Yes! Weekly: Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business Part II

Posted on August 26, 2013 by didymusjudasthomas

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
======================================
ADAM JACOBS: “Jeff, you say it has been “tested independently in other countries”, but how do you know?”

“Because the movie says so?”

“Well, it would, wouldn’t it?”

“Come back and tell me about these so-called “independent tests” when they’ve been published”

“Until then, there is no reliable evidence that they actually happened”
——————————————————————
Adam Jacobs also known as @DianthusMed also known as Dianthus Medical of London, why don’t YOU come back and tell me when YOU learn how to read ?
——————————————————————
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/
======================================
TOMMIE TAYLOR: “The worst conspiracy in the world and the most profitable is the mainstream medical procedures of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation”

“Chemo and radiation destroy the immune system to the point that the body cannot heal”

“It is a crime against humanity to allow only these therapies”
======================================
ADAM JACOBS: “You do know that Burzynski uses chemotherapy, don’t you?”

“Antineoplastons themselves are a form of chemotherapy, but actually most of Burzynski’s patients don’t get ANPs anyway: they just get conventional chemotherapy”
——————————————————————
Adam, have you blocked anyone else from your blog since you blocked me because you are a coward ?
——————————————————————
The Burzynski Skeptics:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/the-burzynski-skeptics/
======================================

Critiquing: Peter “Head in Ditch” Bowditch @RatBags.com

Posted on August 3, 2013 by didymusjudasthomas

Peter “Head in Ditch” Bowditch @RatBags.com is one of the SkepTicks, The Skeptics™ SkeptiCowards©, who, like Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski; of Wayne State University and Barbara Ann Kaplan Cancer Center / Institute in Detroit, Michigan “Fame” and Perfessor Robert J. (call me Bob) Blaskiewicz Blatherskitewicz Faux Skeptic Exposed! of University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire
“Fame” and Adam Jacobs of DianthusMed of Dianthus Medical Limited of London, United Kingdom “Fame” and @endless_psych and David James, et al., are too SkeptiCoward© to debate on-line or in person, but hide behind their keypads like a troll underneath a bridge
======================================
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.

The new Doctor Who will be Stanislaw #Burzynski. He manages to continually avoid getting cornered and he gets away with murder.

— David James (@StortSkeptic) August 2, 2013

——————————————————————
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 11:02pm – 1 Aug 13:

@StortSkeptic Yes, but can #Burzynski time travel?

— David Gorski (@gorskon) August 2, 2013

======================================
Funny how Gorski who posted this on his blog:
——————————————————————
Twitter

Gorski mentions an individual who posted tweets:
——————————————————————
“I will call you out publicly”
——————————————————————
“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”
——————————————————————
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
——————————————————————
Gee, willikers!

Is that YOU, Peter Bowditch (also known as HeadInDitch)?
@RatbagsDotCom
——————————————————————
But instead of calling someone out for being a twit and twitting:
——————————————————————
“Stanislaw #Burzynski. He manages to continually avoid getting cornered and he gets away with murder.”
——————————————————————
he simply twits back to them like the HACK he is
======================================
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/
======================================
You probably will NOT see that any of them have posted any comments to my blog anytime in the near future, because as has been stated before on #Forbes, The Skeptics™ want to control any debate, which is why the above type individuals block individuals like me from posting to their blogs, because they want their questions answered, but they do NOT want that type of dialogue to be the proverbial ““Two-Way Street”
======================================
Forbes Learns a Lesson, but Not the Right One: Censorship and Bias re: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics;
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/05/forbes-learns-a-lesson-but-not-the-right-one-censorship-and-bias-re-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/
======================================
For instance, they want to be able to post their Soviet-styled Dezinformatsiya without being held accountable for the veracity of the information on their blogs, Twitter, and elsewhere on Al Gore’s Internet

The difference between The Skeptics™ and I is that I actually believe in and practice “Freedom of Speech” while they block people’s comments because they do NOT have “The Right Stuff” and they can’t handle the truth, thank you, Jack Nicholson

If Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski had to explain WHY all 33 of the patients in this phase II (2) clinical trial DIED, I am sure “Orac” is god could come up with plenty of excuses why traditional medicine did NOT save them, but if those patients had been Burzynski patients and lived, then Gorski would try to make a lot of excuses why the “standard of care” that did NOT save them, saved them if they were under Burzynski’s care
======================================
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
Cancer. 2005 Jan 1;103(1):133-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15565574
Cancer 103, 133-139
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.20741/abstract;jsessionid=6717837591CCC8FCBD8E46163808E221.d03t01
Cancer
Volume 103, Issue 1, pages 133–139, 1 January 2005
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.20741/full
Article first published online: 24 NOV 2004
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.20741

Department of Hematology-Oncology, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA
——————————————————————
Hypocrites
======================================
Gorski defines a “CRANK” as someone who does better research than he does
——————————————————————
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 3:24am – 14 Jul 13:

@Funkmon @HoracioHornblow Ha ha. It’s the rather pathetic crank Didymus Judas Thomas. That guy couldn’t buy a clue. #Burzynski

@Funkmon @HoracioHornblow Ha ha. It's the rather pathetic crank Didymus Judas Thomas. That guy couldn't buy a clue. #Burzynski

— David Gorski (@gorskon) July 14, 2013

======================================

QUESTIONS the Critics and Cynics, “The Skeptics™” do NOT want to ANSWER

Posted on June 23, 2013 by didymusjudasthomas

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

Click to access 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

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.

Click to access 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:

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”

“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”

“Thus far, he has failed to do so”

Orac, I thoroughly enjoyed; with a dismissive limp wrist, you posted:

[SOURCE: Feb. 1999 Mayo Clinic Publication pg 2, 3 PDF]

Click to access 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

Click to access 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.

Click to access 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

Click to access 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

Click to access 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

Click to access 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:

Click to access 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/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

WHAT IS MISDIRECTION? Critiquing “Antineoplastons: Has the FDA kept its promise to the American people ?”

Posted on June 8, 2013 by didymusjudasthomas

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
——————————————————————
BOTTOM LINE:
——————————————————————
Everything else is MISDIRECTION
——————————————————————
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”?
======================================
2003 – 2009 Phase II preliminary
——————————————————————
2003 – Phase II
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12718563
Drugs R D. 2003;4(2):91-101
(Drugs in R and D / Drugs in Research and Development)
�
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
======================================
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/scientific-publications.html
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
1. 10/2003
�
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
�
Burzynski, S.R., Weaver, R.A., Bestak, M., Lewy, R.I., Janicki, T.J., Jurida, G.F., Paszkowiak, J.K., Szymkowski, B.G., Khan, M.I.
�
Phase II study of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in children with recurrent and progressive MULTICENTRIC GLIOMA
�
A preliminary report

Click to access 970.pdf

Neuro-Oncology. 2003; 5: 358
Volume 5 Issue 4 October 2003
�
10/2003 – Protocol – MULTICENTRIC GLIOMA
�
12 – Children Patients Accrued
10 – Evaluable Patients
(9 months-17 years / 9 – median age)
�
4 / 33% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
2 / 25% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
4 / 33% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
0 / 0% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
1 / 9% – # and % of Patients Nonevaluable due to only 4 weeks of treatment / lack of follow-up scans
======================================
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

Click to access 960.pdf

�
Pgs. 91-92 and 95
�
3/1996 – Protocol – recurrent diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (3/1996 – 5/1999 enrolled / Pg. 94)
�
12 – Patients Accrued (6 males / 6 females)
(4-29 years / 10 – median age)
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
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15563234
Drugs R D. 2004;5(6):315-26
(Drugs in R and D / Drugs in Research and Development)
�
2004: Protocol – incurable recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma
�
12 – Patients Accrued
(9 – median age)
11 – Evaluable Patients
�
4 / 33% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
3 / 25% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
4 / 33% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
0 / 0% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
2. 10/2004
�
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
�
BT-20
Patients With GLIOBLASTOMA MULTIFORME (GBM)
�
Weaver, R.A., Burzynski, S.R., Bestak, M., Lewy, R.I., Janicki, T.J., Szymkowski, B., Jurida, G., Khan, M.I., Dolgopolov, V.
�
Phase II study of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in recurrent GLIOBLASTOMA MULTIFORME

Click to access 1218.pdf

Neuro-Oncology. 2004; 6: 384
Volume 6 Issue 4 October 2004
Abstracts from the Society for Neuro-Oncology Ninth Annual Meeting, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, November 18-21, 2004
�
Pg. 385
�
10/2004 – Protocol – glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) which recurred or progressed post surgery, radiation therapy, and / or chemotherapy
�
22 – Evaluable Patients
(6 men / 16 women / 27-63 /47 – median age)
�
1 / 4.5% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
1 / 4.5% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
12 / 54.5% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
8 / 36.5% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
3. 10/2004 (DBSG)
�
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
�
Burzynski, S.R., Weaver, R. Bestak. M., Lewy, R.I., Janicki, T., Jurida, G., Szymkowski, B., Khan, M., Dolgopolov, V.
�
Long-term survivals in phase II studies of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in patients with diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA

Click to access 1219.pdf

Neuro-Oncology. 2004; 6: 386
Volume 6 Issue 4 October 2004
�
60 patients
(31 didn’t meet admission criteria to the study and were treated under Special Exception (SE))
�
10/2004 – Protocol – patients with diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (DBSG)
�
29 – Evaluable Patients
�
7 / 24% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
6 / 21% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
6 / 21% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
10 / 34% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
——————————————————————
31 – Evaluable Patients: Special exception (SE)
�
5 / 16% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
2 / 6% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
16 / 52% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
8 / 26% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
4. 10/2004 (AT/RT of CNS)
�
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
�
BT-14
�
CHILDREN WITH RHABDOID TUMOR OF THE CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM
�
Burzynski, S.R., Weaver, R. Bestak. M., Janicki, T., Jurida, G., Szymkowski, B., Khan, M., Dolgopolov, V.
�
Phase II studies of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in children with atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumors (AT/RT) of the central nervous system
�
A preliminary report

Click to access 1146.pdf

Neuro-Oncology. 2004; 6: 427
Volume 6 Issue 4 October 2004
Abstracts from the Eleventh International Symposium on Pediatric Neuro-Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts, June 13-16, 2004
�
10/2004 – Protocol – children with atypical teratoid / rhabdoid tumors (AT / RT) of the central nervous system
�
11 – Children Patients Accrued
8 – Evaluable Patients
(7 treated under Special Exception (SE))
�
2 / 25% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
1 / 12.5% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
1 / 12.5% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
4 / 50% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
5. 10/2004
�
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
�
BT-12
�
CHILDREN WITH PRIMITIVE NEUROECTODERMAL TUMORS (PNET)
�
Burzynski, S.R., Weaver, R. Bestak. M., Janicki, T., Szymkowski, B., Jurida, G., Khan, M., Dolgopolov, V.
�
Treatment of PRIMITIVE NEUROECTODERMAL TUMORS (PNET) with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP)
�
Preliminary results of phase II studies

Click to access 1147.pdf

Neuro-Oncology. 2004; 6: 428
Volume 6 Issue 4 October 2004
Abstracts from the Eleventh International Symposium on Pediatric Neuro-Oncology
�
10/2004 – Protocol – PRIMITIVE NEUROECTODERMAL TUMORS (PNET)
�
17 – Patients Accrued
15 – Evaluable Patients
(12 months – 23 years / 6 – median age)
�
3 / 20% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
2 / 13.4% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
5 / 33.3% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
5 / 33.3% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
17. 2004
�
DRUGS IN R&D
Drugs in R and D
(Drugs in Research and Development)
�
Burzynski, S.R., Weaver, R., Lewy, R., Janicki, T. Jurida, G., Szymkowski, B., Khan, M., Bestak, M.
�
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/pubmed/15563234
Drugs R&D 2004;5(6):315-326.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15563234
Drugs R D. 2004;5(6):315-26

Click to access 1194.pdf

�
incurable recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma
�
Pg. 320
�
3 – treated under Special Exception (SE) granted by the US FDA
�
Pgs. 317 and 320
�
7/31/1996 – (7/31/1996 – 4/3/2002 as of 3/1/2004) Protocol – children with recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma (MCG)
�
Pg. 317
�
BT-13
�
children with low-grade astrocytoma
�
BT-23
�
children with visual pathway gliomas

�
Pgs. 317 and 320-321
�
12 – Children Patients Accrued (Pgs. 315-316)
(9 months – 17 years / 9- median age)
(6 – male / 6 – females)
10 – Evaluable Patients (Pg. 315)
�
4 / 33% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
3 / 25% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
4 / 33% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
0 / 0% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
1 / 9% – # and % of Patients Non-evaluable
——————————————————————
Pg. 325
�
Compare: Chamberlain and Grafe. [38]
�
1995 – Protocol – solitary recurrent chiasmatic hypothalamic gliomas treated with oral etoposide

�
14 – Patients Accrued
14 – Evaluable Patients
�
1 / 7% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
4 / 29% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
3 / 21% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
6 / 43% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
�
Pg. 326
�
38. Chamberlain MC, Grafe MR. Recurrent chiasmatic-hypothalamic glioma treated with oral etoposide. J Clin Oncol 1995; 13: 2072-6
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7636550/
J Clin Oncol. 1995 Aug;13(8):2072-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7636550/
Department of Neurosciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, USA.
http://m.jco.ascopubs.org/content/13/8/2072.long
Arch Neurol. 1995 May;52(5):509-13.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7733847/
Department of Neurosciences, University of California-San Diego, USA.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7733847/
Arch Neurol. 1995;52(5):509-513. doi:10.1001/archneur.1995.00540290099024.
http://archneur.jamanetwork.com/Mobile/article.aspx?articleid=593460
——————————————————————
Compare: The Pediatric Oncology Group. [39]
�
10/2000 – Protocol – solitary progressive optic pathway tumors with carboplatin
�
50 – Patients Accrued
50 – Evaluable Patients
�
2 / 4% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
37 / 74% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
11 / 22% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
�
39. Mahoney DH, Cohen ME, Friedman HS, et al. Carboplatin is effective therapy for young children with progressive optic pathway tumors: a Pediatric Oncology Group phase II study. Neuro-oncol 2000; 2: 213-20
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11265230/
Neuro Oncol. 2000 Oct;2(4):213-20.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11265230/
Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1920597/
�

Click to access 213.full.pdf

======================================
2005 – Phase II
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15911929
Integr Cancer Ther. 2005 Jun;4(2):168-77
(Integrative Cancer Therapies)
�
2005: Protocol – recurrent disease or high risk
�
13 – Patients Accrued
(1-11 – age / 5 years 11 months – median age)
13 – Evaluable Patients
�
3 / 23% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
1 / 8% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
4 / 31% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
5 / 38% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
——————————————————————
(Updated 2007)
http://www.cancer-therapy.org/CT/v5/B/HTML/42._Burzynski,_379-390.html
2005 – Protocol – incurable recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma
�
13 – Patients Accrued
�
3 / 23% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
1 / 8% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
4 / 31% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
5 / 38% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
======================================
2006 – Phase II
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16484713
Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Mar;5(1):40-7
(Integrative Cancer Therapies)
�
2006: Protocol – high-grade pathology (HBSG)
�
– Patients Accrued
18 – Evaluable Patients
�
2 / 11% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
2 / 11% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
7 / 39% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
7 / 39% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
BT-03
�

�
BT-11
�
BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (BSG)
�
BT-18
�
6. MIXED GLIOMA
�
ADULT PATIENTS WITH MIXED GLIOMA
�
“mixed glioma”, a type of primary malignant brain tumor (PMBT)
�
BT-22
�
8. CHILDREN WITH PRIMARY MALIGNANT BRAIN TUMORS
�
CAN-01 (CAN-1)
�
PATIENTS WITH REFRACTORY MALIGNANCIES
�
19. 3/2006
�
Burzynski, S.R., Janicki, T.J., Weaver, R.A., Burzynski, B. Targeted therapy with Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 of high grade, recurrent, and progressive BRAINSTEM GLIOMA. Integrative Cancer Therapies 2006;5(1):40-47
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16484713
Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Mar;5(1):40-7
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16484713
DOI: 10.1177/1534735405285380

Click to access 5825.pdf

�
http://m.ict.sagepub.com/content/5/1/40.long?view=long&pmid=16484713
Pgs. 40-41
�
4 phase 2 trials
�
BRAINSTEM GLIOMA (BSG)
�
patients with inoperable tumor of high-grade pathology (HBSG)
glioblastoma
�
recurrent diffuse intrinsic glioblastomas and ANAPLASTIC ASTROCYTOMAs of brainstem
�
Pg. 43
�
BT-03 – 1 / female
BT-11 – 13 (8 males/5 females)
BT-18 – 1 / female
BT-22 – 2 / females
CAN-01 – 1 / female
�
Pg. 44
�
High-grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem gliomas
�
Pgs. 40-42 and 44-45
�
7/12/1988 (7/12/1988 – 11/13/2003 as of 6/10/2005) – Protocol – recurrent diffuse intrinsic glioblastomas and anaplastic astrocytomas of the brainstem high-grade pathology (HBSG)
�
18 – Evaluable Patients (Pgs. 40-43)
(8 males / 10 females / 2-42 / 10 – median age / Pgs. 42-43)
�
2 / 11% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
2 / 11% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
7 / 39% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
7 / 39% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
BT-11
�
BRAIN STEM GLIOMA
�
8. 10/2006
�
Burzynski, S.R., Janicki, T.J., Weaver, R.A., Szymkowski, B.G., Khan, M.I., Dolgopolov, V. Treatment of multicentric BRAINSTEM GLIOMAs with antineoplastons (ANP) A10 and AS2-1. Neuro-Oncology. 2006; 8:466.

Click to access 2105.pdf

Volume 8 Issue 4 October 2006
Abstracts for the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO)
�
Brainstem gliomas and multicentric tumors (MBSG)
�
10/2006 – Protocol – Brainstem gliomas and multicentric tumors (MBSG)
�
19 – Evaluable Patients
3.9 – 40.8 years (9.2 – median age)
(90% less than 18 years old)
�
2 / 11% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
1 / 5% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
7 / 37% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
9 / 47% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
======================================
2007

Click to access 1252.pdf

2004 – Protocol – small group of patients with progressive LGA, ANP
60% – % of Patients Showing Complete Response
10% – % of Patients Showing Partial Response
——————————————————————
2004 – Protocol – low-grade astrocytoma in children
Burzynski [39] – Reference
Phase II d – d = Preliminary results – Study type
P – P = progressive tumor – Tumor type
(no. of pts) – pts = patients
ANP (10) – ANP = antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 – Treatment
10 – Evaluable Patients {(78) = most in a study}
OS [%] – OS = overall survival
100% (1 yr) – 90% (3 yr) – Efficacy
93 mo – MST = MST = median survival time – {96 (1 y) next closest}
60% (6) – % and # of Patients Showing Complete Response {24 (11) next closest}
10% (1) – % and # of Patients Showing Partial Response {60% (9) best other study}
30% (3) – % and # of Patients Showing Stable Disease + MR = minor response {70% (14) best other study}
0% (0) – % and # of Patients Showing Progressive Disease {4% (2) next closest}
PFS (%)
90 (1 y) – 90 (3 y) – PFS = progression-free survival {100 (1 y) – 68 (3 y) best other study
——————————————————————
2004 – Protocol – diffuse, intrinsic brainstem glioma in children
Burzynski et al. [88] – Reference
Phase II – Study Type
(no. of pts) – pts = patients
RP (30) – RP = recurrent and progressive tumor – Tumor type
30 – Evaluable Patients
ANP – ANP = antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 – Treatment – ANP
OS (%) – OS = overall survival
[2y; 5y]
46.7; 30 – Efficacy
MST (mo)
19.9 – MST = median survival time
27% (8) – % and # of Patients Showing Complete Response
20% (6) – % and # of Patients Showing Partial Response
23% (7) – % and # of Patients Showing Stable Disease
30% (9) – % and # of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
——————————————————————
Burzynski et al. [89] – Reference
Phase II – Study Type
(no. of pts) – pts = patients
RPS (10) – RPS = recurrent and progressive tumors in children aged <4y – Tumor type {(66) = most in a study}
ANP – ANP = antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 – Treatment – ANP
OS (%) – OS = overall survival
[2y; 5y] – Efficacy
60; 20 {46.7 (30) = next best study}
MST (mo)
26.3 – MST = median survival time – {19.9 = next best study}
[% (no. )]
30% (3) – CR = complete response – {27% (8) = next best study}
[% (no. )]
0% (0) – PR = partial response – {56% (1) = next best}
[% (no. )]
40% (4) – SD = stable disease – {44% (25) = best}
[% (no. )]
30% (3) – PD = progressive disease – {23% (13) = best}
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
BT-11
�
BRAIN STEM GLIOMA
�
9. 4/2007 (NDBSG)
�
Burzynski, S.R., Weaver, R.A., Janicki, T.J., Jurida, G.F., Szymkowski, B.G., Kubove, E. Phase II studies of Antineoplastons A10 and AS 2-1 (ANP) in children with newly diagnosed diffuse, intrinsic BRAINSTEM GLIOMAs. Neuro-Oncology 2007; 9:206.

Click to access 4021.pdf

Volume 9 Issue 2 April 2007
Abstracts from the Twelfth International Symposium on Pediatric Neuro-Oncology
�
4/2007 – Protocol – newly diagnosed diffuse, intrinsic BRAINSTEM GLIOMAs (NDBSG)
�
20 – Evaluable assessable children Patients
(3 months-20 years – age)
�
6 / 30% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
2 / 10% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
4 / 20% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
8 / 40% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
BT-11
�
BRAIN STEM GLIOMA
�
Special exception (SE)
�
13. 12/2009 (DBSG)
�
Burzynski, S.R., Janicki, T.J., Weaver, R.A., Szymkowski, B., Burzynski, G.S. Phase II study of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 in patients with BRAINSTEM GLIOMA. Protocol BC-BT-11. Neuro-Oncology 2009, 11:951.

Click to access 8639.pdf

Volume 11 Issue 6 December 2009
Abstracts from the Third Quadrennial Meeting of the World Federation of Neuro-Oncology (WFNO) and the Sixth Meeting of the Asian Society for Neuro-Oncology (ASNO)
May 11-14, 2009
Yokohama, Japan
�
12/2009 – Protocol – BRAINSTEM GLIOMAs
�
40 – Patients Accrued
28 – Evaluable Patients
(23 children / 5 young adults)
�
5 / 18% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
4 / 14% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
12 / 43% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
7 / 25% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
——————————————————————
Special exception (SE)
�
12/2009 – Protocol – BRAINSTEM GLIOMAs
�
52 – Evaluable Patients
(40 children / 12 young adults)
�
5 / 10% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
2 / 4% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
28 / 54% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
17 / 32% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
——————————————————————
BT-11 and special exception (SE)
92% – diffuse intrinsic brainstem gliomas (DBSG)
�
Overall survival (OS) – 2 years:
42% – special exception (SE)
36% – BT-11
�
Overall survival (OS) – 5 years:
19% – special exception (SE)
25% – BT-11
======================================
Compare: standard radiation therapy in combination with chemotherapy (RAT) (Mandell et al. 1999)
�
2% – % of Patients Showing Complete Response
31% – % of Patients Showing Partial Response
�
Mandell LR, Kadota R, Freeman C, et al. There is no role for hyperfractionated radiotherapy in the management of children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic brain stem tumors: results of pediatric oncology group phase III trial comparing conventional vs. hyperfractionated radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;43:959-964.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10192340/
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999 Mar 15;43(5):959-64.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10192340/
International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
Volume 43, Issue 5, 15 March 1999, Pages 959–964
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036030169800501X
Department of Radiation Oncology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
6/1992 – 10/1997
�
Overall survival (OS):
7% – 2 years
0% – 5 years
=====================================
COMBINED:
——————————————————————
Overall survival (OS) – 2 years:
——————————————————————
42% – antineoplastons: special exception (SE)
�
36% – antineoplastons: BT-11
�
7% – standard radiation therapy in combination with chemotherapy (RAT)
——————————————————————
Overall survival (OS) – 5 years:
——————————————————————
25% – antineoplastons: BT-11
�
19% – antineoplastons: special exception (SE)
�
0% – standard radiation therapy in combination with chemotherapy (RAT)
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Break The Walls Down:

——————————————————————
And “THAT’s The BOTTOM LINE”
Because Stone Cold Said So

——————————————————————
IT’s GO TIME
Time To Play The Game:

——————————————————————
Break The Walls Down:

=====================================

Thawing out “The Skeptics” @FrozenWarning (FrozenBoring)

Posted on June 1, 2013 by didymusjudasthomas

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM

the below article was posted on Forbes (#Forbes):
onforb.es/11pwse9
A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics
http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW
by:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics
“Speech is best countered by more speech”

Peter Lipson (Dr. Peter A. Lipson @palMD)

Out of the 70 biased comments allowed by Forbes, “The Skeptic” Critics, FW (@FrozenWarning) came in 3rd with 10

“The Skeptic” Critics
TOTAL
18-guychapman –
13-Boris Ogon –
10-FW –
_8-rjblaskiewicz –
_6-lilady –
_3-Peter Lipson –
_3-JGC2013 –
_2-claire G –
_2-Vered Yasur –
_1-Paul Morgan –
_1-Lynne –
_1-Sharon Hill –
_1-oval wooki –
_1-Allen Jones –
70-TOTAL

@FrozenWarning commented:

“I have no particular interest int he (sic: “in the”) FDA as I work for the NHS in the UK…”

So, exactly WHAT does someone who works for the National Health Service in Britain, know about the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the U.S. Federal system?

Let’s find out, shall we ?

“Ah, the usual Burzynski conspiracy theorists are here.”

FW, NO, I was NOT here, in a sense, because my comments were being “censored“

Which “conspiracy theory” would you like to address?

1.
http://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wiki-site.com/index.php/Main_Page
2.
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/18/wikipedia-your-burzynski-bias-is-showing/
3.
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/05/forbes-learns-a-lesson-but-not-the-right-one-censorship-and-bias-re-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/
4.
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/important-the-live-debate-that-wasnt-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/
“As usual, not a single one of the valid criticisms are addressed.”

FW (also known as FrozenBoring)

It’s difficult to address any “allegedly” valid criticisms when Forbes’ censors are blocking (deleting) them

Dr. Peter A. Lipson (and / or his Censor(s)) is a Coward: Critiquing “A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics”:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/dr-peter-a-lipson-and-or-his-censors-is-a-coward-critiquing-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics
“Time for this man to be stopped, 40 years is more than long enough to have produced the results of his numerous, badly run trials.”

FW, what year did Burzynski start clinical trials?

Because it sounds like you do NOT know what you’re talking about

Burzynski Clinical Trials (The SEC filings)
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/11/burzynski-clinical-trials-2
“Patients are free to choose whatever treatment they like, but that choice should be informed and sellers of miracle cures must not be allowed to mislead those patients.”

frozenwarning, NO patients are NOT free to choose whatever treatment they like:

Burzynski: United States Supreme Court:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-united-states-supreme-court
� � � � � � � � � � � � �
Page 5
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/critiquing-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics-page-5/
� � � � � � � � � � � � �
FW

“And yet the American Cancer Society makes exactly the same criticisms of Burzynki that all other critics do:”
http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/pharmacologicalandbiologicaltreatment/antineoplaston-therapy
“No credible evidence.”

(FW (also known as @frozenwarning), where is their independent antineoplaston clinical study publications?)

FW, speaking of “[[no]] credible evidence,” where is the American Cancer Society’s antineoplaston clinical study?
� � � � � � � � � � � � �
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
� � � � � � � � � � � � �
Review Article: Antineoplastons:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/review-article-antineoplastons
� � � � � � � � � � � � �
Burzynski updates Scientific Publications page:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/burzynski-updates-scientific-publications-page
� � � � � � � � � � � � �
Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski Publications:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/stanislaw-rajmund-burzynski-publications
� � � � � � � � � � � � �
Burzynski: China antineoplaston publications:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-china-antineoplaston-publications
� � � � � � � � � � � � �
Burzynski and China / Taiwan, ROC:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/burzynski-china-taiwan-roc
� � � � � � � � � � � � �
Burzynski, Ming-Cheng Liau, and Gi-Ming Lai:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/02/24/burzynski-ming-cheng-liau-gi-ming-lai
� � � � � � � � � � � � �
Burzynski, China, and Dvorit D. Samid:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/burzynski-china-dvorit-d-samid
� � � � � � � � � � � � �
Burzynski and Taiwan, ROC:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/burzynski-taiwan-roc
� � � � � � � � � � � � �
Burzynski, Hideaki Tsuda (Japan), and the p53 gene a:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/burzynski-hitoshi-tsuda-japan-and-the-p53-gene
� � � � � � � � � � � � �
Burzynski: Japan antineoplaston publications:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/burzynski-japan
� � � � � � � � � � � � �
Burzynski: Egypt antineoplaston publications:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-egypt-antineoplaston-publication
� � � � � � � � � � � � �
Antineoplastons, which were first described by Burzynski: https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/antineoplastons-which-were-first-described-by-burzynski
� � � � � � � � � � � � �
Burzynski: Russia antineoplaston publications:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-russia-antineoplaston-publications
� � � � � � � � � � � � �
Burzynski: South Korea antineoplaston publications:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-south-korea-antineoplaston-publications
� � � � � � � � � � � � �
Burzynski: Poland antineoplaston publications:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-poland-antineoplaston-publications
FW, Dr. Linus Pauling, winner of two (2) Nobel Prizes; including one (1) in his “specialty” of chemistry, was of the “opinion” that quasicrystals did NOT exist:

Professor Daniel Shechtman proved Dr. Pauling (“There is no such thing as quasicrystals, only quasi- scientists.”) wrong, and won a Nobel Prize in that same field of “specialty,” chemistry

FW, have you won a Nobel Prize, and why should anyone care what your biased opinion of Dr. Burzynski is?

“junkeroo, when you post something rational and intelligible, I will happily respond.”

FW (also known as @frozenwarning), “when you post something rational and intelligible, I will happily respond.”
onforb.es/11pwse9

http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics
“Instead of cherry picking 20 year old newspaper articles, can I suggest that you try and explain why Burzynski has started 60+ trials, finished one, and never reported the results in peer reviewed journals as any reputable scientist should do?”

FW, have you read these?

Burzynski: What happens when a clinical trial is over?
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-what-happens-when-a-clinical-trial-is-over
The “National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH)

Cancer Clinical Trials

15. What happens when a clinical trial is over?
http://m.cancer.gov/topics/factsheets/clinical-trials
advises:

“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 … “

This makes it clear that clinical trial results “are OFTEN” published, but sometimes they are “NOT” published “in a peer-reviewed scientific journal”

“As for this mythical Phase 3 trial, which was registered in 2010 and has yet to recruit a single patient, in a tumour that is relatively curable by real medicine.”

“I suspect permission to do this was an attempt by the FDA to force Burzynski to do a decent RCT.”

“Unfortunately it backfired, because he seems quite happy to never start this trial, instead using it as a marketing tool, in the same way as he is happy to use individual patients.”

FW, why was the FDA requiring “radiation” in the phase 3 clinical trial?

” … only obstacles now are $300 million Dollars needed to pay for final phase of clinical testing-and FDA requiring children with inoperable brainstem glioma to also undergo radiation treatment in Phase 3 trials, claiming it would be “unethical” not to do so“
� � � � � � � � � � � � �
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/
� � � � � � � � � � � � �
FW

““Making people undergo clinical trials that hold no promise” – Quite, it is abhorrent that Burzynski does this, and has been doing it for many years.”

FW (also known as @frozenwarning), has no proof that anyone is “Making people undergo clinical trials…”

FW continues:

“The FDA was ordered by a scientifically illiterate judge to allow these trials, they had no choice.”

FW again makes an unsubstantiated claim

“That the FDA hasn’t stopped this charade is bizarre and inexcusable IMO.”

FW, the FDA knows what is going on, unlike you

“Hopefully that will soon happen.”

FW, it doesn’t look like it:
http://www.china-burzynski.com

http://www.china-burzynski.com/lczl/bingrengushi_135135.html

http://www.china-burzynski.com/lxwm
“There is, as yet, no evidence that he has cured any type of cancer, all we have are a few, mainly historical anecdotes.”

FW, have you seen this?

“The FDA’s Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective” advises:

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

“This phase aims to obtain PRELIMINARY DATA on whether the drug works in people who have a certain disease or condition”

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

“These studies gather more information about safety and EFFECTIVENESS, studying different populations and different dosages and using the drug in combination with other drugs”
http://www.fda.gov/drugs/resourcesforyou/consumers/ucm143534.htm
“By the way, the Phase 3 trial that is registered to Burzynski is not for brain tumours, sorry to disappoint you.”

FW, are you saying that you do NOT know what you are writing about?

Because, that is what it looks like to me

Burzynski’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended 5/31/2010 states:

1/13/2009 Company announced Company had reached an agreement with FDA for Company to move forward with pivotal Phase III clinical trial of combination Antineoplaston therapy plus radiation therapy in patients with newly diagnosed, diffuse, intrinsic brainstem gliomas (DBSG)

Agreement was made under FDA’s Special Protocol Assessment procedure, meaning design and planned analysis of Phase III study is acceptable to support regulatory submission seeking new drug approval

2/1/2010 Company entered into agreement with Cycle Solutions, Inc., dba ResearchPoint to initiate and manage pivotal Phase III clinical trial of combination Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 plus radiation therapy (RT) in patients with newly-diagnosed, diffuse, intrinsic brainstem glioma

ResearchPoint is currently conducting feasibility assessment

ResearchPoint has secured interest and commitment from number of sites selected

Upon completion of assessment, randomized, international phase III study will commence

Study’s objective is to compare overall survival of children with newly-diagnosed DBSG who receive combination Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 plus RT versus RT alone

“So you’d rather get your information from an advertising film than doctors, scientists and researchers.”

Dr. Burzynski is a doctor, as is his wife, and if you look at the co-authors on his clinical trial publications, and actually research them, you can determine what they are, as well

“That’s your choice, misguided though it is.”

If anyone has been “misguiding” anyone, I would say that it is the author, you, and a number of other individuals who posted comments

“Don’t expect rational people to stop trying to stop Burzynski though.”

I do NOT see that you’ve been “rational“

“What he is doing is unscientific, unethical and immoral.”

It’s good to learn that you are now judge, jury, and executioner

You remind me of Wikipedia

“Also, the moon landings were real.”

FW, it’s good to learn that at least you got one thing correct

FW

“I have no particular interest int he (sic: “in the”) FDA as I work for the NHS in the UK, which also doesn’t support Burzynski due to the lack of evidence on efficacy and safety, and the dubious practices.”

FW, sounds like you could use a little help, just like Dr. Lipson:

Burzynski Clinical Trials (The SEC filings)
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/11/burzynski-clinical-trials-2
“Merola doesn’t investigate, he is a blind disciple of Burzynski.”

FW, from what I can tell, if anyone has proven to be a “blind disciple,” it has been YOU

“Not once has he addressed the perfectly valid criticisms.”

FW, I said it before and I’ll say it again:

It’s a bit hard to address anything when Forbes is censoring (deleting) your comments

“Let’s look at it this way, if Burzynski had a 25% success rate, why has he not published this miraculous data?”

“Yet again, you show that Burzynski supporters do not know what they are reading.”

FW, on the subject of people NOT knowing what they are reading, you do NOT appear very knowledgeable, considering your lack of any citation(s), reference(s), and / or links
� � � � � � � � � � � � �
Page 7
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/01/critiquing-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics-page-7/
FW

“Erm, what conflict of interest?”

FW (also known as @frozenwarning), your “conflict of interest” with “facts”

“Are you saying that every single health professional has a vested interest in not curing cancer?”

“Do you know how utterly, completely, fruit looping bonkers that is?”

“Seriously, get a grip.”

Do you know how utterly, completely, fruit looping bonkers that is?

Seriously, get a grip.

“Sadly Burzynski isn’t following FDA standards, as their warning letters and current inspection shut down proves.”

FW, being from the United Kingdom, are you even knowledgeable about the FDA warning letter process?

“He’s been doing his “research” for 40 years.”

“How long do you think he should be allowed to continue without showing his data?”

FW, what do you call THIS?

Burzynski Clinical Trials (The SEC filings)
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/11/burzynski-clinical-trials-2
“As I said earlier, the Phase 3 trial has been registered since 2010 and Burzynski shows no inclination to start it, having NOT A SINGLE PATIENT RECRUITED.”

FW, as I said earlier, did you pay attention to this?

Burzynski: Not every cancer clinical trial taking place in the United States is listed on our NCI clinical trials database:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/burzynski-not-every-cancer-clinical-trial-taking-place-in-the-united-states-is-listed-on-our-nci-clinical-trials-database
Burzynski’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended 5/31/2010 states:

1/13/2009 Company announced Company had reached an agreement with FDA for Company to move forward with pivotal Phase III clinical trial of combination Antineoplaston therapy plus radiation therapy in patients with newly diagnosed, diffuse, intrinsic brainstem gliomas (DBSG)

Agreement was made under FDA’s Special Protocol Assessment procedure, meaning design and planned analysis of Phase III study is acceptable to support regulatory submission seeking new drug approval

2/1/2010 Company entered into agreement with Cycle Solutions, Inc., dba ResearchPoint to initiate and manage pivotal Phase III clinical trial of combination Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 plus radiation therapy (RT) in patients with newly-diagnosed, diffuse, intrinsic brainstem glioma

ResearchPoint is currently conducting feasibility assessment

ResearchPoint has secured interest and commitment from number of sites selected

Upon completion of assessment, randomized, international phase III study will commence

Study’s objective is to compare overall survival of children with newly-diagnosed DBSG who receive combination Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 plus RT versus RT alone

” … only obstacles now are $300 million $s needed to pay for final phase of clinical testing-and FDA requiring children with inoperable brainstem glioma to also undergo radiation treatment in Phase 3 trials, claiming it would be “unethical” not to do so”

why was the FDA requiring “radiation ” in the phase 3 clinical trial?

“I’ll tell you what these patients lose, they lose time, and quality of life, and hundreds of thousands of dollars on an unproven therapy that they are being misled about, and no-one in that situation deserves that.”

FW, isn’t EVERY drug in the clinical trial process “unproven therapy,” until such time as the FDA approves it?

Are you saying that because EVERY drug in the clinical trial process is “unproven therapy,” there should be NO clinical trials AT ALL?

FW

“Hah, if the FDA took any notice of the criticism, then I’m glad to hear it, though if Burzynski had not conducted his trials in an unethical and unscientific way, which was obvious merely from what his patients reported, they would have had no reason to shut his operation down.”

FW, what information do you have from the FDA that supports your comments?

“Why continue?”

“Well, there’s the so called gene targeted therapy that he still peddles for vast amounts of money, which isn’t gene targeted at all, merely a way of selling random scattergun, often off label chemotherapy.”

FW, where are your reliable independent sources (citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s)?

“There are no retainers, that’s another of your usual batshit theories, used instead of answering the questions.”

FW, I’m still waiting for you to answer my questions

“Classy of you to use my family bereavements in such a way though.”

“I can assure you, they got the best care available and luckily no quack ever tried to con them. If they had, they would have got short shrift.”

FW, so, unfortunately, even though your family “got the best care available,” they still passed?

Which also happens to Burzynski
� � � � � � � � � � � � �
Page 8
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/03/critiquing-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics-page-8/
� � � � � � � � � � � � �
“The U.S. v. Article’~ court stated that the FDA’s responsibility was to protect the ultimate consumer, which included protection of “the ignorant, the unthinking and the credulous.”‘

FW, which are YOU ?

FW (@frozenwarning FrozenBoring), welcome to the “MUD Club”

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN, and as for the rest of you who have FW (@frozenwarning) working for you at the UK National Health Service, may GOD have mercy
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/28/paging-doctor-david-h-gorski-paging-doctor-david-h-gorski-theres-mud-in-your-ears-doktor-gorski/
Here is the BIAS exhibited by Forbes, as far as whose comments they did NOT “censor”

+ = “The Skeptic” Critics

– = Questioning “The Skeptic” Critics
+ = 70
– = 44

+ = 25 more

(pg. 1)
rjblaskiewicz –
guychapman –
Peter Lipson –
rjblaskiewicz –
Vered Yasur –
Angel of Life +
rjblaskiewicz –
guychapman –
guychapman –
Krista Cashatt +

(pg. 2)
Boris Ogon –
junkeeroo +
Boris Ogon –
Sarah
junkeeroo +
junkeeroo +
Boris Ogon –
rjblaskiewicz –
Kendra Sue Too +
Boris Ogon –

(pg. 3)
junkeeroo +
Boris Ogon –
junkeeroo +
guychapman –
FW –
Angel of Life +
rjblaskiewicz –
randy hinton +
Boris Ogon –
rjblaskiewicz –

(pg. 4)
lilady –
Vered Yasur –
junkeeroo +
Tina Patterson +
chriswinter +
guychapman –
Angel of Life +
Boris Ogon –
JGC2013 –
guychapman –

(pg. 5)
lilady –
Angel of Life +
Boris Ogon –
FW –
junkeeroo +
Angel of Life +
Peter Lipson –
Angel of Life +
junkeeroo +
Boris Ogon –

(pg. 6)
Paul Morgan –
guychapman –
JGC2013 –
junkeeroo +
FW –
junkeeroo +
rjblaskiewicz –
FW –

Angel of Life +
Angel of Life +

(pg. 7)
Angel of Life +
FW –
AstroturfWatch +
FW –

junkeeroo +
junkeeroo +
Angel of Life +
Peter Lipson –
AstroturfWatch +
AstroturfWatch +

(pg. 8)
FW –
AstroturfWatch +
Angel of Life +
FW –
FW –
AstroturfWatch +
FW –
rjblaskiewicz –
Boris Ogon –
Boris Ogon –

(pg. 9)
Lynne –
guychapman –
guychapman –
guychapman –
guychapman –
randy hinton +
guychapman –
Boris Ogon –
Boris Ogon –
guychapman –

(pg. 10)
guychapman –
randy hinton +
guychapman –
Sharon Hill –
oval wooki –
randy hinton +
guychapman –
JGC2013 –
guychapman –
AstroturfWatch +

(pg. 11)
guychapman –
Allen Jones –
claire G –
claire G –
randy hinton +
lilady –
Didymus Thomas +
lilady –
Didymus Thomas +
lilady –

(pg. 12)
Didymus Thomas +
lilady –
Didymus Thomas +
Didymus Thomas +
Didymus Thomas +
Didymus Thomas +

“The Skeptic” Critics
TOTAL
18-guychapman –
13-Boris Ogon –
10-FW –
_8-rjblaskiewicz –
_6-lilady –
_3-Peter Lipson –
_3-JGC2013 –
_2-claire G –
_2-Vered Yasur –
_1-Paul Morgan –
_1-Lynne –
_1-Sharon Hill –
_1-oval wooki –
_1-Allen Jones –
70-TOTAL

Questioning “The Skeptic” Critics
TOTAL
12-junkeeroo +
10-Angel of Life +
_7-Didymus Thomas +
_6-AstroturfWatch +
_5-randy hinton +
_1-Krista Cashatt +
_1-Kendra Sue Too +
_1-Tina Patterson +
_1-chriswinter +
44-TOTAL
_1-Sarah (neutral)

Posted in Burzynski II, critique, critiques, critiqued, critiquing, Forbes #Forbes, FW (@FrozenWarning), research | Tagged #Forbes @frozenwarning, bias, Boris, Burzynski, censor, Censored, censoring, censors, Censorship, Forbes #Forbes, Frozen, Merola, thawing | Leave a reply

Boris Ogon, Boris Ohhh … Gone, where art Thou? We miss You!

Posted on May 31, 2013 by didymusjudasthomas

Reply

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM

the below article was posted on Forbes (#Forbes):
onforb.es/11pwse9
A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics
http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW
by:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics
“Speech is best countered by more speech”

Peter Lipson (Dr. Peter A. Lipson @palMD)

In response to a comment by one Mr. Randy Hinton, one Mr. Boris Ogon (@BorisOgon) commented:

“You are right now having a live “debate” in front of more than 10,000 people, and nothing you have presented suggests that you would be more coherent in person.”

Unfortunately, when I last viewed the article in question, it only reflects 4,188 views, although I tried to assist Mr. Ogon with reaching his goal of “10,000 people,” with my efforts on:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com
PREDICTWEET:
http://www.predictweet.com/results.asp?q=burzynski&n=100
PREDICTWEET
http://www.predictweet.com/results.asp?UserSearch=1&q=Burzynski&x=0&y=0
TWITTER:
https://twitter.com/search?q=%23burzynski
TWITTER.WhoTalking:
http://twitter.whotalking.com/topic/Burzynski
TWEETTUNNEL:
http://www.tweettunnel.com
TWITWHEEL:
http://www.twitwheel.com/s?query=%23burzynski
Out of the 70 biased comments allowed by Forbes, “The Skeptic” Critics, Mr. Ogon came in 2nd with 13

“The Skeptic” Critics
TOTAL
18-guychapman –
13-Boris Ogon –
10-FW –
_8-rjblaskiewicz –
_6-lilady –
_3-Peter Lipson –
_3-JGC2013 –
_2-claire G –
_2-Vered Yasur –
_1-Paul Morgan –
_1-Lynne –
_1-Sharon Hill –
_1-oval wooki –
_1-Allen Jones –
70-TOTAL

Boris Ogon, Boris Ohhh … Gone, where art Thou? We miss You!

(…and your Skeptic analysis of the number of individuals it takes to form a live “debate” in front of “more than 10,000 people“)

The Poxes Blog
https://thepoxesblog.wordpress.com
A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics
Forbes censors Peter Lipson “Speech is best countered by more speech” article comments:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/forbes-censors-peter-lipson-speech-is-best-countered-by-more-speech-article-comments/
Dr. Peter A. Lipson (and / or his Censor(s)) is a Coward: Critiquing “A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/dr-peter-a-lipson-and-or-his-censors-is-a-coward-critiquing-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/
Forbes Learns a Lesson, but Not the Right One: Censorship and Bias re: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/05/forbes-learns-a-lesson-but-not-the-right-one-censorship-and-bias-re-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/
Page 2
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/28/2-critiquing-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics-page-2/
Page 3
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/critiquing-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics-page-3/
Page 4
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/critiquing-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics-page-4/
Page 5
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/critiquing-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics-page-5/
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/
Page 7
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/01/critiquing-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics-page-7/
Page 8
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/03/critiquing-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics-page-8/
Page 9
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/critiquing-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics-page-9/
guychapman (Guy Chapman) Critiquing “The Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics (page 9):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/05/guychapman-guy-chapman-critiquing-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics-page-9/
Page 10
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/06/critiquing-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics-page-10/
Page 11
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/06/critiquing-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics-page-11/
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/
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/
Critiquing “All truth comes from public debate”: A corollary to crank magnetism:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/28/critiquing-all-truth-comes-from-public-debate-a-corollary-to-crank-magnetism/
“The Skeptics” (Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business, Part II):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/the-skeptics

Posted in Boris Ogon (Poxes Blog), Burzynski II, critique, critiques, critiqued, critiquing, Forbes #Forbes, research, The Skeptics | Tagged "The Poxes Blog", @BorisOgon, @palMD, A Cancer Doctor, A Film Producer, And Their Critics, “Speech is best countered by more speech”, bias, Biased, Boris, Boris Ogon, Dr. Peter A. Lipson, Forbes #Forbes, http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW, http://twitter.whotalking.com/topic/Burzynski, http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics, http://www.predictweet.com/results.asp?q=burzynski&n=100, http://www.predictweet.com/results.asp?UserSearch=1&q=Burzynski&x=0&y=0, http://www.tweettunnel.com, http://www.twitwheel.com/s?query=burzynski, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com, https://thepoxesblog.wordpress.com, https://twitter.com/search?q=burzynski, Lipson, Merola, Ogon, onforb.es/11pwse9, PredicTweet, Randy Hinton, TWEETTUNNEL, Twitter, TWITTER.WhoTalking, TWITWHEEL | Leave a reply

Shall We Play A Game? “The Skeptics” (SkeptiCowards) vs. “The Skeptics'” Critics #Burzynski The 1st ever “LIE OFF”

Posted on May 23, 2013 by didymusjudasthomas

Reply

It is the first ever “LIE OFF”

RULES:

1. One (1) “LIE” per Tweet (or blog comment)

2. You may use the same link to refer to additional “LIES” (One (1) at a time)

3. The “LIE” MUST be supported by “FACTS” (Citation(s), Reference(s), and / or Link(s)) – I realize that having to rely on “FACTS” may put many of “The Skeptics” at a perceived “disadvantage,” since many of them are so used to getting away with unsubstantiated vitriolic comments (Example: See
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics)

4. The “alleged” “LIAR” may contest their exalted position (One (1) issue at a time)

5. You may have to pull an Anthony Jeselnik, and “Defend Your Tweet” (One (1) issue at a time)

6. Score will be kept of the “LIES“

7. All “LIES” are binding and are the responsibility of the “LIAR” (This contest is in no way affiliated with Anthony Jeselnik or Comedy Central … maybe … that could be a “LIE“)

https://twitter.com/FauxSkeptic/status/337362207258066947

https://mobile.twitter.com/FauxSkeptic/statuses/337362207258066947

https://twitter.com/AllUrBaseRBe2us/status/337366091108057088

https://mobile.twitter.com/AllUrBaseRBe2us/statuses/337366091108057088

https://twitter.com/FauxSkeptic/status/337379052400803842

https://mobile.twitter.com/FauxSkeptic/statuses/337379052400803842

*The small print is important. This is NOT a “Pissing” Contest. Pissers will be perfunctorily penalized and Pissed OFF (Rules are subject to being changed arbitrarily and capriciously; something “The Skeptics” have an intimately familiar relationship with)

Have a Nice Day

Remember kids, this WikipediAin’t The People’s Court;” (Doug Llewelyn is NOT looking over your shoulder) you CAN take “The LIE” into your own hands

So don’t get “Pissed OFF,” get the “Lie Off“

LIE

“The Skeptics” (SkeptiCowards)

1. 5/23/2013 – Dr. David H. Gorski
2. 5/23/2013 – Dr. David H. Gorski
3. 5/24/2013 – Guy Chapman
4. 5/25/2013 – Guy Chapman
5. 5/29/2013 – dougal445

“The Skeptics” Critics

*

1. David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 12:44pm – 30 Mar 13:

Odd how @BurzynskiMovie pretends I haven't deconstructed his "evidence" in depth before. http://t.co/uiGeNelAlb @bbcpanorama @vguyuk @fxnwo

— David Gorski (@gorskon) March 30, 2013

NO, Dr. Gorski, you have NOT “deconstructed his “evidence” in depth before”
Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business (Part I) consists of the documentary; as well as the documents on the movie web-site, which you have NOT “deconstructed … in depth before”
David Gorski (@gorskon)
5/23/13, 9:32 AM
@FauxSkeptic No need to defend my Tweet. The defense is in the link. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/stanislaw-burzynski-bad-medicine-a-bad-movie
2013-05-23 16:45:18
FauxSkeptic:
@gorskon
Ignoring:
Documents/BurzynskiTriesToExposeNCI.pdf
is NOT:”deconstructed his”evidence”in depth…”
http://redd.it/1ewce0
#Burzynski

2.
https://mobile.twitter.com/gorskon/status/325715182045245440

Egads. The pro-#Burzynski trolls have descended on my bud Peter's excellent post. Tactical air support, anyone? http://t.co/ollMCNBukK

— David Gorski (@gorskon) April 20, 2013

AllUrBaseRbelong2us (@AllUrBaseRBe2us)
5/23/13, 8:15 PM
AnthonyJeselnik☆
@gorskon🚫
U tweeted4/20/13
http://po.st/69JIvR
#Burzynski
http://redd.it/1ewce0
Defend tweet😅
http://redd.it/1dq3nd

3. FauxSkeptic (@FauxSkeptic)
5/24/13, 12:33 PM
☆AnthonyJeselnik:☆
🚫”The Skeptics” @vGuyUK,🚫
you blahgged at:📄
http://redd.it/1dpsj6
Defend your twit:😅
http://redd.it/1dpsj6

4. ☆AnthonyJeselnik:☆
🚫SceptivGuyChapmanUK,🚫
you blahgged at:📄
redd.it/1dr2xg
Defend your twit:😅
http://t.co/YRd0oSzL9l

5. @dougal445 tweeted at 1:16am-19 Apr 13:
http://po.st/0EpLAz
Defend Your Tweet:
http://redd.it/1du07r
#Burzynski
http://po.st/BBoHhh

Posted in Burzynski II, critique, critiques, critiqued, critiquing, Gorski ScienceBlogs.com/Insolence ScienceBasedMedicine, research | Tagged "Comedy Central", "Defend Your Tweet", "LIE OFF", "The Skeptics'" Critics", #sciencebasedmedicine http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence, @gorskon, @oracknows, @SceptiGuy, @ScienceBasedMed, @vGuyUK, blahg, Burzynski, Dr. David H. Gorski, Forbes #Forbes, Guy Chapman, guychapman, http//www.sciencebasedmedicine.org, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg, Jeselnik, Merola, oncologist, SkeptiCoward, SkeptiCowards, The Skeptics, Tweet, Twit, Twitter, Wikipedia | Leave a reply

Critiquing: Is Eric Merola issuing bogus DMCA takedown notices against critics of Stanislaw Burzynski?

Posted on May 7, 2013 by didymusjudasthomas

Reply

4/19/2013, “The “Skeptics” high priest, “Orac,” delivered a sermon on “demount,” to the “Oracolytes”

Respectful Insolence

Posted by Orac on April 19, 2013
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/04/19/eric-merola-issuing-bogus-dmca-takedown-notices-against-critics-of-stanislaw-burzynski/
If there is one aspect of cowards like “Orac” and “The Skeptic” Critic “Oracolytes” that is noteworthy, it’s “cowardice”

True, such a tendency is a human trait, but it’s one that seems to be cranked up to 11 in “Orac” and “The Skeptic” Critic “Oracolytes”

We’ve seen it time and time again

Most often, it takes the form of some sort of Twitter and / or blahg or blog bullying, such as when “The Skeptics” bit off more than they could chew by censoring (deleting and /or blocking) comments on:
onforb.es/11pwse9
Forbes (#Forbes)
http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW
“Speech is best countered by more speech”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics
Peter Lipson article:

“A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics”

Fortunately, they were ignominiously Faux Skeptic Revealed!, and had to retreat like the scum that they are

(in my not-so-humble opinion)

Over and over and over and over again, the story is the same

A “Skeptic” Critic aims the light of reason into a crevice of unreason and pseudo-nonsense, the target of that light doesn’t like it and, instead of slithering back under the rock from which he came, decides to try to abuse the social media system to get back at “The Skeptics” Critics

In “The Skeptics” universe, thuggery is a feature, not a bug, of wankery and tu-quoc quoankery

1/28/2013, “Orac” linked to and embedded a mischaracterized “excellent” YouTube video by C0nc0rdance

3/11/2013 “Orac” commented:

“(although we do have C0nc0rdance)”
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/three-myths-about-stanislaw-burzynski-and-the-skeptics
“Orac” requested that I comment on the video:

#6 – Didymus Judas Thomas – At the Tu-Quack Center IMAX 3-D Video Viewing Velodrome – January 28, 2013

“C0nc0rdance” commented:

#49 – c0nc0rdance – January 29, 2013
@Orac
“Many, many thanks for sharing my video.)…”
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/28/an-excellent-explanation-of-how-dubious-stanislaw-burzynskis-activities-are/
My review of C0nc0rdance
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/23/my-review-of-c0nc0rdance
“Orac” continues:

“Go to my link right now and try to play the video.”

“What do you see?”

“This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Merola Productions, LLC.”

“Yes, apparently Eric Merola has issued a DMCA takedown notice against C0nc0rdance, and Google, as it so often cravenly does, simply complied.”

“At least, that’s what C0nc0rdance has stated, and I have no reason not to believe him.”

Forbes

“A well-known “vlogger” who goes by the handle “C0nc0rdance” reports receiving a DMCA take-down notice from Eric Merola after posting a video critical of Burzynski.”

“According to C0nc0rdance:

He objected to my “Fair Use” of a small low-res image of his movie poster.”

Burzynski, The Movie shared a link.
about an hour ago

“Wow, and people say the “Skeptics” (aka Astroturf campaign) aren’t powerful and with the system behind them.”

“This is what happens when I take down a YouTube video making false claims against my film and Burzynski as well as illegally using copyrighted images of me without permission within (not to mention publishing my personal emails in which I received countless profanity filled threats also in their YouTube post, and they claim “we” threaten – this is the system fighting back, hard):

“Orac” proceeds:

“In fact, C0nc0rdance posted a brief video explaining what was going on, but if you go to that link you will rapidly find this notice:”

“This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube’s policy against spam, scams, and commercially deceptive content.”

“Gee, I wonder who complained to YouTube about that video so rapidly, given that it hadn’t been up more than a day or so before it was taken down?”

“Could it be…Eric Merola?”

“That would be my first guess, of course.”

If there’s one thing “Orac” is practiced at, it’s “ASSuming;” just like his “Oracolytes:”. lilady, Guy Chapman, frozenwarning, Dr. Paul Morgan, and his “pal,” Dr. Peter A. (“bud”) Lipson

“Orac” states:

“Already, C0nc0rdance’s video about the Burzynski Clinic has been mirrored here, here, and here.”

“Orac” forgets THESE:
http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=CLmz2oiMyZo&feature=em-comment_reply_received
�
dougal445 (@dougal445) tweeted at 1:16am – 19 Apr 13:

I’m Disgusted by #Burzynski . What cunt.would #FalseDMCA
@c0nc0rdance https://t.co/pBWb9RNgaF ?
�

I'm Disgusted by #Burzynski . What cunt.would #FalseDMCA @c0nc0rdance https://t.co/pBWb9RNgaF ?

— dougal445 (@dougal445) April 19, 2013

anarchic_teapot

_1.�Doesn’t exist
http://t.co/jtnN
_2.�doesn’t exist
http://t.co/mLgHMSGGL
_3.�MrGreycoat
http://t.co/roroHefVNE
_4.�MrGreycoat
http://t.co/GSX5xOge6j
_5.�ozmoroid
https://t.co/6XPitEyTim
_6.�ozmoroid

_7.�Andy Goodall
http://t.co/bjjTcYfGEA
_8.�Error loading video
http://t.co/NIaXgWdxlx
_9.�Baud2Bits
http://t.co/8b2nFvetbc
10.�Baud2Bits
http://t.co/j4geupr3nH
11.�Baud2Bits
http://t.co/rekWcb5NvL
12.�Baud2Bits
http://t.co/hTT89FUmvt
13.�Baud2Bits
http://t.co/EezKROfR8y
14.�Error loading video
http://t.co/GGMWILcXme
15.�C0nc0rdance
http://t.co/fWdj0Bbdcq
16.�C0nc0rdance
http://t.co/agVHvPzajx
17.�C0nc0rdance
http://t.co/PFsYB1mCjc
18.�C0nc0rdance
http://t.co/61iCQhrBTk
19.�C0nc0rdance
http://t.co/GGbCjGJKfz
20.�C0nc0rdance
http://t.co/CombhoX7av
21.�C0nc0rdance
http://t.co/fXFxkxGwUR
22.�C0nc0rdance
http://t.co/RbFluWw2JD
23.�C0nc0rdance
http://t.co/g63k2qGybT
24.�Error loading video
http://t.co/p5fR0S7STF
25.�C0nc0rdance
http://t.co/Qns5Fn8RQc
26.�C0nc0rdance
http://t.co/QZ3Eqx5FTo
27.�C0ncordance
http://t.co/sbAKMY5mu6
28.�Error loading video
youtube.com/watch?v=deR4AL…
29.�dprjones
https://t.co/pBWb9RNgaF
30.�QualiaSoup
https://t.co/iBubSS6uIw
31.�QualiaSoup
https://t.co/OPMXmbVpNK
32.�10sodot
http://t.co/Z5uxPeYPuD
33.�Jim Jesus
http://t.co/LBnYWVckjo
34.�Martolives
http://t.co/M1jduVHLnq
35.�tech dirt
http://t.co/IB7ixha9vv
36.�skepticallypwnd
http://t.co/S9HYdeIyWq
37.�Andrew Skegg
http://t.co/1noQFrZ6lj
38.�Andrew Skegg
http://t.co/YlcfCa02PU
39.�Eron2828
http://t.co/mvDtFiou6C
40.�danbuzzard . net
http://t.co/rRd1qaLidQ
41.�danbuzzard . net
http://t.co/Nrfd3bPxCm
42.�littlegreenfootballs
http://t.co/YlH52VxxHY
43.�MP3
http://t.co/H8LyVOAEe5
44.�scienceblogs
http://t.co/9i2nloJqqS
45.�scienceblogs
http://t.co/L8qrgRBxtF
46.�scienceblogs
http://t.co/Pj4cPig3xy
47.�scienceblogs
http://t.co/YjV1CJaWt2
48.�scienceblogs
http://t.co/VhdK8AseXd
49.�scienceblogs
http://t.co/3GVlm97Ucz
50.�scienceblogs
http://t.co/ScI9q9AQIsa
51.�scienceblogs
http://t.co/j5ZFKmadGS
52.�scienceblogs
http://t.co/TvXQKnC2wp
53.�scienceblogs
http://t.co/tTKkEd7B5O
54.�scienceblogs
http://t.co/8mJQ3n0tMF
55.�skeptical humanities
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
59.�Comments
http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=0q6GbLm06yQ
60.�https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&hl=en&ei=6fmIUcTQC5TI9gS2j4H4Cw&q=c0nc0rdance+youtube+burzynski&oq=c0nc0rdance+youtube+burzynski&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.3…46763.55955.0.56950.10.10.0.0.0.0.895.4832.2j1j4-1j5j1.10.0…0.0…1c.1.12.mobile-gws-serp.s3LsCjdggyg
“Orac” posits:

“I’ll embed one of these mirrored versions of the video for your viewing pleasure.”

“Orac,” ONLY one ?

“It’s really worth taking a look at because it explains the essence of skeptical objections to Burzynski concisely and clearly, so that everyone can understand:”

A “FACT-CHALLENGED” video

“Orac” postulates

“No doubt Mr. Merola will take the mirroring of C0nc0rdance’s video as “evidence” of some sort of grand conspiracy by “The Skeptics,” given that he has repeated claims about such grand conspiracies at both of his Q&As after screenings of his new movie.”

“Orac” knows all about “conspiracy,” so much so that his cowardice has been revealed for all to see, HERE:

“Orac” and the “Oracolytes” Cult of Misinformation:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/orac-and-the-oracolytes-cult-of-misinformation/
And after “Orac” has digested THAT, there’s always 2nd’s

Forbes censors Peter Lipson “Speech is best countered by more speech” article comments:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/forbes-censors-peter-lipson-speech-is-best-countered-by-more-speech-article-comments/
And:

Forbes Learns a Lesson, but Not the Right One: Censorship and Bias re: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/05/forbes-learns-a-lesson-but-not-the-right-one-censorship-and-bias-re-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/
And 3rd’s

Wikipedia, what’s your motivation?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/wikipedia-whats-your-motivation/
“Orac” continues, blissfully unaware in his “alternate universe”

“Mr. Merola, assuming he really was the one issuing this DMCA takedown notice, should Google the “Streisand effect.””

“Orac” is so self-engorged that he does NOT even comprehend, that after the preceding, he and “The Skeptic” “Oracolytes” initiated a reverse Barbara Streisand Effect

“It really is applicable here.”

“Orac” blathers on:

“There’s no grand conspiracy.”

“Orac” IS a denialist

“There never has been, as getting skeptics—excuse me, “The Skeptics”—to paddle in the same direction on anything is much like the proverbial herding of cats.”

“Orac” is oblivious to the “fact” that it’s notably referred to as “lemmings in Sheeple’s clothing”

“Orac” rants on

“Mirroring like this and more people writing about the criticisms that Merola has tried to suppress is just what happens on the Internet, in particular on social media, whenever a person being criticized tries to use legal thuggery to silence or eliminate that criticism.”

“The examples are legion and include the ones I briefly mentioned at the beginning of this post.”

“There are more, of course.”

“Many more.”

“Orac” just described what Forbes, Wikipedia, and “The Skeptic” “Oracolytes” are experiencing

“In an case, although I’m not a lawyer there was nothing in C0nc0rdance’s video that I could see that was anything more than obvious fair use.”

“Orac” would most likely NOT ever be even close to being a lawyer, since lawyers are bound by ethical rules, and “ethics” is NOT one of “Orac’s” strong suits

“Early in the video there was a scene showing a shot that included a low resolution shot of the poster for Eric Merola’s Burzynski propaganda movie.”

“Later, there was another shot with that poster, and some random images associated with Merola’s filmmaking business as well as a photo of what looked like him.”

“Quite honestly, if I were C0nc0rdance, I’d just re-edit the video to remove the Burzynski Movie poster and any images of Merola, replacing them with either cartoons or a blank screen with a notice that the images had to be removed because Merola had issued a highly dubious DMCA takedown notice.”

“Let me also say this.”

“I know that Eric Merola obsessively reads pretty much everything I write about Burzynski; so I know he’ll see this.”

And here is where “Orac” truly showcases his ASSumption abilities:

“I also know that … Didymus Judas Thomas”

“(whose identity I’m probably about 75% sure of and whose Twitter handles mutate as fast as the genome of cancer cells)”

(“Orac,” considering your past track record of NOT being anywhere near 75% correct about alot of things re this subject-matter, I can NOT wait to learn what your “75% sure” ASSumption is)

“Orac” proceeds down the wide and straight aisle of ASSumption:

“also obsessively read anything posted about Eric Merola or Stanislaw Burzynski on any social media.”

If “Orac” was anywhere close to being 75% sure, I would have already reviewed “Doubtful News,” which received “free pub” on Forbes

“Finally, I believe that people like Eric Merola are hypocrites, feeling free to paint “The Skeptics” as “white supremacists” and puppy-eating evildoers to their heart’s content”

“Orac” truly should take time to check his “Mirror”

Maybe he should “Mirror” his “Mirror”

“(from what I’ve heard about Merola’s second Burzynski movie, in it skeptics are all but portrayed as Satan Incarnate)”

“Orac,” Satan was exceedingly beautiful, so there is NO way “The Skeptics” can be “Satan Incarnate”

“Orac,” I understand that a lot of “The Skeptics” claim their official religion as Atheism, so I can understand why “The Skeptics” would NOT be up on “Satan for The Skeptic Dummies”

“Orac’s” diatribe continues:

“but running like whipped puppies to the DMCA when either they or Burzynski are criticized, no matter how civil, reasonable, or science-based that criticism is”

“(and C0nc0rdance’s video was all of the above).”

“Orac” referring to the YouTube video by C0nc0rdance as “reasonable, or science-based” shows “Orac” for what he is

“Orac” the “ASSumptor”

The reason is, of course, clear.

Same as it ever was.

“Orac’s” tirade marches on

“One more thing:”

“Orac,” we know that where you are considered, it’s never just:

“One more thing:”

“If Eric Merola, Stanislaw Burzynski, and his crew of sycophants, toadies, and lackeys are offended by my opinion, my characterization of them that I have based on analyses of Burzynski’s claims and observation of the behavior of Burzynski and his propagandist Eric Merola, they should try something different to shut me up.”

“Orac,” I already know how to shut you up

All anyone has to do is mention my Post #73 on your blog, and that shuts you right up, because you have NO reponse for THAT

“Orac” reminds me of his “Oracolyte,” Guy Chapman (guychapman on Forbes, @SceptiGuy, @vGuyUK), who thought that because his BIASED 18 “Fact-Challenged” verbose comments were posted on Forbes, that that translates into his non-citation(s), non-reference(s), and / or non-link(s), being “credible”

I have just the thing, too.

It’s called “FACTS”

“Orac” rattles off

“Publishing the results of some of Burzynski’s allegedly completed phase II trials for the scientific community comes to mind first.”

“If Burzynski really has the goods, as Merola and company claim, then he can best shut up critics 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 preclinical and clinical evidence.”

“I have yet to see anything resembling strong evidence from Burzynski.”

“Orac” is a coward, and has yet to publish a thorough review of Burzynski’s 2003-2007 phase II clinical trial preliminary reports

“Orac” rattles on

“At least, if he has such evidence he hasn’t published it yet, preferring to publish a mixture of case reports, tiny case series, unimpressive basic science, and the like in bottom-feeding journals, some of which aren’t even indexed in PubMed.”

“Orac” is unable to provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) that give any cloak of credibility to his above blogsplat comment

“Orac, thankfully, is running out of steam:

“A conspiracy among editors of journals is not the reason, contrary to the claims in the second Burzynski movie.”

“Nor is a conspiracy of skeptics—excuse me, “The Skeptics”—the reason why trying to suppress criticism will boomerang on Merola.”

“It’s all because of Burzynski’s own behavior and Merola’s willingness to distort, misinform, and slime Burzynski critics.”

“Orac,” like the “spiritual” leader of “The Skeptics,” ends his sermon with:

“Spread the word”

But this blogpost would NOT be complete without including the ravings of one

Marc Stephens Is Insane in the Membrane:

#55 – Marc Stephens Is Insane – April 24, 2013

“I realized I posted these comments in the wrong Count Stan thread.”

“I haven’t paid any attention to the lunatic rantings of DJT for weeks, but Guy Chapman just updated the list of his sockpuppet Twitter spam accounts”

“(he’s on his 10th account)”

(try again, MSII)

“so I checked out his latest incarnation.”

“He’s now been reduced to writing poems and limericks about the Forbes article and his “free speech” being censored by Dr. Peter Lipson.”

“This is truly hilarious.”

“The man has deep, deep psychological problems:”
https://twitter.com/QbertQbert
“From what I can glean from his incoherent babble, he posted a comment on the Forbes article that purported to have uncovered some conspiracy that Dr. Lipson and Orac are friends”

“(or “buds”)”

“and that prompted Dr. Lipson to delete the comment.”

“As far as I know, the authors of Forbes articles doen’t even have the power to delete comments, so maybe Forbes smelled the crazy and deleted the comment themselves.”

“It’s not quite along the same lines as Alex Jones’s conspiracy rantings about the Boston bombings, false flag attacks and “The Craft” but loony tunes nonetheless.”

“Since DJT has already proven to be a 9/11 truther, he probably also believes that Navy Seals planted the Boston bombs with the cooperation of the FBI and the two brothers were just “patsies” who were set up and/or framed.”

M.S.I.I. is a Master Specialist In Inaccuracies

#56 – Orac – April 24, 2013

“Well, actually Peter and I are buds.”

“There’s no secret about that..”

(“Orac” fails to mention that his “bud,” Dr. Peter A. Lipson (@palMD) did NOT disclose his relationship with Dr. David H. Gorski (“Orac,” @oracknows, @gorskon, @ScienceBasedMed, #sciencebasedmedicine,
http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence, http://www.sciencebasedmedicine. org)

Yet, some of “The Skeptics” rant that Eric Merola did NOT disclose a relatives’ relationship with Burzynski

Boris Ogon

“You are right now having a live “debate” in front of more than 10,000 people, … “

3,934 views

Not so much

Waiting for the 10,000

Peter Lipson, Contributor

Musings on the intersection of science, medicine, and culture

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM

Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Posted in critique, critiques, critiqued, critiquing, research | Tagged #sciencebasedmedicine, @gorskon, @oracknows, @SceptiGuy, @ScienceBasedMed, @vGuyUK, bogus, Burzynski, Chapman, critics, Critiquing, DMCA, Eric, Forbes #Forbes, Gorski, Guy, http://www.sciencebasedmedicine, http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence, Insolence, Lipson, Merola, notices, Orac, Respectful, Stanislaw, takedown | Leave a reply

Critiquing “The Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics (page 11)

Posted on May 6, 2013 by didymusjudasthomas

1

onforb.es/11pwse9

http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics
Didymus Judas Thomas, Contributor

Musings on the intersection of Articles, Bias, and Censorship

(The Big 3: A.B.C.)

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM

A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics

Allen Jones 1 day ago

“Interesting article.”

“Since there are two competing sides here I decided to do a bit of research on Burzynski and his treatment.”

“Success seems to be defined in terms of anecdotes only.”

“And after a continued search there seems to be just as many anecdotes of failures for this treatment.”

“Reading the website “the other Burzynski patient group” that outline all the heart wrenching failures of this treatment was difficult.”

“My conclusion is that this Burzynski is a quack of the lowest level.”

“Shameful!!!”

Allen Jones, I really can NOT adequately express how convincing your “alleged” “bit of research” sounds

Shameful!!!”???

claire G 1 day ago

@Guy Chapman,

(claire G, I really can NOT adequately express how convincing your use of @Guy Chapman is, considering as how “Guy Chapman” has gone by “guychapman” in all 18 of his “erudite” posts)

“It seems to me that actually the FDA are being very fair to Burzynski.”

claire G, please expand on how THIS is “the FDA” “being very fair to Burzynski.”

Click to access BurzynskiTriesToExposeNCI.pdf

“Despite the massive problems with hsi institutional review board, and his abject failure to publish results, they continued to allow him to register new trials.”

claire G, please expand on:

“they continued to allow him to register new trials.”

Exactly WHEN did “they continued to allow him to register new trials” “[d]espite the massive problems with hsi institutional review board”?

Please advise WHERE
“his abject failure to publish results”
was a condition for him “to register new trials.”

“I can’t think of anyone else in that position”.”

“You are so right.”

claire G, “you are so right”

“I can’t think of anyone else in that position”.

Exactly HOW are you going to answer THOSE questions?

“That cracking sound you hear is the FDA bending over backwards to accommodate Burzynski!”

claire G, please explain exactly HOW was the FDA requiring radiation in the phase 3 clinical trial, bending over backwards to accommodate Burzynski!”

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended 5/31/2010:

1/13/2009 Company announced Company had reached an agreement with FDA for Company to move forward with pivotal Phase III clinical trial of combination Antineoplaston therapy plus radiation therapy in patients with newly diagnosed, diffuse, intrinsic brainstem gliomas (DBSG)

Agreement was made under FDA’s Special Protocol Assessment procedure, meaning design and planned analysis of Phase III study is acceptable to support regulatory submission seeking new drug approval

2/1/2010 Company entered into agreement with Cycle Solutions, Inc., dba ResearchPoint to initiate and manage pivotal Phase III clinical trial of combination Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 plus radiation therapy (RT) in patients with newly-diagnosed, diffuse, intrinsic brainstem glioma

ResearchPoint is currently conducting feasibility assessment

ResearchPoint has secured interest and commitment from number of sites selected

Upon completion of assessment, randomized, international phase III study will commence”

Study’s objective is to compare overall survival of children with newly-diagnosed DBSG who receive combination Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 plus RT versus RT alone

” … only obstacles now are $300 million $s needed to pay for final phase of clinical testing-and FDA requiring children with inoperable brainstem glioma to also undergo radiation
treatment in Phase 3 trials, claiming it would be “unethical” not to do so”

“For all the whining and complaining by Burzynski fans that he’s been so hounded and mistreated by the FDA,”

claire G, please pontificate on THIS:
http://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wiki-site.com/index.php/Main_Page
“I’ve never seen any doctor be allowed that much time and leeway to conduct clinical trials.”

claire G, please advise, what doctor has been allowed the next most “time and leeway to conduct clinical trials,” after Burzynski?

“The big question in many people’s minds is, WHY has Burzynski been given this special treatment?”

claire G, THIS “special treatment?

Antineoplastons: Has the FDA kept its promise to the American people ?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/antineoplastons-has-the-fda-kept-its-promise-to-the-american-people
claire G, any questions NOW?

claire G 1 day ago

@AstroturfWatch,

“Antineoplastons are dead.

No more in the USA.

Only the rich, powerful, and the affluent who are “in the know” can get it now (no longer in the USA).”

“Ha!”

“So what you mean then is that nothing has really changed?”

claire G, are you indicating that antineoplastons were NOT available in the USA?

“It was always only either the very wealthy or those who could scrap together the $200,00.00 from donations who could afford antineoplastons.”

claire G, are you indicating that EVERY antineoplaston patient has had to “SCRAP together the $200,00.00”?

“By not publishing his research so that it could be peer reviewed and approved by the FDA Burzynski assured that antineoplastons would not be covered by insurance.”

claire G, please provide your citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) which support your:

“By not publishing his research so that it could be peer reviewed and approved by the FDA

Burzynski: What happens when a clinical trial is over?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-what-happens-when-a-clinical-trial-is-over
National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH)

Cancer Clinical Trials

15. What happens when a clinical trial is over?

“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
This makes it clear that clinical trial results “are OFTEN” published, but sometimes they are “NOT” published “in a peer-reviewed scientific journal”

Burzynski: FAQ: Clinical Trial Results
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/burzynski-faq-clinical-trial-results/
Trial results are not always publicly available, even after a clinical trial ends

U.S. National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/services/ctresults.html
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
“The FDA’s Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective”

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

“This phase aims to obtain PRELIMINARY DATA on whether the drug works in people who have a certain disease or condition”

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

“These studies gather more information about safety and EFFECTIVENESS, studying different populations and different dosages and using the drug in combination with other drugs”
http://www.fda.gov/drugs/resourcesforyou/consumers/ucm143534.htm
Burzynski: Declaration of Helsinki:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-declaration-of-helsinki
World Medical Association
http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3
PDF:

Click to access 17c.pdf

PDF:

Click to access 79(4)373.pdf

National Institutes of Health-HISTORY:

Click to access helsinki.pdf

The Declaration of Helsinki doesn’t indicate WHEN results MUST be published

“If you were sitting on this effective cure for cancers that affect children especially, wouldn’t you want to do whatever it took to make it available to anyone who needed it?”

claire G, ask the FDA

“Isn’t that what an ethical, caring, humanitarian would do?”

claire G, I refer you to the above

Boris Ogon

“You are right now having a live “debate” in front of more than 10,000 people, … “

Peter Lipson, Contributor
Musings on the intersection of science, medicine, and culture

3,932 views

Not so much

Waiting for the 10,000

Peter Lipson, Contributor

Musings on the intersection of science, medicine, and culture

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM

Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Posted in bias, biased, censor, censors, censored, censoring, censorship, critique, critiques, critiqued, critiquing, Forbes #Forbes, research, The Skeptics | Tagged #sciencebasedmedicine, @gorskin, @oracknows, @palMD, @SceptiGuy, @ScienceBasedMed, @vGuyUK, Boris, Burzynski, Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business Part II, Cancer, Critic, critics, Critiquing, Doctor, Film, Forbes #Forbes, Gorski, guychapman, http//www.sciencebasedmedicine.org, http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW, http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics onforb.es/11pwse9, http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence, Insolence, journalism, Lipson, Merola, Ogon, onforb.es/11pwse9, Part 2, Producer, Respectful, Skeptic, Skeptics, yellow | 1 Reply

Critiquing “The Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics (page 10)

Posted on May 6, 2013 by didymusjudasthomas

Reply

onforb.es/11pwse9

http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics
Didymus Judas Thomas, Contributor

Musings on the intersection of Articles, Bias, and Censorship

(The Big 3: A.B.C.)

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM

A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics

randy hinton 5 days ago

Hey Petey!

“I am ready to sit on a stage with Eric in front of a large crowd and debate this matter with you ANYTIME YOUR READY.”

Petey!, responds:

guychapman 5 days ago

(citing randy hinton 5 days ago)

“WHY DID 230 CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL’S TURN DOWN BURZYNSKI’S PHASE 3 BRAINSTEM GLIOMA TRIAL???”

“The answer is in your own post.”

“They were not convinced the treatment was likely to provide benefit, so why on earth would they subject children to the side effects, infection risk and other known problems with ANP treatment?”

“Unlike Burzynski, they seem to have followed the dictates of the Helsinki declaration.”

guychapman, HOW has Burzynski NOT “followed the dictates of the Helsinki declaration.”?

YOU remind me of this randy hinton comment:

“The hospital’s don’t seem to want to discuss this matter publically.”

And neither do YOU

Sharon Hill 5 days ago

“I am thrilled with this piece.”

“My website, Doubtful News, was also a target of the Burzynski PR machine when they tried to shut down critique and questioning.”

Sharon Hill, I’m “doubtful” your website was worth the trouble

But look on the bright side

You just got free “Pub” in a BIASED CENSORING publication

It’ll be something you can tell the grandkids about

“Very pleased that this part of the story is getting out.”

“The bottom line is, there would be no problems if the clinic just met the same standards expected from all clinics – you follow the federal and state rules and you have evidence to back up your claims.”

“The fact that they have to retaliate the way they do is GOOD evidence they have nothing better to show.”

Sharon Hill, and I see that:

“The fact that you have to retaliate the way you do is GOOD evidence you have nothing better to show.”

As in, NO “citation(s),” NO “reference(s),” and / or NO “link(s)” that support your claims

ovalwooki 5 days ago

“Mr. Burzynski is a fraud, a thief, and a scoundrel.”

ovalwooki, so, like YOU ?

“When people are at their lowest, facing death for themselves or a Loved one, he holds out a lie disguised as hope, takes every dime from them that he can, and in some cases even threatens with lawsuits the very people he’s just ripped off.”

ovalwooki, and we should just take your word for it, because, WHY?

“He threatens innocent people who call him out on his horrible record of successful ” cures “ .”

ovalwooki, WHAT is:

“his horrible record of successful ” cures“ ?

“As far as I know, he’s cured no one, ever, and there is no validity to him or his methods, at all.”

ovalwooki, exactly WHAT does:

“As far as I know”

MEAN ?

“He clearly defines what is most flawed with our system of healthcare, here in America.”

ovalwooki, “clearly defines what is most flawed with our system of” yellow journalism, here in America

randy hinton 5 days ago

“In the 1950’s, Congressman Charles Tobey enlisted Benedict Fitzgerald, an investigator for the Interstate Commerce Commission, to investigate allegations of conspiracy* and monopolistic practices on the part of orthodox medicine.”

“This came about as the result of the son of Senator Tobey who developed cancer and was given less than two years to live by orthodox medicine.”

“That is when he learned of alleged conspiratorial practices on the part of orthodox medicine.”

“The final report clearly indicated there was indeed a conspiracy to monopolize the medical and drug industry and to eliminate alternative options.”

guychapman 3 days ago

“That was 60 years ago.”

“And it was not adopted as generally plausible even then.”

guychapman, so, what has changed since then, because there are definitely still dissimulators like YOU?

“By peerless I mean risible, of course.”

guychapman, so, like your comments, right?

JGC2013 4 days ago

“It seems to me there are nly too possibilities here:”

JGC2013, “nly” ?

“1) Antineoplastons don’t work and after two decades and 60-plus uncompleted and unplublished ‘clinical trials’ Burzinsky is fully aware that there is no evidence antineoplastons showing they are effective at treating advanced cancers, but despite this continues to charge patients to receive antineoplaston treatment for financial gain.”

JGC2013, THAT certainly explains THIS:

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
“In which case he’s a fraud, exploiting desparate people for his own personal gain.”

JGC2013, THAT certainly explains THIS:

“Orac” and the “Oracolytes” Cult of Misinformation:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/orac-and-the-oracolytes-cult-of-misinformation/
“Or 2) antineoplastons DO work, and Burzinsky does have clinical evidence demonstrating efficacybut rather than publish the results of trials (allowing independent oncologists can first confirm and then adopt antineoplatosn therapy) he’s chosen not to publish in order to maintain a lucrative monopoly on antineoplaston herapy, offering it only to the small subset of cancer patients who afford to pay exorbitant fees to be treated at his clinic and effectively denying millions of other cancer patients access to a cure for their cancer.”

JGC2013, THAT certainly explains THIS:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/critiquing-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics-page-9/
“In which case he’s a monster.”

JGC2013, this is NOT a Rob Zombie film

My 1st-hand Review of Orac’s 2nd-Hand Review – 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
“I personally can’t envision any third posibility. Can anyone else?”

JGC2013,

3). Citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s)

guychapman 4 days ago

By a curious coincidence, several senior figures in the pharmaceutical industry today gave evidence to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee on the specific issue of publication before and after the event for clinical trials and data, and discuss the obligations of those conducting trials.
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=13017 (from approx. 18:44 for the directly relevant content)

guychapman, thank you for keeping us appraised of what’s going in the United Kingdom, home to Kings, Queens, Dukes, Dutchesses, Earls, Counts, Countesses, Knights, Dragons, Wizards, etc., and that fairyland you’re living in

"Figures as low as 70-odd percent and as high as 90+ percent."

guychapman, just in case you have NOT noticed, Burzynski is in the United States of America

Travel Tex
http://www.traveltex.com/
“Texas. It’s like a WHOLE OTHER COUNTRY”

Don’t Mess With Texas

“Nobody citing zero percent as being acceptable or desirable, oddly.”

guychapman, YOU have “zero percent” acceptability or desirability, oddly.

AstroturfWatch 4 days ago

“Hey Peter Lipson, while you were at the Cleveland Clinic, did you speak to Dr. Bruce Cohen, the director of Neuro-oncology?”

“Because he is in “Burzynski Part 1″ and was Paul Michaels neuro-oncologist and watch Paul’s brain tumor “disappear” (after previously telling Paul’s parents “this is the worst case we’ve ever seen”.”

“Dr. Cohen is in the “trailer #2″ from Burzynski, Part 1 also.”

“I think Bruce is still there, perhaps you need to give old Bruce Cohen a call ;)”

Bruce H. Cohen, MD Bio – The United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation
http://www.umdf.org/site/c.8qKOJ0MvF7LUG/b.8047243/k.612C/Bruce_H_Cohen_MD_Bio.htm
Dr. Cohen joined Cleveland Clinic’s department of Neurology, in Cleveland, Ohio , in 1989

guychapman 3 days ago

“You don’t get it do you?”

“Science does not work by assuming that single voices in the wilderness somehow counter the consensus view.”

“The consensus of informed opinion is that Burzynski’s treatment is unproven and not terribly likely to become proven, not least because his science appears incompetent.”

guychapman, are you indicating that Dr. Cohen is NOT competent, and misdiagnosed his patient?

Boris Ogon

“You are right now having a live “debate” in front of more than 10,000 people, … “

3,932 views

Not so much

Waiting for the 10,000

| 4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM

Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Posted in bias, biased, censor, censors, censored, censoring, censorship, critique, critiques, critiqued, critiquing, Forbes #Forbes, research, The Skeptics | Tagged #sciencebasedmedicine, @gorskon, @oracknows, @SceptiGuy, @ScienceBasedMed, @vGuyUK, bias, blahg, Boris, Burzynski, Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business Part II, Cancer, censor, censoring, censors, Censorship, Chapman, critics, Critiquing, Doctor, Eric, Film, Forbes #Forbes, Gorski, Guy, guychapman, Hinton, http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW, http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics onforb.es/11pwse9, http://www.scencebasedmedicine.org, http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence, Lipson, Merola, Ogon, onforb.es/11pwse9, Orac, Oracolytes, Part 2, Petey!, Producer, Skeptic, Wikipedia | Leave a reply

Post navigation

← Older posts

Search

Search

Recent posts

Pete Cohen films Pat and Steve Clarkson January 15, 2014

Pete Cohen talks to Steve and Mary Jo Siegel January 14, 2014

Pete Cohen talks with Doug Olson January 10, 2014

Pete Cohen talks with Burzynski Patient January 8, 2014

Dr. Li-Chuan Chin, PhD, National Cancer Institute Scientist (1991-1997) talks about Dr. Burzynski and Antineoplastons January 6, 2014

Archives
Archives
Categories
Categories

Meta

Register

Log in

Entries feed

Comments feed

WordPress.com

Didymus Judas Thomas' Hipocritical Oath Blog

Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski, Stanislaw R. Burzynski, Stanislaw Burzynski, Stan R. Burzynski, Stan Burzynski, S. R. BURZYNSKI, S. Burzynski, Arthur Burzynski, Hippocrates Hypocrite Hypocrites Critic Critics Critical HipoCritical

Tag Archives: Forbes #Forbes

Critiquing: Peter “Head in Ditch” Bowditch @RatBags.com

WHAT IS MISDIRECTION? Critiquing “Antineoplastons: Has the FDA kept its promise to the American people ?”

Thawing out “The Skeptics” @FrozenWarning (FrozenBoring)

Boris Ogon, Boris Ohhh … Gone, where art Thou? We miss You!

Shall We Play A Game? “The Skeptics” (SkeptiCowards) vs. “The Skeptics'” Critics #Burzynski The 1st ever “LIE OFF”

Critiquing: Is Eric Merola issuing bogus DMCA takedown notices against critics of Stanislaw Burzynski?

Critiquing “The Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics (page 11)

Critiquing “The Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics (page 10)