,_379-390.html
E. Multitargeted therapy
Antineoplaston A10 injections (A10) consist of synthetic phenylacetylglutaminate sodium (PG) and phenylacetylisoglutaminate sodium (isoPG) in a ratio 4:1
antineoplaston AS2-1 (AS2-1) consists of PG and phenylacetate sodium (PN) in a ratio of 1:4
Phase II studies with ANP included patients with DBSG began 1988
(Burzynski, 2004a)
Only small # of patients with DBSG involved in most studies, which dealt with broad spectrum of primary brain tumors
(Burzynski, 2004a)
1996, phase II study of ANP in patients with brainstem gliomas opened and nearing completion
(Burzynski et al, 2003, 2004a, 2007)
studies are conducted at Burzynski Clinic and monitored by FDA and Institutional Review Board (IRB)
most recent report describes results in children with newly diagnosed DBSG
(Burzynski et al, 2007)
20 evaluable patients
5 with high-grade gliomas
overall survival (OS)
2 years – 40%
5 years – 30%
CR – 30%
PR – 10%
SD – 20%
PD – 40%
(Burzynski et al, 2007)
study closed for accrual and final results will be evaluated before end of 2007
Phase III protocol currently under FDA’s review
Results summarized in Table 2
proposed antineoplastic activity of ANP in DBSG consists of targeted therapy affecting AKT2 and TGFB1 pathways (PG), RAS, TP53, and p21 (PN) MYCC (PG and PN), MAD (PG), INI1 (PG), and apoptosis (PG and isoPG)
PG is formed in patient’s liver from PN and PB, but doesn’t share with PN and PB an inhibitory affect on HDAC
details of these mechanisms have been described previously
(Castillo et al, 1991; Liau et al, 1992; Adam et al, 1995; Liu and Samid, 1995; Shack et al, 1995; Danesi et al, 1996; Gorospe et al, 1996; Prasanna et al, 1996; Adam et al, 1997; Engelhard et al, 1997; Harrison et al, 1998; Ng et al, 2000; Witzig et al, 2000; Li et al, 2001; Burzynski et al, 2003, 2004a,b, 2005; Waldbillig and Burzynski, 2003; Burzynski, 2004b, 2006a,b)
DBSGs remain some of most tragic diagnoses in oncology
general opinion of neuro-oncologists that results of treatment for DBSG constitute worst response in all primary brain tumors
DBSGs occur usually in children, in whom brain tumors in general are 2nd most frequent malignancy, and most common form of solid tumors
Due to poor response, # of clinical trials in DBSG is small, and there isn’t much interest in bringing new agents into approval process by pharmaceutical companies
Results of treatment with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in patients with diffuse, intrinsic brain stem glioma
Author – Burzynski et al, 2007
Phase II – Study Type
N – newly diagnosed tumor – Tumor Type
20 – # of patients
ANP – Treatment
ANP – antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1
Efficacy
overall survival
2 yrs / 5 yrs
40% / 30%
median survival time
16.4 – months
6 / 30% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
2 / 10% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
4 / 20% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
8 / 40% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
Most results of phase II trials with targeted therapy and ANP have been presented at oncology meetings and published as abstracts
It was decided to include data from meeting abstracts in order to present most up to date results, but they should be treated with caution until they pass scrutiny of peer review
Children, older than 3 years, and young adults with newly diagnosed tumors, are usually temporarily helped with standard radiation therapy, but it’s estimated that less than 10% of them will survive 2 years
Children, younger than 3 years, adults after age 40, and patients with high-grade glioma pathology have very grave prognosis, and median survival is similar to supratentorial GBM, or worse
Children diagnosed with DBSG and neurofibromatosis 1 have better prognosis, except those that show contrast-enhancement on MRI
prognosis is especially grave for patients with recurrent DBSG, who typically don’t survive longer than 6 months
Targeted radiotherapy and bevacizumab in combination with irinotecan may offer hope, but they would require further clinical trials
The patients with recurrent DBSG can be helped with treatments currently in phase II clinical trials
The results of phase II trials in DBSG with ANP compare favorably with responses and survival data in radiation therapy and chemotherapy trials
Currently conducted phase II studies are closed for accrual and nearing completion, and phase III studies are scheduled to open soon
Introduction of new multitargeted agents and acceleration of basic and clinical research in DBSG may offer better chances in the future
Ouch
I cringed
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/dr-stanislaw-burzynskis-cancer-success-stories-part-2/#more-25645
Hopefully I didn’t fail to convey the full scope of “The Skeptics” true conspiracy theory awesomeness
That was awesome
Didymus Judas Thomas' Hipocritical Oath Blog 