United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA): September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51

[1] – September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
======================================
BB – Bob Blaskiewicz
——————————————————————
DJT – Didymus Judas Thomas
======================================
0:47:00
——————————————————————
BB – “Ummm, o-kay”

“Uh, I want to turn this over to the people who are watching”

“Um, I want to give them a a chance to address you as well”

“Uhmmm, hi everyone”
——————————————————————
0:48:00
——————————————————————
0:53:00
——————————————————————
BB – “A every time that I and and and and, and David (James @StortSkeptic the Skeptic Canary) points this out, that um, you you know you’re not going to speculate about the the FDA but then at every turn you’re invoking the FDA as being obstructionist“
——————————————————————
0:54:02
——————————————————————
BB – “I, I just find that to be contradictory and and self-defeating“
======================================
DJT – Bob, exactly where did I invoke “the FDA as being obstructionist” ?
======================================
1:02:00
——————————————————————
BB – “Um, it’s it’s it’s not the FDA’s, but you understand it’s not the FDA’s job to tell someone that their drug doesn’t work“
——————————————————————
1:03:00
——————————————————————
BB – “it’s it’s it’s up to Burzynski“

“It’s up to Burzynski to show that his drug does work”

“And it’s always been his burden of proof“

“He’s the one that’s been claiming this miracle cancer cure, forever”
======================================
DJT – Bob, Burzynski showed and proved what he needed to prove to the FDA in order to do phase 2 clinical trials, 9/3/2004 – FDA granted “orphan drug designation” (“ODD”) for Antineoplastons (A10 & AS2-1 Antineoplaston) for treatment of patients with brain stem glioma, .10/30/2008 – FDA granted “orphan drug designation” (“ODD”) for Antineoplastons (A10 and AS2-1 Antineoplaston) for treatment of gliomas, and FDA approved phase 3 [1-2]

Oh, and Bob, exactly when did Burzynski 1st claim “this miracle cancer cure” ?
======================================
1:04:02
——————————————————————
BB – “Um, that we’d love to see, however we can’t see, however we can’t see it because of proti protri proprietary uh protections that the FDA is giving to Burzynski, right ?”

“They’re not sharing his trial designs because they are his trial designs, right ?”

“That the makeup of his drug that he’s distributing are his, uh design, and his intellectual property“

“So the FDA is protecting him, uh from outside scrutiny“
======================================
DJT – Bob, you make it sound like it’s part of some grand “conspiracy” between Burzynski and the FDA to keep information from “The Skeptics™” [3]
——————————————————————
21CFR601

Subpart F–Confidentiality of Information

Sec. 601.50

Confidentiality of data and information in an investigational new drug notice for a biological product

(a) The existence of an IND notice for a biological product will not be disclosed by the Food and Drug Administration unless it has previously been publicly disclosed or acknowledged
======================================
BB – “While you may imagine that that, that that the FDA is is somehow antagonistic toward him“

“They’ve given him every opportunity, over 60 opportunities to prove himself worth uh their confidence and hasn’t“
======================================
DJT – Bob, that certainly explains the 9/3/2004 and .10/30/2008 ODD’s and phase 3 clinical trial approvals by the FDA – NOT [1-2]
======================================
1:05:00
——————————————————————
1:42:00
——————————————————————
BB – “I don’t, the thing is though that, that that’s a inver, shifting the burden of proof off of Burzynski”

“Burzynski has to prove them wrong, has to prove him right”

“The FDA is not there to say this doesn’t work”
======================================
DJT – Bob, who initiated and put into place the clinical trial hold ?

Burzynski ?

FDA ?

Both ?
======================================
1:43:30
——————————————————————
BB – “So, I mean, honestly, um, saying “Well, when the F, FDA tells you that it doesn’t work, the FDA’s never gonna say that because that’s not their job“
——————————————————————
1:44:00
——————————————————————
BB – “That’s not an option, because they’re never gonna do it“

“They relinquish, a lot of authority, over to Burzynski, and his Institutional Review Board, which, I would mention, has failed 3 reviews in a row”
======================================
Bob, where are the “final reports” for those “3 reviews” ?
======================================
BB – “Right ?”

“It is Burzynski’s job to be convincing”

“It is not our uh, uh, it it it he hasn’t produced in decades“

“In decades”

“In hundreds and hundreds of patients, who’ve payed to be on this”

“Hell, we’d we’d we’d like a prelim, well when you’re talking about something that is so difficult as brainstem glioma, that type of thing gets, really does in the publishing stream get fast-tracked there”
======================================
DJT – Bob, Burzynski has provided numerous phase 2 clinical trial preliminary reports, which our #fave oncologist has chosen to ignore [4]
======================================
BB – “they test it”

“Yeah, and they they they want uh, that was evidence of fast-tracking is what, that rejection was uh e was very quickly“
======================================
DJT – Bob, have you checked The Lancet Oncology [5] to see what was so much more important than Burzynski’s “phase 2 clinical trial Progression-Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS) re patients 8 – 16 years after diagnosis, results” [6] and the Japanese antineoplaston study ? [7]
======================================
BB – “So, how long will it be before Burzynski doesn’t publish, that you decide that uh perhaps he’s he‘s, doesn’t have the goods ?“

“Um, so, uh, uh again, the FDA is not the arbiter of this“

“It’s ultimately Burzynski”

“You’ve been speculating about what the FDA’s motivation are like crazy”

“Why not speculate about Burzynski a little bit”
======================================
DJT – Well, how have I been speculating ?
======================================
1:46:00
——————————————————————
BB – “Well actually I’m not even asking you to speculate about Burzynski, I’m only asking you to tell me, how long would it take, uh how, for him to go unpublished like this, um, for this long, before you would doubt it ?”
======================================
DJT – Note how, above, without proving it, Bob claimed “at every turn you’re invoking the FDA as being obstructionist”, and now, directly above, again, without proving it, Bob claims “You’ve been speculating about what the FDA’s motivation are like crazy”
——————————————————————
DJT – what the journals keep saying, in response
======================================
BB – “What ?”
======================================
DJT – You know, are they going to give The Lancet response, like they did in 2 hours and such, saying, “Well, we think your message would be best heard elsewhere,” or they gonna gonna give The Lancet response of, “Well, we don’t have room in our publication this time, well, because we’re full up, so, try and pick another place” ?
======================================
BB – “But these but but but that doesn’t have any bearing on“

“That doesn’t”

“Oh I’m not asking you how long, how long, would it take you for you to start doubting whether or not he has the goods ?“

“How long would it take ?”

“It’s a it’s a it’s a question that should be answered by a number uh uh months ?“

“Years ?”

“How long ?”

“It’s been 15 years already”
======================================
DJT – Well, you like to jump up and down with the “15 year” quote, but then again I always get back to, Hey, it’s when, when the report, when the clinical trial is done
——————————————————————
1:47:06
——————————————————————
DJT – Not that he’s been practicing medicine medicine for 36 years, or whatever, it’s when the clin, clinical trial was done
======================================
BB – “I could push it back to 36 years”

“He hasn’t shown that it works for 36 years”

“I can do that”

“I was being nice”
======================================
DJT – Note how Bob acts like he’s been hit with “The Stupid Stick”

If he wants to go back “36 years”, I can refer back to 1991 (11/15/1991) – Michael J. Hawkins, M.D., Chief, Investigational Drug Branch, Department of Health &Human Services (HHS), Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Cancer Institute (NCI), sent a 1 page Memorandum Re:
Antineoplaston to Decision Network, which advised, in part:

“It was the opinion of the site visit team that antitumor activity was documented in this best case series and that the conduct of Phase II trials was indicated to determine the response rate” [8]
——————————————————————
DJT – The FDA A believes there is evidence of efficacy
======================================
BB – “Perhaps based on bad phase 2”
======================================
DJT – Well, we don’t know that

We don’t have the Freedom of Information Act information
——————————————————————
DJT – Remember, Bob is the one who told me during the 9/28/2013 Google+ Burzynski Discussion Hangout:

“You’re you’re you’re assuming”

“You’re you’re you’re assuming that”

“You’re assuming that”

“Um, I’m not assuming that”

“There is a correct answer here”

“You don’t know”

“You don’t know”

“You need to look into it”

“Alright ?”

“Before you dismiss it you have to look into it”

“Everytime somebody throws uh uh something to me,
I have to look into it”

“That’s just, it’s my responsibility as a reader”

“T t and what I would honestly expect and hope, is that you would be honest about this, to yourself, and and and that’s the thing we don’t, we often don’t realize that we’re not being honest with ourself“

“I try to fight against it, constantly”

Bob just ASSUMED that the FDA approved phase 3 clinical trials for Burzynski “Perhaps based on bad phase 2”, but tells me NOT to ASSUME ?
======================================
BB – “He withdrew”

“He withdrew the the phase 3 clinical trial”

“I that before recruiting,
although I’ve seen lots of people say they were on a phase 3 clinical trial“

“I wonder how that happened”
======================================
DJT – Well, we know what happened in the movie because Eric particularly covered that when they tried to get what, what, was it 200 or 300 something institutions to take on a phase 3, and they refused
======================================
1:48:01
——————————————————————
BB – “Uh did do do you think that if they thought that he was a real doctor that they all would have refused like that ?“
======================================
DJT – Well, Eric gave the reasons that they said they would not take a particular uh phase 3

And so using that excuse that you you just gave there, I’m not even gonna buy that one, because that’s not one of the reasons
——————————————————————
Note how Bob pulls out the old “if they thought that he was a real doctor” line ?

Is Bob now claiming that Burzynski is NOT even a “real doctor” ?
======================================
BB – “He’s changed things”
======================================
DJT – Eric said they gave
======================================
BB – “That The Lancet is a top-tier journal like New England Journal of Medicine“

“It’s basically be, besieged by uh 100′s of people submitting their, their, their reports”

“Um, it’s just, you know, let’s say he, someone has such a thin publishing record as Burzynski does, do you think that it’s likely that he will ever get in a top-tier journal ?“

“What about the the Public Library of Science?”

“It’s not the only journal there”

“What about BMC Cancer ?”

“There’s lots of places that he can go”
======================================
DJT – We’ll I’m
======================================
BB – “Um, and he doesn’t seem to to have evailed himself of that, as far as I can tell“

“And I would know because he’d get rejected, or he’d be crowing, you know”
——————————————————————
1:49:02
——————————————————————
BB – “Either way, he’s gonna tell us what happens”

“He told us what happened with The Lancet, you know”

“I don’t have any evidence that suggests to me that he’s even trying”
======================================
Note how Bob refers to Burzynski’s numerous publications as “such a thin publishing record”

Bob, do I need to count all of these for you ? [9]
——————————————————————
DJT – Well, I’m, I’m sure that they’re going to keep you appraised just like they have in the past, just like Eric has done in the past

So

I mean, we’ll see what happens with the Japanese study [7]
======================================
BB – “So let’s go back to this”

“How long will it take ?”

“How long will it take before you, the Japanese study’s interesting too because we should be able to find that in the Japanese science databases, and we can find, we can’t find it at all“

“We can’t find it anywhere”

“And, and those are in English, so it’s not a language problem“

“We can’t find that anywhere”

“We’ve asked”

“We asked Rick Schiff, for, for that study”

“And, and it hasn’t come to us“

“He is now I believe on the Board of Directors, over there”
——————————————————————
1:50:00
——————————————————————
BB – “He should have access to this”

“We can’t get it”
======================================
Bob, did you ask:

1. Annals of Oncology 2010;21:viii221 ?

2. European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), Colorectal cancer, Abstract: 3558, May 17, 2010 ?

3. Colorectal Cancer Association of Canada, COLORECTAL CANCER RESEARCH, Month Ending June 19, 2009
11. Antineoplaston Therapy Doubles 5-Year Survival Rate Following Curative Resection of Hepatic Mets (May 27/09) pg. 5 of 20 ?

4. Kurume University School of Medicine (Japan) Department of Surgery ?

5. Hideaki Tsuda ? [7]
======================================
BB – “How how long will it take before you recognize that, nothing is forthcoming ?”

“How long would that take ?”
======================================
DJT – Well that’s like me asking “How long is it going to take for y’all’s, y’all‘s Skeptics to respond to my questions ?”

Because y’all haven’t been forthcoming
======================================
BB – “Well, I mean, were talking about a blog here“

“We’re talking about life”

“No, we’re talking about a blogger’s feelings in that case“

“In in this case we’re talking about, 1,000′s of patients, over the course of of of generations, you know”

“This is important stuff”

“This is not eh eh equating what’s happening to to patients with what’s happening to you is is completely off-kilter as far as I can tell“

“It’s nothing”

“It’s nothing like you not getting to say something on my web-site”

“You know”

“This is they they have thrown in with Burzynski, and they’ve trusted him, and he’s produced nothing“

“Nothing of substance”
——————————————————————
1:51:00
——————————————————————
BB – “Nothing that that has made all of that um, uh, n nothing th th th that uh his peers would take seriously”

“The other thing that that that strikes me now is that, you know, you you you you keep saying that, well Eric is going to to share things with you”

“Does it ever concern you eh uh eh occur to you that Eric might not be reliable ?”
======================================
Bob, do you want to have a contest to determine which of you is more “reliable” ?
======================================
DJT – Well, he gave you The Lancet information and he posted the e-mail in the movie, and Josephine Jones posted a copy of it [6]
======================================
BB – “He then, and then he”

“And then he he, you know, the the the the dialogue that sprung up around that was, well see, he’s never going to get to get published”

“Well you’re just setting yourself up for wish fulfillment”

“You want him to be, persecuted, so you are ecstatic when he doesn’t get to publish, which is unfortunate for all the cancer patients, who really thought that one day, all the studies were going to be published”
——————————————————————
1:52:00
======================================
DJT – Well, y’all are free to, you know, claim that all you want, because I don’t always agree with Eric, and uh, he’s free to express his opinion
======================================
BB – “Where has Eric been wrong ?”
======================================
DJT – Well I don’t necessarily believe, what Eric would say about, you know, The Lancet that refused to publish the 2nd one, for the reasons he stated, and which y’all have commented on, including Gorski

You know, I don’t necessarily agree with that

I am more agreeable to y’all, saying that, you know, they’re busy, they’ve got other things to do, but I’m kind of still laughing at their 1st response which he showed in the movie about how they felt about, you know his results would be better in some other publication

I thought that was kind of a ridiculous response to give someone
======================================
BB – “It’s it’s it’s it’s a form letter“

“You know”

“They’re just saying, “No thanks””

““Thanks, but no thanks” is what they were saying, in the most generic way possible”

“Like I said, they’re besieged by researchers trying to publish“
——————————————————————
1:53:05
======================================
DJT – Well you would think that if its a form letter they would use the same form that they used the 2nd time

You know, they didn’t use the same wording that they used the 1st time

I would have think that, you know, their 2nd comment
======================================
BB – “So, so, possibly”

“So possibly what you are saying is that they in fact have read it, and after having read it they’ve rejected it”

“Is that what you’re saying ?”

“Because that’s what peer-review is”
======================================
DJT – Nah, I’m not saying that they did that all

I’m just sayin’, you know, that they gave, 2 different responses, and I would think that the 2nd one they gave
======================================
BB – “Do you know it was the same editor, that it came from the same desk ?”

“You can’t make that assumption that that the form letter will be the same form letter every time”

“I mean you just can’t“

“I mean in in some ways we have a lot of non-information that you’re filling in, with what you expect, as as opposed to what’s actually really there, and I I I just think you’re putting too much uh stock in one uh, uh, in in in in this uh the publication kerfuffle“
——————————————————————
1:54:16
——————————————————————
BB – “Um”
======================================
DJT – Well I find it funny, something along the lines of, you know, “We believe your message would be received better elsewhere, you know

I don’t see that as a normal response, a scientific publication would send to someone trying to publish something

I mean, to me that sounds, like, if you’re doing that, and you’re The Lancet Oncology, maybe you need to set some different procedures in place, ‘cuz you would think that with such a great scientific peer-reviewed magazine, that they would have structured things in as far as how they do their operations
======================================
BB – “Well, not necessarily“

“I’ve been in any # of professional groups where the organization is just not optimal, and publications certainly th there are all sorts of pressures from all sorts of different places”
——————————————————————
1:55:08
——————————————————————
BB – “I I have no problems whatsoever with seeing that this might not be completely uh um uh streamlining uniform processes as possible“

“The fact that it’s not uniform, doesn’t have anything to do with Burzynski not publishing, not producing good data”

“Not just going to a, you know, god, even if, even if, let’s put it this way, even if he went to a pay to play type publication where you have to pay in order to get your manuscript accepted; and he has the money to do this, it wouldn’t take that much, and he were to put out a good protocol, and he were to show us his data, and he would make his, his his stuff accessible to us, then we could validate it, then we could look at it and say, “Yeah, this is good,” or “No, this is the problem, you have to go back and you have to fix this””

“Right ?”

“So we really, every time we talk about the letter that he got, yeah that doesn’t have much to do with anything, really”
——————————————————————
1:56:02
——————————————————————
BB – “We wanna see the frickin’ data”

“And if he had a cure for some cancers that otherwise don’t have reliable treatments, he has an obligation to get that out there anyway he can“

“And if if peer-review doesn’t, you know, play a, if peer-review can’t do it, you know, isn’t fast enough for him, then he should take it to the web, and he should send copies out to every pediatric, uh, you know, oncologist that there is“

“That’s the way to do it”
======================================
DJT – Well, I’m sure, I’m sure Gorski would have a comment about that, as he’s commented previously about how he thinks uh Burzynskishould publish
======================================
1:57:10
——————————————————————
BB – “It’s the, it’s the data itself“

“If if Burzynski is is, is confident in his data, he will put it out there“

“Right ?”

“One way or the other”
======================================
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
======================================
2:01:00
——————————————————————
BB – “Um, almost no treatment goes out without trials“

“Massive amounts of data are required”
======================================
Bob, do you think that’s the 2.5 million pages of clinical trial data that Fabio said Burzynski sent to the FDA ? [10]
======================================
2:02:00
——————————————————————
BB – “Uh, in in in that sense, you know, uh all the the the, you know, kind of back-peddling and and and trying to defend him is is going to, not going to help his case at all“
======================================
Bob, exactly where did I exhibit any “kind of back-peddling” ?
======================================
2:03:03
——————————————————————
BB – “You are, honestly as far as I can tell you are doing the um, you know, you’re you’re ah throwing up uh, uh, uh, you’re giving me another uh invisible dragon in the garage, um”
======================================
DJT – Well y’all, y’all can call things what y’all want

I mean, y’all can give these, fallacy arguments and all that garbage that y’all like, because that’s what y’all like to talk about instead of dealing with the issues

I mean, Gorski doesn’t want to deal with the issues
======================================
2:04:11
——————————————————————
BB – “Okay, so”

“What you’re telling me is that you trust the FDA to to be able to tell you when he’s not doing, good science, but also that you don’t trust the FDA”

“Do you see an inherent conflict there ?”
======================================
DJT – How did I say I, I didn’t trust them ?
======================================
BB – “Well, when I, whenever I would ask about, like, why would these trials aren’t happening uh and, you know, you say well the the FDA’s arranged it“

“The FDA’s in control”

“They sign off on these things”

“But they’re they’re they’re they’re at the same that they’re, they’re trustworthy they’re also not trustworthy depending on what you need for the particular argument at the time“
——————————————————————
2:05:12
——————————————————————
BB – “You’re suggesting that they’re untrustworthy”
======================================
DJT – No, I’m just sayin’ that I’ve raised questions and none of The Skeptics wanna to uh talk about ‘em [11]
======================================
BB – “Do you know that the FDA pulled out of the prosecution ?”

“Did you know that the FDA pulled out of the prosecution um of his criminal case, because they were backing a researcher ?”
======================================
Bob, would that “researcher” be Dvorit D. Samid, who was in Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business (Part I) ?
——————————————————————
DJT – Well, we know a lot stuff they did, but that still doesn’t impress me that they pulled out of the prosecution

I mean
======================================
BB – “Yeah, the the the it wasn’t the FDA who was pressing charges, it was a Federal prosecutor“
======================================
DJT – Right
======================================
BB – “Right”

“And and, they declined to provide information that the prosecution needed“

“That’s important”

“That that that’s really important“

“That he has been given the benefit of the doubt, and he has come up wanting, for decades now”
======================================
DJT – Well I find it interesting a lot of this uh, a lot of these letters that were provided between, you know, the government and Burzynski, when the uh phase 2 study was going on, at the behest of the NCI

You know, anybody who reads that stuff knows, that when you just ignore the person that’s been doing, do treating their patients for 20 something years, or close to 20 years, and you change the protocol without his approval, and you don’t use the drugs in the manner that he knows works
======================================
2:10:15
——————————————————————
BB – “One of the interesting things about Doubting Thomas that I think you should definitely consider for yourself, is that at some point, when faced with the real opportunity to prove or disprove his assertions, he doubted himself”

“And that’s important”

“And that’s where you’re falling short in the analogy”
======================================
DJT – Well, I think The Skeptics, Skeptics are falling short because, you know, they don’t own up to
======================================
BB – “I’ve laid out exactly what it would take for me to turn on a fucking dime”

“I have, I have made it abundantly clear what I need“

“Gorski has made it abundantly clear”

“Everybody else, Guy, and David, and Josephine Jones, uh, the Morgans, all of them have made it abundantly clear, what it would take to change our minds, and you’ve never done that”
——————————————————————
2:11:02
——————————————————————
BB – “And even in this, this was an opportunity to do that“

“To come up with a basis for understanding, where it’s like, you know what, If we can show this, you know, if we can show a this guy, that, that, there, that his standards are not being met, then, you know, we could possibly have some sort of ongoing dialogue after this”
======================================
DJT – So I can say that since the Mayo Clinic (Correction: M.D. Anderson) finished their study in 2006, and it took them until 2013, to actually publish it, then I can say, well, Burzynski finished his in 2009, which was 3 years later, which would give Burzynski until 2016
======================================
BB – “Why wasn’t that study”
======================================
DJT – for me to make up my mind (laughing)
======================================
BB – “Why wasn’t that, that that that, still . . again, it it doesn’t seem really to to approach the the the, main question here“

“You know, um . . what are the standards that you have that it isn’t, what are your standards to show that it isn’t efficacious ?“
——————————————————————
2:12:05
======================================
DJT – Well I can say, well I’m going to have to wait, the same amount of time I had to wait for Mayo (Correction: M.D. Anderson) to publish their study; which was from 2006 to 2013
======================================
BB – “Why was the Mayo”

“Why was the Mayo (Correction: M.D. Anderson) study delayed ?”
======================================
Note how Bob ASSUMES that the publishing of the final results of the M.D. Anderson study were delayed
——————————————————————
DJT – How do you know it was delayed ?
======================================
BB – “Well you said you had so many years before you finish it and go in”
======================================
DJT – I mean, has anybody
======================================
BB – “Why, why did it take so long ?“
======================================
DJT – done a review of when a clinical trial is studied, and completed, and how long it took the people to publish it ?

You know

If they could point to me a study that’s done that, and say, well here’s the high end, here’s the low end of the spectrum, here’s the middle
======================================
BB – “I have something for you, okay ?”

“Send me that”

“Could you send me that study the way that it was published because um, just just send me the final study, um, to my e-mail address”
======================================
DJT – Sure
======================================
BB – “Um, because, I can ask that question of those researchers, why was this study in this time, and what happened in-between”
——————————————————————
2:13:03
——————————————————————
BB – “Why did it take so long for it, for it to come out”
======================================
DJT – Sure, but that’s not gonna, you know like, answer an overall question of, you know, somebody did a comparative study of all clinical trials, and, when they were finished, and at, and when the study was actually published afterwards

You know, that’s only gonna be one, particular clinical study
======================================
BB – “Right”

“Um, but it it would, perhaps, answer the question; because you’re using it as an example on the basis of which to dismiss criticism, whether or not, uh, it is the standard, and therefor you’re allowed to accept that Burzynski hasn’t published until 2016, or, um, it’s an anomaly, which is also a possibility, that most stuff comes out more quickly“
======================================
DJT – Well, we know that the Declaration of Helsinki doesn’t even give a standard saying, “You must publish within x amount of years,” you know ?

So, I’ve yet to find a Skeptic who posted something that said, “Here are the standards, published here”
======================================
2:14:07
——————————————————————
BB – “I I, yeah, the other thing that David James points out is you know, why 2016 when he’s had 36 years already ?“
======================================
DJT – Again, we get back to, when the clinical trial is finished, not when Burzynski started
======================================
BB – “Treating people”
======================================
DJT – I mean, you would expect to find a results to be published after, the final results are in
======================================
BB – “You would expect the Burzynski Patient Group to be a lot bigger after 36 years, and in fact is
======================================
DJT – You would expect some people would want to have confidentiality, and maybe not want to be included
======================================
BB – “So, if you’re unsure about this stuff, if you’re unsure about the the time to publication, why are you defending it so hard, other than saying, “I don’t know, I really need to”
======================================
DJT – Why am I unsure ?
======================================
BB – “Uh about the
======================================
DJT – (laughing) I just gave you an example
======================================
BB – “The reasons, the reasons for which that he’s, no, why are you defending him so hard, when you’re unsure ?
——————————————————————
2:15:02
======================================
DJT – Oh, who said I was unsure ?

I just gave you an example
——————————————————————
Note how Bob ASSUMES that I’m “unsure” when I had the same answer since 0:32:07 [12]

Bob, who approves “Accelerated Approval” ?

1. FDA ?

2. A peer-reviewed scientific journal ?

3. The Skeptics™ ?

Bob, It’s your unlucky [13]
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/04/september-28-2013-the-skeptics-burzynski-discussion-by-bob-blaskiewicz-21951/
======================================
[2] – FDA grants Orphan Drug Designation (ODD) for A10 and AS2-1:
——————————————————————

Click to access PressRelease_12022008_BZYR(2).pdf

——————————————————————
josephinejones (@_JosephineJones), D Nile ist http://josephinejones.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/happy-birthday-dr-burzynski-and-goodbye-antineoplastons/comment-page-1/#comment-8921
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/23/josephinejones-_josephinejones-d-nile-ist-httpjosephinejones-wordpress-com20130123happy-birthday-dr-burzynski-and-goodbye-antineoplastonscomment-page-1comment-8921/
======================================
[3] – The Skeptics @Majikthyse reveals madjik research skilz:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/26/the-skeptics-majikthyse-reveals-madjik-research-skilz/
======================================
[4] – Critiquing David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/critiquing-david-h-gorski-md-phd-facs-www-sciencebasedmedicine-orgeditorial-staffdavid-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
======================================
[5] – The Lancet Oncology
——————————————————————
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/onlinefirst
——————————————————————
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/issue/current
======================================
[6] – FINALLY, one of “The Skeptics™” has the “Balls” to do what even Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski would NOT do:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/12/finally-one-of-the-skeptics-has-the-balls-to-do-what-even-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-would-not-do/
======================================
[7] – Burzynski – The Antineoplaston Randomized Japan Phase II Clinical Trial Study:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/burzynski-the-antineoplaston-randomized-japan-phase-ii-clinical-trial-study/
======================================
[8] – Critiquing: National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) CancerNet “fact sheet”:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/critiquing-national-cancer-institute-nci-at-the-national-institutes-of-health-nih-cancernet/
======================================
[9] – Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski Publications:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/stanislaw-rajmund-burzynski-publications/
======================================
[10] – Critiquing: In which the latest movie about Stanislaw Burzynski “cancer cure” is reviewed…with Insolence:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/critiquing-in-which-the-latest-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-cure-is-reviewed-with-insolence-2/
======================================
[11] – QUESTIONS the Critics and Cynics, “The Skeptics™” do NOT want to ANSWER:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/23/questions-the-critics-and-cynics-the-skeptics-do-not-want-to-answer/
======================================
[12] – The Biggest Loser: “The Skeptics™” Guy Chapman (guychapman @vGuyUK @SceptiGuy) http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg/ – September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/the-biggest-loser-the-skeptics-guy-chapman-guychapman-vguyuk-sceptiguy-httpwww-chapmancentral-co-ukblahg-september-28-2013-the-skeptics/
======================================
[13] – Burzynski: Why has the FDA NOT granted Accelerated Approval for Antineoplastons A10 (Atengenal) and AS2-1 (Astugenal) ?:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/burzynski-why-has-the-fda-not-granted-accelerated-approval-for-antineoplastons-a10-astengenal-and-as2-1-astugenal/
======================================

Advertisement

The Skeptics™” Robert J. (don’t call me “Bobby”) Blaskiewicz wants to Debate

Bob thinks we can debate all this in an hour 🙂
======================================
3/4/2013 – 7:58pm – You posted on Colorado Public Television (CPT12):

“ANP is toxic as anything!”

So you’re saying what ?

ANP is as toxic as water ?

[1]
——————————————————————
“It gives people insanely high sodium, and Burzynski is currently not allowed to be dispensed by Burzynski because, according to a patient, it killed someone”

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support “toxic” and “tons of chemo” statements

[1]
——————————————————————
“This is not harmless stuff”

“This is not non-toxic”

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support “toxic” and “tons of chemo” statements

[1]
——————————————————————
“And most of Burzynski’s patients never qualify for his trials”

“That’s the lure”

“They all end up taking tons of chemo used off label”

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support “toxic” and “tons of chemo” statements

“Tons of chemo” ?

Even your “man-crush” cancer oncologist has blogged that it’s “low-dose” chemo

======================================
12/13/2012 – Stanislaw Burzynski: “Personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy” for dummies
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/12/13/stanislaw-burzynski-personalized-gene-targeted-cancer-therapy-for-dummies/
======================================
[1]
——————————————————————
3/5/2013 at 12:25pm – You posted on CPT12:

“How awful does your feedback need to be before you realize that you are going to endanger your viewership?”

The feedback was:

241 – Yes
97 – No
2 – Undecided

What was your point ?

[2]
——————————————————————
3/12/2013 – Why did “The Skeptics™” on CPT12 resort to adolescent name-calling:

“trolls,” “spammers,” “disingenuous,” “dishonest,” “profoundly dishonest,” “sheer stubborn stupid,” “stupid,” “spambot,” “fools,” “shills, “conman” ?

Don’t they have the intelligence a “Professor of Writing” should have ?

[3]
——————————————————————
3/12/2013 – Why did “The Skeptics™” on CPT12 and elsewhere whine about publication when the Declaration of Helsinki

30. addresses publishing human clinical trial data

does NOT indicate WHEN the data should be published, leaving it open to interpretation as to if it should be done piecemeal, or when all trials re a specific drug or drugs are completed after Phase I, II, or III, for example ?

[3]
——————————————————————
Why did “The Skeptics™” on CPT12 and elsewhere rant about scientific peer-reviewed journals and their “Impact Factors” but did NOT know what to do about this ?:

National Cancer Institute
at the National Institutes of Health

Cancer Clinical Trials

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

” … whether or NOT the results are published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal … “
http://m.cancer.gov/topics/factsheets/clinical-trials

[4]
——————————————————————
Blaskiewicz, do you have this many honors / awards ?

20 – HONORS AND AWARDS

LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD. March 2012. Dallas /Ft. Worth, TX

The Order of Merit of the President of Poland – Officer’s Cross, October, 2004

Decoration of Polish Medical Association, November, 2001

The Order of Saint Brigida – Grand Cross with Star, November, 2001

The Order of Saint Stanislas – Grand Cross with Star, November, 2000

The Order of Reconciliation – Noember, 2000

The Cross Virtus Nobilitat, June, 1999

The Wisdom Award of Honor, December, 1998

The Medal of the President of City of Lublin, Poland, December, 1998

The Order of Saint Stanislas- Commander’s Cross with Star, December, 1997

The Lady Liberty Award “for engaging in invigorating the Right to be Secure in their Effects by fourteen years of perseverance in practicing his Profession free of interference by a government having no probable cause and in the determined resistance to that interference,” Libertarian Party of Texas, Dallas, TX, July, 1997

The Gold Medal from the American Institute of Polish Culture for outstanding achievements in the field of medicine and discovery of anti-cancer drugs antineoplastons, Miami, FL, February, 1997

The Medal “Heart for Hearts” for saving human lives, Lublin, Poland, August, 1997

The Memorial Medal of Zamoyski’s Lyceum in appreciation of outstanding contribution to increase scientific ranking of the school, Lublin, Poland, November, 1997

The Heritage Award by Polish American Congress in recognition of extraordinary achievement in the research, treatment, and prevention of cancer, Chicago, IL, October, 1993

Special Medal from the Polish government’s Institute for Drug Research and Control for achievement in the field of cancer research, Bialvstok, Poland, September, 1989

Honorable Membership in the Academia del Medeterraneo, Rome, Italy, 1984

Recipient of commendation for Dedicated Service and for Personal Contribution made in the
Advancement of Medical Education, Research and Health Care, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, April, 1977

Recipient of Medical Doctor Diploma with Distinction, Medical Academy, Lublin, Poland, 1967

Co-winner of the prize for best paper presented at the 7th Conference of Polish Medical Student Research
Societies, Poanan, Poland, 1966

[5]
——————————————————————
Why do some Burzynski critics claim they are NOT a “group” when they comment on each others blogs?

“That’s why I like the idea of the campaign that Bob Baskiewicz has come up with to wish Dr. Burzynski a happy birthday this year, skeptic style:”

(Citing and linking to 1/4/2013 blog)

1/4/2013 – Bob Blaskiewicz @rjblaskiewicz
Happy Birthday, Dr. Burzynski!
http://thehoustoncancerquack.com/2013/01/04/happy-birthday-dr-burzynski

3/15/2013 – Bob Blaskiewicz @rjblaskiewicz

https://twitter.com/gorskon/status/312601559647281154
retweeted David Gorski @gorskon Orac @oracknows (David H. Gorski) #sciencebasedmedicine

1/7/2013
Post #2 – rjblaskiewicz @rjblaskiewicz (Bob Blaskiewicz) – Wisconsin – Thanks, PZ

Posted by PZ Myers 1/6/2013
Let’s make Houston cancer quack Burzynski pay!

1/7/2013
Post #2 – Robert Blaskiewicz @rjblaskiewicz (Bob Blaskiewicz) –
“The Skeptics” non-group activity on Forbes:

[6]
——————————————————————

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/310589187797700608
Except YOU have NOT yet actually demonstrated that you believe in “interesting and civil discussions

[7]
——————————————————————

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/310856694525730817
Bobby, please point out where the Declaration of Helsinki supports your tweet?
http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3
[7]
——————————————————————
Please point out where the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) supports your tweet
http://m.cancer.gov/topics/factsheets/clinical-trials
[7]
——————————————————————

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/310923414175105024

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/311317995861442560
Do you mean THIS present ?

“Let’s make Houston cancer quack Burzynski pay!”

PZ Myers

“there is a plan to remind him of the grief he has caused”

“his snake oil”

“bilk people out of buckets of money”

“Crime does pay”

“This fraud”

“The Burzynski clinic is a place you go to die”

“The lies”

“his quackery”

======================================
Let’s make Houston cancer quack Burzynski pay!
Posted by PZ Myers on January 6, 2013
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/01/06/lets-make-houston-cancer-quack-burzynski-pay/
======================================
[7]
——————————————————————
Do you mean THIS St. Jude ?
St. Jude:
http://www.stjude.org/stjude/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=403c6f9523e70110VgnVCM1000001e0215acRCRD

2/15/2012 – the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has awarded St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital $4,314,800 for a childhood cancer survivor study

The new federal funds will be distributed by the National Cancer Institute (NCI)
http://cohen.house.gov/press-release/cohen-st-jude-receive-43-million-childhood-cancer-survivor-study

Burzynski does NOT receive Federal Funds

[7]
——————————————————————
Tax-Exempt: Receives Federal Grants / Funds
http://www.stjude.org/stjude/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=b7e79bb8a0cf5110VgnVCM1000001e0215acRCRD&cpsextcurrchannel=1
Burzynski does NOT receive Federal Grants

Burzynski is NOT Tax-Exempt

[7]
——————————————————————
Donations to St. Jude are tax deductible as allowed by law
http://www.stjude.org/stjude/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=6f8afa3186e70110VgnVCM1000001e0215acRCRD&vgnextchannel=2f62940504f9a210VgnVCM1000001e0215acRCRD

Burzynski donations can NOT be deducted from a U.S. Tax Return

[7]
——————————————————————
FORBES: St. Jude CEO – $742,718
http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
[7]
——————————————————————

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/310964881253867521
THIS Phenylbutyrate (PB) ?

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

SODIUM PHENYLBUTYRATE was given an orphan drug designation by the FDA for use as an adjunct to surgery,
radiation therapy, and
chemotherapy
for treatment of individuals with
primary or recurrent malignant glioma

Cumulative List of all Products that have received Orphan Designation: Total active designations: 2002 Effective: 5/5/2009
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/forindustry/developingproductsforrarediseasesconditions/howtoapplyfororphanproductdesignation/ucm162066.xls
PHENYLBUTYRATE and SODIUM PHENYLBUTYRATE are listed alphabetically in the lower 1/4th of this document

Pubmed 110 entries
Sodium Phenylbutyrate
“Sodium Phenylbutrate (aka PB) …”
Sodium Phenylbutyrate (PB)

Year – Pubmed (110 entries)
1958 1st entry
1995 1st clinical trial
2001 Phase 1
2009 Phase 2
2012 Phase 3

Bob, you do know that the research only took off once Dvorit D. Samid (Burzynski I) learned about it from Burzynski, right ?

[7]
——————————————————————

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/310979838372626432
THESE trials ?

2003 – 2006 Phase II preliminary reports

2003 – Phase II
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

recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma

antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1

6 months median duration of treatment
of all 12 patients

2 years / 33.3% – Survival

2 / 17% – alive and tumour free for over 5 years since initial diagnosis
from the start of treatment

5 years – 1 alive for more than
4 years – 1 alive for more than

Only mild and moderate toxicities were observed, which included
3 cases of skin allergy
2 cases of:
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

2005 – Phase II – 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

2006 – Phase II – 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

Or did you expect Burzynski to publish the final clinical trial results before they were finished, Bob?

[7]
——————————————————————
2/24/2013
http://www.skeptical.gb.net/blog/?p=1442
2/27/2013
http://www.skeptical.gb.net/blog/?p=1798
3/9/2013
http://www.thetwentyfirstfloor.com/?p=8001

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/311091486349475840
Bobby, oh REALLY ?

“The Skeptics” (Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business, Part II)

The “group” “The Sketics” claims is NOT a “group” and which allegedly does NOT spread “misinformation”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/the-skeptics

[7]
——————————————————————

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/311524673819144192
No Bobby, you did NOT

[7]
——————————————————————

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/311543395556409344
“VAMPIRE” ?

[7]
——————————————————————

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/311594720373645312
Bobby, like THIS ?

Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D and “Freedom of Speech”

“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting ‘fire’ in a theater and causing a panic.”

United States Supreme Court ruled 3/3/1919

Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/stanislaw-rajmund-burzynski-m-d-ph-d-and-freedom-of-speech

[7]
——————————————————————

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/311681213934997505
Bobby, like THIS ?
David H. Gorski and the Cult of “MISINFORMATION”
Colorado Public Television 12 – PBS: Part II
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/david-h-gorski-and-the-cult-of-misinformation
Orac and the Cult of “Misinformation” (Part III)
David H. Gorski
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/orac-and-the-cult-of-misinformation-part-iii
Josephine Jones and the Cult of Misinformation
JJ recently blogged:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/josephine-jones-and-the-cult-of-misinformation
Keir Liddle and the Cult of MISINFORMATION
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/09/keir-liddle-and-the-cult-of-misinformation
The Cult of “Misinformation”
Review of “disinformation,” “misinformation,” and “misdirection” posted by #Burzynski critics
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/the-cult-of-misinformation
The cult of “Misinformation” continued
Adam Jacobs
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/the-cult-of-misinformation-continued

[7]
——————————————————————

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/311854061550960642
Bobby, where’s your
Citation(s),
Reference(s), and / or
Link(s) ?

[7]
——————————————————————

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/311859126965788672
Bobby, Adam Jacobs does NOT care about “FREE SPEECH,” he censors it:
http://dianthus.co.uk/burzynski-qa

[7]
——————————————————————

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/311931318629986305
Well, Bobby, We know a lot of the skeptics seem to “hate” the truth

[7]
——————————————————————

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/312013682408292354
Bobby, maybe you should have actually watched THIS:

Burzynski Infomercial on Colorado PBS 12
http://www.skeptical.gb.net/blog/?p=2401

[7]
——————————————————————

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/312052091407433728
Bobby, maybe you should ACTUALLY listen to it

[7]
——————————————————————
https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/31212153099585536

Yeah, riiiiiiiiight, Bobby
rjblaskiewicz:

“Response to the release of Burzynski 2, Havanna Nights”
http://t.co/t9WMpNRN9L
Skeptical Humanities

Learning is Cool

Response to the release of Burzynski 2, Havanna Nights

Posted by Bob

On this week’s episode of the Virtual Skeptics, I replied to what was learned at the premiere of the new Burzynski movie

The text of my segment follows the episode

This week, the new Burzynski movie premiered in San Luis Obispo, California

We largely knew what was going to be in the movie since a couple of trailers had been released, the patients who appeared had talked about the filming, and there was a sort of credulous review had appeared a few days ahead of time and I believe the director may have mentioned it on a PBS fundraising specual a few days earlier

So we had a pretty good idea of what our proxies should be looking for

We really wanted to see if certain people who had been filmed, like Amelia Saunders or Hannah Bradley appeared and especially what was said about them

We wanted lists of people who appeared, to see if we might be able to put together who said what

Most of these people’s stories are well known, and we doubted there would be anything new

Also our people took down key quotes that struck them as important, like

(those notes did NOT seem very “key” considering Orac’s (David H. Gorski @gorskon #sciencebasedmedicine @ScienceBasedMed @oracknows)

“Second-Hand” “review” of Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business, Part II)

“skeptics are hiding behind their BS free speech.”

(Yep, TRUE)

[7]
——————————————————————
This is my takeaway, after talking to the people who I know were there

We are wiggly little scumbags who are hateful and slimy

(some skeptics seem to be “hateful” of the truth)

[7]
——————————————————————
We ridicule the desperate and dying

Some of us are paid by big pharma

Others are deluded and think that we are doing good but are being misled

(that is a fair description of “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “misdirection”)

[7]
——————————————————————
But make no mistake–and this was hammered home to me by everyone I talked to–we are to them pure evil

One of my big concerns going into the movie was how I was going to be portrayed and whether or not I was going to receive death threats

That my family was going to receive death threats or that I was going to be harassed at work

I feared this because of a letter that, as you know, was sent to my employer promising that I would be featuring prominently in the Burzynski movie

[7]
——————————————————————
Nobody asked me for my opinion or to give a statement or to respond or clarify; they went straight to my boss

Maybe they figured out your “opinion” and didn’t need any “clarification”

[7]
——————————————————————
Fine

I’ve had wacky people contact my employers in the past

I fully expect it to happen in the future

Clips of this show, episode 13, were included in the movie

This is the episode that was quoted in the letter on my university chancellor

As it turned out, our faces were blurred, our names obscured, and our voices were altered

No real identifying information

Which, you know, I’m OK with

However, there are some problems here

1) What was served by contacting my employer other than to scare me

How dare the filmmakers say that we’re terrorizing people when they are doing just that

Filmmakers ?

[7]
——————————————————————
2) Someone asked me about a quote,

“we’re coming for you, you little polish sausage you.”

The thing is, the quote is patently absurd if my name is shown, something that everyone here jumped on, like I hoped you would during the original episode

That joking was not conveyed to the skeptics in the theater audience

This might be due to the fact that not only were we given scary voices but also that apparently every time we appeared scary music played in the background

That might be funny to you but maybe not to your Human Resources Department, and if that was “scary voices” and “scary music” to you, what’s the last scary movie you saw?

Scooby Doo, Where are You?

[7]
——————————————————————
It’s clear that the reason I’m in the movie in the capacity I am, as chief bad guy, is because I’m on video talking about the Burzynski Clinic

Are you sure it’s not because you are somewhere behind Gorski with the disinformation?

After all, he was invited to appear in the movie

Were you ?

[7]
——————————————————————
And this leads me to another thing that Brian mentioned

That when we kind of appeared on the screen, they put up a title card type thing that said,

“skeptical teleconference”

or something like that, and that a woman at the end of the show, wanted to know,

“How did you get this footage of these scheming skeptics?”

Um….we publicize our show constantly?

If you can’t have real clandestine drama, you might as well make it up

My favorite bit was a tweet that I got around this time where a new account who followed like 10 people I do said,

“It’s really interesting when you talk about Burzynski on the show

Could you do that more?”

Really, Eric?

(Do you know it was Eric ?

After all, you thought I was Eric)
Bob Blaskiewicz

[7]
——————————————————————
Yeah, I have a feeling it’s Merola

That’s just me though

He’s way too invested in the hashtag in his movie to just let it drop
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg/2013/03/burzynski-another-fact-blind-troll-who-predicted-that/#comments

Do you think I’m two years old?
(Your “fact-checking” ability makes me wonder)

[7]
——————————————————————
I am interested in ultimately seeing it

I’m asking that the producer send a review copy to the James Randi Educational Foundation so a proper review can be done

(As if jref is a “reliable source”)

[7]
——————————————————————
Or you could screen it in Minneapolis

Next week works for me, Eric, if you’re free

I guess he wasn’t

[7]
——————————————————————
Another thing

News broke on the 7th of January in skeptical circles that the FDA was conducting an audit of the clinic

A patient in the movie apparently said that she had been receiving a brain scan when she heard that the Clinic was being investigated again

This means that material was added to the movie after the 7th of January

The Burzynski Birthday Fundraiser was announced by PZ Myers on the 6th

So there was more than enough time for the filmmaker to clarify exactly what was meant in that episode when I said that there was going to be a little present on his birthday

(That “present” PZ Myers was offering up ?)

[7]
——————————————————————
Skeptics evilly, and with malice aforethought, raised $14.5K dollars for St. Jude’s

We then challenged the Clinic to match us, and it didn’t

That the director did not mention this fact seems to me inexcusable, making us look like we are big meanos who hate babies and morality

(He could have mentioned your “Fave,” PZ Myers)

[7]
——————————————————————
This demonization is unfair and at the expense of the truth–if you ever read theotherburzynskipatientgroup blog you know whose side I’m on

P Z who ?

[7]
——————————————————————
If he used the video clip of us that he cited in his letter to my employer, about us bringing a “present” to Burzynski and knowing what it actually was without clarifying it, well, that just speaks to his regard for completeness and accuracy

I don’t think you really wanted P Z’s “present” “clarified”

[7]
——————————————————————
No messiah should need such fudging

It suggests to me that he’s forcing evidence into a pre-existing narrative of persecution

(And what do you call what YOU are doing ?)

[7]
——————————————————————
References:

PZ Myer’s announcement of the Houston Cancer Quack
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/01/06/lets-make-houston-cancer-quack-burzynski-pay/
The Virtual Skeptics episode that appears in the movie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IK-yF8w6nLo

RJB
rjblaskiewicz:
http://t.co/F79zndTjuZ

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/312234423288487936
Bob Blaskiewicz retweeted

https://twitter.com/jref/status/312255856928509953
Bobby, did you know that I tried to post a comment on the James Randi Educational Funding (jref) article Written by Brian Thompson, about this, but they did NOT post my response ?

Did you post something about “FREE SPEECH” ?

“Burzynski II” Fails to Convince
Swift”
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/2050-qburzynski-iiq-is-more-of-the-same.html

[7]
——————————————————————
My 1st-hand Review of Orac’s 2nd-Hand Review – Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business, Part II

Burzynski critic Orac blogged about “Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business, Part II”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/my-1st-hand-review-of-oracs-2nd-hand-review-burzynski-cancer-is-serious-business-part-ii

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/312998393259622402
Bobby, does this mean it will be punctuated correctly, but NOT “Fact-Checked” ?

[7]
——————————————————————

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/313465677614817280
Bobby, it did NOT help

[7]
——————————————————————

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/313496736708583424
rjblaskiewicz:
Not really. 🙂

[7]
——————————————————————

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/313508346399428608
That’s what I thought, Bobby

[7]
——————————————————————

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/313725494170361856

[7]
——————————————————————

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/313741293576667137

[7]
——————————————————————

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/310589187797700608
Bobby, what was that about
“many interesting and civil discussions” ?

[7]
——————————————————————
Bobby, you can’t always get what you want

But if you try sometime, you just might find

you get what you need

[7]
——————————————————————

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/314115938960154624
Bobby, let me guess

You are so busy tweeting about penises that you do NOT have enough time to “Fact-Check” ?

[7]
——————————————————————
You do know FDA required ?

” … 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
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/724445/000091205702038660/a2091272z10qsb.txt

[7]
——————————————————————

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/315972148684529664
Yes it does, Bobby
You’ve just been Insolently pwned

[7]
——————————————————————
Skeptical Humanities
Learning is Cool

A Letter to the PBS Ombudsman about CPT12′s Airing of
“Burzynski”
http://t.co/RxDZHDN2RM
Posted by Bob

PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler

“To understand the complexities and history involved takes a lot of work, far more than we could possibly expect of Mr. Getler”

(or, as I have proven, of YOU)
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/critiquing-bob-blaskiewicz-burzynski-cancer-is-serious-business-part-ii

[8]
——————————————————————
“That said, however, I do disagree with some of his conclusions”

(You could see that coming a mile away, couldn’t you?)

Getler starts off:

[ ” … It is about the decades-long struggle of a Polish-born physician and biochemist, Stanislaw Burzynski, who set up a clinic in Texas in 1976, to achieve acceptance for a cancer-cure therapy based on a treatment he developed based on what he calls “Antineoplastons.” [ANP]”

“I submit this is already wrong
There is little evidence that Burzynski is at all serious about developing antineoplastons for wider marketing”

THAT certainly explains the Phase III stuff

[8]
——————————————————————
“If that were true, surely he would have managed to have completed and published a single advanced trial in 35 years

Bob, who was ultimately in charge of the trials?

The FDA ?

[8]
——————————————————————
“If you look at the trials he’s been required to register at clinicaltrials.gov, you see over 60 trials, 1 completed, and none published

NONE”

Bobby, where is the
Citation(s),
Reference(s), and / or
Link(s)

that support your
“required to register”
statement ?

NONE ?

Are you a sociopath who thinks that people should believe you just because you blogged or twitted it ?

[8]
——————————————————————
“This is important because he is restricted to giving his ANP in clinical trials

But he apparently abandons his trials, almost all of them

This is not normal”

Bobby, how many is
“almost all of them” ?

[8]
——————————————————————
“He charges patients out the nose to participate in the clinical trials

This is not normal”

Does it cost as much as any of THESE ?

Cost cancer: The hospital wanted a $30,000 deposit
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-16/politics/health.care.hearing_1_health-insurance-post-claims-underwriting-individual-health?_s=PM:POLITICS
2008 – Cost cancer insurance: Avastin, made by Genentech, is a wonder drug. Approved for patients with advanced lung, colon or breast cancer, it cuts off tumors’ blood supply, an idea that has tantalized science for decades. And despite its price, which can reach $100,000 a year, Avastin has become one of the most popular cancer drugs in the world, with sales last year of about $3.5 billion, $2.3 billion of that in the United States. Avastin costs $50,000 a year and adds four months of life. “There is a shocking disparity between value and price,” he said, “and it’s not sustainable.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/health/06avastin.html?_r=0
Cost cancer chemo up-front: $45,000 to Come In
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120934207044648511.html?mod=2_1566_topbox#articleTabs%3Darticle
3/2012 – Total Cost of Cancer Care by Site of Service: Physician Office vs Outpatient Hospital (22 pages)
http://www.avalerehealth.net/news/2012-04-03_COA/Cost_of_Care.pdf
CHEMOTHERAPY:
9/24/2012 – The newspapers found hospitals are routinely marking up prices on cancer drugs by two to 10 times over cost. Some markups are far higher. • Levine Cancer Institute, owned by Charlotte-based Carolinas HealthCare, this year collected nearly $4,500 for a 240-milligram dose of irinotecan, a drug used to treat people with colon or rectal cancer. The average sales price for that amount of the drug: less than $60.
• Carolinas Medical Center-NorthEast in Concord was paid about $19,000 for a one-gram dose of rituximab, used to treat lymphoma and leukemia. That was roughly three times the average sales price.
• Forsyth Medical Center in Winston-Salem, owned by Novant Health, collected about $680 for 50 milligrams of cisplatin. The markup: more than 50 times the average sales price. Treating a cancer patient with Avastin, for instance, costs about $90,000 a year, doctors say
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/09/24/3549634/prices-soar-as-hospitals-dominate.html
5/14/2012 – Oral anti-cancer medications, on the other hand, are generally considered a pharmacy benefit. Instead of a co-payment, plan members often pay a percentage of the drugs’ cost — up to 50 percent, in some cases — with no annual out-of-pocket limit. And these drugs are expensive, often costing tens of thousands of dollars a year.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-05-14/national/35457286_1_lung-cancer-drug-drugs-work-multiple-myeloma-patients
RADIATION:
1/4/2013 – The new study was the most comprehensive cost analysis ever, and it compared the costs and outcomes associated with the various types of treatment for all forms of the disease, which ranged from $19,901 for robot-assisted prostatectomy to treat low-risk disease, to $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, the researchers looked at 26,163 women with localized breast cancer who had undergone surgery and radiation from 2001 to 2005. They found that Medicare billing for IMRT increased from 0.9% of patients diagnosed in 2001 to 11.2% of women whose breast cancer was diagnosed in 2005.
The average cost for radiation treatment during the first year was $7,179 for non-IMRT and $15,230 with IMRT. Moreover, billing for IMRT was more than five times higher in regions across the nation where the local Medicare coverage determinations were favorable to IMRT compared to regions where coverage was unfavorable. sorafenib (Nexavar) in kidney cancer as an example. “NICE evaluated sorafenib as it was indicated for kidney cancer and determined that it indeed had value, but not $80,000 per year’s worth. The agency said that it would reimburse one-third of the total cost, and if the drug company wants to market their product to 60 million British citizens, they will need to be price flexible,”
http://www.ascopost.com/issues/march-15-2012/rising-costs-in-radiation-oncology-linked-to-medicare-coverage.aspx

http://cancer.disease.com/Treatment/Radiation-Therapy

Bob, did you watch Burzynski 2 and hear the lady talk about how much it was costing someone she knew for “traditional treatment ?

[8]
——————————————————————
“This is not the behavior of someone who intends to market the product widely later and expects a return on an investment

It sure looks like someone taking the money while he can”

THAT sure explains THIS 7/5/2012 Marketing and Consulting Agreement contract:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/724445/000110465912047927/a12-16018_1ex10d10.htm

[8]
——————————————————————
“I put the word “documentary” in quotes above because while the actual film does indeed document very well Burzynski’s seemingly endless battle to win acceptance and approval for his treatment against the FDA, National Cancer Institute, patent challenges and big pharmaceutical companies — and includes very powerful filmed interviews with cancer survivors who say his treatment (in Texas, where it was allowed) saved them — it doesn’t have the kind of critical other-side that one is used to in other documentaries

That last part is true
the movie is one-sided”

Bobby, you do know that Eric Merola offered oncologist and self-described researcher, David H. Gorski

(@gorskon @oracknows @ScienceBasedMed #sciencebasedmedicine http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org)

the opportunity to appear in
Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business, Part II, and he REFUSED, right ?

[8]
——————————————————————
“Of course, why this is might be more apparent if Mr. Getler had realized that Merola’s cousin was a patient of Burzynski (she later died, of course) and that Merola raised funds for his cousin’s treatments on his website

Merola is not impartial

He has skin in the game

He has sunk an enormous amount into Burzynski”

Yeah, just like every other documentary film-maker or director of multiple movies re the same subject (Jaws, Terminator, Predator, Alien, etc.)

[8]
——————————————————————
“Mr. Getler mentions that Shari Bernson, the person responsible for the programming and who appeared in fundraising spots, described the movie as “controversial.”

To someone on the outside, it may appear to be controversial

To someone who understands the science and process of publication and who has found endless descriptions of how patients end up making really, really bad choices out of desperation at that clinic, however, there is no controversy”

The “controversy” is “The Skeptics” who do NOT know how to “Fact-Check,” and instead “Insert Foot in Mouth”

[8]
——————————————————————
“The fact remains that after 35+ years, the Clinic has never produced a single reproducible result that would constitute the barest minimum for serious consideration among experts

It just hasn’t”

That certainly explains the antineoplaston studies done in Poland, South Korea, Russia, Egypt, Japan, China, Taiwan (ROC), and the USA

That China published their most recent antineoplaston A10 study 10/1/2010
Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry
October 2010, Volume 286, Issue 1, pp 135-140
#Burzynski References: 5. – 6.

[8]
——————————————————————
The Randomized Japan study is scheduled for publication THIS year

“Should that ever happen (I’m not holding my breath), then, hell, yes, we’ll be on board cheering the advance of science”

“But he has to play by the rules

And this is important too, playing by the rules that all real researchers abide to

Part of the FDA’s job is to ensure that Burzynski’s people are doing this

And on February 7th, they were doing just that; they were in the facility inspecting to make sure that Burzynski’s team was playing by the rules

In a FOIA release this week, the FDA revealed a number of things that had been found out and reported to the clinic by the time the movie aired

By law, the Clinic had 15 days to respond, so if they responded, it was before CPT12′s love-in

(The observational notes can be found here:”
http://skepticalhumanities.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/burzynskiform483feb2013.pdf)

“Two investigators observed:”

“The IRB [Institutional Review Board] used an expedited review procedure for research which did not appear in an FDA list of categories eligible for expedited review, and which had not previously been approved by the IRB”

“Specifically, your IRB routinely provided expedited approvals for new subjects to enroll under Single Patient Protocols.”

“[2 adults and 3 pediatric patients are mentioned]”

“The IRB approved the conduct of research, but did not determine that the risks to subjects were reasonable in relation to the anticipated benefits (if any) to subjects, and to the importance of the knowledge that might be expected to result”

“Specifically, your IRB gave Expedited Approval for several Single Patient Protocols (SPP) without all the information necessary to determine that the risk to subjects are minimized.”

“[4 examples follow]”

“The IRB did not determine at the time of initial review that a study was in compliance with 21 CFR Part 50 Subpart D, ‘Additional Safeguards for Children in Clinical Investigations.’”

“Specifically, an IRB that reviews and approves research involving children is required to make a finding that the study is in compliance with 21 CFR Part 50 Subpart D, ‘Additional Safeguards for Children in Clinical Investigations.’”

“Your IRB approved research involving children without documentation of the IRBs finding that the clinical investigation satisfied the criteria under Subpart D.””

“[3 examples follow and there is a note that this is a repeat observation that had been found in an Oct 2010 Inspection.]”

“The IRB did not follow its written procedure for conducting its initial review of research”

“Specifically, the IRB is required to follow its written procedures for conducting initial and continuing review”

“Your IRB did not follow your written procedures for conducting initial and continuing review because these subjects received IRB approval via an expedited review procedure not described in your Standard Operating Procedures”

“If your IRB would have followed your own SOP for initial and continuing review, the following subjects would have received review and approval from the full board rather than an expedited review.””

“[2 adults and 3 pediatric patients are listed.]”

“The IRB has no written procedures for ensuring prompt reporting to the IRB, appropriate institutional officials, and the FDA of any unanticipated problems involving risks to human subjects or others”

“Specifically, your current SOP-2012 v2-draft doc does not describe the requirements on Investigators on how unanticipated problems are reported to the IRB, Institutional Official, and the FDA, such as time intervals and the mode of reporting, or otherwise address how the prompt reporting of such instances will be ensured.”

“The IRB has no written procedures [in the SOP-2012 v2-draft doc] for ensuring prompt reporting to the IRB, appropriate institutional officials, and the FDA of any instance of serious or continuing noncompliance with theses [sic] regulations or the requirements or determinations of the IRB.”

“A list of IRB members has not been prepared and maintained, identifying members by name, earned degrees, representative capacity, and any employment or other relationship between each member and the institution.”

“You have to play by the rules”

So, NOT as bad as THIS 9 pager ?
http://www.pharmalive.com/fda-warns-stem-cell-company-over-violations

Bob, you know these are just allegations, right ?

Not the final report ?

[8]
——————————————————————
“I’m not sure that this round of investigation is over yet, as the audience at the premier of the sequel was apparently told that the FDA was still on site”

“Researchers should not be playing fast and loose with the rules that protect children (a protected subject population, like prisoners and students–yeah, I’m IRB certified)”

“There should be procedures in place to see that proper oversight and reporting of unexpected events is ensured”

“Hell, there was apparently no document even saying WHO was on the IRB!”

“This is not a report on a serious research institution”

“It’s more like the observations of the IRB of a clown school”

How many more businesses with more IRB issues than Burzynski did you find during you intense “Fact-Finding” mission ?

Bob, did you read Burzynski’s publications with their notes about the IRB ?

“Back to Mr Getler’s letter:”

“On the other hand, Bernson’s sidekick on the in-studio, pledge-drive promotion who was interviewing the clinic spokesman, made me gag when she said,
“I’m Rebecca Stevens and I’m proud to be a journalist who asks the hard questions.”

There were no hard questions”

[I believe the question that followed up this statement was, “What is peer-review?”–RJB]

“And where Bernson may have gone too far, depending on who you believe, was in her statement that:

“Antineoplaston therapy has had significant success rates with terminal brain cancer patients and especially in children.”

No, she went too far no matter who you believe, and his next paragraph demonstrates this:”

“The National Cancer Institute, reporting last month on Antineoplastons, said, among other things:

“No randomized, controlled trials showing the effectiveness of antineoplastons have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals”
and that they are
“not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the prevention or treatment of any disease.”

Aaaand…how’s that controversial?

In light of this, how could Sherri possibly be right?

My bottom line is that CPT12 obviously has a right to show this film

Nobody questions that

“What we wanted, and what was offered to the station, was the opportunity to have an independent oncologist in the studio at the time of the broadcast, you know, to stir up the kind of informed discussion the station says they want to have instead of settling for two True Believers talking to two CPT12 pitch people”

“When the station had that opportunity, they walked away from it”

“That’s indefensible”

Bob, like your man-crush oncologist who refuses to debate ?

[8]
——————————————————————
“Especially when you consider that the people we are worried about, patients and their families, may NOT be as discerning as your average viewer, as CPT President Willard Rowland suggests in his response to the ombudsman:

“The program’s airing is grounded in the station’s mission, specifically those portions about respecting our viewers as inquisitive and discerning citizens, addressing social issues and public concerns not otherwise adequately covered in the community, and cultivating an environment of discovery and learning.”

Some of them haven’t had good news since their diagnosis”

“Then they hear that some lone genius with the cure for cancer is operating in Houston and they are on the next flight down”

“I’ve seen it dozens of times, and I have hundreds more patients on deck to write about”

“These are vulnerable, vulnerable people who deserve the best information from their public broadcasters”

“I’m fairly disappointed by the tepid response, honestly”

“I have a hard time imagining that Mr. Getler, or Mr Willard Rowland for that matter, could possibly think that this program was anything but misleading if they spent a half hour at The OTHER Burzynski Patient Group, which chronicles, in patients’ own words, what goes on in that Clinic”

“All of the people told that getting worse is getting better”

“(for decades being fed the same line!),

the children having strokes

(unrelated to their tumors)

while on the medicine, the “terrifying” amounts of sodium that go into patients”

“The quasi-legalistic threats and phone calls to dissatisfied cancer patients”

“The untested chemo cocktails given to most of his patients”

“None of that was mentioned in the CPT12 fundraiser”

“Of course, that’s not Mr. Getler’s fight”

RJB
http://skepticalhumanities.com/2013/03/26/a-letter-to-the-pbs-ombudsman-about-cpt12s-airing-burzynski
Maybe you should go here and explain the critics actions:
https://www.facebook.com/questions/488444654552853

[8]
——————————————————————
HoustonCancerQuack proclaims:

“Fact-checking Burzynski II”

“DO YOU THINK YOU HAVE AN OPEN MIND?”

“DO YOU HAVE THE ALL THE FACTS?”

Let’s find out if they have all the “FACTS,” shall we?

“Basic claims about ANP”

“Antineoplastons are chemotherapy, regardless of what supporters say”

Bob, it is NOT “ordinary” chemotherapy”

[9]
——————————————————————
“Toxicity, reactions, and even patient deaths can and do happen due to their administration”

FACT: Is any citation, reference, or link to an independent reliable source provided for this claim?

“patient deaths can and do happen due to their administration”

NO

FACT: This is only an “opinion” until it is supported by “FACTS”

Here is what the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) lists as POSSIBLE “Adverse Effects”:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/healthprofessional/page6

[9]
——————————————————————
“The most common side effect of ANP, hypernatremia, is an effect of the sodium in the mixture”

FACT: Is any citation, reference, or link to an independent reliable source provided for this claim?

NO

FACT: Is “HYPERNATREMIA” listed on the above National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) list as a possible “Adverse Effect”?

Let’s see what we can find out about “HYPERNATREMIA,” shall we?

2/13/2013 – The frequency, cost, and clinical outcomes of HYPERNATREMIA in patients hospitalized to a comprehensive cancer center
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23404230
Division of Internal Medicine, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
Department of General Internal Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
Division of Endocrinology, Mayo Clinic
Support Care Cancer. 2013 Feb 13. [Epub ahead of print]
(Supportive Care in Cancer)
DOI
10.1007/s00520-013-1734-6
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00520-013-1734-6
This 3 month study of 3,446 patients in 2006 found that most of the HYPERNATREMIA (90 %) was acquired during hospital stay

HYPERNATREMIA in the U.S.:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000394.htm
HYPERNATREMIA is the most common electrolyte disorder in the United States

In some cases, cancer may cause the condition

[9]
——————————————————————
“In order to maintain their doses of ANP, patients are required to drink obscene amounts of water every day (some report up to 12 quarts or more)”

“If they fail to do so, they may lapse into unconsciousness or die”

Let’s put this in perspective

FACT: Some sources indicate:

1) A man should drink about
3 liters (101.44 ounces / 3 quarts 5.44 ounces) per day
{12 quarts = 384 ounces = 11.356 liters}
[12 quarts in 24 hours = 1/2 quart or 16 ounces per hour]

2) Extremely healthy kidneys could process about 30 ounces (approx .9 liters) of water in an hour
{30 ounces in 24 hours = 720 ounces}
[720 ounces = 22.5 quarts per day]

3) A person with healthy kidneys could develop water intoxication by drinking about 2 to 3 times what their kidneys can process

So, if extremely healthy kidneys could process about 30 ounces per hour and 12 quarts per day would require one to only drink 16 ounces per hour, that means one is being asked to drink 14 ounces less per hour than what extremely healthy kidneys could process

So even if one drinks more than 16 ounces per hour so that one does not have to be awake hourly, there is still opportunity to do that

Of course, there are certain other factors that might have to be taken into consideration depending on the patient

“There are two cases of children (Haley S. and Elizabeth K.) at The OTHER Burzynski Patient Group who have had strokes unrelated to their tumors, likely because of the treatment”

FACT: Is any citation, reference, or link to an independent reliable source provided for this claim?

NO

FACT: Is “STROKE” listed on the above National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) list as a possible “Adverse Effect”?

FACT: This is only an “opinion” until it is supported by “FACTS”

[9]
——————————————————————
“For an example of a patient nearly overdosing, see Adam M’s story”

“Patients seem to often end up in the hospital because of the treatment”

FACT: Is any citation, reference, or link to an independent reliable source provided for this claim?

NO

FACT: Is “ENDING UP IN THE HOSPITAL” listed on the above National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) list as a possible “Adverse Effect”?

FACT: This is only an “opinion” until it is supported by “FACTS”

[9]
——————————————————————
“A surgical oncologist, researcher and patient advocate explains why physicians question Dr. Burzynski’s methods:”

My blog explains WHY I question this physician:
http://www.stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com

[9]
——————————————————————
“This physician and others declined to be interviewed for the movie because of Merola’s track record of slanted presentation and because of past threats issued by people hired by the Burzynski Clinic”

“Past threats issued by people hired by the Burzynski Clinic”?

FACT: Is any citation, reference, or link to an independent reliable source provided for this claim?

NO

FACT: This is only an “opinion” until it is supported by “FACTS”

excuses, Excuses, EXCUSES
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/18/david-h-gorskis-conspiracy-mongering-and-more-of-his-dr-stanislaw-burzynski-stories

[9]
——————————————————————
“What was the “present” from skeptics that was alluded to in the movie?”

“The “present” the Skeptics for the Protection of Cancer Patients (SPCP) delivered to Burzynski on his birthday, was a donation of $14,500 to St Jude Children’s Hospital for research into childhood cancers”

“They challenged Dr. Burzynski to match their donation”

“He did not”

“In fact, some of the interviews in the movie (conducted after the FDA inspection of the Burzynski Clinic, mentioned at the end) were filmed after the fundraiser had been announced, so Merola seems to have deliberately omitted the whole truth, because he certainly was aware of it”

“Doesn’t sound so sinister now, does it?”

“Also, Burzynski got a card”

Want to know what that “PRESENT” really was?

Critiquing Bob Blaskiewicz
(#Burzynski Cancer is Serious Business, Part II)
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/critiquing-bob-blaskiewicz-burzynski-cancer-is-serious-business-part-ii

[9]
——————————————————————
“Are skeptics really calling out cancer patients, ridiculing and harassing them?”

You tell me:

https://twitter.com/Ac2cSheila/status/186164592676843520

https://twitter.com/RatbagsDotCom/status/304050113834262528

[9]
——————————————————————
“What about the 2-hour rejection from The Lancet?”

“The vast majority of papers that get rejected from The Lancet are rejected within 48 hours thanks to an editorial pre-screening process”

“Most researchers are thankful for this courtesy because it allows them to resubmit to other journals more quickly”

“Why does Merola try to convince the audience that this is evidence of a conspiracy against Burzynski?”

Why bring it up if you really have nothing to add that is relevant?

FACT: The Lancet Oncology will not discuss any submission that may or may not have been submitted to The Lancet Oncology with anyone other than the corresponding author

To do so would constitute a breach in confidentiality

[9]
——————————————————————
“Patients pay a lot of money upfront to enter his clinical trials, presumably believing that the trials will eventually be published”

Is that really the patients’
motivation?

FACT: Is any citation, reference, or link to an independent reliable source provided for this claim?

NO

FACT: This is only an “opinion” until it is supported by “FACTS”

[9]
——————————————————————
“Burzynski has never published the results of those trials but keeps the money:”

Really?

Burzynski Clinical Trials (The SEC filings)
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/11/burzynski-clinical-trials-2

[9]
——————————————————————
“Burzynski’s abysmal trial completion record, over sixty abandoned trials, the trust of every patient who participated betrayed”

“If trial completion were a batting average, he’d be batting .016”

Really?

FACTS:
http://cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/search/results?protocolsearchid=11475951

http://cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/search/results?protocolsearchid=11476036

[9]
——————————————————————
“His publication average is .000”

“Really:”
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=burzynski&pg=1
REALLY?
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/18/david-h-gorskis-conspiracy-mongering-and-more-of-his-dr-stanislaw-burzynski-stories

[9]
——————————————————————
“Speaking of harassment…”

“Merola does not mention that skeptics only caught wind of the Burzynski story in November 2011, after a teenaged blogger critical of the Clinic received phony legal threats from someone who had been hired by the Clinic to “clean up” its reputation”

“This person, Marc Stephens, sent this high school student images of his family’s home, the message clearly:”

“We know where you live.”

“These threats were well documented in the international press”

“Somehow Merola managed to not mention that in the movie”

Maybe it wouldn’t be so bad if the loquacious “teenaged” high school student got his “FACTS” straight:

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
[9]
——————————————————————
“What really happened to Amelia Saunders?”

“Merola suggests that Amelia Saunders died as a result of her parents taking her off of antineoplaston therapy, that there “confusion and disagreement” between the doctors in the UK and Houston’s reading”

Really?

https://twitter.com/frozenwarning/status/312141313451634688

https://twitter.com/BurzynskiMovie/status/312256370936266752

https://twitter.com/BurzynskiMovie/status/312264347277737984

https://twitter.com/BurzynskiMovie/status/312270472341487616
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 11:49pm – 14 Mar 13:
http://t.co/wxU2PHJ3GD

https://twitter.com/BurzynskiMovie/status/312425208462049280
[9]
——————————————————————
“We hope this makes it clear that what you are seeing in the new Burzynski movie may not be entirely reliable”

So … like your blog?

[9]
——————————————————————
“As we get more information about the claims in the movie, we will add additional rebuttals and provide context for understanding what really goes on at the Burzynski Clinic”
http://www.anp4all.com
I can’t wait
http://thehoustoncancerquack.com/fact-checking-burzynski-ii
[9]
======================================
Burzynski referenced by other doctors:

Phase II trial of tipifarnib and radiation in children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas
http://neuro-oncology.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/3/298.full
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
5.723 Impact Factor
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

[10]
——————————————————————
“[T]he emphasis in Phase 2 is on EFFECTIVENESS”

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

[11]
——————————————————————
9-10/2009 – Stable disease is a valid end point in clinical trials
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19826356/
strong>10,675 – # of times “stable disease” found on PubMed
[12]
——————————————————————
costs (see above)

[13]
——————————————————————
rjblaskiewicz 1 week ago
(@rjblaskiewicz a/k/a Blatherskitewicz)

Mr. R.J. Blaskiewicz, is well known as:
“Bob Blaskiewicz, Faux Skeptic Exposed!”

There are numerous Internet pages and great pictures of him re Atlanta, Georgia, where he was called out, but hid behind his keyboard:

[14]
——————————————————————
Forbes – Waiting for the 10,000

Bob, I thought it funny that “The Skeptics” were allowed to comment freely on #Forbes, without citations, references, or links, while my comments were deleted

Did they ever have 10,000 views like Boris Ogon posted ?

[15]
——————————————————————
Forbes – rjblaskiewicz 6 days ago

“It’s not a thread about the inherent corruption throughout all of medicine.”

“It’s about some bully/man-child trying to shut up critics.”

Mr. rjblaskiewicz (also known as Bob Blaskiewicz), so, like Forbes was?

[16]
——————————————————————
c0nc0rdance – http://t.co/WDfUPtBpmz
56.�skeptical humanities
http://t.co/aMJ1HaUTfh
57.�skeptical humanities
http://t.co/EGhiG5WgQA
58.�skeptical humanities
http://t.co/Fwkd7x2E0C

Bob, how many times did y’all need to “mirror” the video ?

[17]
——————————————————————
David James (@stortskeptic) chat room
(@SkepticCanary)(@_JosephineJones)

Skeptic Canary – blogtalkradio

Man-crush

Freedom from Facts

Informed consent

Phenylbutyrate (PB)

Hypernatraemia

Skeptics are opposed to facts

Bob, you and Gorski did a great job of NOT cover these issues

BB claims his rbutr has been used to “Fair and utterly destroyed it,” in relation to “Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business

BB states:

“His son I believe trained in Poland”
Blatherskitewicz, with your phenomenal attention to detail, aren’t you positive?

BB mentions two (2) possible honorary professorships in China for Dr. Burzynski

Call in comments

[18]
——————————————————————
Faux Skeptic
Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz)
6/3/13, 3:49 PM
@FauxSkeptic @bbc5live I believe he said, “Put up or shut up, you little bitch.” Something like that.

[19]
——————————————————————
March 29, 1996

Then United States Food and Drug Administration Commissioner, David Kessler told the American people:

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

2. The … FDA’s initiatives … will allow …the agency … to rely on smaller trials … fewer patients … if there is evidence … of partial response in clinical trials
I don’t want to get into any particular … agent … except let me point out … that … the information needs to be part … of clinical trials
3. We will accept … less information … up front –

4. we’re going to require further study AFTER … approval … because the science … has matured

5. The important – point … is that information needs to be gathered … through scientific means … through clinical – trials … and I think – that’s … that’s very important uhh very … important point
You can’t … just … use an agent here – or there … you have to use it … as part of a clinical trial … so we can get information … on whether the drug works

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

7. We are committed to providing expanded access … availability … for American patients for any drug … there’s reason to believe … may work
—————————————————————
A. What is the FDA’s definition of “unnecessary paperwork”?

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

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

D. What is the FDA’s definition of “evidence … of psrtial response”?

E. What is the FDA’s definition of “less information … up front”?

F. What is the FDA’s definition of “we’re going to require further study AFTER … approval”?

G. What is the FDA’s definition of “We are committed to providing expanded access … availability … for American patients for any drug … there’s reason to believe … may work”?

[20]
——————————————————————
?
Oncologist

Survival rate 776 15%

2 1/2 million pages

Phase 3 radiation

Lancet

1652 / 335 = 1,799

Accelerated approval

Bob, at least we talked about some of these

[21]
——————————————————————
IRB – FDA

Burzynski’s publications sometimes mentioned IRB was agreed on per FDA

[22]
——————————————————————
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…

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/362599624596393984

[23]
——————————————————————
Robert J. (Bob) Blaskiewicz, Professor
Bob Blaskiewicz Faux Skeptic Exposed!
@rjblatherskiewicz
Blatherskitewicz
University of Wisconsin
rbutr
r-but-r
Eau Claire, Wisconsin
——————————————————————
http://www.skepticalhumanities.com/
——————————————————————
http://virtualskeptics.com/
——————————————————————
http://rbutr.com/
——————————————————————
http://blog.rbutr.com/
——————————————————————
http://www.uwec.edu/Staff/blaskir/
——————————————————————
http://www.csicop.org/author/rblaskiewicz
——————————————————————
http://necss.org/speakers/bob-blaskiewicz/
——————————————————————
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/speakers/blaskiewicz_bob
——————————————————————
http://lanyrd.com/2013/tam/sckkdy/
======================================
http://thehoustoncancerquack.com/

[24]
——————————————————————
Critiquing https://theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com

[25]
——————————————————————
25. 6/20/2013 Mark Burger published a review:
——————————————————————
http://www.yesweekly.com/triad/article-16162-burzynski-cancer-is-.html
——————————————————————
As could be expected, The Skeptics™
showed up
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “I’m afraid you’ve fallen for Dr Burzynski’s PR efforts here”
——————————————————————
LIE: The documentary film is by Eric Merola, NOT “Dr. Burzynski’s Public Relations”
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “In reality, Dr B is a quack and a charlatan of the worst order, and the movie is nothing more than a desperate attempt to try to sell his snake oil to the gullible”
——————————————————————
LIE: After reading through the comments, this sounds like the infamous lying Professor Robert J. (Bob) Blaskiewicz of University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire, “infamy”, who is a charlatan of the first order, and belabors his ignorance by referring to “snake oil”, which as far as I know, has never been approved for phase III clinical trials, unlike Dr. Burzynski’s antineoplastons A10 (Atengenal) and AS2-1 (Astugenal)
——————————————————————
Bob Blaskiewicz (Blatherskitewicz), Faux Skeptic Exposed!:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/bob-blaskiewicz-blatherskitewicz-faux-skeptic-exposed/
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “You have to ask why he’s never published any data showing that his treatment works”
——————————————————————
LIE: What people should ask is why does “Professor” @rjblaskiewicz and his other Skeptic pals continue posting idiotic statements like this on the Internet and social media (Twitter) ?
——————————————————————
Critiquing David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/critiquing-david-h-gorski-md-phd-facs-www-sciencebasedmedicine-orgeditorial-staffdavid-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “Well, if you believe everything the movie tells you, then perhaps you think it’s because of a huge global conspiracy that prevents him from publishing in any journal anywhere in the world”
——————————————————————
If you want to talk Jesse Ventura type “conspiracy theory”:

1. Why are The Skeptics™ like you too afraid to debate ?

2. Why did your “pal” David H. “Orac” Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS block me on his blog for questioning his infallibility ?

3. Why did Forbes delete my comments when I questioned The Skeptics™? regarding your “pal” Gorski’s “bud”, Peter A. Lipson, MD’s article ?

4. Why did The Skeptics™ Josephine Jones block me from her blog ?

5. Why did The Skeptics™ Adam Jacobs block me from his blog ?

6. Why did The Skeptics™ Guy Chapman block me from his blog ?

7. Why did The Skeptics™ Keir Liddle block me from his blog ?

8. Why do The Skeptics™ whine to Twitter in order to get Twitter to suspend the accounts of people who question them ?

9. Why did Wikipedia block me, using lame excuses ?

10. Why did reddit act like wiki’s little bitch and delete my posts and block my comments because this reddiot davidreiss666 whined like a little bitch ?
——————————————————————
overview for DidymusJudasThomas (reddit.com)

submitted 4 days ago by davidreiss666 to reportthespammers

1 comment
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “Even if you are sufficiently conspiracy minded to believe that’s true, then it still doesn’t explain why he hasn’t published his results on the clinicaltrials dot gov website, where most of his trials are recorded as either “ongoing”, “withdrawn”, or “unknown status””
——————————————————————
Did you NOT appear on the below blog talk radio show with your “pal” Gorski who said at 29:00 that Burzynski should NOT publish the information himself ?
——————————————————————
Ep09 – Talking Burzynski – David Gorski and Bob Blaskiewicz 05/29/2013
Skeptic Canary Show – BlogTalkRadio
May 29, 2013 … This week, join your hosts as we talk about Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski and the Burzynski Clinic. Well be joined by two special guest, Doctor David Gorski and Bob Blaskiewicz
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/…/ep09–talking-burzynski–david-gorski-and-bob-blaskiewicz
——————————————————————
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/skepticcanary/2013/05/29/ep09–talking-burzynski–david-gorski-and-bob-blaskiewicz
——————————————————————
http://goo.gl/7pWIj
——————————————————————
http://bit.ly/15lv5zG
——————————————————————
Critiquing the #SkepticCanary: “The Skeptics™” (SkeptiCowards©) Bob Blatherskitewicz and the so-called, “self-proclaimed” “CANCER RESEARCHER”:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/critiquing-the-skepticcanary-the-skeptics-skepticowards-bob-blatherskitewicz-and-the-so-called-self-proclaimed-cancer-researcher/
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “Only one of his trials is recorded as being completed, and that one doesn’t reveal it’s results”
——————————————————————
Did you notice that your above 5/29/2013 appearance was BEFORE this article was published 6/20/2013 ?
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “The fact is that Burzynski keeps is actual research data an extremely closely guarded secret”
——————————————————————
Like THIS ?
——————————————————————
Critiquing: Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski, M.D., Ph.D, L.I.A.R.:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/07/critiquing-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-m-d-ph-d-l-i-a-r/
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “If is treatment were actually effective, do you seriously think he’d do that?”
——————————————————————
RATS!!!. Like this ?
——————————————————————
Burzynski: Oh, RATS!!!
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/26/the-lancet-oncology-peer-review-team-d-12-01519-fail-2/
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “Burzynski likes to cultivate his conspiracy theories because it helps his business of scamming vulnerable cancer patients”
——————————————————————
Is that like The Skeptics™ like to LIE to people ?
——————————————————————
Critiquing: In which the latest movie about Stanislaw Burzynski “cancer cure” is reviewed…with Insolence:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/critiquing-in-which-the-latest-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-cure-is-reviewed-with-insolence-2/
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “For Burzynski, at least, cancer is indeed serious business”
——————————————————————
And for you, it must be a joke, considering how you are too much of a coward to debate questions like these
——————————————————————
QUESTIONS the Critics and Cynics, “The Skeptics™” do NOT want to ANSWER:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/23/questions-the-critics-and-cynics-the-skeptics-do-not-want-to-answer/
======================================
JEFF: “it has been tested independently in other countries, as the film shows”
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “The Japanese study remains unpublished, Jeff, just like all the over 60 studies Burzynski has started”

“Even if it were published, it would need to be replicated”
——————————————————————
Really ? Why not try pointing out where these studies were replicated before the FDA allowed these drugs to be used ?
——————————————————————
Burzynski: Why has the FDA NOT granted Accelerated Approval for Antineoplastons A10 (Atengenal) and AS2-1 (Astugenal) ?
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/burzynski-why-has-the-fda-not-granted-accelerated-approval-for-antineoplastons-a10-astengenal-and-as2-1-astugenal/
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “Merola manipulated by voice, face and even what I said in his movie and never asked for my comments”

“Sure, he misrepresented me to my new employers, but that doesn’t actually count as consulting me, now does it?”

“The “birthday surprise” in the movie was a fundraiser for a children’s cancer research hospital that raised over $15K, something I’m rather proud of, actually”
——————————————————————
Nice TRY with your LIE
——————————————————————
Critiquing Bob Blaskiewicz (#Burzynski Cancer is Serious Business, Part II):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/critiquing-bob-blaskiewicz-burzynski-cancer-is-serious-business-part-ii/
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “I’d encourage you to look at the other side of the story at The OTHER Burzynski Patient Group”

“These are far more typical outcomes”
——————————————————————
Do you mean this one of a number of your blogs which I just critiqued ?
——————————————————————
Critiquing https://theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/24/critiquing-httpstheotherburzynskipatientgroup-wordpress-com/
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “You might also see what Merola got wrong/faked at the anp4all website”
——————————————————————
Oh, do NOT worry

I will critique this one also, and let people see what YOU got wrong
======================================
The Burzynski Skeptics:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/the-burzynski-skeptics/
======================================
CHEEZ WHIZ !!! http://anp4all.com is nothing more than Robert J. “Bob” Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz)’s thick processed cheese spread of http://thehoustoncancerquack.com
======================================
Where he asks:

DO YOU THINK YOU HAVE AN OPEN MIND? DO YOU HAVE THE ALL THE FACTS?
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/18/fact-checking-httpthehoustoncancerquack-com/
======================================
He is supposedly a “Professor of Writing”, but check out his writing gaffes here, as “ANONYMOUS”
======================================
Yes! Weekly: Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business Part II:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/26/yes-weekly-burzynski-cancer-is-serious-business-part-ii/
======================================
Critiquing https://theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/24/critiquing-httpstheotherburzynskipatientgroup-wordpress-com/
======================================
“The skeptic who called Dr. Burzynski “my little Polish sausage” has a Polish last name, which the director Eric Merola scrubbed from the movie”

Just because you think that referring to someone as:

“my little Polish sausage”

is humorous, and therefor we should excuse your behavior because of your below excuse, does NOT mean that it makes it acceptable

“Literally one second after he said that, all of the other participants made jokes about that fact”

(which of course was the point)

“Instead allowing the audience to hear that ribbing, Merola inserted an evil laugh, which was lifted and spliced from minute 18:25 of Virtual Skeptics episode 13”

If you thought that was an “evil laugh”, you’ve got an overactive imagination

“Voices were altered to sound sinister, and menacing music was added”

If you thought voices sounded “sinister” and that was “menacing music”, you must not watch any scary movies

Do you think this is a fair representation or were you misled?

YES

I think it’s a fair representation that you try to mislead people

“What about the 2-hour rejection from The Lancet?”

“High impact journals like The Lancet receive huge numbers of submissions, as their journal is the most prestigious”

“The vast majority of papers that get rejected by The Lancet are rejected within 48 hours thanks to an editorial pre-screening process that helps accommodate this huge work load”

“Most researchers are thankful for this courtesy because it allows them to resubmit to other journals more quickly”

“Why does Merola try to convince the audience that this is evidence of a conspiracy against Burzynski?”

All of your above comments prove what a waste of time you are, based on:
======================================
See #13
——————————————————————
Critiquing: In which the latest movie about Stanislaw Burzynski “cancer cure” is reviewed…with Insolence:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/critiquing-in-which-the-latest-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-cure-is-reviewed-with-insolence-2/
======================================
2 hours 8 minutes and 51 seconds
The Lancet Oncology Peer Review Team D-12-01519: #FAIL
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/25/the-lancet-oncology-peer-review-team-d-12-01519-fail/
======================================
“Does Eric Merola have any conflicts of interest that he is not disclosing?”

“Eric Merola does not reveal a possible conflict of interest, one that a journalist would feel obliged to share”

“He fails to disclose in the movie that his cousin was a patient of Dr. Burzynski and that he has raised money on his movie’s website for patients to see Burzynski”

Sounds like someone failed to read the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section on the BurzynskiMovie web-site:
======================================
http://burzynskimovie.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=75&Itemid=55
======================================
“Burzynski has never published the results of those trials but keeps the money:”

“Burzynski’s abysmal trial completion record, over sixty abandoned trials, the trust of every patient who participated betrayed”

“If trial completion were a batting average, he’d be batting .016”

“His publication average is .000.”

“Really:”
——————————————————————
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=burzynski&pg=1
——————————————————————
Really ?

“over sixty abandoned trials” ?

This just shows that you do NOT even know the subject-matter

Have you even bothered to read Burzynski’s publications ?
======================================
Burzynski updates Scientific Publications page:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/burzynski-updates-scientific-publications-page/
======================================
Because if you had, you would know that Burzynski has used the clinical trial design proposed by Fleming
======================================
16. 2003 Trial design – Fleming (Pg. 94)
——————————————————————
17. 2004 Trial design – Fleming (Pg. 317)
======================================
Protocol Design

2-stage phase II clinical trial design proposed by Fleming used

Initially, 20 adequately treated patients to be assessed

If less than one Objective Response (Complete Response (CR) or Partial Response (PR)) observed, it’d be concluded there was less than desired activity and study would be discontinued

If one or more Objective Responses observed, 20 more patients would be accrued to study

If 4 or more responses observed among 40 patients, evidence would be sufficient to conclude the treatment has desired activity
======================================
One-sample multiple testing procedure for phase II clinical trials
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7082756/
Journal
Biometrics. 1982 Mar;38(1):143-51
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7082756/

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2530297?uid=3739256&uid=2460338175&uid=2460337855&uid=2&uid=4&uid=83&uid=63&sid=21102589296903
======================================
“This person, Marc Stephens, sent this high school student images of his family’s home, the message clearly:”

“We know where you live.”

“These threats were well documented in the international press”

“Somehow Merola managed to not mention that in the movie”

Yes

Marc Stephens’ actions were idiotic

My personal opinion is that he should have done what I am doing, which is showing how “The Skeptics™ lie, misinform, disinform, misdirect, deceive, misrepresent, etc.

Eric Merola did NOT mention your lame blogs either

Why don’t you complain about that ?

“Burzynski has a long history of patients believing that symptoms of getting worse are signs they are getting better”

“Follow any of the links at that site to hear how, in patients’ own words, this EXACT SAME misleading interpretation has been fed to patients for decades”

So, are you a doctor ?

No ?

I didn’t think so, quack

“Merola has publicly slandered Burzynski critics in a way a real journalist couldn’t”

Why can “real journalists” NOT slander someone ?

“We hope this makes it clear that what you are seeing in the new Burzynski movie may not be entirely reliable”

So, like this web-site
======================================
DEBATE E-Mails:
======================================
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Didymos Thomas wrote:
So now you’re brave ?

Bob Blaskiewicz @rjblaskiewicz

@PDJudasT @robertquickert Hey, Judas. I have no respect for you as a person. Never address me.
1:56 PM – 18 Mar 2013
https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/313725494170361856
——————————————————————
On Monday, September 23, 2013, Robert Blaskiewicz wrote:
You going to be a rotten little troll or do you want to debate?
——————————————————————
You’re the one who posted this on Twitter

Do NOT try to make me the COWARD

Bob Blaskiewicz @rjblaskiewicz

@PDJudasT @robertquickert Hey, Judas. I have no respect for you as a person. Never address me.
1:56 PM – 18 Mar 2013
——————————————————————
2/13/2013 (7/2013)
The frequency, cost, and clinical outcomes of HYPERNATREMIA in patients hospitalized to a comprehensive CANCER center

Over 3 month period in 2006 re 3,446 patients, most of the HYPERNATREMIA (90 %) was acquired during hospital stay
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23404230
——————————————————————
6/3/2013 – “[I]f I had screwed up, I would have admitted it”
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/stanislaw-burzynski-propaganda-versus-news
“Our only goal is to promote high standards of science in medicine”
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/
11/.2/2012 – “Personally, having pored over Burzynski’s publications … “
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/11/02/stanislaw-burzynski-fails-to-save-another-patient/
5/8/2013 – “I’ve searched Burzynski’s publications … “
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/05/08/eric-merola-and-stanislaw-burzynskis-secret-weapon-against-the-skeptics-fabio-lanzoni-part-2/
5/31/2013 – “Burzynski has a contingent of defenders who have targeted skeptics like me for special abuse, up to and including harassing me at work by calling my university to complain about my online verbiage critical of Burzynski and implying that I am somehow doing something wrong”
“(My university quickly realized that I was not.)”
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/05/31/on-helping-that-is-anything-but/
6/5/2013 – “ … I do know cancer science”
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/05/odds-and-ends-about-burzynski-clinic/
6/7/2013 – “Unlike Mr. Merola, I am indeed very concerned with getting my facts correct”
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/07/i-want-my-anp/
.3/14/2013 – “Temodar and Avastin both had proper, completed, and published phase II trials before approval”
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/burzynski-cancer-is-a-serious-business-part-2-like-the-first-burzynski-movie-only-more-so/
and
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/03/14/five-things-i-learned-second-hand-from-the-recent-screening-of-burzynski-cancer-is-serious-business-part-2/
I prove him wrong
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/wayne-state-university-detroit-michigan-quickly-realized-that-david-h-gorski-md-phd-facs-is-not-doing-something-wrong-when-he-lies-about-burzynski/
——————————————————————
6/4/2013 – “Dr. Elloise Garside, a research scientists, echoes a lot of the questions I have, such as”

“how Burzynski never explains which genes are targeted by antineoplastons … “
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/04/stanislaw-burzynski-versus-the-bbc/
I prove him wrong
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/07/critiquing-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-m-d-ph-d-l-i-a-r/
and
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/critiquing-the-institute-of-medicine-report-on-cancer-care-is-the-system-in-crisis/
——————————————————————
Bob, this is unsupported, just like when Gorski put it on his blog:
Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) tweeted at 10:44am – 31 Jul 13:

@TomLemley1 @AceofSpadesHQ @mikespillaneThe FDA won’t approve his drug until he ever finishes and publishes a trial.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?te…

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/362599624596393984
Bob, “unable to publish”? Shouldn’t that be “able to publish” but The Lancet Oncology would NOT publish?
——————————————————————
Manuscript reference number: THELANCETONCOLOGY-D-12-01519

Title: Glioblastoma multiforme: a report of long-term progression-free survival and overall survival of 8 to 16 years after antineoplaston therapy and review of literature

Dear Dr. Burzynski,

Thank you for your recent submission to The Lancet Oncology. We have now had time to consider your manuscript and unfortunately, on this occasion, we have decided not to publish it because we believe the message would be better elsewhere.

Although the decision has not been a positive one, I thank you for your interest in the journal and hope it does not deter from considering us again in the future

Josephine Jones (@_JosephineJones) tweeted at.5:21pm – 11.Sep.13:

@Majikthyse @frozenwarning @drpaulmorgan @dianthusmed @oracknows It was about 1hr30 mins into Burzynski Movie II. pic.twitter.com/8n3fQkX0v0

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BT6kM-zCcAAHsnV.png

https://twitter.com/_JosephineJones/status/377919961659764736
Eric Merola revealed in Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II (2), at (1:29:53), that The Lancet Oncology Peer Review Team D-12-01519, in 2 hours 8 minutes and 51 seconds, refused to publish Burzynski’s 11/26/2012 phase 2 clinical trial Progression-Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS) re patients 8 – 16 years after diagnosis, results
——————————————————————
Temozolomide received accelerated approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration 1/1999 for treatment of ANAPLASTIC ASTROCYTOMA (brain cancer) patients

At time of approval, NO RESULTS were available from randomized controlled trials in refractory ANAPLASTIC ASTROCYTOMA that show clinical benefit such as improvement in disease-related symptoms or prolonged survival
http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/11/19/6767.full
Was the United States Food and Drug Administration’s 1/1999 accelerated approval based on the PUBLISHED FINAL RESULTS OF A PHASE II (2) CLINICAL TRIAL?

12/2000 – Temozolomide and ANAPLASTIC ASTROCYTOMA:

NO CLEAR PROOF OF EFFICACY
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11475493/
NO BETTER THAN SURVIVAL BEFORE THE INTRODUCTION OF temozolomide

The answer is: NO

1/1999 – FDA Accelerated Approval

9/1999 – Phase 2 publication

9/1999 – Multicenter phase II trial of temozolomide in patients with ANAPLASTIC ASTROCYTOMA or anaplastic oligoastrocytoma at first relapse

Temodal Brain Tumor Group
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10561351/
M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
http://www.drugs.com/pro/temodar.html

http://www.temodar.com/temodar/index.do
2004 – Supratentorial high-grade ASTROCYTOMA and DIFFUSE BRAINSTEM GLIOMA:

two challenges for the pediatric oncologist
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15047924/

http://m.theoncologist.alphamedpress.org/content/9/2/197.long
St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital

administration of temozolomide after RT DIDN’T ALTER POOR PROGNOSIS associated with newly diagnosed diffuse BRAINSTEM GLIOMA in children

1/1/2005 (11/24/2004) – Role of temozolomide after radiotherapy for newly diagnosed diffuse BRAINSTEM GLIOMA in children:

results of a multiinstitutional study (SJHG-98)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15565574

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.20741/abstract;jsessionid=6717837591CCC8FCBD8E46163808E221.d03t01

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.20741/full
administration of temozolomide after RT DIDN’T ALTER POOR PROGNOSIS associated with newly diagnosed diffuse BRAINSTEM GLIOMA in children

Avastin (Bevacizumab):

5/6/2009 – U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval of Avastin (bevacizumab) for people with GLIOBLASTOMA (brain cancer) with progressive disease following prior therapy

effectiveness of Avastin in AGGRESSIVE form of BRAIN CANCER based on improvement in objective response rate

Currently, NO DATA available from randomized controlled trials demonstrating improvement in disease-related symptoms or increased survival with Avastin in GLIOBLASTOMA
http://www.drugs.com/newdrugs/fda-grants-accelerated-approval-avastin-combination-paclitaxel-chemotherapy-first-line-advanced-852.html
According to FDA analysis of study

Study AVF3708g

Study NCI 06-C-0064E
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/druginfo/fda-bevacizumab

http://www.drugs.com/newdrugs/fda-grants-accelerated-approval-avastin-brain-cancer-glioblastoma-has-progressed-following-prior-1342.html
COMPARE COMBINED:

ANAPLASTIC ASTROCYTOMA

22% – Objective Response: Objective response = complete response and partial response – Antineoplastons

22% – response rate: Temodar

11% – Complete Response: Antineoplastons

9% – Complete Response rate: Temodar

17+ years – Maximum Survival : patient with ANAPLASTIC ASTROCYTOMA – Antineoplastons

50 weeks (16-114 weeks) – Median duration of all responses: Temodar

17+ years – Maximum Survival : patient with ANAPLASTIC ASTROCYTOMA – Antineoplastons

64 weeks (52-114 weeks) – Median duration of Complete Response: Temodar

6 months – 7 / 39% Progression-Free Survival: Antineoplastons

4.4 months – Median Progression-Free Survival: Temodar

5 years – 4 / 22% Overall Survival: Antineoplastons

2 years – 7 / 39% Overall Survival: Antineoplastons

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

15.9 months (1 year 3.9 months) – Median Overall Survival: Temodar

COMPARE COMBINED:

GLIOBLASTOMA

39% – Progression-Free Survival (PFS) at 6 months: Antineoplastons

5.28 months – Median Progression-Free Survival (PFS): Antineoplastons

11.3 months – Progression-Free Survival: Avastin

32% – % of Patients Showing Objective Response = complete response and partial response: Antineoplastons

26% – tumor responses observed Avastin

42% – special exception (SE): Overall survival (OS) – 2 years: Antineoplastons

36% – BT-11: Overall survival (OS) – 2 years: Antineoplastons

19% – special exception (SE): Overall survival (OS) – 5 years: Antineoplastons

25% – BT-11: Overall survival (OS) – 5 years: Antineoplastons

4.2 months – Median duration of response in patients: Avastin

9 / 32% – # and % of Patients Showing Objective response = complete response and partial response – Antineoplastons

11 / 20% of patients – Responses were observed: Avastin

5+ years – Maximum Survival : patient with GLIOBLASTOMA – Antineoplastons

3.9 months – Median duration of response: Avastin
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/burzynski-why-has-the-fda-not-granted-accelerated-approval-for-antineoplastons-a10-astengenal-and-as2-1-astugenal/
Do “The Skeptics” believe Burzynski’s data will change from what he’s provided previously, in any FINAL phase 2 pub ?
——————————————————————
2004 – Cited by Burzynski

3/15/1999 – 40 / 30.9% – ARM 1: 1 year Patients Surviving: Protocol – easier to treat cases of newly diagnosed BRAIN STEM (tumor) GLIOMA patients: radiation therapy and chemotherapy with cisplatin (Mandell et al.) (6/1992–10/1997)

3/15/1999 – 17 / 27.0% – ARM 2: 1 year Patients Surviving: Protocol – easier to treat cases of newly diagnosed BRAIN STEM (tumor) GLIOMA patients: radiation therapy and chemotherapy with cisplatin (Mandell et al.) (6/1992–10/1997)

3/15/1999 – 6 months – ARM 1: Median time to Disease Progression: Protocol – easier to treat cases of newly diagnosed BRAIN STEM (tumor) GLIOMA patients: radiation therapy and chemotherapy with cisplatin (Mandell et al.) (6/1992–10/1997)

3/15/1999 – 5 months – ARM 2: Median time to Disease Progression: Protocol – easier to treat cases of newly diagnosed BRAIN STEM (tumor) GLIOMA patients: radiation therapy and chemotherapy with cisplatin (Mandell et al.) (6/1992–10/1997)

3/15/1999 – 8.5 months – ARM 1: Median Overall Survival from start of Treatment (OST): Median time to Death: Protocol – easier to treat cases of newly diagnosed BRAIN STEM (tumor) GLIOMA patients: radiation therapy and chemotherapy with cisplatin (Mandell et al.) (6/1992–10/1997)

3/15/1999 – 8.5 months – ARM 1: Median time to Death: Median Overall Survival from Diagnosis (OSD): Protocol – easier to treat cases of newly diagnosed BRAIN STEM (tumor) GLIOMA patients: radiation therapy and chemotherapy with cisplatin (Mandell et al.) (6/1992–10/1997)

3/15/1999 – 8 months – ARM 2: Median Overall Survival from Diagnosis (OSD): Median time to Death: Protocol – easier to treat cases of newly diagnosed BRAIN STEM (tumor) GLIOMA patients: radiation therapy and chemotherapy with cisplatin (Mandell et al.) (6/1992–10/1997)

3/15/1999 – 8 months – ARM 2: Median Overall Survival from start of Treatment (OST): Median time to Death: Protocol – easier to treat cases of newly diagnosed BRAIN STEM (tumor) GLIOMA patients: radiation therapy and chemotherapy with cisplatin (Mandell et al.) (6/1992–10/1997)

3/15/1999 – 8 months – ARM 2: Median time to Death: radiation therapy and chemotherapy with cisplatin (Mandell et al.) (6/1992 – 10/1997)

3/15/1999 – 8.5 months – Median Survival (MST): standard radiation therapy in combination with chemotherapy (RAT) (Mandell et al.) (6/1992–10/1997) children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM TUMORS: results of pediatric oncology group
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/24/critiquing-httpstheotherburzynskipatientgroup-wordpress-com/
There is no role for hyperfractionated radiotherapy in the management of children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic brainstem tumors: results of a Pediatric Oncology Group phase III trial comparing conventional vs. hyperfractionated radiotherapy
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10192340/
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – 3/9/2013 – March 4 at 7:58pm – Colorado Public Television – PBS:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/09/colorado-public-television-pbs/
======================================
[2] – 3/10/2013 – March 5 at 12:25pm – CPT12 – The Cult of “Misinformation”:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/the-cult-of-misinformation/
======================================
[3] – 3/12/2013 – CPT12 – FACTS Burzynski critics do NOT like:
——————————————————————
[4] – 3/12/2013 – CPT12
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/facts-burzynski-critics-do-not-like/
======================================
[5] – 3/17/2013 – Critiquing the Critics on Orac’s Respectful Insolence blog: Part II:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/17/critiquing-the-critics-on-oracs-respectful-insolence-blog-part-ii/
======================================
[6] – 3/24/2013 – “The Skeptics” (Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business, Part II):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/the-skeptics/
======================================
[7] – 3/25/2013 – Critiquing Bob Blaskiewicz (#Burzynski Cancer is Serious Business, Part II):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/critiquing-bob-blaskiewicz-burzynski-cancer-is-serious-business-part-ii/
======================================
[8] – 3/26/2013 – My Critique of Bob Blaskiewicz (Colorado Public Television – PBS CPT12):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/my-critique-of-bob-blaskiewicz-colorado-public-television-pbs-cpt12/
======================================
[9] – 4/18/2013 – Fact-checking http://thehoustoncancerquack.com
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/18/fact-checking-httpthehoustoncancerquack-com/
======================================
[10] – 4/24/2013 – Burzynski referenced by other Cancer researchers:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/burzynski-referenced-by-other-cancer-researchers/
======================================
[11] – 4/24/2013 – Burzynski: The FDA’s Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-the-fdas-drug-review-process-ensuring-drugs-are-safe-and-effective/
======================================
[12] – 4/24/2013 – Burzynski: Stable Disease:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-stable-disease/
======================================
[13] – 4/24/2013 – Burzynski: Costs of Cancer treatments:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-costs-of-cancer-treatments/
======================================
[14] – 4/27/2013 – Bob Blaskiewicz (Blatherskitewicz), Faux Skeptic Exposed!:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/bob-blaskiewicz-blatherskitewicz-faux-skeptic-exposed/
======================================
[15] – 4/19/2013 (4/27/2013-4/28/2013) Critiquing “The Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics (page 1):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/critiquing-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics-page-1/
======================================
[16] – 4/30/2013 – Critiquing “The Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics (page 6):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/critiquing-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics-page-6/
======================================
[17] – 5/6/2013 – Critiquing: Is Eric Merola issuing bogus DMCA takedown notices against critics of Stanislaw Burzynski?:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/critiquing-is-eric-merola-issuing-bogus-dmca-takedown-notices-against-critics-of-stanislaw-burzynski/
======================================
[18] – 5/29/2013 (6/2) – Critiquing the #SkepticCanary: “The Skeptics™” (SkeptiCowards©) Bob Blatherskitewicz and the so-called, “self-proclaimed” “CANCER RESEARCHER”:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/critiquing-the-skepticcanary-the-skeptics-skepticowards-bob-blatherskitewicz-and-the-so-called-self-proclaimed-cancer-researcher/
======================================
[19] – 6/6/2013 – Bob Blaskiewicz (Blatherskitewicz), Faux Skeptic Exposed!:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/bob-blaskiewicz-blatherskitewicz-faux-skeptic-exposed/
======================================
[20] – 6/8/2013 – (19. March 29, 1996) – MISDIRECTION: Critiquing “Antineoplastons: Has the FDA kept it’s promise to the American people?”:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/what-is-misdirection-critiquing-antineoplastons-has-the-fda-kept-its-promise-to-the-american-people/
======================================
[21] – 6/23/2013 – QUESTIONS the Critics and Cynics, “The Skeptics™” do NOT want to ANSWER:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/23/questions-the-critics-and-cynics-the-skeptics-do-not-want-to-answer/
======================================
[ 22] – 7/2/2013 –
Burzynski: Institutional Review Board (IRB):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/burzynski-institutional-review-board-irb/
======================================
[23] – 7/31/2013 – Perfessor Robert J. (Bob) Blaskiewicz Blatherskitewicz:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/31/the-burzynski-b-s-app/
======================================
[24] – 8/18/2013 – The Burzynski Skeptics:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/the-burzynski-skeptics/
======================================
[25] – 8/25/2013 – Critiquing https://theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/24/critiquing-httpstheotherburzynskipatientgroup-wordpress-com/
======================================
[26] – 8/26/2013 – Yes! Weekly: Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business Part II:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/26/yes-weekly-burzynski-cancer-is-serious-business-part-ii/
======================================
“Orphan Drug”
phenylbutyrate
PB
“Orphan Drug”
phenylacetate
PN
Orphan Drug”
phenylacetylglutamine
“Orphan Drug”
phenylacetylisoglutimine
PG
“Orphan Drug”
phenylacetylisoglutiminate
PG
2011 – Orphan Drugs in Development
http://www.phrma.org/sites/default/files/pdf/rarediseases2011.pdf

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2005/020645s000_ClinPharmR.pdf

http://www.hrsa.gov/opa/programrequirements/orphandrugexclusion/orphandruglist.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2764862/
Phenylbutyrate is a aromatic fatty acid, able to induce hyperacetylation of histones H3 and H4 and growth arrest, differentiation and apoptosis of AML cell lines and primary leukemic cells. It has been effectively used to induce fetal erythropoiesis in patients with sickle cell anemia and β-thalassemia [105]. The aromatic ring does not contribute to the antitumor activity, as butyric acid is of equal or greater potency at producing these biological changes, while shortening of the fatty acid carbon chain length, as demonstrated with phenylacetate, significantly diminished drug potency [106]. After administration phenylbutyrate is metabolized to phenylacetate, then to phenylacetylglutamine and eliminated by urine [107]. The maximum tolerated doses, when administered as a 7-day continuous infusion, was 375 mg/kg/day, while higher doses were associated with encephalopathy apparently attributable to accumulation of the metabolite phenylacetate. At the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), median steady state concentration of phenylbutyrate is 0.3 mM, which is less than the ED50 of 1-2 mM required for differentiation and cytostasis in vitro but in within the concentration range in which phenylbutyrate
induces acetylation of histones. Dose-limiting toxicities were mainly represented by neurocortical toxicity, including lethargy, confusion, and slurred speech, which completely disappeared within 24 to 48 h upon cessation of the infusion. Non dose-limiting toxicities were hyperammoniemia, hyperuricemia, hypocalcemia, skin abnormalities and interstitial pneumonia [108, 109].
Bobby Blaskiewicz Bows Up ‘Bout Burzynski;
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/bobby-blaskiewicz-bows-up-bout-burzynski/

Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS, maybe you should check your F-A-C-T-S

For years, Gorski has been able to comment on Burzynski’s “personalized gene targeted therapy” with impunity

It’s about time he received some personal attention, leading to heapin’ helpings of not-so-Respectful Insolence

All of the below articles by Gorski were tagged as having to do with:

personalized gene targeted cancer therapy, or mention it
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/tag/personalized-gene-targeted-cancer-therapy/
——————————————————————
I AM ADDING TO THIS AS I GO ALONG
======================================
[1] – 6/5/2013 – ” … in January the Burzynski Clinic removed all references to antineoplaston therapy on its website … “
——————————————————————
[2] – 8/4/2013 – I proved Gorski wrong since Burzynski’s scientific publications regarding antineoplaston therapy are on the Burzynski website
======================================
[1] – 6/5/2013 – “Three years should be plenty of time to line up clinical sites for a phase III trial”

“Of course, given that after three years the clinical trial hasn’t been opened, more than likely no reputable institution wants to partner with the Burzynski Research Institute, and ResearchPoint collected its checks”
——————————————————————
[3] – 7/18/2013 – This statement by Gorski is disingenuous since 6/3/2013 he reviewed Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II where this issue was addressed, and he made NO COMMENT about it in his review

Gorski can distort, exaggerate, and even lie to the public
======================================
[1] – 6/5/2013 – “Another interesting tidbit in the SEC filing is Burzynski’s report of the results of several of his clinical trials”

“They aren’t really “results’ per se, in that the information presented really isn’t provided in a form that really allows other investigators to evaluate it and potentially replicate it”

“Basically it’s a big table listing Burzynski Research Institute clinical trials”

“Of course, I realize that this is an SEC filing, not a scientific paper in the peer-reviewed literature, but if Burzynski has all this data to produce this table it boggles the mind that, given at least a decade and a half since these trials began, he hasn’t been able to publish any meaningful data thus far”

“That he hasn’t been able to do so is also a big red flag”
——————————————————————
[5] – 8/21/2013 – That Gorski has NOT been able to prove that the 4 Burzynski publications I refer to are NOT “meaningful data” is a big red flag
======================================
[6] – 6/4/2013 – “It’s a theme that is repeated throughout the report but that ignores the astounding level of sheer deception that goes on at the Burzynski Clinic, the allegations of overfilling, and how Burzynski has abused the clinical trial process to keep treating patients with antineoplastons without actually having to do the science that any other doctor would be required to do to validate a new treatment”
——————————————————————
[7] – 6/23/2013 – This is the 1st time I’ve seen Gorski allege “overfilling,” and I sure have NOT seen him provide any proof of that or that Burzynski is NOT doing “the science that any other doctor would be required to do to validate a new treatment”

If anyone is being “deceptive,” it seems to be Gorski
======================================
[6] – 6/4/2013 – Dr. Elloise Garside, a research scientists, echoes a lot of the questions I have, such as how Burzynski never explains which genes are targeted by antineoplastons, … “
——————————————————————
[8] – 8/7/2013 – Gorski has NO response for where I list where Burzynski “explains which genes are targeted by antineoplastons”
======================================
[6] – 6/4/2013 – ” … what the preclinical evidence supporting their efficacy are … “
——————————————————————
[9] – 3/16/2013 – Gorski does NOT mention where he’s reviewed “the preclinical evidence supporting their efficacy”
======================================
[6] – 6/4/2013 – ” … or what the scientific rationale is to expect that they might have antitumor activity”
——————————————————————
[10] – 8/8/2013 – Gorski reviewed “Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business” (Part I), but acts as if Dvorit D. Samid was NOT mentioned, and that he is NOT aware that the BurzynskiMovie website contains supporting documentation

I can’t let such statements go unchallenged

It means Nada Zero Zip
======================================
[6] – 6/4/2013 – “In science, all that matters is what you publish, and Burzynski hasn’t published anything other than case reports, tiny case series, and unconvincing studies, mostly (at least over the last decade or so) in crappy journals not even indexed on PubMed”
——————————————————————
[5] – 8/21/2013 – I remain unimpressed that Gorski has NOT written a review of Burzynski’s 2003-2010 phase II clinical trial preliminary reports
======================================
[6] – 6/4/2013 – “Without a doubt, the most effective part of the story is the segment in which Dr. Jeanine Graf of the Texas Children’s Hospital is introduced”

“Dr. Graf is the director of the pediatric intensive care unit there and has taken care of lots of Burzynski patients, as her hospital is “just down the road” from the Burzynski Clinic and these unfortunate children are brought to her hospital when they decompensate”

“Indeed, coupled with this segment is an interlude where Luna Petagine’s mother complains that the staff there know and recognize Burzynski patients (and, she notes, hate the Burzynski Clinic)”

“Particularly damning is how Ms. Petagine said that the Texas Children’s Hospital Staff “were always cleaning up Burzynski’s messes.””

“Luna was brought to the Texas Children’s Hospital during her time in Houston, and the staff there recognized right away that she was a Burzynski patient because they had seen so many similar patients suffering the same complications before”

“It was also clear how much contempt the staff there had for the Burzynski Clinic”

“If there’s one thing Panorama did right in this report, it’s showing how seeing so many already dying children show up in our ICU because of hypernatremia due to antineoplaston therapy will do that”

“Perhaps the most devastating part of this segment was seeing Dr. Graf stating, point blank, that she’s never seen a Burzynski patient survive”

“True, she does point out that patients don’t come to her until they are in extremis, but the fact remains that she’s never seen any of them live”
——————————————————————
[11] – 4/24/2013 – What is so ridiculous about this is that Richard Bilton wanted numbers from Burzynski, but then when it came to this part of the documentary, he somehow forgets how to ask how many patients this applies to, and Gorski compounds this by trying to blame hypernatremia on antineoplaston therapy, but he refuses to explain how it is that in this Division of Internal Medicine / Department of General Internal Medicine, University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA, cancer study, over a 3 month period in 2006 re 3,446 patients, most of the HYPERNATREMIA (90 %) was acquired during hospital stay, and these patients were NOT on antineoplaston therapy

Arrogance, dismissiveness, and condescension make him his own worst enemy
======================================
[6] – 6/4/2013 – “Burzynski also pulls out the old trope that, if the FDA has been letting him use antineoplastons for 20 years in clinical trials if they weren’t safe and potentially effective, that the FDA wouldn’t let him “sell hope without evidence.””

“(Those of us following Burzynski for a while know, unfortunately, that that isn’t necessarily true.)”
——————————————————————
[12] – 4/25/2013 – “The FDA’s Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective” advises:

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

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

The FDA has approved Burzynski’s phase 3 clinical trials, which means that antineoplastons have shown evidence of effectiveness, whether Gorski likes it or NOT
======================================
[6] – 6/4/2013 – ” … he goes on to repeat the same refrain he’s been repeating for the last decade or so about how he’s on the verge of publishing all the results that will convince everyone”

“One notes that we’re still waiting”
——————————————————————
[13] – 7/25/2013 – Gorski provides NO citation to support his statement, and, he did a review of “Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II,” but conveniently does NOT comment in his review about the refusal e-mail shown in the film, and its suspect content
======================================
[6] – 6/4/2013 – “Burzynski needs to publish, but I highly doubt that he will, at least not in a form that is informative to real oncologists”
——————————————————————
[5] – 8/21/2013 – I’m waiting for Gorski to prove that the 4 Burzynski publications I refer to are “NOT in a form that is informative to real oncologists”

Why don’t YOU cite a phase 2 clinical trial final publication that has substantially more data fields than the 4 publications I mention ?
======================================
[4] – 6/3/2013 – “I refer you to the link for my discussion of many of the problems with the movie”

“Here I will concentrate mainly on issues that I haven’t discussed before, because actually seeing Burzynski II was a revelation”

“(Yes, I put that sentence there on purpose, Eric Merola; quote mine it if you have the cojones)”
——————————————————————
[3] – 7/18/2013 – Gorski, don’t wait for Eric Merola to quote you

I’ve quoted you

Now let’s see if YOU have the cajones

MY review of your “review” should be a revelation to YOU
======================================
[4] – 6/3/2013 – “I’m referring to Chris Onuekwusi, a man who was diagnosed with stage I colon cancer”

“Instead of undergoing straightforward surgery that we know to have a high probability of success (which, I’ll also point out, can be done these days through minimally invasive laparoscopic techniques), Onuekwusi balked, as described in more detail than in the movie in this article on the Burzynski Patient Group website”

“He had even gone for a second opinion at one of the leading cancer centers in the world, the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, where the surgeon told him the same thing”

“He needed surgery first”
——————————————————————
[3] – 7/18/2013 – Mr. Onuekwusi did NOT want surgery
======================================
[4] – 6/3/2013 – “So what did Burzynski recommend instead of surgery?”

“He recommended a cocktail of three drugs given off-label:”

“Zolinza, Xeloda, and Avastin”

“Zolinza is vorinostat, a histone deacetylase inhibitor; Xeloda is capecitabine, which is a prodrug for 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), a pyrimidine analog that inhibits the enzyme thymidylate synthetase and thereby inhibits DNA synthesis to toxic effect in rapidly dividing cells; and Avastin is bevacizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody directed against vascular endothelial growth factor-A (VEGF-A)”

“As I described in a previous post about Burzynski’s “personalized, gene-targeted cancer therapy,” apparently Burzynski sent Onuekwusi’s tumor to Caris for testing”
======================================
[14] – 3/2010 – Burzynski advised that a blood or pathology specimen can be used for testing, and that results from a blood test can be obtained within 2 days, and used and refined by a pathology specimen within 2 to 3 weeks
======================================
[4] – 6/3/2013 – “Caris generated a report, as it always does, and Burzynski came up with a witches’ brew of new expensive targeted agents, all said to be “off-label.””
======================================
[15] – 5/17/2011 – Well, not exactly

Burzynski made it clear in part 2 of this interview that there is constant searches of medical literature (phase 2 and phase 3 publications) to research the medications to be used based on the cancer genes involved, and that they have worked on software so oncologists can use it to choose the best medications instead of reinventing the wheel and having to review the medical literature again

So, he does NOT come up with a “witches’ brew”
======================================
[4] – 6/3/2013 – “One of these drugs is just an old chemotherapy drug in a new form”

“Xeloda is, in essence, 5-FU, a chemotherapeutic drug that has been used to treat colorectal cancer, both as adjuvant chemotherapy and first-line therapy for metastatic disease, for over 40 years”

“There’s nothing really “targeted” about the drug except that it inhibits an enzyme, the way that many drugs do and have been known to do for decades”

“The advantage of Xeloda is that it can be administered orally, which is a good thing”
======================================
[16] – What Gorski fails to mention is that Xeloda (Capecitabine) is approved to be used alone or with other drugs to treat:

Stage III colon cancer in patients who have had surgery to remove cancer

May also apply to unapproved uses being studied
——————————————————————
[17] – fluoropyrimidine carbamate belonging to class of antineoplastic agents called antimetabolites

As prodrug, capecitabine is selectively activated by tumor cells to cytotoxic moiety, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU); subsequently, 5-FU is metabolized to 2 active metabolites, 5-fluoro-2-deoxyuridine monophosphate (FdUMP) and 5-fluorouridine triphosphate (FUTP) by tumor cells and normal cells

FdUMP inhibits DNA synthesis and cell division by reducing normal thymidine production, while FUTP inhibits RNA and protein synthesis by competing with uridine triphosphate for incorporation into RNA strand
======================================
[4] – 6/3/2013 – “Similarly, Avastin, although relatively new, is also commonly used for colorectal cancer, albeit usually for metastatic disease and not as adjuvant chemotherapy”
======================================
[18] – What Gorski fails to mention is that Avastin (Bevacizumab) is approved to be used alone or with other drugs to treat:

Colorectal cancer that has metastasized (spread to other parts of body)

May also apply to unapproved uses being studied
——————————————————————
[19] – A recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody directed against the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), a pro-angiogenic cytokine

Bevacizumab binds to VEGF and inhibits VEGF receptor binding, thereby preventing the growth and maintenance of tumor blood vessels
======================================
[4] – 6/3/2013 – “That leaves Zolinza, which is an HDAC inhibitor used to treat cutaneous T cell lymphoma”
======================================
[20] – What Gorski fails to mention is that Zolinza (Vorinostat) is a histone deacetylase inhibitor, approved for treatment of cutaneous manifestations of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) in patients with progressive, persistent, or recurrent disease

May also apply to unapproved uses being studied
——————————————————————
[21] – A synthetic hydroxamic acid derivative with antineoplastic activity

Vorinostat, a 2nd generation polar-planar compound, binds to catalytic domain of histone deacetylases (HDACs)

Allows hydroxamic moiety to chelate zinc ion located in catalytic pockets of HDAC, thereby inhibiting deacetylation and leading to accumulation of both hyperacetylated histones and transcription factors

Hyperacetylation of histone proteins results in upregulation of cyclin-dependant kinase p21, followed by G1 arrest

Hyperacetylation of non-histone proteins such as tumor suppressor p53, alpha tubulin, and heat-shock protein 90 produces additional anti-proliferative effects

Agent induces apoptosis and sensitizes tumor cells to cell death processes

Vorinostat crosses blood-brain barrier
======================================
[4] – 6/3/2013 – “One wonders if Burzynski included a second HDAC inhibitor, his second favorite drug after antineoplastons, sodium phenylbutyrate”
======================================
[22] – 11/19/2012 – Gorski, if you had done “exhaustive research” on Burzynski and “Gene-Targeted Cancer Therapy,” you would have viewed this @youtube video:

Texas Med. Bd. v. Dr. Burzynski – Gene-Targeted Cancer Therapy – Case Dismissed 11/19/2012
BurzynskiMovie

and you would have heard Mr. Onuekwusi say at 3:45, that he took phenylbutyrate (PB)
======================================
[4] – 6/3/2013 – “So, by Merola’s own description, what Burzynski did was to administer a toxic form of treatment that was probably not needed (chemotherapy) using drugs that were not approved for that indication, and apparently didn’t insist that the patient needed surgery”
======================================
[23] – 12/13/2012 – Gorski publishes so much garbage that he may have forgotten his article where he posted:

“Then, there is also this video, produced by the Burzynski clinic itself:”

“At around the three minute mark, the announcer states:”

“We combine gene-targeting drugs and low dose chemo, if needed”
======================================
[4] – 6/3/2013 – “Now, it’s possible that the combination of drugs did eliminate the tumor”
======================================
Gorski, do you think that’s because as mentioned in [15], above, Burzynski would review publications like this ?

[24-25] – Xeloda (Capecitabine)
[24+26] – Avastin (Bevacizumab)
[25+26] – Zolinza (Vorinostat)

[24] – 8/23/2011 – A randomized, phase III trial of capecitabine [Xeloda] plus bevacizumab [Avastin] (Cape-Bev) versus capecitabine plus irinotecan plus bevacizumab (CAPIRI-Bev) in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: the AIO KRK 0110 trial/ML22011 trial
[1st-line treatment of patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)]
——————————————————————
[25] – 11/2/2010 – Vorinostat [Zolinza] synergises with capecitabine [Xeloda] through upregulation of thymidine phosphorylase
——————————————————————
[26] – 4/2012 – Phase I–II study of vorinostat [Zolinza] plus paclitaxel and bevacizumab [Avastin] in metastatic breast cancer: evidence for vorinostat-induced tubulin acetylation and Hsp90 inhibition in vivo
——————————————————————
[4] – 6/3/2013 – “In my opinion, Burzynski deserves to have his medical license taken away on the basis of how he treated Chris Onuekwusi alone, not even considering all the other dubious things he’s done”
======================================
[27] – 8/27/2013 – In my opinion, Gorski deserves to have his medical license taken away on the basis of how he has misinformed, disinformed, and lied about Burzynski, not even considering all the other dubious things he’s done
======================================
[4] – 6/3/2013 – “All I can say is that Merola and Burzynski must not have searched very hard, because I quickly found a few … “

“Truly, Merola’s “exhaustive” research skills need some upgrading”

“It took me two minutes to find those articles”
======================================
[22] – 11/19/2012 – All I can say is that Gorski must NOT have searched very hard, because I quickly found this @youtube video about Dr. Burzynski – Gene-Targeted Cancer Therapy, which includes a segment on Burzynski’s cancer gene testing at 2:45

Truly, Gorski’s “exhaustive” research skills need some upgrading, since nowhere does it indicate that Burzynski was involved with doing Merola’s research

It took me 2 minutes to find this out

Seeing is believing?

To me seeing is knowing just how intellectually dishonest David Gorski is
======================================
[4] – 6/3/2013 – Seeing The Skeptics

“Particularly seemingly damning are a series of Tweets flashed on the screen saying things like the Hope for Laura fund (the fund set up by Laura Hymas to pay for her treatment at the Burzynski Clinic) “appears to be just a money laundry for a lying quack fraud” and “when Laura dies #Burzynski will just move on to his next mark if she doesn’t run out of money first.””

“I think I know whose Tweets these were”

“In fact, I’m sure I know whose Tweets these were, and all I can say to that person is this:”

“Zip it”

“Stop it”

“Put a sock in it”

“In fact, if I’m correct about whose Tweets these are I think I have already done so on Twitter when I’ve seen this person getting too close to attacking cancer patients”

“Still, as utterly insensitive and “dickish” as those Tweets were, they do not represent the majority of skeptics, but rather a few jerks”

“However, we as skeptics need to remember that a few jerks perceived (or painted) as attacking cancer patients can do immeasurable damage to the cause of science-based medicine”

“So if you’re one of those skeptics making comments like that, knock it off”

“If I see you doing it again, next time I will call you out publicly”
======================================
[28] – 2/19/2013 – Like this ?
——————————————————————
https://twitter.com/RatbagsDotCom/status/304050113834262528
——————————————————————
And this ?
——————————————————————
BurzynskiSaves (@BurzynskiSaves) tweeted at 7:42pm – 25 Dec 11:

“@RatbagsDotCom:They will be even more vulnerable when Laura dies and #Burzynski forgets her and moves on to the next mark” #unconscionable https://twitter.com/BurzynskiSaves/status/151115741888909312
——————————————————————
[29] – 8/1/2013 – And like you called this guy out ?
——————————————————————
David James (@StortSkeptic) tweeted at 7:08pm – 1 Aug 13:

The new Doctor Who will be Stanislaw #Burzynski. He manages to continually avoid getting cornered and he gets away with murder.
https://twitter.com/StortSkeptic/status/363088970239840256
——————————————————————
https://twitter.com/gorskon/status/363147810620702721
======================================
[4] – 6/3/2013 – “Then, there was the kicker”

“Eric Merola and Laura Hymas’ fiancé Ben Hymas called me a liar”

“Ben Hymas is quite mistaken in saying about me,”

““He’s lying to them.””

“Moreover, if I had screwed up, I would have admitted it”

“Indeed, part of the reason I looked into this so closely was because I wondered if somehow Merola had actually found a mistake I had made”

“You know the saying about the proverbial blind squirrel occasionally managing to find a nut?”

“It’s possible, albeit unlikely, and in fact there was no mistake”

“There is nothing in deceptive to change my assessment of what happened in the case of or my opinion of Eric Merola”
======================================
[3] – 7/18/2013 – As I said before, Gorski’s research skills leave much to be desired

Gorski is a hack and is only funny by accident because he has no filters

If anything, having seen his “review” of Burzynski II, my opinion of Gorski has plummeted even further, something I had thought possible

Gorski, so you got lucky like a blind squirrel and found an error

However, this does NOT change the fact that you’ve been proven to be a liar

Do you want me to subtract one of your lies from the tally ?
======================================
[30] – 5/9/2013 – “On what basis is he “targeting” his therapy?”

“As I’ve recounted before, Burzynski usually sends off blood and tissue samples to Caris for testing”

“The Caris Target Now™ test, which since my discussion of Burzynski’s “personalized therapy” appears to have been renamed Caris Molecular Intelligence and is now available at more levels of service (although its reports look much the same to me), is nothing unique to the Burzynski Clinic”

“Anyone who is willing to pay for it can have it, and the report will be the same”

“In any event, there is as yet no convincing evidence that the Caris tests (or any of the other competing tests) result in better outcomes”
======================================
[31] – 5/28/2013 – A key pillar of Gorski’s position on Burzynski’s “personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy” is that he alleges that he is “someone relatively knowledgeable about the state of personalized cancer therapy”

I can’t help but wonder why it is that he did NOT know the above information

Maybe he isn’t as knowledgeable about personalized cancer therapy and targeted therapies as he claims

(Oh, wait. He isn’t!)

That’s why when he wrote his “review” on Sheila Herron, he did NOT even refer to Burzynski’s publication:
——————————————————————
[32] – 8/2011 – Successful Treatment of Recurrent Triple-Negative Breast Cancer with Combination of Targeted Therapies

When it comes to Gorski’s “story writing” pal Robert J. “Bob” Blaskiewicz, I might allow for some leeway since he’s only a “Perfessor,” but with Gorski on the other hand, I’m not nearly so benevolent

In my ever-Insolent opinion, he and his propagandist are cynically using patients like human shields to deflect criticism

Activities I cannot countenance
======================================
[33] – 4/19/2013 – “I now think I probably know with around 95% certainty) and Didymus Judas Thomas (whose identity I’m probably about 75% sure of … also obsessively read anything posted about Eric Merola or Stanislaw Burzynski on any social media”
======================================
[34] – 4/19/2013 – Gorski has had over 4 months to say who he thinks I supposedly am, and so far he’s been a failure

But then again, as could be expected, he was wrong about his 2nd theory as well

Finally, I believe that people like Gorski are hypocrites, feeling free to paint Burzynski to their heart’s content (from what I’ve read about Burzynski on blogs, Twitter articles, and elsewhere, posted by biased, disingenuous, “holier than thou” Skeptics, in them Burzynski is all but portrayed as Satan Incarnate) but running like whipped puppies to the Coward section when either they or Gorski are criticized, no matter how civil, reasonable, or science-based that criticism is (and my blog is all of the above)

The reason is, of course, clear

Having no convincing science, no convincing medicine, and no convincing evidence to support their hero’s antineoplastons hackery or “personalized MUD-targeted therapy for dummies,” they resort to Twitter thuggery

Same as it ever was

One more thing:

If Gorski and his crew of sycophants, toadies, and lackeys are offended by my opinion, my characterization of them that I have based on analyses of claims and observation of the behavior of them and their propagandist, they should try something different to shut me up

I have just the thing, too

Publishing the results of some of the responses to my blog for the scientific community comes to mind first

If Gorski really has the goods, as he and “The Skeptics” claim, then he can best shut me up by bringing the science—solid, convincing science, that is

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

I can be convinced by strong truthful and factual evidence

I have yet to see anything resembling strong evidence from Gorski

At least, if he has such evidence he hasn’t published it yet, preferring to publish a mixture of whiny blog articles where he takes a swipe at Burzynski, tiny-mind series, unimpressive basic science, and the like in bottom-feeding blog articles, some of which aren’t even indexed in PubMed

Nor is a conspiracy of cowardice—excuse me, “The Skeptics”—the reason why trying to ignore criticism will boomerang on “The Skeptics”

It’s all because of their own behavior and willingness to distort, misinform, and slime Burzynski
======================================
[35] – 1/14/2013 – “As you might recall, antineoplastons are chemicals that Burzynski found in the urine of cancer patients and that (or so he claims)”
======================================
[36] – 2/19/2013 – Seriously, Gorski ?

Where did you come up with that ?

After comparing the blood of healthy people to the blood of people with cancer, Dr. Burzynski found that people with cancer have lower amounts of a certain group of chemicals
======================================
[35] – 1/14/2013 – “None of this would have been too bad if only he had actually bothered to do the proper science and clinical trials to demonstrate that antineoplastons (1) have significant anti-cancer activity and (2) have acceptable levels of toxicity”
======================================
[10] – 8/8/2013 – Here’s (1)
——————————————————————
[37] – 2/19/2013 – And (2)
======================================
[35] – 1/14/2013 – “Oh, sure, he has a bunch of clinical trials listed on ClinicalTrials.gov, but virtually all of them are listed as having “unknown” status, and it’s unclear whether most, if any, of them are actually accruing”
======================================
[38] – 5/21/2011 – Cancer Breakthrough: 50-60% Success Rate, Cures the Incurable
May 21, 2011
12 phase 2 clinical trials have been successfully completed under supervision of FDA, and now conducting 3 phase 3 clinical trials

Or I can cite from Burzynski’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings re his phase 2 clinical trials like you did
[1] – 6/5/2013
======================================
[35] – 1/14/2013 – “In any case, Merola named the sequel what he named it … along with a website full of a “sourced transcript” to be used by Burzynski minions and shills everywhere to attack any skeptic who dares to speak out”
======================================
[39] – Gorski, you should have used the “sourced transcript” so you didn’t end up embarrassing yourself as much as you have

Actually, no one who is an apologist for Dr. Gorski, a.k.a. “Orac,” who over years ago unleashed MUD-targeted therapy on unsuspecting cancer patients, much likes Burzynski

It’s not surprising

Basically, Gorski’s a hack
——————————————————————
[40] – Or, you can use this – Burzynski: The Movie — Illustrated Screenplay and Screencap Gallery (Nader Library):
======================================
[35] – 1/14/2013 – “Part of the reason that Eric Merola doesn’t like me, aside from the fact that I am willing to help publicize Bob Blaskiewicz’s present to Dr. Burzynski for his 70th birthday on January 23, is that I think that every so often I happen to run into stories about the bad science and unethical nature of Burzynski’s work, and I blog about it”
======================================
[41] – 3/26/2013 – Maybe Eric does NOT like you because part of that “present” was your “pal” saying:

“The Burzynski clinic is a place you go to die”
——————————————————————
[42] – 8/24/2013 – Gorski, where were you when these 374 children died of brain cancer in #ScienceBasedMedicine clinical trials ?
======================================
[35] – 1/14/2013 – “I also run into patient stories”

“Although I don’t cover them as systematically as Bob does, I like to think that what I lack in comprehensiveness of coverage I make up for with my in-depth knowledge of cancer science and treatment”
======================================
[43] – 8/31/2013 – Your “in-depth knowledge of cancer science and treatment” ?

You sure have NOT presented a very strong case for that

Is your “man-crush”, Robert J. “Bob” Blaskiewicz still adding false statements to his “stories” ?
======================================
[35] – 1/14/2013 – “There are a number of things about this documentary that one can learn if one is involved in caner care and knowledgeable about Stanislaw Burzynski”

“Indeed, he’s even taken credit for pioneering the concept of personalized cancer therapy based on genes and the concept that cancer is a genetic disease, claiming to have published a journal article about it 20 years ago, allegedly long before conventional scientists and oncologists even thought of it”

“The problem, of course, is that, as far as I can tell, he published no such paper and personalized therapy is a concept older than 20 years”
======================================
[44] – 7/26/2013 – Indeed, from my perspective Gorski’s an egomaniac, full of the arrogance of ignorance about things like Burzynski’s “personalized cancer therapy”, prone to contemptuously dismissing anyone who has the temerity to question the Great and Powerful “Orac” is god

Because I was able to find the publication with NO problem

“Orac’s” Oracolytes remind me of the “believer” who said:

“god said it, and I believe it, so that settles it”

Of course, “Orac” is Oz tends to clam up when questioned by people who are NOT likely to be sycophants, toadies, and lackeys
======================================
[35] – 1/14/2013 – “Given that these are all phase II studies, it’s hard to believe that the FDA would allow Burzynski to keep them open over 13 years, but apparently it has”
======================================
[45] – 7/26/2013 – Gorski, why don’t you ask the FDA?

3/29/1996 Then United States Food and Drug Administration Commissioner, David Kessler told the American people:

“The … FDA’s initiatives … will allow …the agency … to rely on smaller trials … fewer patients … if there is evidence … of partial response in clinical trials”
——————————————————————
[46] – 6/7/2013 – Then you could be like Blatherskitewicz and do this:

Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz)
6/3/13, 3:49 PM

@FauxSkeptic @bbc5live I believe he said, “Put up or shut up, you little bitch.” Something like that.

rjblaskiewicz: @bbc5live “I believe he said
“Put up or shut up
you little bitch”
BB: why not check with the @US_FDA
#Burzynski
BBC Panorama
======================================
[35] – 1/14/2013 – “Finally, why doesn’t Burzynski offer Seán his “personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy.””

“It probably wouldn’t be that big a deal to get the blocks of tissue from Seán’s biopsy and have them analyzed”

“Yes, inquiring minds do want to know”
======================================
[35] – 1/14/2013 – Gorski, why don’t you cite the applicable phase 2 and / or phase 3 clinical trial publications of FDA approved drugs for “inoperable brainstem glioma” ?

And while your at it, is the “girl from England” referred to in your article, the same one that is referred to in Burzynski 2 ?
======================================
[47] – 1/7/2013 – “That’s why I’m joining P.Z. Myers in asking you to help make Stanislaw Burzynski pay cold hard cash to a worthy cause
======================================
[41] – 3/26/2013 – Yes Gorski, your “pal” E.Z. P.Z. who wrote:

“The Burzynski clinic is a place you go to die”

He has no shame

But at least ya’ll raised money for a worthy cause while at the same time bringing attention to yourself and what I consider to be your incredibly unethical behavior
======================================
[23] – 12/13/2012 – “In fact, from my perspective, it appears to me as though over the last few years Dr. Burzynski has pivoted”

“No longer are antineoplastons the center of attention at his clinic”

“Rather, these days, he appears to be selling something that he calls “personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy.””
======================================
[48] – 4/26/2013 – Gorski it’s great to see you’ve been paying attention

” … 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”
======================================
[23] – 12/13/2012 – “Finally, around the 4:30 mark, we see Dr. Gregory Burzynski, Dr. Burzynski’s son, talking about genomic profiling of cancers and biomarkers in the blood and in circulating tumor cells. … plus a claim that surgery will no longer be necessary for surgery, what’s left over doesn’t sound too different from what quite a few “conventional” cancer researchers say about “personalized medicine.””
======================================
[23] – 12/13/2012 – Gorski, “surgery will no longer be necessary for surgery” ?

Is this “attention to detail”” related to:

“because of the positions I hold at an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center” ?
======================================
[23] – 12/13/2012 – “Clearly, the producer went to great lengths to make Burzynski’s lab look like any other molecular and cell biology lab–even like my lab”
======================================
[23] – 12/13/2012 – Gorski, are you trying to suggest that the producer rented or bought equipment to produce this look ?

Do you know how ridiculous that sounds ?
======================================
[23] – 12/13/2012 – “When we do this we have a very good chance to have positive results in most patients”

“SS: How many respond?”

“SB: About 85 per cent for whom we have the proper gene signature; about 15 percent do not respond”

“In our responders many of them have tumors which disappear completely and in others the tumors remain small”

“The problem is finding the genetic signature because for many of these different genetic signatures we don’t have blood tests…yet”

“Note that at the time this book was published, Dr. Burzynski was claiming that he could identify who would benefit from specific targeted therapies simply from blood tests”

“If he could do this for real, Burzynski could easily publish in high impact journals like Clinical Cancer Research, the Journal of Clinical Oncology, or another high impact clinical cancer journal”

“Heck, a result like that could probably make it into general medical journals, such as the New England Journal of Medicine or The Lancet, which have an even higher impact factor”

“If he were able to demonstrate that his method of testing tumors and picking targeted therapy could result in a complete response rate anywhere near 85% for breast cancer, even more so”

“If, as he claims later in the chapter, Dr. Burzynski has patients with pancreatic cancer and advanced liver cancer whose tumors have disappeared within two months after he began treatment, the same would be true”

“If, as Burzynski claims, he achieves a 50% complete response rate in advanced brain tumors, again, the same would be true”

“He doesn’t submit his results to these journals”

“Why not?”
======================================
[3] – 7/18/2013 – Gorski, why would Burzynski want to publish in The Lancet when you saw the lame excuse they gave in Burzynski 2 for NOT publishing Burzynski’s results; which YOU have refused to address ?

Maybe you could find out if you visited the Burzynski Clinic

Oh, wait

You’ve said that people do NOT need to go to the Clinic to learn things
======================================
[23] – 12/13/2012 – “Gene-targeted cancer therapy is currently in its infancy and, except in rare situations outside of the existing currently validated biomarkers (such as HER2, ER, c-kit, and other genes for which targeted therapies exist) for the response of specific cancers, is not to be undertaken outside of the context of a clinical trial“
======================================
[23] – 12/13/2012 – Gorski, that’s all well and good for you to write, but you provide NO citation, reference, or link in support of your statement, and you’ve proven that what you post can NOT be trusted

Try again
======================================
[23] – 12/13/2012 – “Before discussing how the Burzynski Clinic does personalized cancer therapy, I think it’s worth looking at how real scientists do it right now”
======================================
[23] – 12/13/2012 – Gorski, what are you implying ?

That Burzynski is NOT a “real scientist” ?

Because you stated:

“From the description above, it sounded very much to me as though Dr. Burzynski is combining various targeted agents with metronomic chemotherapy“

“I know a thing or two about metronomic chemotherapy, because I was involved in a project whose end result was to be the testing of metronomic chemotherapy against cancer and because the concept is a spinoff of the work of one of my scientific heros, the late Judah Folkman”

“Whether this is what Dr. Burzynski is doing or not with the chemotherapy part of his approach, I don’t know for sure, but it sure sounds like it“
======================================
[23] – 12/13/2012 – “Now let’s take a look at how the Burzynski Clinic does it, at least as far as I can figure out from my various sources and from Ms. Trimble”

“In response to my query about personalized gene-targeted therapy offered by the Burzynski Clinic, Ms. Trimble stated that a gene expression analysis is performed, as well as mutational analysis, FISH, immunohistochemistry for selected genes and that a blood test is also performed to measure the “concentration of proteins which are products of most important oncogenes.””

“In addition, drugs are supposedly selected based on the patient’s clinical information, standard of care, FDA indication, data from phase II and III clinical trials“
======================================
[4] – 6/3/2013 – Gee Gorski

In your 6/3/2013 article you act as if you did NOT know this
======================================
[23] – 12/13/2012 – “To support this claim, Ms. Trimble also sent me two papers from the Burzynski Clinic, both of which appeared in a journal I had never heard of before, the Journal of Cancer Therapy, which is clearly not indexed on PubMed because these papers never showed up when I searched PubMed for Burzynski”

“One described Burzynski’s approach for triple negative breast cancer (TNBC)”
======================================
[32] – 8/2011 – Gorski, why am I NOT surprised that you’re able to refer to this TNBC publication 12/13/2012, but when reviewing Sheila Herron’s TNBC case 5/28/2013, you completely ignored this publication, even though it specifically states:

“Here we report the successful treatment of metastatic TNBC with combination targeted therapy, and we discuss MDT for a group of 16 women including this patient, whose treatment was based on the same principle” (Pgs. 372-373)

How do you NOT provide a link to a previous article you wrote on the same subject, like you normally do ?
======================================
[23] – 12/13/2012 – “It turns out that perhaps the best description of what “personalized” treatment means in Dr. Burzynski’s hands comes from the Texas Medical Board’s complaint against him, which can be found in over at the Ministry of Truth or at Casewatch”

“This complaint is based on the cases of two patients”

“First, here’s Patient A, who is described in the complaint thusly:”

“1. Patient A:”

“a. In approximately May of 2008, Patient A presented to Respondent with breast cancer that had metastasized to her brain, lung, and liver”

“b. Respondent prescribed a combination of five immunotherapy agents – phenylbutyrate, erlotinib, dasatinib, vorinostat, and sorafenib-which are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) for the treatment of breast cancer, and which do not meet the FDA’s regulations for the use of off-label drugs in breast cancer therapy”

“c. In combination with the five immunotherapy agents, Patient A was prescribed capecitabine, a chemotherapy agent”

“This is what’s known as “throwing everything but the kitchen sink” at the tumor without any thought of interactions, as most of these agents have no proven role in the treatment of breast cancer”

“For example, erlotinib (brand name: Tarceva) is used to treat pancreatic cancer and non-small cell lung cancer”

“It works by inhibiting the tyrosine kinase of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and is not FDA-approved for breast cancer”

“However, it’s not unreasonable to think that it could work in breast cancer, as EGFR is believed to be important in some breast cancers, which is why this is an area of active research”

“Dasatinib (trade name: Sprycel) is also a kinase inhibitor”

“It inhibits the Src family tyrosine kinase”

“Vorinostat is a histone deacetylase inhibitor approved for use against cutaneous T-cell lymphoma”

“Finally, Sorafenib is another tyrosine kinase inhibitor that inhibits the tyrosine kinases of different receptors, as well as raf kinases”

“The big problem with this sort of approach is that the more drugs you add, no matter how “targeted” they are, the more chance for interactions that increase toxicity, and throwing all these kinase inhibitors together in a cocktail with chemotherapy is a recipe for disaster, particularly because such cocktails haven’t been tested in proper phase I clinical trials to evaluate toxicity”
======================================
Gorski, you make it sound like you reviewed the medical literature and found NO phase I clinical trials were conducted, or NO combinations of some of these drugs were tested

But you do NOT reveal your research

I’m guessing you reviewed these pre 5/2008 publications, right ?
——————————————————————
[49] – 4/20/2007 – Phase III study: erlotinib in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer
——————————————————————
[50] – 5/2007 – randomized phase II study: sorafenib/erlotinib – advanced non-small-cell lung cancer
——————————————————————
[51] – 4/20/2006 – Phase II study: capecitabine and erlotinib
——————————————————————
[52] – 1/2008 – Phase II Clinical Trial: Sorafenib
——————————————————————
[53] – 4/2007 – Antitumor Activity: Sorafenib – 4 Phase I Trials: Advanced Refractory Solid Tumors
——————————————————————
[54] – 6/20/2007 – phase I study: vorinostat (VOR) in combination with capecitabine (CAP) – advanced solid tumors
======================================
[23] – 12/13/2012 – “In any case, as we have seen, Dr. Burzynski does give chemotherapy”

“Lots of chemotherapy”
======================================
[23] – 12/13/2012 – Gorski, what was the date of the video you quoted above, about low-dose chemotherapy ?
======================================
[23] – 12/13/2012 – “Instead, skirting the line between science and pseudoscience, Dr. Burzynski gives every appearance of recklessly throwing together untested combinations of targeted agents willy-nilly to see if any of them stick but without having a systematic plan to determine when or if he has successfully matched therapy to genetic abnormality”
======================================
[15] – 5/17/2011 – That sure explains away the review of the medical literature (phase 2 and 3 clinical trials)

NOT
======================================
[55] – 12/12/2012 – “Note: Orac is away In the meantime, he is rerunning some of his favorite posts”

“Given that the blog seems to have been infiltrated with Burzynski trolls again now seems a perfect time to rerun a post of Orac’s from about a year ago”
======================================
[55] – 12/12/2012 – “Orac”, who’s the
idiot who posted that “trolls” had taken over the blog, and who were these “alleged” “trolls” ?

Inquiring minds want to know
======================================
[55] – 12/12/2012 – “No one would ever confuse my reviews with those of Roger Ebert (mine tend to be a lot longer, for one thing, and concentrate on science much more than moviemaking), but I do sometimes subject myself to these movies when I can find a way to watch them online that doesn’t cost me any money”
======================================
[55] – 12/12/2012 – Gorski

“Concentrate on science” ?

really ?

Really ??

REALLY ???

Did you actually count how many characters and / or words you devoted to criticism instead of “science” ?
======================================
[55] – 12/12/2012 – “In the process, I might even look into a couple of Burzynski’s studies that I’ve read and found to be–well–lacking, to put it kindly”
======================================
[2] – 8/4/2013 – Gorski, why don’t you “look into” Burzynski’s 2003-2010 preliminary phase 2 clinical trial reports, and write a “review” ?
======================================
[55] – 12/12/2012 – “One part of the movie that truly insults the intelligence of anyone with a modicum of knowledge about drug therapy occurs near the beginning of the movie”

“It’s a part that, as a cancer surgeon who is interested in targeted therapies for breast cancer, I found particularly idiotic”

“First, there is a screen with this caption:”

“Antineoplastons target the specific genes that allow cancer to grow and flourish”

“A little later we see:”

“There are currently over 25 FDA-approved gene-targeted cancer drugs on the market today”

“Many of them can only target single genes”

“All of which is true but irrelevant if Burzynski is trying to sell antineoplastons as targeted therapy”

“Now here’s the kicker:”

“Antineoplastons work on close to one hundred different genes”

“You know what you call a drug that works on “close to 100 genes”?”

“I don’t know either, but you don’t call it a “targeted” therapy unless all those genes are genes affected by the single target being inhibited; i.e., are downstream targets of the gene targeted by antineoplastons”
======================================
[5] – 8/21/2013 – Gorski, how do you NOT know “the single target being inhibited … are downstream targets of the gene targeted by antineoplastons”, when you did NOT even know which of Burzynski’s publications discussed which genes are “targeted by antineoplastons” ?
======================================
[56] – 12/5/2012 – “In reality, oncologists shun Burzynski—and rightly so, given that he has yet to publish anything resembling a convincing result suggesting the efficacy of his antineoplastons against cancer”

“It’s painfully obvious from this paragraph that Burzynski doesn’t know academic oncologists”

“The reason oncologists don’t respect Burzynski is because of how he hasn’t show that his treatments work better than conventional treatments—or even that they work at all—and because of the way he abuses patients by charging them huge sums of money to participate in a clinical trial”

“Those are the reasons legitimate oncologists, at least those familiar with Burzynski, look askance at him”

“How could they do otherwise?”

“The ones who don’t take him seriously are the ones who know him best”
======================================
[57] – 4/24/2013 – Gorski, that certainly explains why this 2011 cancer study that references Burzynski:

Phase II trial of tipifarnib and radiation in children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas

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
======================================

======================================

======================================
ADDING MORE
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – 6/5/2013 – Odds and ends left over after the Panorama Burzynski Clinic report: Burzynski versus his own SEC filing
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/05/odds-and-about-burzynski-clinic/
======================================
[2] – 8/4/2013 – Critiquing Dr David H. “Orac” Gorski, M.D., Ph.D, LIAR: Stanislaw Burzynski versus the BBC:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/04/critiquing-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-m-d-ph-d-liar-stanislaw-burzynski-versus-the-bbc/
======================================
[3] – 7/18/2013 – Critiquing: In which the latest movie about Stanislaw Burzynski “cancer cure” is reviewed…with Insolence:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/critiquing-in-which-the-latest-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-cure-is-reviewed-with-insolence-2/
======================================
[4] – 6/3/2013 – In which the latest movie about Stanislaw Burzynski’s “cancer cure” is reviewed…with Insolence
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/03/in-which-the-latest-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynskis-cancer-cure-is-reviewed-with-insolence/
======================================
[5] – 8/21/2013 – Critiquing David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/critiquing-david-h-gorski-md-phd-facs-www-sciencebasedmedicine-orgeditorial-staffdavid-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
======================================
[6] – 6/4/2013 – Stanislaw Burzynski versus the BBC
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/04/stanislaw-burzynski-versus-the-bbc/
======================================
[7] – 6/23/2013 – QUESTIONS the Critics and Cynics, “The Skeptics™” do NOT want to ANSWER
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/23/questions-the-critics-and-cynics-the-skeptics-do-not-want-to-answer/
======================================
[8] – 8/7/2013 –
Critiquing: Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski, M.D., Ph.D, L.I.A.R.:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/07/critiquing-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-m-d-ph-d-l-i-a-r/
======================================
[9] – 3/16/2013 – Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski Publications:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/stanislaw-rajmund-burzynski-publications/
======================================
[10] – 8/8/2013 – Critiquing: Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski and The Skeptics™
http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/critiquing-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-and-the-skeptics/
======================================
[11] – 4/24/2013 – Burzynski: HYPERNATREMIA:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/burzynski-hypernatremia/
======================================
[12] – 4/25/2013 – Burzynski: The FDA’s Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-the-fdas-drug-review-process-ensuring-drugs-are-safe-and-effective/
======================================
[13] – 7/25/2013 – 2 hours 8 minutes and 51 seconds
The Lancet Oncology Peer Review Team D-12-01519: #FAIL
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/25/the-lancet-oncology-peer-review-team-d-12-01519-fail/
======================================
[14] – 3/2010 KFNX “Healthy House Call” interview with Dr. Burzynski
——————————————————————
http://www.burzynskimovie.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=93
======================================
[15] – 5/17/2011 – * Dr. Mehmet Oz with Eric Merola and Dr. Burzynski – May 17, 2011
Interview: Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski and Eric Merola
http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/interview-dr-stanislaw-burzynski-and-eric-merola
Dr. Oz talks with Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski and Eric Merola, director of the documentary Burzynski, the Movie about Burzynski’s groundbreaking gene-targeted cancer medicines called antineoplastons and his battle against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
======================================
[16] – Xeloda (Capecitabine): National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Cancer Drug Information
——————————————————————
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/druginfo/capecitabine
======================================
[17] – Xeloda (Capecitabine): National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) – NCI Drug Dictionary definition
——————————————————————
http://www.cancer.gov/drugdictionary?CdrID=42852
======================================
[18] – Avastin (Bevacizumab): National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) – Cancer Drug Information
——————————————————————
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/druginfo/bevacizumab
======================================
[19] – Avastin (Bevacizumab): National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) – NCI Drug Dictionary definition
——————————————————————
http://www.cancer.gov/drugdictionary?CdrID=43234
======================================
[20] – Zolinza (Vorinostat): National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) – Cancer Drug Information
——————————————————————
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/druginfo/vorinostat
======================================
[21] – Zolinza (Vorinostat): National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) – NCI Drug Dictionary definition
——————————————————————
http://www.cancer.gov/drugdictionary?CdrID=37944
======================================
[22] – 11/19/2012 – Texas Med. Bd. v. Dr. Burzynski – Gene-Targeted Cancer Therapy – Case Dismissed BurzynskiMovie
——————————————————————
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hCrsn8ziGWU
======================================
[23] – 12/13/2012 – Stanislaw Burzynski: “Personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy” for dummies
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/12/13/stanislaw-burzynski-personalized-gene-targeted-cancer-therapy-for-dummies/
======================================
[24] – 8/23/2011 – A randomized, phase III trial of capecitabine plus bevacizumab (Cape-Bev) versus capecitabine plus irinotecan plus bevacizumab (CAPIRI-Bev) in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: the AIO KRK 0110 trial/ML22011 trial
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21861888/
BMC Cancer. 2011 Aug 23;11:367. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-11-367
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21861888/
BMC Cancer 2011, 11:367 doi:10.1186/1471-2407-11-367
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3173448/
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01249638 EudraCT-No.: 2009-013099-38
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3173448/pdf/1471-2407-11-367.pdf
Department of Medical Oncology, Klinikum Grosshadern, University of Munich, Germany
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/11/367
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG)
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2407-11-367.pdf
======================================
[25] – 11/2/2010 – Vorinostat synergises with capecitabine through upregulation of thymidine phosphorylase
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21045833/
Br J Cancer. 2010 Nov 23;103(11):1680-91. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605969. Epub 2010 Nov 2
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21045833/
Br J Cancer. 2010 November; 103(11): 1680–1691
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2994231/
Published online 2010 November.2. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605969
PMCID: PMC2994231
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2994231/pdf/6605969a.pdf
British Journal of Cancer (2010) 103, 1680–1691. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6605969
Published online 2 November 2010
http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v103/n11/full/6605969a.html
Experimental Pharmacology Unit, Department of Research, Istituto Nazionale Tumori, National Cancer Institute Fondazione G, Via.M Semmola, Pascale, Napoli, Italy
http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v103/n11/pdf/6605969a.pdf
======================================
[26] – 4/2012
Phase I–II study of vorinostat plus paclitaxel and bevacizumab in metastatic breast cancer: evidence for vorinostat-induced tubulin acetylation and Hsp90 inhibition in vivo
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22200869/
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012 Apr;132(3):1063-72. doi: 10.1007/s10549-011-1928-x. Epub 2011 Dec 27
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22200869/
Breast Cancer Res Treat. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 April.1
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3486521/
Published in final edited form as:
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012 April; 132(3): 1063–1072
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3486521/pdf/nihms407001.pdf
Published online 2011 December.27. doi: 10.1007/s10549-011-1928-x
PMCID: PMC3486521
NIHMSID: NIHMS407001
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10549-011-1928-x
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
April 2012, Volume 132, Issue 3, pp 1063-1072
The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
======================================
[27] – 8/27/2013 – Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, quickly realized that David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS is NOT doing something wrong when he LIES about Burzynski:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/wayne-state-university-detroit-michigan-quickly-realized-that-david-h-gorski-md-phd-facs-is-not-doing-something-wrong-when-he-lies-about-burzynski/
======================================
[28] – 2/19/2013 – Peter Bowditch (@RatbagsDotCom) tweeted at 8:09pm – 19 Feb 13:

Of course it’s always possible that the money launderers are appearing as themselves in the #Burzynski advertisement.
======================================
[29] – 8/1/2013 – David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 11:02pm – 1 Aug 13:
======================================
[30] – 5/9/2013 – Deconstructing another Stanislaw Burzynski cancer “success story”
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/05/09/deconstructing-another-stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-success-story/
======================================
[31] – 5/28/2013 – Paging Doctor David H. Gorski, Paging Doctor David H. Gorski: There’s Mud in your Ears … Doktor Gorski?:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/28/paging-doctor-david-h-gorski-paging-doctor-david-h-gorski-theres-mud-in-your-ears-doktor-gorski/
======================================
[32] – 8/2011 – Successful Treatment of Recurrent Triple-Negative Breast Cancer with Combination of Targeted Therapies
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownload.aspx?DOI=10.4236/jct.2011.23050
Journal of Cancer Therapy, 2011, 2, 372-376
(http://www.SciRP.org/journal/jct)
doi:10.4236/jct.2011.23050 Published Online August 2011
======================================
[33] – 4/19/2013 – Is Eric Merola issuing bogus DMCA takedown notices against critics of Stanislaw Burzynski?
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/04/19/eric-merola-issuing-bogus-dmca-takedown-notices-against-critics-of-stanislaw-burzynski/
======================================
[34] – 4/19/2013 – Critiquing: Is Eric Merola issuing bogus DMCA takedown notices against critics of Stanislaw Burzynski?:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/critiquing-is-eric-merola-issuing-bogus-dmca-takedown-notices-against-critics-of-stanislaw-burzynski/
======================================
[35] – 1/14/2013 – The story of Seán Ó’Laighin, patient of Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/14/the-story-of-sean-olaighin-patient-of-dr-stanislaw-burzynski/
======================================
[36] – 2/19/2013
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.gov/topics/CAM/antineoplastons/Patient?print=1
======================================
[37] – 2/19/2013 – Critiquing David H. “Orac” Gorski, MD PhD and his Personalized MUD-Targeted Skeptic Therapy:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/17/critiquing-david-h-orac-gorski-md-phd-and-his-personalized-mud-targeted-skeptic-therapy/
======================================
[38] – 5/21/2011 – Cancer Breakthrough: 50-60% Success Rate, Cures the Incurable
May 21, 2011
——————————————————————
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/05/21/drs-stanislaw-and-gregory-burzynski-on-cancer.aspx
======================================
[39]
——————————————————————
http://BurzynskiMovie.com
======================================
[40] – Burzynski: The Movie — Illustrated Screenplay and Screencap Gallery (Nader Library):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/23/burzynski-the-movie-illustrated-screenplay-and-screencap-gallery-nader-library/
======================================
[41] – 3/26/2013 – Critiquing Bob Blaskiewicz
(#Burzynski Cancer is Serious Business, Part II):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/critiquing-bob-blaskiewicz-burzynski-cancer-is-serious-business-part-ii
======================================
[42] – 8/24/2013 – Critiquing https://theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/24/critiquing-httpstheotherburzynskipatientgroup-wordpress-com/
======================================
[43] – 8/31/2013 – The Guardian: Censorship and Bias – Six stubborn myths about cancer:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/31/the-guardian-censorship-and-bias-six-stubborn-myths-about-cancer/
======================================
[44] – 7/26/2013 – Critiquing: Stanislaw Burzynski: On the arrogance of ignorance about cancer and targeted therapies:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/26/x/
======================================
[45] – 7/26/2013 – MISDIRECTION: Critiquing “Antineoplastons: Has the FDA kept it’s promise to the American people?”:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/what-is-misdirection-critiquing-antineoplastons-has-the-fda-kept-its-promise-to-the-american-people/
======================================
[46] – 6/7/2013 – Bob Blaskiewicz (Blatherskitewicz), Faux Skeptic Exposed!:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/bob-blaskiewicz-blatherskitewicz-faux-skeptic-exposed/
======================================
[47] – 1/7/2013 – Let’s make Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski do something good for cancer patients for a change
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/07/lets-make-dr-stanislaw-burzynski-do-something-good-for-cancer-patients-for-a-change/
======================================
[48] – 4/26/2013 – Burzynski: 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:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/burzynski-fda-requirements-that-cancer-patients-utilize-more-traditional-cancer-treatment-options-in-order-to-be-eligible-to-participate-in-the-companys-antineoplaston-clinical-trials/
======================================
[49] – 4/20/2007 – Phase III study of erlotinib in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: the Tarceva Lung Cancer Investigation Trial
——————————————————————
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/17442998/
======================================
[50] – 5/2007 – A randomized phase II study of sorafenib/gemcitabine or sorafenib/erlotinib
for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in elderly patients or patients with a performance status of 2: treatment rationale and protocol dynamics
——————————————————————
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17562243/
======================================
[51] – 4/20/2006 – Phase II study of capecitabine, oxaliplatin, and erlotinib in previously treated patients with metastastic colorectal cancer
——————————————————————
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16622264/
======================================
[52] – 1/2008 – A Phase II Clinical Trial of Sorafenib in Androgen-Independent Prostate Cancer
——————————————————————
http://m.clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/14/1/209.long
======================================
[53] – 4/2007 – Safety, Pharmacokinetics, and Preliminary Antitumor Activity of Sorafenib: A Review of Four Phase I Trials in Patients with Advanced Refractory Solid Tumors
——————————————————————
http://m.theoncologist.alphamedpress.org/content/12/4/426.abstract
======================================
[54] – 6/20/2007 – A phase I study of vorinostat (VOR) in combination with capecitabine (CAP) in patients (pts) with advanced solid tumors
——————————————————————
http://meeting.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/18_suppl/3576
======================================
[55] – 12/12/2012 – Stanislaw Burzynski: A pioneering cancer researcher or a quack?
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/12/12/stanislaw-burzynski-a-pioneering-cancer-researcher-or-a-quack/
======================================
[56] – 12/5/2012 – Stanislaw Burzynski: On the arrogance of ignorance about cancer and targeted therapies
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/12/05/arrogance-of-ignorance-about-cancer/
======================================
[57] – 4/24/2013 – Burzynski referenced by other Cancer researchers:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/burzynski-referenced-by-other-cancer-researchers/
======================================
[
] – 11/21/2012 – Yet another patient wasting money on Stanislaw Burzynski’s antineoplastons while Burzynski apparently slithers away from justice yet again
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/11/21/yet-another-patient-wasting-money-on-burzynski/
======================================
[
] – 8/16/2012 – Stanislaw Burzynski versus regulations protecting human research subjects
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/08/16/stanislaw-burzynski-versus-regulations-protecting-human-research-subjects/
======================================
[
] – 6/5/2012 – R.I.P., Billie Bainbridge
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/06/05/r-i-p-billie-bainbridge/
======================================
[
] – 12/12/2011 – Respectful Insolence ….. Rather, they appear custom-designed so that Dr. …… http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/11/burzynski_the_movie_subtle_its_not. php
What Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski doesn’t want you to know about …
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/12/12/what-dr-stanislaw-burzynski-doesnt-want/
======================================
[
] – 12/5/2011 – When “personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy” really means “making it up as you go along”
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/12/05/personalized-gene-targeted-cancer-therapy/
======================================

The #Burzynski Skeptics™ are SkeptiScared

8/10/2013 Burzynski, The Movie published at 7:51 pm, that the Japanese randomized phase II antineoplastons A10 (Atengenal) and AS2-1 (Astugenal) clinical trial study had been rejected by The Lancet Oncology
——————————————————————
https://m.facebook.com/pages/Burzynski-The-Movie/318281183441?id=318281183441&refsrc=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fpages%2FBurzynski-The-Movie%2F318281183441&_rdr
======================================
Burzynski – The Antineoplaston Randomized Japan Phase II Clinical Trial Study:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/burzynski-the-antineoplaston-randomized-japan-phase-ii-clinical-trial-study/
======================================
8/12/2013 The Skeptics™ “god” of misdirection, misinformation, disinformation, and MisDisInformation, David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D, L.I.A.R., posted his newest piece of propaganda PoundMUDcake
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/08/12/antineoplaston-fails-publication/
======================================
The Skeptics™ Sheeple Oracolytes followed with the usual lemming-like Twitter bomb
——————————————————————
[1]

https://twitter.com/_JosephineJones/status/366839339478560768

[2]

https://twitter.com/oracknows/status/366843399753564161

[3]
——————————————————————
https://twitter.com/oracknows/status/366866619508596737
——————————————————————
Josephine Jones proves that she does NOT have a clue, and probably has NOT watched Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II (2), OR she was trying to pull a Gorski, and saw the film, but chooses to act like she did NOT see what she chooses NOT to comment on
——————————————————————
[4]

https://twitter.com/_JosephineJones/status/366839971702775808
——————————————————————
As you can see below, @BurzynskiMovie posed the question to Doctor B. Paul Morgan 12/20/2012 at 5:12 PM, and he responded at 5:28 PM

https://twitter.com/BurzynskiMovie/status/281899938076569600

https://twitter.com/drpaulmorgan/status/281904032027652096

Eric Merola revealed in Burzynski, Part 2 (1:29:53), that The Lancet Oncology Peer Review Team D-12-01519, in 2 hours 8 minutes and 51 seconds, refused to publish Burzynski’s 11/26/2012 phase 2 clinical trial Progression-Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS) re patients 8 – 16 years after diagnosis, results
——————————————————————
11/26/2012 came before 12/20/2012 last time I checked
——————————————————————
The Lancet Oncology Peer Review Team D-12-01519: #FAIL:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/25/the-lancet-oncology-peer-review-team-d-12-01519-fail/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[5]

https://twitter.com/_JosephineJones/status/366840961281687552

[6]

https://twitter.com/gorskon/status/366866988083052544

[7]

https://twitter.com/frozenwarning/status/366863839041556481

[8]

https://twitter.com/DrNescio/status/366897062119342080

“Orac” is god’s article is titled:

A study of antineoplastons fails to be published. Stanislaw Burzynski’s propagandist Eric Merola whines about it. News at 11.

Gorski makes me laugh at his antics

He supposedly has a Ph.D, and supposedly is a “cancer researcher”, yet his “research” is horrendous when it comes to actual cancer science

Dr. Gorski, as you recall, prefers to misdirect his Oracolytes away from Science, and instead focus on the mundane

An excellent example of this is where he states:

“(Burzynski) hasn’t bothered to actually demonstrate in a sufficiently rigorous fashion that they (antineoplastons) do what he claims they do or that they have significant anticancer activity in actual human beings”

The false god conveniently uses misdirection to ignore all of the National Cancer Institute clinical studies which Dvorit D. Samid; who learned about antineoplastons from Burzynski, was a part of
======================================
Critiquing: Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski and The Skeptics™:
http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/critiquing-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-and-the-skeptics/
======================================
He also misdirects readers away from antineoplaston studies done in other countries
======================================
Burzynski: Egypt antineoplaston publications:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-egypt-antineoplaston-publication/
======================================
Burzynski: Japan antineoplaston publications:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/burzynski-japan/
======================================
Burzynski: China antineoplaston publications:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-china-antineoplaston-publications/
======================================
And he turns a blind eye to the fact that Burzynski completed the first phase II clinical trial in 2009, whereas M.D. Anderson completed a cancer clinical study in 2006, yet the results of that study were NOT available electronically until 2/13/2013
——————————————————————
See point #21
======================================
Critiquing: In which the latest movie about Stanislaw Burzynski “cancer cure” is reviewed…with Insolence:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/critiquing-in-which-the-latest-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-cure-is-reviewed-with-insolence-2/
======================================
See here for the actual M.D. Anderson study
——————————————————————
Burzynski: HYPERNATREMIA:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/burzynski-hypernatremia/
======================================
In addition, Gorski calls antineoplastons:

“chemotherapy”

This is classic Gorski disinformation

It is NOT “chemotherapy”

It is: “not ordinary chemotherapy”

notwithstanding the claims of his lackeys, toadies, and sycophants

So, when further on in his article where Gorski posts his usual garbage:

“However, even though Burzynski has dozens of clinical trials of antineoplastons against cancer registered at ClinicalTrials.gov but has not managed to publish even a single completed trial …”

you know he is being disingenuous, so that it fits his narrative

Gorski then continues the whining that never ends:

“… there is another investigator who has been doing a randomized clinical trial”

“His name is Dr. Hidaeki Tsuda of the Kurume University Hospital in Japan”

“He’s an anesthesiologist, not a surgeon or oncologist; so I’m not sure why he’s doing clinical trials of a chemotherapy agent”

As usual, Gorski is unable to state what difference it makes that Burzynski and Tsuda are NOT oncologists

Nor does he state whether he reviewed any of their clinical study publications in order to determine if any of the co-authors just happen to be oncologists

Why is this ?

Because Gorski is disingenuous and exhibiting his poor research

In reference to the Tsuda study, Gorski deposits:

“Nor did I have any idea whether any progress had been made in getting the study published”

Yet this is the same Gorski who supposedly blogged a “review” of Burzynski, Part 2, but when it came to the part of the film (1:29:53) where it showed the 11/26/2012 The Lancet Oncology Peer Review Team D-12-01519 lame excuse for NOT publishing Burzynski’s phase 2 clinical trial Progression-Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS) re patients 8 – 16 years after diagnosis, results, in 2 hours 8 minutes and 51 seconds, Gorski was Mr. NO COMMENT #FAIL
======================================
See point #13
——————————————————————
Critiquing: In which the latest movie about Stanislaw Burzynski “cancer cure” is reviewed…with Insolence:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/critiquing-in-which-the-latest-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-cure-is-reviewed-with-insolence-2/
======================================
Now, all of a sudden, Gorski acts like he thinks we should accept that he’s NOT just continuing his disingenuous behavior

Gorski, Gorski, Gorski, Gorski, you are such a funny man

I really did laugh out loud when I read how you did NOT compare the lame excuse given by The Lancet Oncology Peer Review Team, with the reply they supplied regarding the Tsuda study

Gorski whines about the experience he suffered when he had difficulty getting something published, and comments;

“If the topic is not interesting or the data are crap, its being well-written and rigorously adherent to the journal’s format won’t save it”

I guess this means that Gorski’s journal submission fit his criteria:

“the topic is not interesting or the data are crap”

Gorski continues with his foaming of the mouth and gnashing of teeth:

“Another curious thing happened yesterday”

“There appeared this Tweet:”

Captain Morgan wannabe https://t.co/n2GyapAG6Q Why did TheLancetOncology NOT publish #Burzynski ? YOU suggested them http://t.co/Ag1VHH5VSN

— John Q. Public (@JohnQBull) August 11, 2013

“The Tweet linked to in the Tweet above was this one:”

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

— Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) December 20, 2012

“So basically, it appears that Mr. Merola likely transmitted suggestions for journals listed on Twitter to Dr. Burzynski and/or Dr. Tsuda, and the advice was taken”

“It’s almost as though this particular Burzynski apologist thought that Dr. Paul Morgan meant that Dr. Tsuda’s manuscript would definitely be accepted”

Such naiveté is almost cute

Gorski exhibits that he did NOT make any effort whatsoever to click on the provided link and read the material associated with the tweet

Actually, it’s painful to behold such basic ignorance about how Twitter links work

Of course, there is a way for Dr. Gorski to demonstrate my educated guess about what really happened to be wrong

All he has to do is to answer a question and provide one bit of information

The question is, “Did you watch Burzynski, Part 2?” If the answer is yes, then all we need to see to determine if you are NOT being disingenuous is true, is one simple thing

Explain WHY you did NOT mention The Lancet Oncology Peer Review Team lame excuse for NOT publishing Burzynski’s results

It’s really that simple, Dr. Gorski

Put up or shut up

In the meantime it is obvious what “plan B” is

You will continue with your usual deception, misdirection, misinformation, disinformation, MisDisInformation, and lies

The reason is easy

Gorski and the Oracolytes are disingenuous

Gorski supporters really need a new schtick

This one’s getting really old

So is the schtick of The Skeptics

Surely they could come up with something better than this?

Apparently not

They are Cowards who refuse to debate the issues on-line or in person
======================================
[1] Josephine Jones (@_JosephineJones) tweeted at 3:31am – 12 Aug 13:
——————————————————————
Antineoplastons study rejected by Lancet Oncology. It’s a conspiracy! scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013… #Burzynski
======================================
[2] Orac (@oracknows) tweeted at 3:47am – 12 Aug 13:
——————————————————————
Yo! New insolence! A study of antineoplastons fails to be published. Stanislaw Burzynski’s propagandist Eric M… bit.ly/1csAfRB
======================================
[3] Orac (@oracknows) tweeted at 5:19am – 12 Aug 13:
——————————————————————
Oh, @BurzynskMovie, here’s what I think of whining that Dr. Tsuda’s paper was rejected by Lancet Oncology. scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013… #Burzynski
======================================
[4] Josephine Jones (@_JosephineJones) tweeted at 3:33am – 12 Aug 13:
——————————————————————
It’s strange that #Burzynski skeptics were asked to name journals and that’s where the study was submitted. scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013…
======================================
[5] Josephine Jones (@_JosephineJones) tweeted at 3:37am – 12 Aug 13:
——————————————————————
As far as I know, we only have Merola’s word that the ANPs study was submitted to Lancet Oncology. scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013… #Burzynski
======================================
[6] David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 5:21am – 12 Aug 13:
——————————————————————
.@_JosephineJones I think Tsuda’s aiming too high. Lancet Oncology is a top tier cancer journal. He should aim much lower. #Burzynski
======================================
[7] FW (@frozenwarning) tweeted at 5:08am – 12 Aug 13:
——————————————————————
@_JosephineJones Look forward to it being published in some shit altmed journal then! *twiddles thumbs*
======================================
[8] Primum Non Nocere (@DrNescio) tweeted at 7:20am – 12 Aug 13:
——————————————————————
A study of antineoplastons fails to be published. Stanislaw Burzynski’s propagandist Eric Merola whines about it…. pulse.me/s/p1zrK
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

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

1. One “Orac” (Dr. David H. Gorski @oracknows @sciencebasedmed @gorskon #sciencebasedmedicine
http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org)
claimed:
�
“Burzynski naturally has lots of excuses for why the trial failed and tried to blame the investigators, but his complaints are not convincing.”
�
When I requested that he respond to Burzynski’s comments re the study, he would NOT touch it with the proverbial ZZ Top
�
“Ten-Foot Pole”
�
What Critic, Cynic, or one of “The Skeptics™” is going to show more Bravery and Courage than “Orac”?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
2. If antineoplastons do NOT work, why, after Dvorit D. SAMID learned of them from Burzynski, did all the research, clinical studies, and phase I, phase II, and phase III clinical trials really start to get underway on
PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINATE (PAG or PG)
PHENYLACETATE (PN)
and
PHENYLBUTYRATE (PB)?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
3. This individual claims to be a “cancer researcher”
�
If this individual’s “research” is so poor as a “cancer researcher,” what does that say about “research” re the “War on Cancer”?
�
My review of C0nc0rdance:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/23/my-review-of-c0nc0rdance/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
4. This individual claims to be a “Doctor,” “oncologist,” “breast cancer specialist,” and “cancer researcher”
�
If this individual’s “research” is so poor as a “cancer researcher,” what does that say about “research” re the “War on Cancer”?
�
Paging Doctor David H. Gorski, Paging Doctor David H. Gorski: There’s Mud in your Ears … Doktor Gorski?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/28/paging-doctor-david-h-gorski-paging-doctor-david-h-gorski-theres-mud-in-your-ears-doktor-gorski/
He did NOT even refer to the below publication by Burzynski regarding “Treatment of Recurrent Triple-Negative Breast Cancer:”
�
8/2011 – Successful Treatment of Recurrent Triple-Negative Breast Cancer with Combination of Targeted Therapies
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownload.aspx?DOI=10.4236/jct.2011.23050
Journal of Cancer Therapy, 2011, 2, 372-376
doi:10.4236/jct.2011.23050 Published Online August 2011
(http://www.SciRP.org/journal/jct)
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
5. Critics, Cynics, “The Skeptics™” state that Burzynski is NOT an oncologist, but can offer no explanation as to why this is supposedly “relevant,” they cannot explain if oncologists are somehow “better” than biochemists, nor do they want to answer the question:
�
“Does Burzynski work with any oncologists, and are any of them listed on his phase II clinical trial publications”?
�
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/scientific-publications.html
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
16. 2003
�
DRUGS IN R&D
Drugs in R and D
(Drugs in Research and Development)
�
BT-11
�
BRAIN STEM GLIOMA
�
Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA:
�
a preliminary report.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12718563
Burzynski, S.R.
Lewy, R.I.
Weaver, R.A.
Axler, M.L.
Janicki, T.J.
Jurida, G.F.
Paszkowiak, J.K.
Szymkowski, B.G.
Khan, M.I.
Bestak, M.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12718563
Drugs R D. 2003;4(2):91-101
Drugs in R&D 2003;4:91-101
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/960.pdf
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
6. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) Panorama program indicated that 776 Burzynski patients with brain tumours were treated in trials before 2008
http://t.co/nFpwlQg275
15.5% (120) survived more than 5 years
�
Critics, Cynics, “The Skeptics™”, what’s your survival rate?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
7. March 29, 1996
�
Then United States Food and Drug Administration Commissioner, David A. Kessler told the American people:
�
1. We will eliminate unnecessary paperwork … that used to delay or discourage … cancer research … by non-commercial clinical investigators
�
2. The … FDA’s initiatives … will allow …the agency … to rely on smaller trials … fewer patients … if there is evidence … of partial response in clinical trials
�
I don’t want to get into any particular … agent … except let me point out … that … the information needs to be part … of clinical trials
�
3. We will accept … less information … up front –
�
4. we’re going to require further study AFTER … approval … because the science … has matured
�
5. The important – point … is that information needs to be gathered … through scientific means … through clinical – trials … and I think – that’s … that’s very important uhh very … important point
�
You can’t … just … use an agent here – or there … you have to use it … as part of a clinical trial … so we can get information … on whether the drug works
�
6. The uhh agency has … many … trials … has has approved trials … for patients … with antineoplastons
�
7. We are committed to providing expanded access … availability … for American patients for any drug … there’s reason to believe … may work
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/antineoplastons-has-the-fda-kept-its-promise-to-the-american-people
——————————————————————
A. What is the FDA’s definition of “unnecessary paperwork”?
�
B. What is the FDA’s definition of “smaller trials”?
�
C. What is the FDA’s definition of “fewer patients”?
�
D. What is the FDA’s definition of “evidence … of partial response“?
�
E. What is the FDA’s definition of “less information … up front”?
�
F. What is the FDA’s definition of “we’re going to require further study AFTER … approval”?
�
G. What is the FDA’s definition of “We are committed to providing expanded access … availability … for American patients for any drug … there’s reason to believe … may work”?
�
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/what-is-misdirection-critiquing-antineoplastons-has-the-fda-kept-its-promise-to-the-american-people/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
8. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) Panorama program indicated that 776 Burzynski patients with brain tumours were treated in trials before 2008
http://t.co/nFpwlQg275
Is that what the FDA means by:
�
rely on … fewer patients?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
9. 4/27/2013 (37:20) Fabio stated that
Burzynski had provided the FDA with 2.5 million pages of clinical trial documents
http://youtu.be/BuNr06BuXkk
Is that what the FDA means by:
�
“unnecessary paperwork”?
�
and
�
“less information … up front”?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
10. Is this what the FDA means by:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/what-is-misdirection-critiquing-antineoplastons-has-the-fda-kept-its-promise-to-the-american-people/
if there is evidence … of partial response in clinical trials?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
11. Why was the United States Food and Drug Administration requiring that radiation be used in the Phase 3 Clinical Trial when Burzynski has shown better results with antineoplastons when radiation is NOT used?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
12. Who wants to defend the excuse that The Lancet gave for NOT Publishing the documentation which Burzynski sent to them, which is referred to in Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business, Part II?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
13. Review Articles on Clinical Trials: 2. 2006 – Treatments for Astrocytic Tumors in Children: Current and Emerging Strategies. Pediatric Drugs 2006;8:167-178.
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1252.pdf
2006 Adis – Pediatr Drugs 2006; 8 (3)
�
pg 174
�
2.3. Targeted Therapy
�
1652 adults
335 children
[147]
�
indicates 1,799 Burzynski patients
�
Is that what the FDA means by:
�
rely on … fewer patients?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
13. The FDA approved phase III (3) clinical trials for Antineoplastons A10 (Atengenal) and AS2-1 (Astugenal); which means that they have shown evidence of effectiveness, yet they have NOT granted Accelerated Approval for them, even though they have done so for other treatments which had NOT yet published the final results of phase II (2) clinical trials, and which did NOT have as good Complete Response, Partial Response, Stable Disease, Minor Response, Progressive Disease, Objective Response, Progression-Free Survival, etc., rates:

Burzynski: Why has the FDA NOT granted Accelerated Approval for Antineoplastons A10 (Atengenal) and AS2-1 (Astugenal) ?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/burzynski-why-has-the-fda-not-granted-accelerated-approval-for-antineoplastons-a10-astengenal-and-as2-1-astugenal/

(Additional QUESTIONS being added)

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

1.

Post #73 – Didymus Judas Thomas

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

1/30/2013

Post #52 – Orac

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

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

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

“Thus far, he has failed to do so.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“I’m not letting DJT through.”

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

“Ten Foot Pole”

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

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

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

Dr. Gorski censored (blocked) my comments

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

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

April 27, 2013

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

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

Let’s review your

“deconstructed his “evidence” in depth before” claim

1/21/2013 Orac posted THIS blog:

“Quoth Joe Mercola:

I love me some Burzynski antineoplastons

Posted by Orac on January 21, 2013″

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

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

1/29/2013

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

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

January 29, 2013

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

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

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

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

“Thus far, he has failed to do so”

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

Post #73 – Didymus Judas Thomas

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

January 30, 2013

Post #52 – Orac

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

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

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

“Thus far, he has failed to do so”

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

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

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

Burzynski responded by pointing out:

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

This was responded to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phenylbutyrate (PB)

Dvorit D. SAMID learned about PHENYLBUTYRATE (PB) from Burzynski
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Antineoplastons AS2-1 and AS2-5 are DERIVED FROM A10
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Phenylacetylglutaminate (PAG or PG) and Phenylacetate (PN) are metabolites of PHENYLBUTYRATE (PB) and are constituents of antineoplaston AS2-1
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Antineoplastons
General Information:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/healthprofessional/page2
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Sodium PHENYLBUTYRATE (PB)
Year – Pubmed (110 entries)
1958 1st entry
1995 1st clinical trial
2001 Phase 1
2009 Phase 2
2012 Phase 3
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
PHENYLBUTYRATE (PB)
19 (PHENYLBUTYRATE (PB + SAMID)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/?term=Phenylbutyrate+Samid
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
IV. Aetna considers SODIUM PHENYLBUTYRATE medically necessary for the treatment of acute promyelocytic leukemia and malignant glioma
http://www.aetna.com/cpb/medical/data/200_299/0240.html
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
The FDA has approved SODIUM PHENYLBUTYRATE as a treatment to remove ammonia from the bloodstream in individuals with urea cycle disorders
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
SODIUM PHENYLBUTYRATE was given an orphan drug designation by the FDA for use as an adjunct to surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy for treatment of individuals with primary or recurrent malignant glioma
http://www.anthem.com/medicalpolicies/policies/mp_pw_a050524.htm
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Cumulative List of all Products that have received Orphan Designation: Total active designations: 2002 Effecive: (sic – Effective) 5/5/2009
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/forindustry/developingproductsforrarediseasesconditions/howtoapplyfororphanproductdesignation/ucm162066.xls
PHENYLBUTYRATE (PB) and SODIUM PHENYLBUTYRATE are listed alphabetically in the lower 1/4th of this document
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Pubmed 110 entries
Sodium PHENYLBUTYRATE
“Sodium PHENYLBUTYRATE (aka PB) …”
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
If they’re going to include it in a phase 3 study, than it’s “fair game”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22961727
Hepatology
Early View (Online Version of Record published before inclusion in an issue)

Article first published online: 3 JAN 2013

DOI: 10.1002/hep.26058
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hep.26058/abstract;jsessionid=34AE3D61DEEF5356F147DE74B26759F9.d01t03
Article:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hep.26058/full
References:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hep.26058/references
Cited by:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hep.26058/citedby

Hepatology. 2012 Sep 7. doi: 10.1002/hep.26058. [Epub ahead of print]
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
1990 – Treatment of hormonally refractory cancer of the prostate with antineoplaston AS2-1.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/2152694/
BURZYNSKI, S. R., Kubove E., Burzynski, B.
Drugs Exp. Clin. Res., 16: 361-369, 1990.
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
1991 – Selective growth arrest and phenotypic reversion of prostate cancer cells in vitro by nontoxic pharmacological concentrations of phenylacetate.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC288233/
SAMID D., Shack S., Myers C.
J. Clin. Investig., 91: 2288-2295, 1991.
J Clin Invest. 1993 May; 91(5): 2288–2295.
doi: 10.1172/JCI116457
PMCID: PMC288233

References:

SAMID D, Flessate DM, Friedman RM. Interferon-induced revertants of ras-transformed cells:

resistance to transformation by specific oncogenes and retransformation by 5-azacytidine. Mol Cell Biol. 1987 Jun;7(6):2196–2200.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC365343/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/2439904/
SAMID D, Shack S, Sherman LT. Phenylacetate:

a novel nontoxic inducer of tumor cell differentiation. Cancer Res. 1992 Apr 1;52(7):1988–1992.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1372534/

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/52/7/1988
SAMID D, Yeh A, Prasanna P. Induction of erythroid differentiation and fetal hemoglobin production in human leukemic cells treated with phenylacetate. Blood. 1992 Sep 15;80(6):1576–1581.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1381630/
Dover GJ, Brusilow S, SAMID D. Increased fetal hemoglobin in patients receiving sodium 4-PHENYLBUTYRATE. N Engl J Med. 1992 Aug 20;327(8):569–570.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1378939/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
4/1/1992 – Phenylacetate:

A novel non-toxic inducer of tumor cell differentiation
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1372534/
SAMID D, Shack S , Sherman L T
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/52/7/1988
Cancer Res 52:1988,1992
Cancer Res. 1992 Apr 1;52(7):1988-92.
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
↵1 Supported by Elan Pharmaceutical Corporation Grant G174ED.
Reference: 12 (SAMID, D.)
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
8/20/1992 – Increased fetal hemoglobin in patients receiving sodium 4-PHENYLBUTYRATE.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1378939/
Dover GJ, Brusilow S, SAMID D
N Engl J Med 327569, 1992
N Engl J Med. 1992 Aug 20;327(8):569–570.
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
9/15/1992 – Induction of erythroid differentiation and fetal hemoglobin production in human leukemic cells treated with phenylacetate.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1381630/
SAMID D, Yeh A, Prasanna P
Blood 80:1576, 1992
Blood. 1992 Sep 15;80(6):1576–1581.
Blood. 1992 Sep 15;80(6):1576-81.
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD.

References:

15. SAMID D, Shack S, Ti-Sherman L Phenylacetate-A novel nontoxic inducer of tumor cell differentiation. Cancer Res 52:1988, 1992
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1372534/
Cancer Res. 1992 Apr 1;52(7):1988-92.
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/52/7/1988
20. SAMID D, Flessate DM, Friedman RM: Interferon-induced revertants of ras-transformed cells:

Resistance to transformation by specific oncogenes and retransformation by 5-azacytidine. Mol Cell Biol7:2196,1987
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/2439904/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC365343/
21. Rimoldi D, Srikantan V, Wilson VL, Bassin RH,SAMID D: Increased sensitivity of nontumorigenic fibroblasts expressing ras or myconcogenes to malignant transformation induced by 5-aza-2‘- deoxycytidine. Cancer Res 51:324,1991
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1703037/

http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/51/1/324.abstract

http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/51/1/324.full.pdf

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/51/1/324
34. Dover GJ, Brusilow S, SAMID D: Increased fetal hemoglobin in patients receiving sodium 4-PHENYLBUTYRATE. N Engl J Med 327569,1992
N Engl J Med. 1992 Aug 20;327(8):569–570.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1378939/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
5/1993 – Selective growth arrest and phenotypic reversion of prostate cancer cells in vitro by nontoxic, pharmacological concentrations of phenylacetate.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC288233/
SAMID D, Shack S, Myers CE:
J Clin Invest 91:2288, 1993
J Clin Invest. 1993 May; 91(5): 2288–2295.
doi: 10.1172/JCI116457
PMCID: PMC288233

References:

9. SAMID D, Flessate DM, Friedman RM. Interferon-induced revertants of ras-transformed cells: resistance to transformation by specific oncogenes and retransformation by 5-azacytidine. Mol Cell Biol. 1987 Jun;7(6):2196–2200.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/2439904/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC365343/

http://mcb.asm.org/content/7/6/2196.full.pdf
13. SAMID D, Shack S, Sherman LT. Phenylacetate:

a novel nontoxic inducer of tumor cell differentiation. Cancer Res. 1992 Apr 1;52(7):1988–1992.
Cancer Res 52:1988, 1992
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1372534/
Cancer Res. 1992 Apr 1;52(7):1988-92.
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/52/7/1988
14. SAMID D, Yeh A, Prasanna P. Induction of erythroid differentiation and fetal hemoglobin production in human leukemic cells treated with phenylacetate. Blood. 1992 Sep 15;80(6):1576–1581.
Blood 80:1576, 1992
Blood. 1992 Sep 15;80(6):1576-81.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1381630/
17. Dover GJ, Brusilow S, SAMID D. Increased fetal hemoglobin in patients receiving sodium 4-PHENYLBUTYRATE. N Engl J Med. 1992 Aug 20;327(8):569–570.
N Engl J Med 327569,1992
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1378939/
33. D. SAMID
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
10/1/1993 – Enhanced fetal
hemoglobin production by phenylacetate and 4-PHENYLBUTYRATE in erythroid precursors derived from normal blood donors and patients with sickle cell anemia and P-thalassemia
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7691251/
Fibach E, Prasanna P, Rodgers GP, SAMID D:
Blood 822203, 1993
Blood. 1993 Oct 1;82(7):2203-9.
Department of Hematology, Hadassah University Hospital, Jerusalem, Israel.

References:

15. (SAMID D)

19. SAMID D, Yeh A, Prasanna P Induction of erythroid differentiation and fetal hemoglobin production in human leukemic cells treated with phenylacetate. Blood 80:1576, 1992
Blood. 1992 Sep 15;80(6):1576–1581.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1381630/
20. Dover GJ, Brusilow S, SAMID D: Increased fetal hemoglobin in patients receiving sodium 4-PHENYLBUTYRATE. N Engl J Med 327569, 1992
N Engl J Med. 1992 Aug 20;327(8):569–570.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1378939/
3I. SAMID D, Shack S, Ti-Sherman L Phenylacetate-A novel
nontoxic inducer of tumor cell differentiation. Cancer Res 52:1988, 1992
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1372534/
Cancer Res. 1992 Apr 1;52(7):1988-92.
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/52/7/1988
32. SAMID D, Shack S, Myers CE: Selective growth arrest and phenotypic reversion of prostate cancer cells in vitro by nontoxic, pharmacological concentrations of phenylacetate. J Clin Invest 91:2288, 1993
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC288233/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
4/1/1994 Phase 1
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8137283
A phase I and pharmacokinetic study of intravenous phenylacetate in patients with cancer
http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/7/1690.abstract
Thibault A, Cooper MR, Figg WD, Venzon DJ, Sartor AO, Tompkins AC, Weinberger MS, Headlee DJ, McCall NA, SAMID D, et al.
http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/7/1690.full.pdf
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland
Cancer Res. 1994 Apr 1;54(7):1690-4.
Cancer Res 54(7):1690-4 (1994), PMID.8137283
recent version of this article at: http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/7/1690
References:

8. SAMID, A., Shack, S., and Sherman, L. T. Phenylacetate:

a novel nontoxic inducer of tumor cell differentiation. Cancer Res., 52: 1988-1992, 1992.
Cancer Res 52:1988, 1992
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1372534/
Cancer Res. 1992 Apr 1;52(7):1988-92.
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/52/7/1988
9. SAMID, D., Yen, A., and Prasana, P. Induction of erythroid differentiation and fetal hemoglobin production in human leukemic cells treated with phenylacetate. Blood, 80: 1576-1581, 1992.
Blood 80:1576, 1992
Blood. 1992 Sep 15;80(6):1576–1581.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1381630/
10. SAMID, D., Shack, S., and Myers, C. E. Selective growth arrest and phenotypic reversion of prostate cancer cells in vitro by nontoxic pharmacological concentrations of phenylacetate. J. Clin. Invest., 91: 2288-2295, 1993.
J Clin Invest 91:2288, 1993
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC288233/
11. SAMID. D., Ram, Z., Hudgins, W. R., Shack, S., Liu, L., Walbridge, S., Oldfield, E. H., Myers, C. E. Selective activity of phenylacetate against malignant gliomas:

resemblance to fetal brain damage in phenylketonuria. Cancer Res., 54: 891-895, 1994.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8313377/
12. Dover, G. J., Brusilow, S., and SAMID, D. Increased fetal hemoglobin in patients receiving sodium 4-PHENYLBUTYRATE. N. Engl. J. Med., 327: 569-570, 1992.
N Engl J Med 327569, 1992
N Engl J Med. 1992 Aug 20;327(8):569–570.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1378939/
13. BURZYNSKI, S. R., Kubove E., Burzynski, B. Treatment of hormonally refractory cancer of the prostate with antineoplaston AS2-1. Drugs Exp. Clin. Res., 16: 361-369, 1990.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/2152694/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
1/1/1995 1st clinical trial
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7528572
Oral sodium PHENYLBUTYRATE therapy in homozygous beta thalassemia:

a clinical trial
http://m.bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/content/85/1/43.full.pdf#page=1
Collins AF, Pearson HA, Giardina P, McDonagh KT, Brusilow SW, Dover GJ.
Blood. 1995 Jan 1;85(1):43-9.
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.

References:

14. SAMID D, Shack S , Sherman L T

Phenylacetate:

A novel non-toxic inducer of tumor cell differentiation
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1372534/
Cancer Res 52:1988,1992
Cancer Res. 1992 Apr 1;52(7):1988-92.
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/52/7/1988
16. Fibach E, Prasanna P, Rodgers GP, SAMID D:

Enhanced fetal
hemoglobin production by phenylacetate and 4-PHENYLBUTYRATE in erythroid precursors derived from normal blood donors and patients with sickle cell anemia and P-thalassemia
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7691251/
Blood 822203, 1993
Blood. 1993 Oct 1;82(7):2203-9.
Department of Hematology, Hadassah University Hospital, Jerusalem, Israel.

28. Dover GJ, Brusilow SW, SAMID D:

Increased fetal hemoglobin in patients receiving sodium 4-PHENYLBUTYRATE
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1378939/
N Engl JMed 327:569, 1992 (letter)
N Engl J Med. 1992 Aug 20;327(8):569-70.
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
7/1995 – Transcriptional upregulation of TGF-α by phenylacetate and PHENYLBUTYRATE is associated with differentiation of human melanoma cells.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7578983/
Liu L., Hudgins W. R., Miller A. C., Chen L. C., SAMID D.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1043466685700610
Cytokine, 7: 449-456, 1995.
Cytokine Volume 7, Issue 5, July 1995, Pages 449–456
Cytokine. 1995 Jul;7(5):449-56.
a Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Armed Forces of Radiation Research Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
b Radiation Biochemistry Department, Armed Forces of Radiation Research Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/cyto.1995.0061
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
8/23/1996 – Activation of the human peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor by the antitumor agent phenylacetate and its analogues.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8759039/
Pineau T., Hudgins W. R., Liu L., Chen L. C., Sher T., Gonzalez F. J., SAMID D.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0006295296003401
Biochem. Pharmacol., 52: 659-667, 1996.
Biochemical Pharmacology
Volume 52, Issue 4, 23 August 1996, Pages 659–667
Biochem Pharmacol. 1996 Aug 23;52(4):659-67.
∗ Laboratory of Molecular Carcinogenesis U.S.A.
‡ Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD U.S.A.
§ Experimental Therapeutics Program, University of Virginia Cancer Center, Charlottesville, VA, U.S.A.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0006-2952(96)00340-1
This work was supported, in part, by funds from the Elan Pharmaceutical Research Corporation through a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CACR-0139).
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
9/1996 – The differentiating agent phenylacetate increases prostate-specific antigen production by prostate cancer cells.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8827086/
Walls R., Thibault A., Liu L., Wood C., Kozlowski J. M., Figg W. D., Sampson M. L., Elin R. J., SAMID D.
Prostate, 29: 177-182, 1996.
Prostate. 1996 Sep;29(3):177-82.
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
10/25/1996 – Transcriptional upregulation of γ globin by PHENYLBUTYRATE and analogous aromatic fatty acids.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8937430/
Hudgins W. R., Fibach E., Safaya S., Rieder R. F., Miller A. C., SAMID D.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0006295296004765
Biochem. Pharmacol., 52: 1227-1233, 1996.
Biochem Pharmacol. 1996 Oct 25;52(8):1227-33.
Biochemical Pharmacology
Volume 52, Issue 8, 25 October 1996, Pages 1227–1233
a Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, and Laboratory of Chemical Biology, National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive Diseases and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes Of Health, Bethesda, MD, U.S.A.
b Department of Hematology, Hadassah University Hospital, Jerusalem, Israel
c Department of Medicine, State University of New York Health Science Center, Brooklyn, NY, U.S.A.
d Radiation Biochemistry Department, Armed Forces Radiation Research Institute, Bethesda, MD, U.S.A.
e University of Virginia Cancer Center, Charlottesville, VA, U.S.A.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0006-2952(96)00476-5
☆
This work was supported by funds from the Elan Pharmaceutical Research Corp. and from the Israeli Science Foundation, administered by the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
1997 – The nuclear receptors PPARS as novel targets in differentiation therapy: activation by phenylacetate and PHENYLBUTYRATE .
SAMID D., Wells M., Kulkarni M., Lei L., Thibault A.
Anticancer Res., 17: 3927-3928, 1997.
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
8/2001 – A phase Idose escalation and bioavailability study of oral sodium PHENYLBUTYRATE in patients with refractory solid tumor malignancies
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11489804
J Gilbert, S D Baker, … M A Carducci
http://m.clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/7/8/2292.long
Clin Cancer Res 7(8):2292-300 (2001), PMID.11489804

Clin Cancer Res. 2001 Aug;7(8):2292-300

References:

2. ↵ Liu L., Hudgins W. R., Miller A. C., Chen L. C., SAMID D. Transcriptional upregulation of TGF-α by phenylacetate and PHENYLBUTYRATE is associated with differentiation of human melanoma cells. Cytokine, 7: 449-456, 1995.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7578983/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1043466685700610
3. ↵ Hudgins W. R., Fibach E., Safaya S., Rieder R. F., Miller A. C., SAMID D. Transcriptional upregulation of γ globin by PHENYLBUTYRATE and analogous aromatic fatty acids. Biochem. Pharmacol., 52: 1227-1233, 1996.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8937430/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0006295296004765
5. ↵ SAMID D., Shack S., Myers C. E. Selective growth arrest and phenotypic reversion of prostate cancer cells in vitro by nontoxic pharmacological concentrations of phenylacetate. J. Clin. Investig., 91: 2288-2295, 1991.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8486788/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC288233/

http://m.jci.org/articles/view/116457
6. ↵ Pineau T., Hudgins W. R., Liu L., Chen L. C., Sher T., Gonzalez F. J., SAMID D. Activation of the human peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor by the antitumor agent phenylacetate and its analogues. Biochem. Pharmacol., 52: 659-667, 1996.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8759039/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0006295296003401
15. ↵ Walls R., Thibault A., Liu L., Wood C., Kozlowski J. M., Figg W. D., Sampson M. L., Elin R. J., SAMID D. The differentiating agent phenylacetate increases prostate-specific antigen production by prostate cancer cells. Prostate, 29: 177-182, 1996.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8827086/
20. ↵ SAMID D., Wells M., Kulkarni M., Lei L., Thibault A. The nuclear receptors PPARS as novel targets in differentiation therapy: activation by phenylacetate and PHENYLBUTYRATE. Anticancer Res., 17: 3927-3928, 1997.
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
10/2001 – A Phase I clinical and pharmacological evaluation of sodium PHENYLBUTYRATE on an 120-h infusion schedule
M A Carducci, J Gilbert, … R C Donehower
Clin Cancer Res 7(10):3047-55 (2001), PMID.11595694
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11595694
Clin Cancer Res. 2001 Oct;7(10):3047-55.
http://m.clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/7/10/3047.long
Division of Medical Oncology, The Johns Hopkins Oncology Center, Baltimore, MD, USA.

References:

10. ↵ SAMID D., Shack S., Myers C. E. Selective growth arrest and phenotypic reversion of prostate cancer cells in vitro by nontoxic pharmacological concentrations of phenylacetate. J. Clin. Investig., 91: 2288-2295, 1991.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8486788/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC288233/

http://m.jci.org/articles/view/116457

http://m.jci.org/articles/view/116457/pdf.mobile
11. ↵ SAMID D., Shack S., Sherman L. T. Phenylacetate:

a novel nontoxic inducer of tumor cell differentiation. Cancer Res., 52: 1988-1992, 1992.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1372534/

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

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

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/52/7/1988
13. ↵ Shack S., Miller A., Liu L., Prasanna P., Thilbault A., SAMID D. Vulnerability of multi-drug resistant tumor cells to the aromatic fatty acids phenylacetate and PHENYLBUTYRATE. Clin. Cancer Res., 2: 865-872, 1996.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9816242/

http://m.clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/2/5/865.abstract

http://m.clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/2/5/865.full.pdf

http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/2/5/865
14. ↵ SAMID D., Yeh A., Prasanna P. Induction of erythroid differentiation and fetal hemoglobin production in human leukemic cells treated with phenylacetate. Blood, 80: 1576-1581, 1992.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1381630/

http://m.bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/content/80/6/1576.abstract

http://m.bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/content/80/6/1576.full.pdf
17. ↵ SAMID D., Ram Z., Hudgins W. R., Shack S., Liu L., Walbridge S., Oldfield E. H., Myers C. E. Selective activity of phenylacetate against malignant gliomas:

resemblance to fetal brain damage in phenylketonuria. Cancer Res., 54: 891-895, 1994.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8313377/

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/4/891/
18. ↵ Fibach E., Prasanna P., Rodgers G. P., SAMID D. Enhanced fetal hemoglobin production by phenylacetate and 4-PHENYLBUTYRATE in erythroid precursors derived from normal donors and patients with sickle cell anemia and β-thalassemia. Blood, 82: 2203-2209, 1993.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7691251/

http://m.bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/content/82/7/2203.abstract

http://m.bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/content/82/7/2203.full.pdf
23. ↵ Liu L., Hudgins W. R., Miller A. C., Chen L. C., SAMID D. Transcriptional upregulation of TGF-α by phenylacetate and PHENYLBUTYRATE is associated with differentiation of human melanoma cells. Cytokine, 7: 449-456, 1995.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7578983/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1043466685700610
24. ↵ Hudgins W. R., Fibach E., Safaya S., Reider R. F., Miller A. C., SAMID D. Transcriptional upregulation of γ globin by PHENYLBUTYRATE and analogous aromatic fatty acids. Biochem. Pharmacol., 52: 1227-1233, 1996.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8937430/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0006295296004765
27. ↵ Pineau T., Hudgins W. R., Liu L., Chen L. C., Sher T., Gonzalez F. J., SAMID D. Activation of human peroxisome proliferator activator receptor by the antitumor agent phenylacetate and its analogs. Biochem. Pharmacol., 52: 659-667, 1996.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8759039/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0006295296003401
33. ↵ Walls R., Thilbault A., Liu L., Wood C., Kozlowski J. M., Figg W. D., Sampson M. L., Elin R. J., SAMID D. The differentiating agent phenylacetate increases prostate-specific antigen production by prostate cancer cells. Prostate, 29: 177-182, 1996.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8827086/
40. ↵ Thibault A., Cooper M. R., Figg W. D., Venzon D. J., Sartor A. O., Tompkins A. C., Weinberger M S., Headlee D. J., McCall N. A., SAMID D., et al A phase I and pharmacokinetic study of intravenous phenylacetate in patients with cancer. Cancer Res., 54: 1690-1694, 1994.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8137283/

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

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

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/7/1690
41. ↵ Piscitelli S. C., Thibault A., Figg W. D., Tompkins A. C., Headlee D., Lieberman R., SAMID D., Myers C. E. Disposition of PHENYLBUTYRATE and its metabolites, phenylacetate and phenylacetylglutamine. J. Clin. Pharmacol., 35: 368-373, 1995.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7650225/

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.1552-4604.1995.tb04075.x/abstract;jsessionid=43600D49608A093971D675F3DB5FF13D.d01t03
47. ↵ SAMID D., Wells M., Kulkarni M., Lei L., Thibault A. The nuclear receptors PPARS as novel targets in differentiation therapy:

activation by phenylacetate and PHENYLBUTYRATE. Anticancer Res., 17: 3927-3928, 1997
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
4/2005 – Oral sodium PHENYLBUTYRATE in patients with recurrent malignant gliomas:

A dose escalation and pharmacologic study

Neuro-oncol. 2005 April; 7(2): 177–182 PMCID: PMC1871887

PDF:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1871887/pdf/neu0702p177.pdf
References:

3. Buckner JC, Malkin MG, Reed E, Cascino TL, Reid JM, Ames MM, Tong WP, Lim S, Figg WD

Phase II study of anti-neoplastons A10 (NSC 648539) and AS2-1 (NSC 620261) in patients with recurrent glioma

Mayo Clin Proc. 1999;74:137–145

12. Gore SD, SAMID D, Weng LJ

Impact of the putative differentiating agents sodium PHENYLBUTYRATE and sodium phenylacetate on proliferation, differentiation, and apoptosis of primary neoplastic myeloid cells

Clin Cancer Res. 1997a;3:1755–1762

17. Hudgins WR, Pineau T, Sher T, Gonzales FJ, Myers CE, SAMID D

Anticancer activity of phenylacetate and related aromatic fatty acids:

Correlation with lipophilicity and capacity to activate nuclear receptor

Proc Am Assoc Can Res. 1994;35:391. (abstract 2332)

19. SAMID D, Shack S, Myers CE

Selective growth arrest and phenotypic reversion of prostate cancer cells in vitro by nontoxic pharmacological concentrations of phenylacetate

J Clin Invest. 1993;91:2288–2295

20. SAMID D, Ram Z, Hudgins WR, Shack S, Liu L, Walbridge S, Oldfield EH, Myers CE

Selective activity of phenylacetate against malignant gliomas:

Resemblance to fetal brain damage in phenylketonuria

Cancer Res. 1994;54:891–895

21. Sidell N, Wada R, Han G, Chang B, Shack S, Moore T, SAMID D

Phenylacetate synergizes with retinoic acid in inducing the differentiation of human neuroblastoma cells

Int J Cancer. 1995;60:507–514
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
4/2005 – Oral sodium PHENYLBUTYRATE in patients with recurrent malignant gliomas:

A dose escalation and pharmacologic study

Neuro-oncol. 2005 April; 7(2): 177–182 PMCID: PMC1871887

PDF:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1871887/pdf/neu0702p177.pdf
References:

3. Buckner JC, Malkin MG, Reed E, Cascino TL, Reid JM, Ames MM, Tong WP, Lim S, Figg WD
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10069350
Phase II study of anti-neoplastons A10 (NSC 648539) and AS2-1 (NSC 620261) in patients with recurrent glioma
http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)63835-4/fulltext
Mayo Clin Proc. 1999;74:137–145
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0025-6196(11)63835-4
Mayo Clinic Proceedings
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025619611638354
Mayo Clin Proc 74(2):9 (1999)
http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0025-6196/PIIS0025619611638354.pdf
DOI: 10.4065/74.2.137
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2796.2003.01098.x/full
Mayo Clin Proc 1999; 74: 137–45
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2796.2003.01098.x/references

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1046/j.1365-2796.2003.01098.x/asset/j.1365-2796.2003.01098.x.pdf?v=1&t=hbs6xce2&s=3423e3cd1955667e8e8cdf33323faf0bd85b6a29

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1046/j.1365-2796.2003.01098.x/asset/j.1365-2796.2003.01098.x.pdf?v=1&t=hbrndkdf&s=e0af2d3bfb13841852d92a839d3a4932a5f4bb48
12. Gore SD, SAMID D, Weng LJ

Impact of the putative differentiating agents sodium PHENYLBUTYRATE and sodium phenylacetate on proliferation, differentiation, and apoptosis of primary neoplastic myeloid cells

Clin Cancer Res. 1997a;3:1755–1762
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9815560/

http://m.clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/3/10/1755.abstract

http://m.clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/3/10/1755.full.pdf

http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/3/10/1755
17. Hudgins WR, Pineau T, Sher T, Gonzales FJ, Myers CE, SAMID D

Anticancer activity of phenylacetate and related aromatic fatty acids:

Correlation with lipophilicity and capacity to activate nuclear receptor

Proc Am Assoc Can Res. 1994;35:391. (abstract 2332)

19. SAMID D, Shack S, Myers CE

Selective growth arrest and phenotypic reversion of prostate cancer cells in vitro by nontoxic pharmacological concentrations of phenylacetate

J Clin Invest. 1993;91:2288–2295
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8486788/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC288233/

http://m.jci.org/articles/view/116457
20. SAMID D, Ram Z, Hudgins WR, Shack S, Liu L, Walbridge S, Oldfield EH, Myers CE

Selective activity of phenylacetate against malignant gliomas:

Resemblance to fetal brain damage in phenylketonuria

Cancer Res. 1994;54:891–895
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8313377/

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/4/891
21. Sidell N, Wada R, Han G, Chang B, Shack S, Moore T, SAMID D

Phenylacetate synergizes with retinoic acid in inducing the differentiation of human neuroblastoma cells

Int J Cancer. 1995;60:507–514
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7829265/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
4/2007 – Phase I dose escalation clinical trial of PHENYLBUTYRATE sodium administered twice daily to patients with advanced solid tumors
Luis H LH Camacho, Jon J Olson, … Mark G MG Malkin
Invest New Drugs 25(2):131-8 (2007), PMID.17053987

Investigational New Drugs
April 2007, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 131-138
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/17053987

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10637-006-9017-4
References:

4. SAMID D, Shack S, Sherman LT

(1992)

Phenylacetate:

a novel nontoxic inducer of tumor cell differentiation

Cancer Res 52(7):1988–1992
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1372534/
Cancer Res 52:1988,1992
Cancer Res. 1992 Apr 1;52(7):1988-92.
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/52/7/1988
5. DiGiuseppe JA, Weng LJ, Yu KH, Fu S, Kastan MB, SAMID D, et al

(1999)

PHENYLBUTYRATE-induced G1 arrest and apoptosis in myeloid leukemia cells:

structure-function analysis

Leukemia 13(8):1243–1253
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10450753/
7. SAMID D, Hudgins WR, Shack S, Liu L, Prasanna P, Myers CE

(1997)

Phenylacetate and PHENYLBUTYRATE as novel, nontoxic differentiation inducers

Adv Exp Med Biol 400A:501–505
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9547596/
20. Boudoulas S, Lush RM, McCall NA, SAMID D, Reed E, Figg WD

(1996)

Plasma protein binding of phenylacetate and PHENYLBUTYRATE, two novel antineoplastic agents

Ther Drug Monit 18(6):714–720
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8946671/
24. Thibault A, SAMID D, Cooper MR, Figg WD, Tompkins AC, Patronas N, et al

(1995)

Phase I study of phenylacetate administered twice daily to patients with cancer

Cancer 75(12):2932–2938
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7773944/
30. Stockhammer G, Manley GT, Johnson R, Rosenblum MK, SAMID D, Lieberman FS

(1995)

Inhibition of proliferation and induction of differentiation in medulloblastoma- and astrocytoma-derived cell lines with phenylacetate

J Neurosurg 83(4):672–681
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7674018/
32. Ram Z, SAMID D, Walbridge S, Oshiro EM, Viola JJ, Tao-Cheng JH, et al

(1994)

Growth inhibition, tumor maturation, and extended survival in experimental brain tumors in rats treated with phenylacetate

Cancer Res 54(11):2923–2927
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8187079/

http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/11/2923.full.pdf

http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/11/2923.abstract

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/11/2923
33. SAMID D, Yeh TJ, Shack S

(1991)

Interferon in combination with antitumourigenic phenyl derivatives: potentiation of IFN alpha activity in-vitro

Br J Haematol 79(Suppl 1):81–83
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1931716/
34. Gorospe M, Shack S, Guyton KZ, SAMID D, Holbrook NJ

(1996)

Up-regulation and functional role of p21Waf1/Cip1 during growth arrest of human breast carcinoma MCF-7 cells by phenylacetate

Cell Growth Differ 7(12):1609–1615
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8959328/
35. Bar-Ner M, Thibault A, Tsokos M, Magrath IT, SAMID D

(1999)

PHENYLBUTYRATE induces cell differentiation and modulates Epstein-Barr virus gene expression in Burkitt’s lymphoma cells

Clin Cancer Res 5(6):1509–1516
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10389940/

http://m.clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/5/6/1509.abstract

http://m.clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/5/6/1509.long

http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/5/6/1509
36. Shack S, Miller A, Liu L, Prasanna P, Thibault A, SAMID D

(1996)

Vulnerability of multidrug-resistant tumor cells to the aromatic fatty acids phenylacetate and PHENYLBUTYRATE

Clin Cancer Res 2(5):865–872
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9816242/

http://m.clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/2/5/865.abstract

http://m.clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/2/5/865.full.pdf

http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/2/5/865
37. SAMID D, Yeh A, Prasanna P

(1992)

Induction of erythroid differentiation and fetal hemoglobin production in human leukemic cells treated with phenylacetate

Blood 80(6):1576–1581
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1381630/

http://m.bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/content/80/6/1576.abstract

http://m.bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/content/80/6/1576.full.pdf
38. Fibach E, Prasanna P, Rodgers GP, SAMID D

(1993)

Enhanced fetal hemoglobin production by phenylacetate and 4-PHENYLBUTYRATE in erythroid precursors derived from normal donors and patients with sickle cell anemia and beta-thalassemia

Blood 82(7):2203–2209
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7691251/

http://m.bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/content/82/7/2203.abstract

http://m.bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/content/82/7/2203.full.pdf
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
4/2009 – Phase 2 study of sodium PHENYLBUTYRATE in ALS.
Merit E Cudkowicz, Patricia L Andres, … THE NORTHEAST ALS AND THE NATIONAL VA ALS RESEARCH CONSORTIUMS
Amyotroph Lateral Scler 10(2):99-106 (2009), PMID.18688762
Amyotroph Lateral Scler. 2009 Apr;10(2):99-106. doi: 10.1080/17482960802320487
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/18688762

http://informahealthcare.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/17482960802320487?noFrame=true

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1871887
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
10/1/2009 – A Phase I Dose-Finding Study of 5-Azacytidine in Combination with Sodium PHENYBUTYRATE in Patients with Refractory Solid Tumors
J Lin, J Gilbert, … M A Carducci
Clin Cancer Res 15(19):6241-6249 (2009), PMID.19789320, PMCID PMC2845396
Clin Cancer Res. 2009 Oct 1;15(19):6241-9. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-0567. Epub 2009 Sep 29
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19789320

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2845396
References:

24. Robertson KD, Hayward SD, Ling PD, SAMID D, Ambinder RF

Transcriptional activation of the Epstein-Barr virus latency C promoter after 5-azacytidine treatment:

evidence that demethylation at a single CpG site is crucial

Mol Cell Biol. 1995;15:6150–9
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC230866/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
7/2010 – Phase 2 comparison of a novel ammonia scavenging agent with sodium PHENYLBUTYRATE in patients with urea cycle disorders:

Safety, pharmacokinetics and ammonia control
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/20382058/
Brendan Lee, William Rhead, … Susan A Berry
Mol Genet Metab 100(3):8 (2010), PMID.20382058, PMCID PMC2905228
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2905228/
Mol Genet Metab. 2010 Jul;100(3):221-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ymgme.2010.03.014. Epub 2010 Mar 23.
Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1096719210001058
a Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, United States
b Howard Hughes Medical Institute, TX, United States
c Pediatrics, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, United States
d Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States
e Hyperion Therapeutics, Inc., South San Francisco, CA, United States
f Pharsight Corp., Montreal, Quebec, Canada
g Chiltern, Wilmington, NC, United States
h Division of Genetics and Metabolism, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ymgme.2010.03.014

Phenylacetylglutamine (PG or PAG)

Dvorit D. SAMID learned about PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINATE (PG or PAG) from Burzynski
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINATE (PG or PAG) and Phenylacetate (PN) are metabolites of Phenylbutyrate (PB) and are constituents of antineoplaston AS2-1
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Antineoplastons AS2-1 and AS2-5 are DERIVED FROM A10
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
AS2-1=4:1 mixture of Phenylacetic Acid (PA) and PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINE (PAG or PG)
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Antineoplaston AS2-5 = PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINE (PAG or PG)
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Antineoplastons
General Information:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/healthprofessional/page2
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
4/1994 A phase I and pharmacokinetic study of intravenous phenylacetate in patients with cancer
SAMID D
phase I…study of intravenous Phenylacetate=PN in patients with cancer
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8137283
Cancer Res. 1994 Apr 1;54(7):1690-4
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8137283
Cancer Res April 1, 1994 54; 1690
http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/7/1690.full.pd
Cancer Res 1994;54:1690-1694
http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/7/1690.abstract
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/7/1690
PN (Phenylacetate) elimination was accounted for by conversion to PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINATE (PG or PAG) … excreted in the urine
http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/7/1690.full.pdf
A A Thibault, …, D D SAMID et al.
Cancer Res 54(7):1690-4 (1994), PMID.8137283
Burzynski Reference: 13
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
4/1995 Disposition of phenylbutyrate and its metabolites, phenylacetate and PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINATE
SAMID D et al
Disposition of PB and its metabolites PN and PG (PAG)
Burzynski
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7650225
J Clin Pharmacol. 1995 Apr;35(4):368-73
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7650225
J Clin Pharmacol 35(4):368-73 (1995), PMID.7650225
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.1552-4604.1995.tb04075.x/abstract;jsessionid=314D898507527C2793B578096D7E3C0F.d01t03
Article first published online: 8 MAR 2013
DOI: 10.1002/j.1552-4604.1995.tb04075.x
Pharmacy Department, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
Dvorit SAMID … A A Thibault, … et al.

A phase I and pharmacokinetic study of intravenous phenylacetate in patients with cancer
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8137283
A A Thibault, …, D D SAMID et al.
Cancer Res 54(7):1690-4 (1994), PMID.8137283
Cancer Res. 1994 Apr 1;54(7):1690-4
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland
phenylacetate elimination was accounted for by conversion to phenylacetylglutamine, which was excreted in the urine
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/7/1690
References: 8 – 13

Phenylacetate (PN)

Dvorit D. SAMID learned about PHENYLACETATE (PN) from Burzynski
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Phenylacetylglutaminate (PAG or PG) and PHENYLACETATE (PN) are metabolites of Phenylbutyrate (PB) and are constituents of antineoplaston AS2-1
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Antineoplastons AS2-1 and AS2-5 are DERIVED FROM A10
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
AS2-1=4:1 mixture of PHENYLACETIC ACID (PA) and Phenylacetylglutamine (PAG or PG)
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
at the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Antineoplastons
General Information:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/healthprofessional/page2
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
PHENYLACETATE (PN)
Year – Pubmed (29,686 entries)
1883 1st entry
1994 Phase 1
1999 Phase 2
2013 latest
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
2/8/2013 – Metabolic improvements in intrahepatic porto-systemic venous shunt presenting various metabolic abnormalities by 4-PHENYLACETATE
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23399721/
Clin Chim Acta. 2013 Apr 18;419:52-6. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2013.01.016. Epub 2013 Feb 8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23399721/
Department of Pediatrics, Takarazuka City Hospital, Takarazuka, Japan.
k2.dion.ne.jp
Clin Chim Acta. 2013 Feb 8. pii: S0009-8981(13)00038-7. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2013.01.016. [Epub ahead of print]
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/search?submit=yes&submit=Go&y=0&fulltext=Samid&x=0&format=standard&hits=80&sortspec=reverse-date&submit=Go

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/search?submit=yes&y=0&fulltext=%22Dvorit+Samid%22&x=0&format=standard&hits=80&sortspec=reverse-date&submit=Go
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
4/1/1992 – PHENYLACETATE
Cancer Res 1992;52:1988-1992
PHENYLACETATE:
A Novel Nontoxic Inducer of Tumor Cell Differentiation
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1372534/
…. PAG (BRI, Houston, TX)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1372534
Phenylacetic acid (Sigma, St. Louis, MO) and PAG (BRI, Houston, TX) …
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/52/7/1988
(BRI = Burzynski Research Institute)
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/52/7/1988.full.pdf
Phenylacetylglutaminate (PAG or PG) and PHENYLACETATE (PN) are metabolites of Phenylbutyrate (PB) …..
http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/52/7/1988.full.pdf#page=1
Dvorit SAMID
Cancer Res. 1992 Apr 1;52(7):1988-92
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, Division of Cancer Treatment, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland [D. S., S. S.] and Department of Pathology, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland [L. T. S.]

↵1 Supported by Elan Pharmaceutical Corporation Grant G174ED.
SAMID, D., Shack, S., and Sherman, l.. T.

(Cancer Res., 52: 1988-1992, 1992
Cancer Res 1992;52:1988-1992

Reference:

12. Rimoldi, D., Srikantan, V., Wilson, V. L., Bassin, R. H., and SAMID, D.
Increased sensitivity of nontumorigenic fibroblasts expressing ras or myc oncogenes to malignant transformation induced by 5-aza-2′-deoxycytidine.
Cancer Res., 51: 1-7, 1991.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1703037/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1703037/

http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/51/1/324.abstract

http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/51/1/324.full.pdf

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/51/1/324
6. SAMID et al., unpublished observations.
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
9/15/1992 – Induction of erythroid differentiation and fetal hemoglobin production in human leukemic cells treated with PHENYLACETATE

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1381630/
SAMID, D., Yeh, A.. and Prasanna. P.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1381630/
Blood, 80: 1576-1581. 1992
http://m.bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/content/80/6/1576.abstract
Blood. 1992 Sep 15;80(6):1576-81.
http://m.bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/content/80/6/1576.full.pdf
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD

References:

15. SAMID D, Shack S, Ti-Sherman L PHENYLACETATE-A novel nontoxic inducer of tumor cell differentiation. Cancer Res 52:1988, 1992
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1372534/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1372534/

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

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

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/52/7/1988
20. SAMID D, Flessate DM, Friedman RM: Interferon-induced
revertants of ras-transformed cells: Resistance to transformation by specific oncogenes and retransformation by 5-azacytidine. Mol Cell Biol 7:2196, 1987
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2439904/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/2439904/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC365343/

http://mcb.asm.org/content/7/6/2196.full.pdf
21. Rimoldi D, Srikantan V, Wilson VL, Bassin RH, SAMID D: Increased sensitivity of nontumorigenic fibroblasts expressing ras or myconcogenes to malignant transformation induced by 5-aza-2‘- deoxycytidine. Cancer Res 51:324, 1991
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1703037/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1703037/

http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/51/1/324.abstract

http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/51/1/324.full.pdf

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/51/1/324
34. Dover GJ, Brusilow S, SAMID D: Increased fetal hemoglobin in patients receiving sodium 4-phenylbutyrate. N Engl J Med 327569, 1992
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1378939/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1378939/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
5/1993 – Selective growth arrest and maturation of prostate cancer cells in vitro bv nontoxic, pharmacological concentrations of PHENYLACETATE

SAMID. D., Shack. S., and Myers, C. E.

J. Clin. Invest., 91: 2288-2295, 1993
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC288233/
J Clin Invest. 1993 May; 91(5): 2288–2295.
doi: 10.1172/JCI116457
PMCID: PMC288233

This study was supported by Elan Pharmaceutical Corporation grant G174ED.

References:

9. SAMID, D., D.M. Flesate, and R.M. Friedman. 1987. Interferon-induced revertants of ras-transformed cells: resistance to transformation by specific oncogenes and retransformation by 5-azacytidine. Mol. Cel. Biol. 7:2196-2200.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/2439904/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC365343/

http://mcb.asm.org/content/7/6/2196.full.pdf
13. SAMID, D., S. Shack, and L. T. Sherman. 1992. PHENYLACETATE:

a novel nontoxic inducer of tumor cell differentiation. Cancer Res. 52:1988-1992.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1372534/

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

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

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/52/7/1988
14. SAMID, D., A. Yeh,and P. Prasanna. 1992. Induction of erythroid differentiation and fetal hemoglobin production in human leukemic cells treated with PHENYLACETATE. Blood. 80:1576-1581.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1381630/

http://m.bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/content/80/6/1576.abstract

http://m.bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/content/80/6/1576.full.pdf
17. Dover, G.J., S. Brusilow, and D. SAMID. 1992. Increased fetal hemoglobin in patients receiving sodium 4-phenylbutyrate. N. Engl. J. Med. 327:569-570.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1378939/

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199208203270818
33. Mandler, R., D. Rimoldi, K. Kariko, and D. SAMID. 1991. Urokinase-type plasminogen activator in experimental metastasis of human osteosarcoma cells. Cancer J. 4:316-321.

34. Rimoldi, D., V. Srikantan, V. L. Wilson, R. H. Bassin, and D. SAMID. 1991. Increased sensitivity of nontumerogenic fibroblasts expressing ras or myc oncogenes to malignant transformation induced by 5-aza-2-deoxycytidine.
CancerRes.51:1-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1703037/

http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/51/1/324.abstract

http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/51/1/324.full.pdf

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/51/1/324
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
2/15/1994 – Selective Activity of PHENYLACETATE against Malignant Gliomas:

Resemblance to Fetal Brain Damage in Phenylketonuria
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8313377/
SAMID D., et al.
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/4/891
Cancer Res., 54: 891-895, 1994
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/4/891.full.pdf?sid=0831b0b7-6f89-4d0d-941e-03f12eebc71a
Cancer Res February 15, 1994 54:891-895
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, Division of Cancer Treatment, National Cancer Institute and Surgical Neurology Branch, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland

References:

2. SAMID, D., Shack, S., and Sherman, l.. T. PHENYLACETATE:

a novel nontoxic inducer of tumor cell differentiation. Cancer Res., 52: 1988-1992, 1992.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1372534/

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

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

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/52/7/1988
8. SAMID, D., Yeh, A.. and Prasanna. P. Induction of erythroid differentiation and fetal hemoglobin production in human leukemic cells treated with PHENYLACETATE. Blood, 80: 1576-1581. 1992.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1381630/

http://m.bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/content/80/6/1576.abstract

http://m.bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/content/80/6/1576.full.pdf
9. SAMID. D., Shack. S., and Myers, C. E. Selective growth arrest and maturation of prostate cancer cells in vitro by nontoxic, pharmacological concentrations of PHENYLACETATE. J. Clin. Invest., 91: 2288-2295, 1993.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC288233/
J Clin Invest. 1993 May; 91(5): 2288–2295.
doi: 10.1172/JCI116457
PMCID: PMC288233

6. A. Thibault et al., A phase I and pharmacokinetic study of intravenous PHENYLACETATE in patients with cancer, submitted for publication.
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
4/1/1994 – A phase I and pharmacokinetic study of intravenous PHENYLACETATE in patients with cancer
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8137283
A A Thibault, …, D D SAMID et al.
Cancer Res 54(7):1690-4 (1994), PMID.8137283
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/7/1690.full.pdf?sid=78d246d7-a4ee-4980-bdaf-b299dc98cbe8
Cancer Res April 1, 1994 54:1690
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/7/1690
Cancer Res. 1994 Apr 1;54(7):1690-4.
http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/7/1690.abstract
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland.
http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/7/1690.full.pdf
↵1 This study was supported in part by a grant from Elan Pharmaceutical Research Co.

References:

8. SAMID, A., Shack, S., and Sherman, L. T. PHENYLACETATE:

a novel nontoxic inducer of tumor cell differentiation. Cancer Res., 52: 1988-1992, 1992.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1372534/

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

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

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/52/7/1988
9. SAMID, D., Yen, A., and Prasana, P. Induction of erythroid differentiation and fetal hemoglobin production in human leukemic cells treated with PHENYLACETATE. Blood, 80: 1576-1581, 1992.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1381630/

http://m.bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/content/80/6/1576.abstract

http://m.bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/content/80/6/1576.full.pdf
10. SAMID, D., Shack, S., and Myers, C. E. Selective growth arrest and phenotypic reversion of prostate cancer cells in vitro by nontoxic pharmacological concentrations of PHENYLACETATE. J. Clin. Invest., 91: 2288-2295, 1993.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8486788/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC288233/

http://m.jci.org/articles/view/116457
11. SAMID. D., Ram, Z., Hudgins, W. R., Shack, S., Liu, L., Walbridge, S., Oldfield, E. H., Myers, C. E. Selective activity of PHENYLACETATE against malignant gliomas:

resemblance to fetal brain damage in phenylketonuria. Cancer Res., 54: 891-895, 1994.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8313377/

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/4/891
12. Dover, G. J., Brusilow, S., and SAMID, D. Increased fetal hemoglobin in patients
receiving sodium 4-phenylbutyrate. N. Engl. J. Med., 327: 569-570, 1992.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1378939/
13. BURZYNSKI, S. R., Kubove E., Burzynski, B. Treatment of hormonally refractory cancer of the prostate with antineoplaston AS2-1. Drugs Exp. Clin. Res., 16: 361-369, 1990.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/2152694/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
6/1/1994 – Growth inhibition, tumor maturation, and extended survival in experimental brain tumors in rats treated with PHENYLACETATE.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8187079/
Ram Z, SAMID D, Walbridge S, et al:
http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/11/2934.abstract?ijkey=03bc67e581ef77536842806b949046916458d548&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
Cancer Res 54:2934-2927, 1994
http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/11/2923.abstract
Cancer Res. 1994 Jun 1;54(11):2923-7.
http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/11/2923.full.pdf
Surgical Neurology Branch, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland.
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/11/2923
References:

1. SAMID, D., Shack, S., and Sherman, L. 1. PHENYLACETATE: a novel nontoxic inducer of
tumor cell differentiation. Cancer Res., 52: 1988-92, 1992.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1372534/

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/52/7/1988
2. SAMID, D., Yeh, A., and Prasanna, P. Induction of erythroid differentiation and fetal
hemoglobin production in human leukemic cells treated with PHENYLACETATE. Blood, 80: 1576-81, 1992.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1381630/
3. SAMID, D., Shack, S., and Myers, C. E. Selective growth arrest and phenotypic
reversion of prostate cancer cells in vitro by nontoxic pharmacological concentrations
of PHENYLACETATE. J. Clin. Invest., 91: 2288-2295, 1993.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC288233/
4. SAMID, D., Ram, Z., Hudgins, W. R., Shack, S., Liu, L., Waibridge, S., Oldfield, E. H., and Myers, C. E. Selective activity of PHENYLACETATE against malignant gliomas: resemblance to fetal brain damage in phenylketonuria. Cancer Res., 54: 891-895, 1993.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8313377/
9. BURZYNSKI, S. R., Kubove, E., and Burzynski, B. Treatment of hormonally refractory
cancer of the prostate with antineoplaston AS2-1. Drugs Exp. Clin. Res., 16: 361-9, 1990.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/2152694/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
2/8/1995 – PHENYLACETATE synergizes with retinoic acid in inducing the differentiation of human neuroblastoma cells.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7829265/
Sidell N, Wada R, Han G, et al: (SAMID D)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.2910600414/abstract
Int J Cancer 60:507-514, 1995
Int J Cancer. 1995 Feb 8;60(4):507-14.
International Journal of Cancer
Volume 60, Issue 4, pages 507–514, 8 February 1995
Article first published online: 17 JUL 2006
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.2910600414
Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine (Neuropathology), UCLA School of Medicine.
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
4/1995 – Disposition of phenylbutyrate and its metabolites, PHENYLACETATE and phenylacetylglutamine.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7650225/
Piscitelli SC, Thibault A, Figg WD, et al: (SAMID D)
http://m.jcp.sagepub.com/content/35/4/368.abstract?ijkey=74bff0d86ce76b404728762fe2a1bfde1641fa41&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
J Clin Pharmacol 35:368-373, 1995 Abstract
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.1552-4604.1995.tb04075.x/abstract;jsessionid=DFDEF1599D764E2845EC2897269C198B.d01t01
The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
Volume 35, Issue 4, pages 368–373, April 1995
http://jcp.sagepub.com/content/35/4/368
Article first published online: 8 MAR 2013
DOI: 10.1002/j.1552-4604.1995.tb04075.x
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
6/15/1995 – Phase Istudy of PHENYLACETATE administered twice daily to patients with cancer
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7773944
A A Thibault, D D SAMID, … C E CE Myers
Cancer 75(12):2932-8 (1995), PMID.7773944
Cancer. 1995 Jun 15;75(12):2932-8
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
9/27/1995 – Increased susceptibility of ras-transformed cells to PHENYLACETATE is associated with inhibition of p21ras isoprenylation and phenotypic reversion.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7558439/
Shack S, Chen L-C, Miller AC, et al: (SAMID D)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.2910630122/abstract
Int J Cancer 63:124-129, 1995
Int J Cancer. 1995 Sep 27;63(1):124-9.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.2910630122/references
International Journal of Cancer
Volume 63, Issue 1, Article first published online: 17 JUL 2006
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.2910630122
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
10/1995 – Inhibition of proliferation and induction of differentiation in medulloblastoma and astrocytoma-derived cell lines with PHENYLACETATE.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7674018/
Stockhammer G, Manley GT, Johnson R, et al: (SAMID D)
J Neurosurg 83:672-681, 1995
J Neurosurg. 1995 Oct;83(4):672-81.
Cotzias Laboratory of Neuro-Oncology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
10/12/1995 – Cytostatic activity of PHENYLACETATE and derivatives against tumor cells:

Correlation with lipophilicity and inhibition of protein prenylation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7488244/
Hudgins WR, Shack S, Myers CE, et al: (SAMID D)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0006295295020133
Biochem Pharmacol 50:1273-1279, 1995
Biochem Pharmacol. 1995 Oct 12;50(8):1273-9.
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
2/1996 – Lipid metabolism as a target for brain cancer therapy:

Synergistic activity of lovastatin and sodium PHENYLACETATE against human glioma cells.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8592143/
Prasanna P, Thibault A, Liu L, et al: (SAMID D)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1471-4159.1996.66020710.x/abstract
J Neurochem 66:710-716, 1996
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1471-4159.1996.66020710.x/abstract;jsessionid=913EBF64F1FA2FD0D08BD94FDDE391D5.d03t01
J Neurochem. 1996 Feb;66(2):710-6.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1471-4159.1996.66020710.x/abstract;jsessionid=E929EA030144CC973FECF4DAA1D9D50C.d01t04
Article first published online: 23 NOV 2002
DOI: 10.1046/j.1471-4159.1996.66020710.x
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
5/1996 – PHENYLACETATE is an inhibitor of prostatic growth and development in culture.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8627880/
Lipshutz JH, SAMID D, Cunha GR:
J Urol 155:1762-1770, 1996
J Urol. 1996 May;155(5):1762-70.
The Journal of Urology
Volume 155, Issue 5, Pages 1762-1770, May 1996
Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, USA.

References:

12. SAMID D, Yen A, Prasanna P . Induction of erythroid differentiation and fetal hemoglobin production in human leukemic cells treated with PHENYLACETATE . Blood. 1992;80:1576
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1381630/

http://m.bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/content/80/6/1576.abstract

http://m.bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/content/80/6/1576.full.pdf
13. SAMID D, Shack S, Sherman LT . PHENYLACETATE: a novel nontoxic inducer of tumor cell differentiation . Cancer Res . 1992;52:1988
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1372534/

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

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

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/52/7/1988
15. Ram Z, SAMID D, Walbridge S, Oshiro EM, Viola JJ, Tao-Cheng J, et al. Growth inhibition, tumor maturation, and extended survival in experimental brain tumors in rats treated with PHENYLACETATE . Cancer Res . 1994;54:2923
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8187079/

http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/11/2923.abstract

http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/11/2923.full.pdf

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/11/2923
16. Liu L , Shack S , Stetler-Stevenson WG , Hudgins WR , SAMID D . Differentiation of cultured human melanoma cells induced by the aromatic fatty acids PHENYLACETATE and phenylbutyrate . J. Invest. Dermatol . 1994;103:335
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8077698/
18. SAMID D , Shack S , Myers CE . Selective growth arrest and phenotypic reversion of prostate cancer cells in vitro by nontoxic pharmacological concentrations of PHENYLACETATE . J. Clin. Invest . 1993;91:2288
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8486788/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC288233/

http://m.jci.org/articles/view/116457
19. Thibault A, Cooper MR, Figg WD, Venzon DJ, Sartor O, Tompkins AE, et al. (SAMID D) A phase 1 and pharmacokinetic study of intravenous PHENYLACETATE in patients with cancer . Cancer Res . 1994;54:1690
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8137283/

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

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

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/7/1690
34. Sidell N, Wada R, Han G, Chang B, Shack S, Moore T, et al. al. (SAMID D). PHENYLACETATE synergizes with retinoic acid in inducing the differentiation of human neuroblastoma cells . Int. J. Cancer . 1995;60:507
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7829265/
35. SAMID D, Ram Z, Hudgins WR, Shack S, Liu L, Walbridge S, et al. Selective activity of PHENYLACETATE against gliomas: resemblance to fetal brain damage in phenylketonuria . Cancer Res . 1994;54:891
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8313377/
48. Fibach E, Prasanna P, Rodgers GP, SAMID D. Enhanced fetal hemoglobin production by PHENYLACETATE and 4-phenylbutyrate in erythroid precursor derived from normal donors and patients with sickle cell anemia and beta-thalassemia. Blood. 1993;82:2203
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7691251/

http://m.bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/content/82/7/2203.abstract

http://m.bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/content/82/7/2203.full.pdf
49. George J , Dover GJ , Brusilow S , SAMID D . Increased fetal hemoglobin in patients receiving sodium 4-phenylbutyrate . N. Engl. J. Med . 1992;327:569
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1378939/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
8/23/1996 – Activation of a human peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor by the antitumor agent PHENYLACETATE and its analogs.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8759039/
Pineau T, Hudgins WR, Liu L, et al: (SAMID D)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0006295296003401
Biochem Pharmacol 52:659-667, 1996
Biochem Pharmacol. 1996 Aug 23;52(4):659-67.
Laboratory of Molecular Carcinogenesis, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
9/1996 – The differentiating agent PHENYLACETATE increases prostate-specific antigen production by prostate cells.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8827086/
Walls R, Thibault A, Liu L, et al: (SAMID D)
Prostate 29:177-182, 1996
Prostate. 1996 Sep;29(3):177-82.
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
12/1996 – Up-regulation and functional role of p21Waf1/Cip1 during growth arrest of human breast carcinoma MCF-7 cells by PHENYLACETATE.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8959328/
Gorospe M, Shack S, Guyton KZ, et al: (SAMID D)
http://cgd.aacrjournals.org/cgi/reprint/7/12/1609.pdf
Cell Growth Differ 7:1609-1615, 1996
Cell Growth Differ. 1996 Dec;7(12):1609-15.
Laboratory of Cellular and Molecular Biology, Gerontology Research Center, National Institute on Aging, NIH, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
and Experimental Therapeutics Program, University of Virginia
Cancer Center, Charlottesville, Virginia

References:
1. SAMID, 0., Shack, S., and Myers, C. Selective growth arrest and phenotypic reversion of prostate cancer cells in vitro by nontoxic pharmacological concentrations of PHENYLACETATE. J. Clin. Invest., 91: 2288- 2295, 1993.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8486788/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC288233/

http://m.jci.org/articles/view/116457
2. SAMID, D., Ram, Z., Hudgins, W. A., Shack, S., Liu, L, Walbridge, S., Oldfield, E. H., and Myers, C. E. Selective activity of PHENYLACETATE against malignant gliomas: resemblance to fetal brain damage in phenylketonuria. Cancer Res., 54: 891-895, 1994.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8313377/

http://hwmaint.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/54/4/891
7. SAMID, D., Yeh, A., and Prasanna, P. Induction of erythroid differentiation and fetal hemoglobin production in human leukemic cells treated with PHENYLACETATE. Blood, 80: 1576-1581, 1992
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1381630/

http://m.bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/content/80/6/1576.abstract

http://m.bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/content/80/6/1576.full.pdf
8. Shack, S., Miller, A., Liu, L., Prasanna, P., Thibault, A., and SAMID, D. Vulnerability of multidrug-resistant tumor cells to the aromatic fatty acids PHENYLACETATE and phenylbutyrate. Clin. Cancer Res., 2: 865-872, 1996.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9816242/

http://m.clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/2/5/865.abstract

http://m.clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/2/5/865.full.pdf
25. Shack, S., Chen, L-C., Miller, A. C., Danesi, A., and SAMID, D. Increased susceptibility of ras-transformed cells to PHENYLACETATE is associated with inhibition of p2i isoprenylation and phenotypic reversion. Int. J. Cancer, 63: 124-129, 1995.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7558439/
29. SAMID, D., Shack, S., and Sherman, L T. PHENYLACETATE. A novel nontoxic inducer of tumor cell differentiation. Cancer Res., 52: 1988- 1992, 1992.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1372534/

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

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

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/52/7/1988
30. Thibault, A., SAMID, D., Cooper, M. A., Figg, W. 0., Tompkins, A. C., Patronas, N., Headlea, 0. J., Kohler, 0. A., Venzon, 0. J., and Myers, C. E. Phase I study of PHENYLACETATE administered twice daily to patients with cancer. Cancer (Phila.), 75: 2932-2938, 1995.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7773944/

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1097-0142(19950615)75:12%3C2932::AID-CNCR2820751221%3E3.0.CO;2-P/abstract
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
1997 – PHENYLACETATE and phenylbutyrate as novel, nontoxic differentiation inducers
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9547596
D D SAMID, W R WR Hudgins, … C E CE Myers
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4615-5325-0_67
Adv Exp Med Biol (1997), PMID.9547596
http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-1-4615-5325-0_67.pdf
Adv Exp Med Biol. 1997;400A:501-5
DOI
10.1007/978-1-4615-5325-0_67
Eicosanoids and Other Bioactive Lipids in Cancer, Inflammation, and Radiation Injury 2
Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology Volume 400, 1997, pp 501-505
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD USA
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
8/1997 – Modulation of radiation response of human tumor cells by the differentiation inducers, PHENYLACETATE and phenylbutyrate.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9269314/
Miller AC, Whittaker T, Thibault A, et al: (SAMID D)
Int J Radiat Biol 72:211-218, 1997
Int J Radiat Biol. 1997 Aug;72(2):211-8.
Armed Forces Radiobiology, Research Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
3/1999 – Phase II study of PHENYLACETATE in patients with recurrent malignant glioma:
a North American Brain Tumor Consortium report
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10071293/
S M Chang, J G Kuhn, … M D Prados
J Clin Oncol 17(3):984-90 (1999), PMID.10071293
J Clin Oncol. 1999 Mar;17(3):984-90
http://m.jco.ascopubs.org/content/17/3/984.long
References:

1. ↵ Hudgins WR, Shack S, Myers CE, et al: (SAMID D) Cytostatic activity of PHENYLACETATE and derivatives against tumor cells:

Correlation with lipophilicity and inhibition of protein prenylation. Biochem Pharmacol 50:1273-1279, 1995
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7488244/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0006295295020133
2. SAMID D, Ram Z, Hudgins WR, et al: Selective activity of PHENYLACETATE against malignant gliomas:

Resemblance to fetal brain damage in phenylketonuria. Cancer Res 54:891-895, 1994
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8313377/

http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/4/891.abstract?ijkey=26b1701d60729aa2f907a74e3ae927f63a015c45&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/4/891
3. Stockhammer G, Manley GT, Johnson R, et al: (SAMID D) Inhibition of proliferation and induction of differentiation in medulloblastoma and astrocytoma-derived cell lines with PHENYLACETATE. J Neurosurg 83:672-681, 1995
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7674018/
4. ↵ Ram Z, SAMID D, Walbridge S, et al: Growth inhibition, tumor maturation, and extended survival in experimental brain tumors in rats treated with PHENYLACETATE. Cancer Res 54:2934-2927, 1994
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8187079/

http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/11/2934.abstract?ijkey=03bc67e581ef77536842806b949046916458d548&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/11/2923.abstract

http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/11/2923.full.pdf

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/11/2923
13. ↵ Gorospe M, Shack S, Guyton KZ, et al: (SAMID D) Up-regulation and functional role of p21Waf1/Cip1 during growth arrest of human breast carcinoma MCF-7 cells by PHENYLACETATE. Cell Growth Differ 7:1609-1615, 1996
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8959328/

http://cgd.aacrjournals.org/cgi/reprint/7/12/1609.pdf
14. Walls R, Thibault A, Liu L, et al: (SAMID D) The differentiating agent PHENYLACETATE increases prostate-specific antigen production by prostate cells. Prostate 29:177-182, 1996
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8827086/
15. Lipshutz JH, SAMID D, Cunha GR: PHENYLACETATE is an inhibitor of prostatic growth and development in culture. J Urol 155:1762-1770, 1996
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8627880/
16. ↵ Sidell N, Wada R, Han G, et al: (SAMID D) PHENYLACETATE synergizes with retinoic acid in inducing the differentiation of human neuroblastoma cells. Int J Cancer 60:507-514, 1995
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7829265/
17. ↵ Thibault A, SAMID D, Cooper MR, et al: Phase I study of PHENYLACETATE administered twice daily to patients with cancer. Cancer 75:2932-8, 1995
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7773944/
18. ↵ Thibault A, Cooper MR, Figg WD, et al: (SAMID D) A phase I and pharmacokinetic study of intravenous PHENYLACETATE in patients with cancer. Cancer Res 54:1690-1694, 1994
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8137283/

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

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

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

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

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/7/1690
20. ↵ Shack S, Chen L-C, Miller AC, et al: (SAMID D) Increased susceptibility of ras-transformed cells to PHENYLACETATE is associated with inhibition of p21ras isoprenylation and phenotypic reversion. Int J Cancer 63:124-129, 1995
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7558439/

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.2910630122/abstract
21. ↵ SAMID D, Shack S, Sherman LT: PHENYLACETATE:

A novel nontoxic inducer of tumor cell differentiation. Cancer Res 52:1988-1992, 1992
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1372534/

http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/52/7/1988.abstract?ijkey=b0c2c07340bcd5d9d1bb114912e8e4b98226c9fd&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

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

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

http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/52/7/1988.full.pdf
22. ↵ Prasanna P, Thibault A, Liu L, et al: (SAMID D) Lipid metabolism as a target for brain cancer therapy:

Synergistic activity of lovastatin and sodium PHENYLACETATE against human glioma cells. J Neurochem 66:710-716, 1996
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8592143/

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1471-4159.1996.66020710.x/abstract

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1471-4159.1996.66020710.x/abstract;jsessionid=913EBF64F1FA2FD0D08BD94FDDE391D5.d03t01
24. ↵ Pineau T, Hudgins WR, Liu L, et al: (SAMID D) Activation of a human peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor by the antitumor agent PHENYLACETATE and its analogs. Biochem Pharmacol 52:659-667, 1996
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8759039/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0006295296003401
27. ↵ Miller AC, Whittaker T, Thibault A, et al: (SAMID D) Modulation of radiation response of human tumor cells by the differentiation inducers, PHENYLACETATE and phenylbutyrate. Int J Radiat Biol 72:211-218, 1997
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9269314/
28. ↵ Piscitelli SC, Thibault A, Figg WD, et al: (SAMID D) Disposition of phenylbutyrate and its metabolites, PHENYLACETATE and phenylacetylglutamine. J Clin Pharmacol 35:368-373, 1995 Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7650225/

http://m.jcp.sagepub.com/content/35/4/368.abstract?ijkey=74bff0d86ce76b404728762fe2a1bfde1641fa41&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.1552-4604.1995.tb04075.x/abstract;jsessionid=DFDEF1599D764E2845EC2897269C198B.d01t01

http://jcp.sagepub.com/content/35/4/368

Burzynski, China, and Dvorit D. Samid

12/17/2012 – China
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3524164
CDA-2 (cell differentiation agent 2), a URINARY preparation

CDA-2 and its main component PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINE (PG or PAG)

Antineoplaston AS2-5 is PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINE (PAG or PG)

Antineoplaston AS2-1 is a 4:1 mixture of phenylacetic acid (PA) and PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINE (PAG or PG)

Antineoplastons AS2-5 and AS2-1 are derived from Antineoplaston A10

BURZYNSKI Reference: 22.
antineoplaston AS21
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0052117
National Cancer Institute, at the National Institutes of Health cancer . gov web-site re Antineoplastons:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/healthprofessional/page5
PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINE (PAG or PG)

Antineoplaston AS2-5 is PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINE (PAG or PG)

Antineoplaston AS2-1 is a 4:1 mixture of phenylacetic acid (PA) and PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINE (PAG or PG)

Antineoplastons AS2-5 and AS2-1 are derived from Antineoplaston A10

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

4/1994 – Dvorit D. SAMID et al.
A phase I … study of intravenous phenylacetate (PN) in patients with cancer

Cancer Res 54(7):1690-4 (1994), PMID 8137283

Cancer Res. 1994 Apr 1;54(7):1690-4

Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8137283
Phenylacetate (PN) elimination was accounted for by conversion to PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINATE (PG or PAG), which was excreted in the urine

4/1995 – Dvorit D. SAMID et al.
Disposition of Phenylbutyrate (PB) and its metabolites Phenylacetate (PN) and PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINATE (PG or PAG)

J Clin Pharmacol 35(4):368-73 (1995), PMID 7650225

J Clin Pharmacol. 1995 Apr;35(4):368-73

Pharmacy Department, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7650225
PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINATE (PG or PAG) and Phenylacetate (PN) are metabolites of Phenylbutyrate (PB) and are constituents of AS2-1