Wikipedia or Wikipediantic ? – wants your 3 pounds of flesh (WikiPEEdia, UR all INe)

20131208-231916.jpg
[WP:SOP] Statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then. 7.”)

Due & undue weight: [3]

“The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant & should not be considered,”

[WP:NPOV] “History of NPOV:” (Content # 6, Note 3)

(Neutral Point of View)
——————————————————————
TRANSLATION: Wikipedia editors, YOUR OPINION IS NOT RELEVANT
——————————————————————
MEANING: It is meaningless to attempt to slather your biased OPINION all over Wikipedia like butter on Texas toast, since supposedly, we only care about verifiable FACTS
======================================
Wikipedia, what the problem is ?

Jimmy Donal Wales

Who ?

No, “The Who” is actually really British !

(as opposed to some “furreigner” who plops across the pond, wants to pound one of your pelts after a celebrity hunt, pops it in his bonnet, pip-pips about, and mounts it up on his rented wall along with what’s left of his balls)

I’m writing, of course, about “Jimbo,” the one who got away . . . Thankfully

The recipient of the write-up earlier this year in The New York Times [1] (Oh, pithy !!)
——————————————————————
Wales, who no longer runs the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia

“He applies his libertarian worldview to the Internet and has taken on institutions like the United States government
——————————————————————
You must be bloody well right joking me

(joking me ? Quit jokin’ me !)

JimCrow’s ’bout as “libertarian” as Fidel Castro with a gun in his hand and (f)lies between his teeth; from traveling with the windows down

Stephen Colbert shoulda seen that comin’ from a 8 mile away

Hey Stephen, Report’ THAT !!!
——————————————————————
“He grew up in Huntsville, Ala., the son of a teacher and a retail man
——————————————————————
And obviously, he didn’t “learnt” well

I think a refund’s in order

And here’s your free school Insolence to go with it

Happy eat in’

It is claimed that “HE” spends time:
——————————————————————
“traveling the world giving talks on free speech and Internet freedom
——————————————————————
seriously ?

Seriously ??

SERIOUSLY ???

Welcome to MizFitTV

What would “Jymboree” know about “free speech” and “Internet freedom,“ anyway ?

How many days did you serve your country in the United States military ?

Oh, you did NOT realize that while you were in San Diego, you could have signed that contract ?

After all, he’s no Vincent Kennedy McMahon”
(“HE” knows where “HIS” GRAPEFRUITS are)
======================================
“B.D.F.L., or the Benevolent Dictator for Life”
——————————————————————
How ’bout:

Big
Disappointing
Fascist
Loser ?
——————————————————————
Argumentum ad Jimbonem” means dutifully following what Wales says, but there are even arguments about that”
——————————————————————
WP:NICETRY, but that’s “SHEEPLE”
——————————————————————
“One Wikipedia editor said, for instance, that Wales was no longer comfortable with the B.D.F.L. description”
——————————————————————
Jiminy Cricket !

Whazzamatta Jiminy?

Did “FASCIST” hit a bit too close to home ?
——————————————————————
“(There is, among some, a debate over what to call him)”

“Some users have also disputed the Latinized version of “Jimbo.”

“(Should it be “Jimboni” or “Jimbini”?)”
——————————————————————
Can you smell what “The Rock” is cookin’ ?

La-La-La-La-Laaaaaaawwww, JIMBRONI !!!!!!!

Get ready, and bend over, ’cause I’m gonna shine this thing up, turn it sideways, and shove it straight up your Candy AstroTurf hatch
——————————————————————
Introduction (statement of principles) [WP:SOP]

“This is a statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then”
——————————————————————
(Or if you go by The New York Times article, [1] Jimbroni is the co-founder” who tries to re-write history to make it appear that “HE” is the one-and-only Fascist Founder ?)
——————————————————————
“I should point out that these are my principles, such that I am the final judge of them”

This does not mean that I will not listen to you, but it does mean that at some ultimate, fundamental level, this is how Wikipedia will be run”
——————————————————————
No, actually, it DOES mean that he will NOT listen to you, as was the case when he ignored my 2/7/2013 appeal

In his defense, perhaps Kate Garvey has his balls
——————————————————————
Principles

1. “Wikipedia’s success to date is entirely a function of our open community”

“This community will continue to live and breathe and grow only so long as those of us who participate in it continue to Do The Right Thing

Doing The Right Thing takes many forms, but perhaps most central is the preservation of our shared vision for the neutral point of view policy and for a culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty
——————————————————————
The problem with this Wacky Tobacky “We are the (Wiki) World” WikiWhOReD Wonderland Jimbroni’s living in, is that “HE” has NOT been Doing The Right Thing since “HE” abdicated “his” “neutral point of view policy” and “culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty,” to “The Skeptics”

“The Skeptics,” who serve as gatekeepers of the Burzynski Clinic article, and who cite Dr. David H. Gorski a/k/a “Orac” aka GorskGeek as if he were a “reliable source”

“The Skeptics,” who bring new meaning to the term “Wikipedia Zero”

“The Skeptics,” who are Intellectual Cowards like their false god Gorski, the Closet Communist of Science-Based Medicine a/k/a Science-Basted Medicine aka Science-Based Mudicine (Spinning Bowel Movement), Wiki Wordsmith Wannabes, nut-jobbers, stale from their failure at the National Peanut Festival in Dothan, Alabama
——————————————————————
3. ““You can edit this page right now” is a core guiding check on everything that we do”

“We must respect this principle as sacred”
——————————————————————
Do the lies just dribble off your chin like phlegm?

You canNOT just go in and “edit” the Burzynski Clinic article “page right now”

That statement is pure, unadulterated Alabama B.S.

That’s NOT a “sacred principle,” it’s sacré “bull”
——————————————————————
7. “Anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity”
——————————————————————
Unfortunately, you do NOT practice what you preach, do you, HYPOCRITE ?
——————————————————————
“They should be encouraged constantly to present their problems in a constructive way”
——————————————————————
So that you can ignore the problem(s), right, Jimbroni ?
——————————————————————
“Anyone who just complains without foundation, refusing to join the discussion, should simply be rejected and ignored”
——————————————————————
THAT would automatically exclude all of “The Skeptics” now, wouldn’t it ?
——————————————————————
“We must not let the “squeaky wheel” be greased just for being a jerk
——————————————————————
Jimbroni, why have you allowed “The Skeptics” to choose from their “squeaky” wheel-house bag o’ tricks, get all “greased” up and jerk” so many people around in such a big CIRCLE-JERK, for so long?
——————————————————————
8. “Diplomacy consists of combining honesty and politeness

“Both are objectively valuable moral principles”

“Be honest with me, but don’t be mean to me”

“Don’t misrepresent my views for your own political ends, and I’ll treat you the same way”
——————————————————————
“Honesty” and “politeness” are really great buzzwords,” Jimbroni, but they are as foreign to your “Skeptics,” as “moral principles”
——————————————————————
A great example of the questionable “honesty” and “moral principles” of one of your apparatchiks, was demonstrated 2/3/2013, 6:56, when I sent an arbitration appeal e-mail to Wikipedia, advising, in part, that the e-mail listed on Wikipedia; as the one that blocked users should use, did NOT work, because there was NO “@” sign in it

There was a . (period) where the “@” sign belonged
——————————————————————

20131212-173725.jpg

20131212-173745.jpg
——————————————————————
2/3/2013, 8:11 AM, Anthony (AGK) BASC
wikiagk@gmail.com
advised:

“Everything you have said in that e-mail demonstrates a misunderstanding or misreading of Wikipedia policy”
——————————————————————

20131212-173821.jpg

20131212-173851.jpg
——————————————————————
Check the “time” and “place” where you are, so that you, too, can advise, that according to Wikipedia, pointing out to them that the e-mail they advise people to use, DOES NOT WORK; because there is no “@” sign in it (instead, there’s a . (period)), translates into meaning:
——————————————————————
“Everything you have said in that e-mail demonstrates a misunderstanding or misreading of Wikipedia policy”
======================================
Core principles

Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset [WP:SR]

Wikipedia does not have its own views, or determine what is “correct”
——————————————————————
I wish I could LIE like that, but I have a conscience
======================================
12/24/2012, Monday – 3:52 pm – 21:52 (UTC) –
“We are told that 2013 will be a big year, but apparently his plan is to release another bullshit movie not to publish useful research”

[User Talk:JzG|Guy] ([User JzG/help|Help!]) [2]

20131212-205521.jpg
——————————————————————
“Bullshit movie” ?
——————————————————————

20131212-210534.jpg
——————————————————————
Does anyone other than me NOT think it a “coinkydink” that some “Guy” on Wikipedia, going by the name “Guy”, using the same 2 words (“Bullshit movie”) as a “Guy” on Twitter ?
======================================
2. Founding principles:

“Neutrality is mandatory . . . “
——————————————————————
I call B.S.

Neutrality is mandatory,” EXCEPT on the Burzynski Clinic article, controlled by “The Skeptics”
——————————————————————
4. “Ignore all rules (IAR):”

“Rules on Wikipedia are not fixed in stone”
——————————————————————
Especially when Jimbroni allows “The Skeptics”
to “dictator” the “rules”
——————————————————————
“The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule

“The common purpose of building an encyclopedia trumps both”

“This means that any rule can be broken for a very good reason, if it ultimately helps to improve the encyclopedia”
——————————————————————
And “The Skeptics” are NOT required to provide ANY reason for having broken “any rule”
——————————————————————
“It doesn’t mean that anything can be done just by claiming IAR, or that discussion is not necessary to explain one’s decision”
——————————————————————
But do NOT expect Wikipedia to require anything from The Skeptics”
——————————————————————
Founding principles

1. “Neutral point of view (NPOV) as a mandatory editorial principle”
—————————————————————–
EXCEPT when it comes to the Burzynski Clinic article
——————————————————————
12/26/2012 – I attempted to get Wikipedia to reference the interview which Burzynski’s attorney, Richard (Rick) A. Jaffe, and Lola Quinlan’s attorney; who posted it on his web-site, had given: [4]

20131213-073026.jpg
Please add re WP:NPOV that Burzynski’s attorney, Richard Jaffe has disputed Lola Quinlan’s claims:

“On February 1, 2012, Dr. Burzynski’s attorney, Richard Jaffe, disputed Lola Quinlan’s allegations on Houston’s KPRC News.”

Thank you very much.[[User: Didymus Judas Thomas 15:03, 12/26/2012 (UTC)
——————————————————————
So? [OR] Disputing it in the media probably means he doesn’t have a case. [/OR] In any case, a lawyer disputing the allegations against his client is not even news. — [[User: Arthur Rubin 15:24, 12/26/2012 (UTC)

20131213-072937.jpg
Arthur Rubin, I’m not sure what relevance your above post has re WP:NPOV since the article includes statements from attorneys representing both sides

17:51, 12/27/2012 (UTC) Didymus Judas Thomas

20131213-072956.jpg

20131213-073014.jpg

20131212-231332.jpg
======================================
12/24/2012, Monday – 3:54 pm (21:54.UTC) – “What they mean is that nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it, which necessarily means that it’s not considered in the least promising.”

[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([User JzG/help|Help!])

20131212-235933.jpg
“Nobody else is doing meaningful work on it” ?

Ignores independent research done in Poland, Russia, Korea, Egypt, Japan, & China which specifically reference SRB’s publications in their publications re antineoplastons & phenylacetylglutamine (PG); which is AS2-5, & includes phase III trials published in China & continued research being published in China 12/17/2012?

FACTS:

1. I pointed out to Wikipedia, a 12/17/2012 scientific publication re antineoplastons, which referenced Burzynski @ 22. (antineoplaston AS21)

2. 7 days after this scientific journal was published, Wikipedia’a “Guy (Help!’s) ”response, Monday, 12/24/2012 @ 3:54 pm, is to advise me:

“What they mean is that nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it, which necessarily means that it’s not considered in the least promising.”

Guy (Help!) 3:54 pm, 12/24/2012, Monday

3. So, Wikipedia’s, Guy (Help!), defines an event having been published 7 days ago (12/17/2012 to 12/24/2012) as:

“…nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it…”

12/17/2012
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3524164
CDA-2 (cell differentiation agent 2), a URINARY preparation
http://po.st/g71N8P
CDA-2 and its main component PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINE (PG or PAG)
Antineoplaston AS2-5 is PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINE (PAG or PG)
http://redd.it/1dk974
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
======================================
12/26/2012, Wednesday – 12:43 – “There is unlikely to be any dispassionate debate over ANPs while Burzynski continues with his unethical practices.”

JzG|Guy User:JzG/help|Help!

20131213-064500.jpg
Wikipedia: Judge, Jury, Executioner
======================================

20131213-065902.jpg
“The world, right now, considers Burzynski to be at best unethical and at worst a quack…”?

Since when did Wikipedia conduct a world-wide “opinion poll” re Burzynski ?

And if Wikipedia is correct, how did this happen ?

Burzynski referenced by other Cancer researchers:

2011 – 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
======================================

20131213-081001.jpg
——————————————————————
Rhode Island Red attempts to get away with misquoting me:
——————————————————————

20131213-081015.jpg
——————————————————————
“The other argument is that the secondary sources (i.e., respected cancer organizations, FDA, etc.) are not reliable because they are Burzynski’s “competitors”

[[User: Rhode Island Red]] 4:18 pm, Yesterday (UTC−6)
======================================

20131213-085153.jpg

20131213-085209.jpg

20131213-085227.jpg

20131213-085242.jpg

20131213-085308.jpg
——————————————————————
What a Wipocrite (Wiki + Hypocrite)

Steve Pereira (SilkTork) is such a “WIPOCRITE,” that he claims:
——————————————————————
“the community were united that your contributions were biased”
——————————————————————
He conveniently; like a good little mini-Jimbroni would, ignores ALL of his fellow WIPOCRITES comments, which completely ignored:
——————————————————————
([WP:SOP] Statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then. 7.”)

Due & undue weight: [3]

“The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant & should not be considered,”

[WP:NPOV] “History of NPOV:” (Content # 6, Note 3)

(Neutral Point of View)
——————————————————————
1. 12/24/2012, Monday – 3:52 pm – 21:52 (UTC) – “We are told that 2013 will be a big year, but apparently his plan is to release another bullshit movie not to publish useful research”
——————————————————————
2. 12/24/2012, Monday – 3:54 pm (21:54.UTC) – “What they mean is that nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it, which necessarily means that it’s not considered in the least promising.”
——————————————————————
3. 12/26/2012, Wednesday – 12:43 – “There is unlikely to be any dispassionate debate over ANPs while Burzynski continues with his unethical practices.”
——————————————————————
4. 12/30/2012 8:58 “The world, right now, considers Burzynski to be at best unethical and at worst a quack…”?
——————————————————————
Am I NOT the only one convinced that “the community” was also “united” in something more than just their “goose-stepping ?
——————————————————————
Pereira, the imperfect ‘pedia Pimp tries to Wow his readers by waxing WikiWhOReD, by ignoring that ALL the previous BIASED opinion B.S. that his fellow-Facist forged ahead with, and which Wikipediantic history says means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING (say it again) because it is their BIASED OPINION and is ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS, and it was as so much WikiLitter, well, he’s just facist-free speechless about that, as any Jimbroni AstroTurf Twerk should be
======================================
To show exactly what zealots these WikiPimps are, just absorb this exchange:
——————————————————————
“The Burzynski Clinic Article has:

“…a Mayo Clinic study found no benefit….”

But that was not what the study concluded

See below:
——————————————————————
“CONCLUSION:

Although we could not confirm any tumor regression in patients in this study, the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions about treatment efficacy.”
——————————————————————
In the interest of Neutrality, please remove the reference to Mayo entirely or change to;
——————————————————————
“…a Mayo Clinic study found that “the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions about treatment efficacy.”
——————————————————————
Thank you very much

Didymus Judas Thomas 21:12, 12/10/2012
——————————————————————
“How is “found no benefit” not a a fair and pithy description of the Mayo Clinic study’s summary?”

Alexbrn 21:24, 12/10/2012
——————————————————————
“I feel this should be changed under WP:NPOV because not every reader is going to understand the “Fair & Pithy” reason I was provided

I feel that the average reader reading this will read it as meaning a study was done & completed with the necessary # of people for an effective study, when that was not the conclusion as pointed out in my above post

Thank you very much.”

Didymus Judas Thomas 11:02, 12/18/2012
——————————————————————
NO RESPONSE

That’s right !

“NO RESPONSE” from the “mini-b” (a/k/a “mini-brain”), wannabe Fascists who are so zealous about using their alleged “Fair and Pithy” “found no benefit” WikiWhOReD; which they utilize in an effort to deceive those who are NOT smarter than a fifth-grader

These WikiPimps are so certain of the righteousness of their evangelical cause, that they do NOT even have the “GRAPEFRUITS” to use what the study’s conclusions actually said, and let the chips fall where they may

There are a lot of “chips” falling at Wikipedia

“BULL CHIPS”

JIMBRONI, you’re no Maggie Thatcher

You can’t even wear her pants
——————————————————————
Margaret Thatcher: “The Iron Lady”

Jimbroni: “No iron in the pants”
——————————————————————
Jimbroni’s list of Facist, mini-Hitler, Monty Pythonesque Women’s underwear wearing Wannabes on Wikipediantic:

1. Alexbrn
2. fluffernutter
3. NE Ent
4. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 (Seb az86556)
5. Tom Morris
6. Guerillero
7. Dave Dial
8. John
9. Nstrauss
10. Yobol
11. Drmies
12. foxj
13. Ironholds
14. Rhode Island Red
15. Anthony (AGK) BASC wikiagk@gmail.com
16. Steve Pereira (Silk Tork) silktork@gmail.com
——————————————————————
WikiWhOReD (Wiki + Word + Whore): Pimping a word. Attempting to deceive someone by means of misdirection with words
——————————————————————
The South will rise again, just not in Jimbroni’s pants
——————————————————————
Happy Friday the 13th, Wikipediantic
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – 6/27/2013Jimmy Wales Is Not an Internet Billionaire (By AMY CHOZICK):
——————————————————————
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/magazine/jimmy-wales-is-not-an-internet-billionaire.html
======================================
[2] – 12/24/2012, Monday – 3:52 pm – 21:52 (UTC) – [User Talk:JzG|Guy] ([User:JzG/help|Help!])
——————————————————————
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burzynski_Clinic&diff=next&oldid=529537854
======================================
[3] – 12/26/2012Lola A. Quinlan:
——————————————————————
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burzynski_Clinic&diff=prev&oldid=529836971
——————————————————————
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burzynski_Clinic&diff=next&oldid=529836971
——————————————————————
Houston’s KPRC News:
——————————————————————
http://m.click2houston.com/news/Houston-cancer-doctor-draws-new-complaints-from-patients/-/16714936/8581480/-/hmrbjk/-/index.html
——————————————————————
Lola A. Quinlan’s attorney’s web-site:
——————————————————————
http://www.jag-lawfirm.com/burzynski-suit-kprc-02012012.html
======================================
[4] –
——————————————————————
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Didymus_Judas_Thomas&diff=next&oldid=528610760
======================================

20131213-082217.jpg

20131213-082233.jpg

20131213-082247.jpg

20131213-082302.jpg

20131213-082316.jpg

20131213-082331.jpg

20131213-082346.jpg

20131213-082404.jpg

20131213-082422.jpg

20131213-082437.jpg

20131213-082452.jpg

20131213-082508.jpg

20131213-083448.jpg

20131213-083506.jpg

20131213-083521.jpg

20131213-083539.jpg

20131213-083554.jpg

20131213-083611.jpg

20131213-083626.jpg

20131213-083646.jpg

20131213-083701.jpg

20131213-083720.jpg

20131213-083758.jpg

20131213-083822.jpg

20131213-083839.jpg

20131213-083859.jpg

20131213-083914.jpg

20131213-083929.jpg
These mini-b’s went so far as to allege all sorts of sockpuppetry

Wikipediantic, why don’t you list all the dates and times I was supposedly doing all of these activities; and don’t forget to include all the time I spent blogging, on Twitter, making comments on articles, etc., and once you have all that data compiled, explain how one individual could do all that in a 24-hour day

That’s right Wikipediantic

I’m challenging you to put up or shut up your cornholio

Advertisements

All’s fair in Drugs and War

======================================
GlaxoSmithKline
======================================
$3 BILLION
——————————————————————
7/2/2012
——————————————————————
(4/1998 – 8/2003)
——————————————————————
United States alleges GSK participated in
preparing
publishing
distributing

misleading medical journal article that misreported that clinical trial of drug demonstrated efficacy in treatment when study failed to demonstrate efficacy
——————————————————————
At same time, United States alleges, GSK didn’t make available data from 2 other studies in which drug also failed to demonstrate efficacy
——————————————————————
(2001 – 2007)
——————————————————————
United States alleges GSK failed to include certain safety data about drug in reports to FDA meant to allow FDA to determine if drug continues to be safe for approved indications and to spot drug safety trends
——————————————————————
missing information included data regarding certain post-marketing studies
——————————————————————
data regarding 2 studies undertaken in response to European regulators’ concerns about safety of drug
——————————————————————
United States alleges GSK stated drug had positive cholesterol profile despite having no well-controlled studies to support that message
======================================

======================================
Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and subsidiaries, Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Scios Inc.
Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, L.P.
======================================
$2.2 BILLION +
——————————————————————
11/4/2013, Monday
——————————————————————
Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and Janssen
——————————————————————
complaint alleges J&J and Janssen were aware drug posed serious health risks, but companies downplayed these risks
——————————————————————
For example, when J&J study of drug showed significant risk of strokes and other adverse events in patients, complaint alleges Janssen combined study data with other studies to make it appear there was lower overall risk of adverse events
——————————————————————
year after J&J received results of 2nd study confirming increased safety risk for patients taking drug, but hadn’t published data, one physician who worked on study cautioned Janssen
——————————————————————
“[a]t this point, so long after [the study] has been completedwe must be concerned that this gives the strong appearance that Janssen is purposely withholding the findings.”
——————————————————————
complaint alleges Janssen knew patients taking drug had increased risk, but nonetheless promoted drug as “uncompromised by safety concerns
——————————————————————
When Janssen received initial results of studies indicating drug posed same risk as other antipsychotics, complaint alleges company retained outside consultants to re-analyze study results and ultimately published articles stating drug was actually associated with lower risk
——————————————————————
J&J and another of its subsidiaries, Scios Inc.
——————————————————————
8/2001 – FDA approved drug to treat patients with acutely decompensated congestive heart failure who have shortness of breath at rest or with minimal activity
——————————————————————
approval based on study involving hospitalized patients experiencing severe heart failure who received infusions of drug over average 36-hour period
——————————————————————
complaint alleged Scios had no sound scientific evidence supporting medical necessity of outpatient infusions and misleadingly used small pilot study to encourage serial outpatient use of drug
======================================

======================================
Abbott Laboratories Inc.
======================================
$1.5 BILLION
——————————————————————
5/7/2012, Monday
——————————————————————
(2001 – 2006)
——————————————————————
company marketed drug in combination with atypical antipsychotic drugs even after its clinical trials failed to demonstrate adding drug was any more effective than atypical antipsychotic alone for that use
——————————————————————
1999 – forced to discontinue clinical trial of drug due to increased incidence of adverse events, including
somnolence
dehydration
anorexia
experienced by study participants administered drug
——————————————————————
funded 2 studies of use of drug
both failed to meet main goals established for the study
——————————————————————
When 2nd study failed to show statistically significant treatment difference between antipsychotic drugs used in combination with drug and antipsychotic drugs alone, waited nearly 2 years to notify sales force about study results and another 2 years to publish results
======================================

======================================
AstraZeneca LP / AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP
======================================
$520 MILLION
——————————————————————
4/27/2010, Tuesday
——————————————————————
engaged doctors to conduct studies on unapproved uses of drug
——————————————————————
recruited doctors to serve as authors of articles that were ghostwritten by medical literature companies and about studies doctors in question didn’t conduct
——————————————————————
then used
studies
articles

as basis for promotional messages about unapproved uses of drug
======================================
REFERENCE:
======================================
11/26/2013 – United States Department of Justice (DOJ) versus BIG Pharma: BIG Pharma fought the law, and the law won ?:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/26/united-states-department-of-justice-versus-big-pharma-big-pharma-fought-the-law-and-the-law-won/
======================================

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

20131021-200529.jpg

20131021-200553.jpg
[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:
——————————————————————
http://www.burzynskiresearch.com/assets/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/
======================================