Robert J. (don’t call me “Bobby”) Blaskiewicz’s #Epic Skeptic “Word-Salad” #Fail – September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51

Are you there ?
Okay, we might as well get started if were going to do this
Alright, so ummm I guess we can start with uhhh bit of a conversation
Uhhh
You’ve been on the Burzynski Hashtag for a long time – what’s you’re motivation ?
Okay
So what information have Skeptics posted that they uhhh that they missed that demonstrates that Burzynski’s uhhh treatments are effective ?
What, what have we missed ?
Well okay, uh one of the issues that Skeptics have with Burzynski is that in order to, let’s say, elevate uh the profile of his drug, in order to make sure that everybody who needs it can get, is to complete a phase 3 uh trial uh he started uh I believe was it just the one, right ?
Uhmmm, and that’s gone nowhere
In fact, it was withdrawn this I think within the last week
It doesn’t look like its going to happen, and this is, you know, for all the the phase 1 and phase 2 trials, those are very preliminary trials
Uhmmm, the phase 3 is is will be the gold standard, and also the bare minimum that that the larger medical community will accept uhhh as evidence, so it’s like you’ve lowered the bar for for evidence in a way that that you know oncologists don’t
The the
Right
So, do you think that there is a uh uh conspiracy to keep Burzynski from publishing ?
Right
Right
So, uhmmm, as far as I understand it The Lancet, uhhh the the question of The Lancet publication ehhh is par for the course, that most people are, when they get a speedy rejection from a uh uh, uh journal, are actually uh grateful, because that means there allowed to go ahead and submit their material to another journal more quickly and get it out there
Uhm, but the reaction that we saw on the side of the Burzynski camp was that, see, they’ll never publish us
Uhm, which is, eg, taken as far as I can tell as evidence of a conspiracy or that his name is is poison uh I mean, I think it is, but uhmmm, that wasn’t indicated in the in the rejection letter in order to uh claim that it is is to go beyond the evidence which again we’re not really willing to do
So, uhmmm what is the the ration the the something that I think a lot of of a lot of The Skeptics have been curious about when it comes to your your your blog and your behavior on-line uhhh is that that that, that the format of your blog does not make sense to us, we don’t understand exactly what you’re trying to do with it
Could you kind of clarify that for us because it’s uhhh long and it’s it’s intense and there’s a lot of emotion behind it but we don’t understand exactly, what it’s supposed to mean
Alright, ah have you read The Other Burzynski Patient Group ?
So, ahmmm what is your response say to the story of Amelia Saunders ?
Okay, what part of, what did I get wrong ?
Uh was that Amelia and Luna ?
Luna was the other one, correct
Oh, I, you’re talking, oh this is one of the very 1st ones that we did on the, on the site
Uhmmm, oh, her name is, her name escapes me at the moment
Um, but she wasn’t there for for very long but uh her condition deteriorated very rapidly
Uhmmm, and one of the questions that we had, we raised, is is, you know, you you don’t need to reach full dosage ’cause the the full dosage for these ANP seem to be pretty high, at least the sodium load that that that patients are asked to to carry, or required to carry if they they go on it
And we wondered if the sodium load was ah to great for someone who has a brain tumor, I mean uh, you know uh sodium load will increase your blood pressure, and these people have extra things in their brains that probably won’t react well to swelling, right, and and wont react well to pressure, so we were wondering, if in fact you don’t have to reach the full dosage in order to have uh severe side effects
Ummm, you know maybe you haven’t reached a therapeutic dose level, but that doesn’t mean that it didn’t have an effect on her
And you can clearly tell, that, you know in the videos, well at least the videos before the family took it down, that she was lethargic and a little bit out of it, she uh the the difference in her conscious state was no noticeable for anyone to see
Ummm, to, you know where she had been up and about to in her bed kind of slurring and and, and and and, in fact just disoriented, just looked like someone had taken the piss out of her
I mean, ummm, so that’s, that one, ummm, you know the critique that, reaching therapeutic levels and having a biological effect on someone are are clearly different things in her case
Uhmmm, now I never went on you know on to say ummm that uh she had uh reached therapeutic levels
Uhmmm, I I think as far as I went was that she went, she paid her $30,000 dollars and then she died
Uhmmm, and and and what part of that’s not true
Okay, so, um, going back to Amelia, um, some of the the most um I think the most serious charges is that we see a uh repeatedly in his uh uh stories of his patients, um those are all cited, those are all backed uh by, you know, um at least as good as anything the Burzynski Patient Group has ever done
Uhmmm, something that we see over and over are patients reporting over and over that signs of getting worse are signs if getting better
Um, in particular a, uh report that’s very common from from patients is that the center of their solid tumors are breaking up
One of the problems that we we we see is that that is more frequently a sign of ischemic necrosis that the tumor has outgrown its blood supply and that it’s dying on the inside
And when you see something like a 5th of the patients who we’ve been able to to document, reporting this excitedly, we get extremely concerned about what’s happening
Uhmmm, what part of that is not absolutely terrifying to you
Well, the the yeah I’ve never seen anyone say that the purpose of the antineoplastons is to cause uhhh, you know, to restrict the blood flow to the tumor and and and uh cause it to die that way, which is certainly one therapeutic approach that’s been, that’s been floated and research has been done on uh and might even be promising and uh what he’s saying is that cancer is caused by a lack of antineoplastons in the system and that basically what he is doing is antineoplaston uh uh supplement therapy uh rath, what’s the word I’m looking for, uhm uh, replacement therapy
Uh and there isn’t a doctor on the planet, uh not a medical specialist on the planet, who, I, who has identified at at as a contributing factor as a contributor to cancer or antineo or lack of antineoplastons
So
Why isn’t he, you know, you understand that these doctors, ummm like nothing is true or false because a doctor says it is true or false
Uhmmm it’s it’s it but when the entire medical community uhhh who are des are desperately are are every bit as tired of seeing patients die uhmmm and seeing patients suffer or as anyone else’s families are you you imagine what an oncologist sees in that office over the course of of a year and there’s going to be unimaginable suffering
I’m sure that they’re tired of that
And that they would, you know, that if there was the slightest hint that antineoplaston deficiency was a cause of cancer that it would make it into the literature, with or without Burzynski
Uhhh ummm, why should we trust him when he has uh the sole uh the only person who had identified antineoplastons as a contributor to cancer when he is the sole manufacturer of the of the therapy uh when he is the uh sole prescriber of the therapy and when he is, where the sole distributor of the therapy from his pharmacy
He’s read everything
I think
Can you go ahead and send me that link that that I saw in the chat that you had uh posted a couple of times in the chat
Could you send me that link, to that publication
I can give you a minute to to go find it if that’s
That would be good
Uhmmm
Well, yeah that’s a, that’s you know one of the major problems that this this cancer has is the location is such a pain to get to
Uhm, and often when we are talking about these cancers, the thing that gets me over and over and over, and this is something that I’ve learned from from working uh with others on the Burzynski Patient Group is what’s it like to be a cancer patient, only by proxy, man I couldn’t imagine really going through this myself, and, you know I’d hate to see my family go through this
That these people are at what could be described as a low point, they’re um uhhh, you get a diagnosis of uh brainstem glioma the prognosis is very bad
Uhmmm, there are only a few cases of people recovering from that, I mean they’re there uhm uhhh but, you know that it’s an, it’s an extremely grim prognosis
Uhhh and I worry that when they’re in that desperate state and especially let’s talk about the children, you have these kids who are uh you know 2 and 3 and have had this, you know uh awful diagnosis and the parents are willing to do literally anything to keep their kids alive
What protections are in place for patients as far as that these kids are and and their parents are protected
Who had the better results ?
Okay
Hmmm, yeah, the, Guy Chapman has just um uh tossed in a a, a comment
I guess uh that there are a lot of people who wanna talk to you (laughter)
Uh, Guy Chapman has just jumped in and said it looks like you forgot the phase 3 trial is withdrawn and none of the phase 2 trials were published
Uhmmm, this, this is not a minor thing for for for Skeptics
This, this is exactly what will convince us to get on board the Burzynski train is the publication of these trials
But even the preliminary trials, one has been finished, and none has been published in its entirety for over 15 years
When you consider that this is a, as you just pointed out, this is a a cancer, the, especially the brainstem gliomas
That these cancers uh the cases resolved fairly quickly, we know what the outcome are fairly quickly
Ummm, do you have any sense of when these trials are going to be published ?
From Laura ?
Right
When you, when you think about a major, sorry, go ahead
Yeah, right, uh
Antineoplastons has a better rate ?
Right
Right, one of the things that that there there are 2 points to be made here
Uhm, the 1st one is that major pharmaceutical companies that are getting this accelerated approval have a track record of producing results which Burzynski does not have
Secondly, when it comes to ummm the rates of antineoplastons, how can we possibly say without a single published trial he, that he has an improved rate over Temodar or anything like that, and that’s exactly what would show to us whether or not his rate is better, the the types of publications that he’s done, that look really good on paper, ummm, to the to the, the common persons eye are these case series where he goes through and picks out people who have happened to have survived
But what that doesn’t tell us is whether or not the antineoplaston had anything to do with it
What you need to do is go and separate the background noise, the random weird rare but very real survive, unexpected survivals that occur, and separate those, uhhh, from any effect of antineoplaston, he’s never done that
But if you think about that, I mean that if it does have a a an improvement rate above uh other treatments
That still has an improvement rate, you know, that, that would give another option to people, ummm, even if in the aggregate their rates aren’t better
It might work on some individuals tumors rather than on, you know, you you it it is it taken as a, as a lump but extend life by uh quality of life for 3 months or something um in some cases but, you know, it it still has an effect, a real effect, and deserves to be out there
That’s a long time when someone is dying
Well, one of
One of the problems that that doctors have in in this country when it comes to doing ummm antineoplastons studies to verify any any effect that uh Burzynski has uhhh I i think back to the one where people say well that the FDA sabotaged his trials, and
Well, if if you think about it though, um, the, the proposed action as I understand it of the antineoplaston is that it’s a deacetylase inhibitor, which slightly unspools DNA, that allows uh, which would allow uh proteins to get into a pair of damaged DNA
And we have drugs that do that which carry a much lower sodium load
Uh, um, it, that would have a therapeutic effect on and that the risks outweigh the possible benefits of using this one particular drug
Um, I’ve seen any number of people looking at um, if you look at the Luna ah Pettiguine uh uh story on The Other Burzynski Patient Group um you see that the doctor is absolutely horrified by the insane sodium load that that Burzynski’s patients are carrying
Um in in some ways that that sodium load is uh leading people to constantly drinking up to I’ve seen 12 liters of water a day
That’s not necessary for other deactsylace inhibitors
Um the, why would you prefer that to to another drug if it did essentially the same thing, that didnt have this massive side effect ?
thats not necessary for other deactsylace inhibitors
Well that sss I believe that that’s proposed by the researchers, the design trial, you know they they sign off on it but that is is, is up to uh Burzynski uh my uh David James @StortSkeptic on the
ah he has asked everything that Burzynski does looks sort of like the behaviors of pseudo-science
So what we’re saying uhhh he does uh uhhh Burzynski like for instance like I said he has vertically integrated, ah, he controls all parts from identification to the creation of the drug uh to the diagnosing uh well he doesn’t do the diagnosing but he does um um prescribe and distribute, he does all that vertically, which is actually something that snake oil salesmen do
Another thing that that’s a red flag in Skeptic circles is that his one compound seems to be a sort of panacea for all sorts of different types of, of of cancers, um where we know that cancer has a a varied uh, uh, ideology and and the uh panaceas are are are to be and a variety of different types of causes um, in fact in any one tumor you would, you could say that these, these tumors are are completely uh heterogenous
The idea that there’s gonna be one knockout, it seems rather unrealistic
Um, additionally he charges immense amounts of money for this drug, um, even though the components cost pennies
Um, on top of that, um, there’s something that he asks for a a huge payment up front
That’s something that’s been warned against for generations of uh by anti-quack um uh crusaders if if they’re asking for everything up front, then be afraid
Ummm, another thing is that uh the kind of cult that’s sprung up around Burzynski, uh, one that is immune to uh criticism, reason, and pits people who are doing standard cancer research, as enemies, um, creating a black and white version of the world where there are good people and there are bad people
There are people who are fighting the disease, and then there are people who are really helping the disease
I mean, if you look at the, the new web-site by the Burzynski patients fighting back group, they say support the cure not the cancer
That’s a manikin world-view of black and white
Um, these are all huge red flags, that you’re dealing with a quack
Um, why hasn’t Burzynski done anything to change that ?
Right
Well, there, this is important
This is really important though
Wha, when she’s talking about, that’s Luna Pettiguine’s mother, is is talking about the costs there
Uhmmm, you, when someone is not insured in in this country,
Ahm, the, the the base cost that that’s calculated is, is the hospital only expects to get a fraction, a tiny fraction of that back from the insurance companies, and that’s why the costs are so inflated
Um, usually, when a patient is self-pay there is a self-pay price which is a more reasonable price
Additionally, all of those therapies, have demonstrated efficacy, and if Burzynski were to demonstrate his efficacy, $30,000 dollars to start on a life-saving treatment for a child would be a steal, and he would earn every nickel of it
Um, so, those arguments hold very little weight with us
He has a a an enormous house that’s valued in the tens of millions of dollars, he could do that if if the other, the other thing he could do, and this, we would love to see him do this, wousa, would be apply to Federal grant
That, that would be amazing, if he could get a grant to study this stuff
But, you know, um, I I don’t think he’d be able to get one, I don’t think he’s shown uh that he can carry off a uh a research program responsibly
Uhmmm
Well
Oh he, have you noticed the the, the thing on his web-site where if you make a donation to the clinic it goes directly to him ?
Right
You know, you know
Ummm, o-kay
Uh, I want to turn this over to the people who are watching
Um, I want to give them a a chance to address you as well
Uhmmm, hi everyone
Uhmmm, so, um, let’s, let’s wait for for that to roll in, and I do wait to go back to the, the the, the and let’s be very specific about this, the the things that you see on The Other Burzynski Patent Group, a patient reporting that um uh getting worse is getting better
How do you explain that ?
Well that’s just a known side-effect, your going to know that going in, but we actually have people say
Are there, why why why not, these people, see this is the thing though
The reason that site was started was because the people that don’t make it don’t have a voice
And when you, when you whittle away, when you only look at the at the, the positive outcomes, which is exactly in Burzynski’s favor to only look at the positive outcomes, and to have no sense of how other people’s diseases progressed, right, you’re gonna get a skewed and inaccurate version of the efficacy of this particular drug
Now lets lets lets go back and not talk about Laura, lets talk about these patients who report symptoms of getting worse, as if they were signs of getting better
Some people say that oh it’s a healing crisis or it’s progression of the disease
Or other people say it’s breaking up in the middle, hurrah
No, it’s actually a tumor that’s growing
That record there, that’s being left by patients, whose stories are every bit as important as the as the stories of the patients who have lived, are painting a completely different picture
How do you explain that ?
Are they feeding these people their stories ?
Are they feeding these people their stories
Okay I’m going to go back, I want to point something else out to you
Um, I have to, I don’t remember the exact patient so I have to go back to my web-site to take a look at it
Um
Because we are, because we’re on a Google+ stream that that’s a lot of data it takes awhile to bring up my, my site
Let me
Uhmmm
Well, that seems to give him an instant out, no matter what happens
That turns his claims into something that’s unfalsifiable
If I could give you an example of what unfalsifiable is
Um, and I’ll I’ll draw an uh, uh, case, uh hypothetical case of um uh proposed by Carl Sagan as the invisible dragon in your garage
If you say you have have a dragon in your garage, um, you know, you should be able to go over and verify that there’s a dragon in the garage
So let’s say we go over to Carl Sagan’s garage and, you know
Well, I don’t see anything
Well it’s an invisible dragon
Well okay, well then, let’s uh spray paint it
Well, it’s incorporeal
Well, uh, let’s measure for the heat of the breath
Well it’s heatless flame that it breathes
And, you know, okay, well then we’ll put flour down on the ground to see that it’s it it’s standing there
And, oh no it’s ah it’s floating
Well, you know, at some point, when you can’t falsify something
When you cannot, even in principle, prove something false, it’s indistinguishable from something that’s not there
And that kind of out, that oh well the tumor can keep on growing
Th (laugh) that that that’s an invisible dragon, as far as I can tell
A every time that I and and and and , and David points this out, that um, you you know your not going to speculate about the the FDA but then at every turn your invoking the FDA as being obstructionist
I, I just find that to be contradictory and and self-defeating
Um, let me see
Well, that’s not necessarily true
I mean uh when it when it comes to the case um I’ve i’ve talked to oncologists about this
And when it comes to uh for instance in in this case it sounds like it was a pediatric patient who was dying, ummm, who had died, ummm, the,
the 1st inclination is to ascribe the death to, um, to the tumor, which actually, would be to Burzynski’s benefit if there were other cases, I’m not saying there were, but if there were other cases where this type of complication arose, and it was ascribed to the tumor they might well not do it, uh, do an autopsy
Um, it’s ah as you could imagine it could be very difficult for the families to do that especially when they have ooh ah, a possibility of what, you know, led to the ultimate demise, that didn’t involve them ultimately somehow being responsible for it, right ?
So, it it it doesn’t seem to me that necessarily an autopsy would be um a a done deal
Um, let me see
No we don’t and it would be irresponsible to completely speculate on on, on, the outcome of that uh, uh, uh, individual patient, I am still scrolling through looking for this story that I wanted to talk about
Uh, and, I guess I’ll
It should be in Amelia’s I I, I packed Amelia’s story with all the stories, um, that I could find um in what we’d written up already
Um
Hold on a sec
She is a cute kid though
Um, alright
Now, our favorite oncologist (laugh), as you keep putting it, um, uh, with with the Amelia story, um, uh, was able to correctly determine that the Saunders family, had a, did not understand the significance of this cyst that had opened up in, uh, that had opened up in the center of the tumor, in fact they were ecstatic
They were delighted
Um, the family, of Haley, um, S, also
Uh, the the family of Haley S., also, had the same reading given to them
Um, the same diagnosis uh same prognosis was to, was given to Justin B in 2006
A similar cyst in Lesley S’s story uh ah, was in 2006
Um, and that kept her on uh treatment for a a another month so that could be another $7,000 some odd dollars
We same thing in the, in the case of, uh, Samantha T in 2005
We see it again as far back as 1994, in Cody G’s story
And then lastly and and the worst uh thing that we’ve seen, the patients report that Burzynski himself told Chase uh Sammut
The exact same thing
Um, and that was a
Have you read Chase’s story
It would stick with you, because that case is grotesque
The parents, uh, there was even a uh, uh, a fight over whether or not the parents should be allowed to continue treating this kid
He was basically lying, uh, in a uh uh brain dead uh for all intents and purposes, uh, in a in a coma uh without possibility of reversal, in his parents living room for months
Um, eh, all the while, he’s still on the, uh, well I don’t actually, I can’t say that, I don’t exactly know if he was on the treatment the whole time
Um, but, we do have this pattern, that is there, of people believing, that this particular pattern is, uh, progress, a a is not progression of disease but is is inducement to to stay on, um, eh, and this has been going on for decades
Eh, eh just based on what we’ve been able to find that patients have been reporting this for decades
At some point, you would think that a doctor would realize that perhaps what these patients are walking away with is inaccurate
Why hasn’t that changed ?
E wel that that that that’s not it
This is this is like the 2nd day of oncology class, that that’s what the tumor looks like
People are reporting that the tumor is no longer growing, um, or that the growing has slowed after they’ve started
Well, okay
There, there is an explanation for that, and why you can’t take that as necessarily being evidence of efficacy
Ah, the tumor grows exponentially while the resources are available to it, but then it reaches a point where it’s a self-limited growth, so it, the time between uh doublings in size decreases logarithmically
Um, so this is, this is like basic tumor physiology that we’re talking about, and his patients don’t leave his office, knowing these facts, for decades
This doesn’t have anything to do with the, do with the drug
This this
But, but when it’s, this treatment is working or this is not evidence that the treatment is working
That’s pretty basic
I mean we’re not, we’re not talking about deactsylace inhibitors or anything like that were you’d really need to know something about
This is, whether or not, you’re getting the outcome that you want
This is the whole reason for going
And it has nothing to do with the with the with the drugs
Which is, which is like which we just pointed out was a was an invisible dragon
you’re you’re you’re assuming
You’re you’re you’re assuming that
You’re assuming that
Um, I’m not assuming that
Ultimately it would, but whether or not it it it had a genuine therapeutic effect is a different matter all together
Um, this, what would, what would convince you that you’re wrong
So you’re saying because the Orphan Drug Designation and the face that there’s a phase 3, therefor it works ?
So what you’re saying is there’s nothing that would convince you now, that it doesn’t work
O-kay
Um, it’s it’s it’s not the FDA’s, but you understand it’s not the FDA’s job to tell someone that their drug doesn’t work
it’s it’s it’s up to Burzynski
It’s up to Burzynski to show that his drug does work
And it’s always been his burden of proof
He’s the one that’s been claiming this miracle cancer cure, forever
Um, I don’t know if you’ve read Jaffe’s book
There seems to have been a lot going on there you really should look at it because it’s it’s it’s kind of revealing
Um, that that that it seems that there was a lot of political pressure applied to the FDA which may have been, uh, uh, have influenced the way in which these these trials were approved
I I would say that it is a genuine con uh uh bit of confusion on the parts of Skeptics
We don’t know why the phase 3 trial was approved
I don’t know that we’ve seen even the phase 1 trials, we don’t know why he’s getting a phase 3
And there’s a real story in that, we think
Um, that we’d love to see, however we can’t see, however we can’t see it because of proti protri proprietary uh protections that the FDA is giving to Burzynski, right ?
They’re not sharing his trial designs because they are his trial designs, right?
That the makeup of his drug that he’s distributing are his, uh design, and his intellectual property
So the FDA is protecting him, uh from outside scrutiny
While you may imagine that that, that that the FDA is is somehow antagonistic toward him
They’ve given him every opportunity, over 60 opportunities to prove himself worth uh their confidence and hasn’t
Um, but I definitely recommend that you look at Jaffe’s book and you will see, I think, um that um it’s called um, uh Galileo’s
You know what it’s called, okay, yeah
Um, definitely look at that
Um, you, you will see, the ways in which, the way that we got to this point, isn’t necessarily having anything to do with the efficacy of the drug
That comes across very clearly
Um, you, you mentioned it yourself, he he’s done well to listen to Jaffe’s advice, right ?
So, there there’s a lot to that
Um, uh, but yeah, let me go back to the Twitter feed
Um
Well it sounds to me like they’re they’re not um, the the the you know, they’ve put the clinical hold on now because they now have evidence that somebody may have died because of the treatment
Um, I don’t know what the state of that is right now
Um, uh, oh my gosh, um, let me see
Someone has just sent me a, a ah a link to, are you following the Hashtag, as this is going on
Okay
I’m doing, I’m doing the 2 things at once and it’s um, ok ok well it’s well ok I can’t I can’t go in and read that right now
Um, I would, ok let me tell you exactly what it will take, for me to come around and promote Burzynski
Um, for me, he needs to get a publication in a uh, yeah, uh uh uh publication in a peer-reviewed journal, a respected peer-reviewed journal, not like the the Journal of Medical Hypothesis or things we just made up
Um, something, you know, a a good, respectable journal that oncologists would read, that research oncologists would read
I would need an completely independent group to replicate his findings, and then I’d be all for it
I would say that right now, the business model that the Burzynski Clinic seems to depend on, as best as I can tell from an outsider, that, um, uh, that it depends on people paying money up front
It doesn’t depend on him developing and taking away a viable drug, that he can market to the entire world
His business model as best I can tell, is to keep it in house
That seems, if it works, if his drug genuinely works, and he hasn’t sent it along to mass approval, where he gets, for a couple of years at least, you know, exclusive rights to produce and sell this stuff, for one of the most intractable diseases, uh that man eh can can can, you know, can get, um, that suggests to me that there’s something else going on here
Now, someone has just sent a a note, uh that he has failed 3 different Institutional Review Board audits; this is Guy Chapman, uh no other institution has a 3 for 3 fail, according to to Guy iye he knows no other one
Um, that 45% of phase 3 clinical trials fail due to deficient phase 2 design
Um, he has an approved phase 3, but phase 2 was deficient so phase 3 fails
Do you think that that could possibly have anything to do with why we’re not seeing the phase 3 advance
He’s claimed
He’s claimed
That’s a different thing altogether
And in fact
Well, you understand why they do that, because in order to, it’s
No, they do do this with other drugs, well, it depends on the type
Some drugs it’s ethical to give something completely questionable, what they want to make sure that they at least get the standard care, you know which includes radiation
Um, and radiation does seem to extend life, reduce the size of some tumors some times
Um, do you concede, that in order to have a phase 3, you do not need to have a successful phase 2 ?
When 45% of phase 3 fail because they have a deficient phase 2 design, do you concede that ?
Well, ok
It doesn’t matter where
It doesn’t matter where it comes from uh, um
So-kay, um that would be shooting the messenger as opposed to dealing with the question, but
the idea, the best, well, the best, well in that case the best response is “I don’t know”
There’s something that that we don’t know, you’re coming, honestly we didn’t know what to expect when we talked to you
We, were looking at the design, of your web-site and wondering whether or not we would be able to get a a coherent sentence out of you, because the web-site is disorganized, uh
Um, at at at at least it’s the organization is not apparent to the readers
Um, and um according to
No, that is tied together
But let me, we know that that the the, the central concern is Burzynski
Ah, the source of this ah of of those #’s that I just gave you, Chapman has just updated me and he says um that it is, and I’ll go back to the, the ADR research . com issues in clinical research, so it’s the question, Bay Clinical uh Research and Clinical Development, a white paper called “Why do so many pase 3 clinical trials fail ?
Uh, it’s prepared by Anastassios Retzios, Ph.D
Is Anastassios Retzios reliable ?
There is a correct here
Exactly
That’s the right answer
You don’t know
You don’t know
You need to look into it
Alright ?
Before you dismiss it you have to look into it
Everytime somebody throws uh uh something to me, I have to look into it
That’s just, it’s my responsibility as a reader
Um
What, what stuff would you like
What stuff would you like me to do ?
I generally, I don’t read your blog
Uh um, alright
Okay, I’ll look at that, and I will respond to it once I’ve taken a look at that, okay ?
Um, and I’ll respond on your web-site
Um, seems only fair
Um, one question I’d wondered, what is the Didymus Judas Thomas reference to
Oh, so this is the Doubting Thomas
This is the Doubting Thomas
Okay, so this is the one, you show me the, you put your your, the, your hand inside the wound
You know, Jesus says, basically, ok, bring it on, check me out, right ?
Okay
Alright
That that, I didn’t, I didn’t realize that he was also, that that was the same guy
So, it’s it’s the Doubting Thomas
Um, what we would say, um, is that if Burzynski is the savior that he claims to be, that he should, open up his trials, he should open up his uh research uh protocols um and just say, “Look, bring it on”
Check out these wounds
But he’s never done that
Instead he he he wants us to just take the words of of of of his apostles
I don’t necessarily trust his apostles
I don’t think that they’re unbiased
I wanna see the data
I wanna see the the wounds in his hands and the the mark on his side
Oh, hey when when we talk about The Other Burzynski Patient Group, I don’t make any pretensions to make that my site proves anything
I I I really don’t
It’s not my job to prove anything
It’s Burzynski’s job
It is a researchers job to prove these things
But we just pointed out, we just pointed out, that the FDA, often approves, phase 3 trials, based on flawed phase 2 clinical trials
That is therefor a real possibility in this case
Yes you would
T t and what I would honestly expect and hope, is that you would be honest about this, to yourself, and and and that’s the thing we don’t, we often don’t realize that we’re not being honest with ourself
I try to fight against it, constantly
But, um, uh but the way that you’d earlier phrased your uh your response to “could you possibly be proved wrong ?”, . . really did exclude other possibilities of of of of yourself being wrong
So if the FDA
Well I’m not talking about the Guy Chapman
What you off, when I asked you, yourself, you know, what would prove you wrong, you said that the FDA hasn’t approved a phase 3
Well, ok
Let’s let’s back, let’s back up
What would the FDA, what happens if the FDA occasionally op op opposes, approves uh phase 3 trials, based on bad phase 2 trials
Would that be, would that cause any doubt in your mind ?
About the efficacy of ANP
Yeah, hello, yeah, you’re back
Yeah Google+ is a little wonky sometimes
But, would, does, if you were to learn, that sometimes phase 3 trials, uh, are approved, and failed, based on flawed phase 2, would, would that make you reconsider your position of the phase 3 being evidence that it works
Uh um could you send me that link, the, the, um . me see
I’m just looking at other things that are coming in on the Hashtag right now
Um, so the ANP is Orphan Drug status but is it Orphan Drug for glioma ?
Is it sodium phenylbutyrate or is it the the versions of the drug, the AS10 stuff or A1 or whatever it’s called ?
Okay, that’s what has Orphan Drug status
Alright, I’ll look into that
I hope somebody is writing all this down out there, so that we can go back and look at these claims later, right ?
So, oh, um
Do you have any questions for me ?
I’ve spent a lot of times asking questions of you
Mhmm
Guy Chapman, throws up the the, the comment, permission to investigate is not evidence of anything other than evidence of a valid protocol, not a uh, evidence of efficacy, in and of itself
That’s another comment
Um, alright then, this is your chance t, there are lots of people have lots of questions about me out there
Uh, about what my motivations are and such
I might as well put that out on the table just so it’s on the record, is that I am taking exactly no money from anyone for this, and have gotten nothin’ but grief from a lot of people, even people who, even people who support me have given me grief for this
Um, just so that you know, um, there have been, some of the things that have happened, oh, this is an important point too
Um, that when we have criticized this, uh, a # of us, especially Gorski, uh myself, uh Rhys Morgan, uh, um, and and uh Popehat, the the lawyer, blog, uh, um, who else was on there, um, oh, the Merritts, uh, t, uh Wayne Merritt, and his family, people have been critical of of of Burzynski have faced retaliation for opposing him ah and intimidation, and including, um, I had my uh a couple weeks before Christmas my, my, the Chancellor of my University was contacted via e-mail, and uh Eric Merola said that I had been um, uh, been spreading mis truths about Burzynski, that I had been a be, on my my show um had said things that were demonstratively untrue, and he also said that the drug was FDA approved, which it, you know, that’s not right
But um, he said that he was gonna do, talk about me in his new movie, in, uh, relat, in millions of homes, um, and he wanted to get a statement from the University
The University of course ignored him, and immediately let me know that I was going to get smeared
Um, I consulted my lawyer and uh uh, you know, the best course of action was figured out, and um uh a Gorski has had his accreditation board contacted, he’s had his bosses contacted, Rhys Morgan received threats of liable suits from somebody who had been hired, by the clinic, to clean up his on-line reputation if he didn’t take down his on-line review of Burzynski, uh, had his a picture of his house sent to him, clearly the message being, “We know where you live kid,” uh, Wayne Merritt; a pancreatic cancer patient, this is something that, that people generally, do not recover from, like generally, die from, received phone calls at home, from, this individual, threatening him with lawsuits; he doesn’t have a law degree so he’s misrepresenting himself
Um, but all of this, was done, to critics
Do you think that is deserved ?
Do you think that that is right ?
Mhmm
Well to be fair
It it it doesn’t strike me as necessarily a “Free Speech” issue, you know
Was it down-voted ?
No
Mhmm
Mhmm
Well we do have for for for for one thing, um, I guess to understand is that we are uh motivated by um uh a respect, this is the one thing that that all Skeptics I think um are uh respect critical thinking, um, and um respect scientific uh a we we’re mostly scientific enthusiasts, there’s some Skeptics who are not um, uh, you know oh u space nerds, or whatever who are um just sc scholars and the humanities but for the most part we all respect scientific consensus and we respect scientific method and have an enthusiasm for living in the real world, this is something that like all of us us are about
And to that end, sometimes that influence is how we run, is how we decide to run our personal web-sites
Um, uh, that whether or not we want our, to give a platform to people who disagree with us, um, you know, uh, when we do, uh . . it it is our sandbox, you know, right ?
This, this, we’re allowed to to let whoever we want into our sandbox if we, you know, uh if we want
Did he, did he leave them up ?
Did he leave them up ?
Right, um, do you think that he is required to answer you
Right
Mhmm
Um so a a question uh why were why do you have so many Twitter and Wikipedia sock-puppets
Wikipedia
You left Wikipedia
Mhmm
Um a
Uh We have uh a response from David James, everyone uh gave you a fair shout
You were a spammer plain and simple
You couldn’t, you couldn’t
work out your questions
Twitter does not
Twitter does not block people for for arguing
Only for spamming and policy violations
Mhmm
Okay
Um, let me see
Each new account was blocked for additional violations of policies
Um, this is a uh uh referring to the Wikipedia rules too
Um, so
Um, Wikipedia, do you know why um they’ve locked the Burzynski page ?
Did you notice the part where he threatened, did you notice the part where he threatened to expose Wikipedia
We have to, well, they they uh are looking that it’s not one-sided information they want to show
Like they discuss, there is controversy about this guy
Yeah, Jaffe’s on there
Jaffe’s on there
uh well you could add that if you hadn’t gotten blocked
Okay
Um, so, who are you
She’s gotten threats
So we don’t know who you are
Like, she has suffered at the hands of some really mess, and she’s also, you have to realize she’s in the U.K, where libel laws are very lax at this point
That’s changing, ah, but uh, the the legitimate criticism, there is a big case last, me maybe 2 years ago of Simon Singh, talking about an alternative therapy, and, um, he was just saying that there’s no evidence for it but it’s promoted by um chiropractors, or something, or something like that
And he got slapped with a libel suit that cost him several years of his life and a lot of money
Um, so, there are several reasons why someone in the U.K. might uh be uh reticent to use their real name um, uh, and legitimate reasons
Um, in the U.S., I’m not sure that there is
I’ve been using my real name for a long time now
Um, you know, Gorski blogs under his real name, and is critical of uh, uh, also, let’s face it, everyone know, knows who “Orac” is
Um, how do we know that you don’t work for the clinic ?
Mhm
Well see, one of the the problems is, Ju, I don’t know if you were around for the BurzynskiSaves thing
Did you ever see that account ?
Mhmm
Right
Oh no, I mean you have a right to do that but but I I’ve found that posting under a pseudonym diminishes my credibility
Um, so, . . the quote was uh um, uh, “Happily promotes bogus therapies,” was Simon Singh’s quote that got him sued
Um, but Josephine Jones does it to, quote “protect her family”
Um
So there’s that
Um, are you afraid for you’re family ?
Um, you don’t see that there would be anything to gain from, from going on-record ?
Um I I haven’t, I’ve never, honestly, I’ve never seen a Skeptic actually go after a person individually
Um, you know, uh, you, unless they were doing colossal harm to people
Um, to to focus on an, uh, let’s say, call someone’s work for um, yeah
Cite one example, of a Skeptic making shit for a Burzynski shill or anyone else in real life
That’s a quote
That’s, that’s something coming in from, from Guy
Like had anyone ever contacted Sheila Herron, or has anyone to to um, go after her job, or go after um, you know, my brother has gotten stuff from people
He didn’t tell me because he didn’t want to upset me, but my brother gets things from Burzynski supporters that are violent and threatening
I get letters telling me that I suck cancer’s dick
Um, I I’ve all sorts of things um, and I just, I’ve never seen that, that intrusion into real life on the part of uh, um, uh, Skeptics
I’ve never seen them doing that type of of of stuff
I’ve never seen them threatening bogus lawsuits
Um, and I I I wonder there, if there is some sort of, what do you think accounts for that, that difference?
Mhmm
Mhmm
I’ve I’ve I’ve shown up on, you know, as you, as you might, I imagine you moni, you monitor the Hashtag, right ?
Okay
Um, which is, which is your right
Um, uh, but every so often I jump in and say, you know, this movie has some flaws in it
You know, that’s something I say rather frequently
Um, and I invite people, if they’re interested, to take a look at a couple of links
I don’t, I, you’ll notice that I no longer force people to like, “Well how do you explain this ?,” because that doesn’t seem to be very persuasive, or work at all
Ah, only people who are open minded to having their mind changed, those are the only ones I want to talk to
So I give them a choice
Kind of like Morpheus in The Matrix really
Um, b, that was a joke for me
Um, um anyway
Um, but, it it I, honestly, I would encourage you to go on-record, um, but I have, less than nothing invested in that, so, um
Uh, what’s next for you
Well what happens
Well what happens if he doesn’t understand what you’re saying ?
I mean one of the
I mean seriously
Well, one of the problems I think that a lot of Skeptics have had, in in back channel discussions about this is that we don’t understand exactly what you’re saying
We certainly don’t understand why you’re so attached to him if you’ve never had any uh, you know, close dealing with uh, uh, with Burzynski
We don’t really understand that
Actually, especially when you consider, that all the information that we’ve put forward, that we’ve backed up with statements from uh, you know, uh, it, it, the statements that we have from from patients saying that you know, we’ve we’ve, we were told that, no that’s not exactly, they put it usually that but that that we believe that getting worse is getting better
Like how could someone continue to defend someone, when we pile up all of these different, you know, sources, saying the same thing ?
It it is, it is beyond us and we wonder if there’s absolutely anything that we could say that would convince you otherwise
But, I mean, but that means
Everything on The Other Other Burzynski Patient Group is referenced
It goes
There’s very little on
thehoustoncancerquack
There’s very little on
thehoustoncancerquack in the 1st place
Eh, right
The they both go to the same place
Uh un but, you know, we, the thing that that totally befuddles us, and is just endlessly frustrating, is like how many more examples, of patients believing that getting worse is getting better, and it’s not us saying it, it’s the patients saying it
And how many more of those patients do we need to to give you before you will like reconsider that perhaps you might be wrong ?
I don’t, the thing is though that, that that’s a inver, shifting the burden of proof off of Burzynski
Burzynski has to prove them wrong, has to prove him right
The FDA is not there to say this doesn’t work
The evidence would be
The evidence
The evidence would be phase 2 trials
And ev the evidence would be a completed and published phase 3 trial
That’s not forthcoming
The phase 3
You don’t know that he’s trying
He’d start completing these trials
And he would, he would be soliciting um, uh, lots of um, uh, you know, you know he’d be putting out papers constantly um and if the the British Medical Journal example’s anything uh representative of how Burzynski works, he’d immediately tell everyone that his he’s being . . blackballed by the, by the journal, even when it’s just a courtesy that he gets a a rejection
So, I mean, honestly, um, saying “Well, when the F, FDA tells you that it doesn’t work, the FDA’s never gonna say that because that’s not their job
So, given that what would, how many more patients do we have to show you before you consider that you may be wrong ?
That’s not an option, because they’re never gonna do it
They relinquish, a lot of authority, over to Burzynski, and his Institutional Review Board, which, I would mention, has failed 3 reviews in a row
Right ?
It is Burzynski’s job to be convincing
It is not our uh, uh, it it it he hasn’t produced in decades
In decades
In hundreds and hundreds of patients, who’ve payed to be on this
Hell, we’d we’d we’d like a prelim, well when you’re talking about something that is so difficult as brainstem glioma, that type of thing gets, really does in the publishing stream get fast-tracked there
they test it
Yeah, and they they they want uh, that was evidence of fast-tracking is what, that rejection was uh e was very quickly
Um, so, uh, uh again, the FDA is not the arbiter of this
It’s ultimately Burzynski
So, how long will it be before Burzynski doesn’t publish, that you decide that uh perhaps he’s he’s, doesn’t have the goods ?
You’ve been speculating about what the FDA’s motivation are like crazy
Why not speculate about Burzynski a little bit
Well actually I’m not even asking you to speculate about Burzynski, I’m only asking you to tell me, how long would it take, uh how, for him to go unpublished like this, um, for this long, before you would doubt it ?
What ?
But these but but but that doesn’t have any bearing on
That doesn’t
Oh I’m not asking you how long, how long, would it take you for you to start doubting whether or not he has the goods ?
How long would it take ?
It’s a it’s a it’s a question that should be answered by a number uh uh months ?
Years ?
How long ?
It’s been 15 years already
I could push it back to 36 years
He hasn’t shown that it works for 36 years
I can do that
I was being nice
Perhaps based on bad phase 2
He withdrew
He withdrew the the phase 3 clinical trial
I that before recruiting,
although I’ve seen lots of people say they were on a phase 3 clinical trial
I wonder how that happened
Uh did do do you think that if they thought that he was a real doctor that they all would have refused like that ?
He’s changed things
That The Lancet is a top-tier journal like New England Journal of Medicine
It’s basically be, besieged by uh 100′s of people submitting their, their, their reports
Um, it’s just, you know, let’s say he, someone has such a thin publishing record as Burzynski does, do you think that it’s likely that he will ever get in a top-tier journal ?
What about the the Public Library of Science ?
It’s not the only journal there
What about BMC Cancer ?
There’s lots of places that he can go
Um, and he doesn’t seem to to have evailed himself of that, as far as I can tell
And I would know because he’d get rejected, or he’d be crowing, you know
Either way, he’s gonna tell us what happens
He told us what happened with The Lancet, you know
I don’t have any evidence that suggests to me that he’s even trying
So let’s go back to this
How long will it take ?
How long will it take before you, the Japanese study’s interesting too because we should be able to find that in the Japanese science databases, and we can find, we can’t find it at all
We can’t find it anywhere
And, and those are in English, so it’s not a language problem
We can’t find that anywhere
We’ve asked
We asked Rick Schiff, for, for that study
And, and it hasn’t come to us
He is now I believe on the Board of Directors, over there
He should have access to this
We can’t get it
How how long will it take before you recognize that, nothing is forthcoming ?
How long would that take ?
Well, I mean, were talking about a blog here
We’re talking about life
No, we’re talking about a blogger’s feelings in that case
In in this case we’ren talking about, 1,000′s of patients, over the course of of of generations, you know
This is important stuff
This is not eh eh equating what’s happening to to patients with what’s happening to you is is completely off-kilter as far as I can tell
It’s nothing
It’s nothing like you not getting to say something on my web-site
You know
This is they they have thrown in with Burzynski, and they’ve trusted him, and he’s produced nothing
Nothing of substance
Nothing thas that has made all of that um, uh, n nothing th th th that uh his peers would take seriously
The other thing that that that strikes me now is that, you know, you you you you keep saying that, well Eric is going to to share things with you
Does it ever concern you eh uh eh occur to you that Eric might not be reliable ?
He then, and then he
And then he he, you know, the the the the dialogue that sprung up around that was, well see, he’s never going to get to get published
Well you’re just setting yourself up for wish fulfillment
You want him to be, persecuted, so you are ecstatic when he doesn’t get to publish, which is unfortunate for all the cancer patients, who really thought that one day, all the studies were going to be published
Where has Eric been wrong ?
It’s it’s it’s it’s a form letter
You know
They’re just saying, “No thanks”
“Thanks, but no thanks” is what they were saying, in the most generic way possible
Like I said, they’re besieged by researchers trying to publish
So, so, possibly
So possibly what you are saying is that they in fact have read it, and after having read it they’ve rejected it
Is that what you’re saying ?
Because that’s what peer-review is
Do you know it was the same editor, that it came from the same desk ?
You can’t make that assumption that that the form letter will be the same form letter every time
I mean you just can’t
I mean in in some ways we have a lot of non-information that you’re filling in, with what you expect, as as opposed to what’s actually really there, and I I I just think you’re putting too much uh stock in one uh, uh, in in in in this uh the publication kerfuffle
Um
Well, not necessarily
I’ve been in any # of professional groups where the organization is just not optimal, and publications certainly th there are all sorts of pressures from all sorts of different places
I I have no problems whatsoever with seeing that this might not be completely uh um uh streamlining uniform processes as possible
The fact that it’s not uniform, doesn’t have anything to do with Burzynski not publishing, not producing good data
Not just going to a, you know, god, even if, even if, let’s put it this way, even if he went to a pay to play type publication where you have to pay in order to get your manuscript accepted; and he has the money to do this, it wouldn’t take that much, and he were to put out a good protocol, and he were to show us his data, and he would make his, his his stuff accessible to us, then we could validate it, then we could look at it and say, “Yeah, this is good,” or “No, this is the problem, you have to go back and you have to fix this”
Right ?
So we really, every time we talk about the letter that he got, yeah that doesn’t have much to do with anything, really
We wanna see the frickin’ data
And if he had a cure for some cancers that otherwise don’t have reliable treatments, he has an obligation to get that out there anyway he can
And if if peer-review doesn’t, you know, play a, if peer-review can’t do it, you know, isn’t fast enough for him, then he should take it to the web, and he should send copies out to every pediatric, uh, you know, oncologist that there is
That’s the way to do it
Oh I, I I I certainly don’t think that he would put a lot of stock in it, but I, I, I know Dave Gorski enough, he wants this to work
He has patients who are dying, you know
And if if if let’s say that that Burzynski could get ah his gene-targeted therapy to work on breast cancer patients in in a reliable way, that would be, such a help to these people, that that Gorski’s trying to help
And, it it it doesn’t make sense, I mean, there, some of the best um, one of the the most important developments in medical history, was the development of of just washing your hands uh uh before uh uh going in and delivering a baby
Right ?
The guy who did it, was a colossal jerk, but it still worked and it’s the standard now
Right ?
Um, yea, it doesn’t matter now whether or not Burz, whether or not Gorski agrees with how Burzynski publishes
It’s the, it’s the data itself
If if Burzynski is is, is confident in his data, he will put it out there
Right ?
One way or the other
But he is a, the thing is, the thing is, you thing you have to understand is Gorski, Gorski is a genuine expert, in matters re re regarding on oncology studies
I mean, he has a
He, He’s able to convince people, he’s able to convince people, on the strength of his record, to give him money to carry out research
People who know what they’re talking about
To give him money to carry out his research
Right ?
Well what about all the other physicians, um, going back long before the Burzynski thing broke on-line
Of all these patients, with whom they have long-established relationships, and then doctors essentially after years, of treating these patients, basically saying, “I can’t work with you anymore if you go to Burzynski”
What about that ?
Di, are all of these doctors just as biased ?
Did he get burned at some point ?
We don’t know
Yeah, well, you wouldn’t expect Eric Merola to say that he got, that a doctor got burned
Would you ?
But he, he doesn’t have, he hasn’t given us his data
He’s given, he’s given, he’s given case studies
He’s done
Okay
Except for a ph, completed phase 3 clinical trial
Yeah
One of the things, one of the things that I’ve noticed going through these um, well, well there there is that
Uh, Guy Chapman, “It’s a blog, not a peer-reviewed publication”
Um, almost no treatment goes out without trials
Massive amounts of data are required
Um, so, it it is kind of, slightly disingenuous to hold uh Gorski to the same . . standard that you would, it on his blog
I think that professionally he would make, he he he would follow-up on these things, but u what I’ve noticed when you you mention these other people who are working with with Burzynski as co-investigators, the co- investigators don’t seem to have access to these, to these records
Um, you know, when they have to, when a patient has to, and often you have someone like a pediatrician, uh, signing on um uh to eh eh to work with with, uh and arrange care for patients when they’re out of state, away from Burzynski
Um, it’s it’s it’s often not an oncologist
It’s accurate to say that B Burzynski is not a board s uh certified oncologist
It’s accurate to say that no trial has been completed and fully published
Um, yeah it’s um, it it it if, all of the arguing on behalf of Burzynski doesn’t give him a single phase 3
It doesn’t give him um a uh uh of of a completed and and published phase 2
Uh, in in in that sense, you know, uh all the the the, you know, kind of back-peddling and and and trying to defend him is is going to, not going to help his case at all
You are, honestly as far as I can tell you are doing the um, you know, you’re you’re ah throwing up uh, uh, uh, you’re giving me another uh invisible dragon in the garage, um
What is the issue were not talking about
Yeah, but they
But they have track records that support the idea that you should trust them
Okay, so
What you’re telling me is that you trust the FDA to to be able to tell you when he’s not doing, good science, but also that you don’t trust the FDA
Do you see an inherent conflict there ?
Well, when I, whenever I would ask about, like, why would these trials aren’t happening uh and, you know, you say well the the FDA’s arranged it
The FDA’s in control
They sign off on these things
But they’re they’re they’re they’re at the same that they’re, they’re trustworthy they’re also not trustworthy depending on what you need for the particular argument at the time
You’re suggesting that they’re untrustworthy
I I would say that the the FDA has given Burzynski every opportunity for decades
Every opportunity
When he didn’t have r r really, he got special treatment as far as I can tell
Uh, the, I’m rather stunned every morning I wake up and don’t see in the paper, that that place has has been closed down
I, I really am
Uh, so, you know, that one doesn’t really fly with me either
Um
Do you know that the FDA pulled out of the prosecution ?
Did you know that the FDA pulled out of the prosecution um of his criminal case, because they were backing a researcher ?
Yeah, the the the it wasn’t the FDA who was pressing charges, it was a Federal prosecutor
Right
And and, they declined to provide information that the prosecution needed
That’s important
That that that’s really important
That he has been given the benefit of the doubt, and he has come up wanting, for decades now
The, no, claims works
He claims works
One of the things I think
One of the things that I think is happening here
One of the things I think is happening here, is that lots of people have worked with Burzynski and then have stopped working with B Burzynski
Uh, you know, uh lots of uh uh uh these partnerships do not seem to work out in the end
I often wonder, if the uh, the way that these things are, are are playing out, because it’s s so reliable that they’re, that these partnerships are going to fail, I I wonder if th they are designed in such a way, that for instance, um a, uh, a a partner would be uncomfortable working
with him
Or um or that the specifications for what it takes to enter one of these trials is so high, that nobody will ever enter the trials
I mean, I wonder if they are, what, especially, like why hasn’t Burzynski left the country ?
That’s what I want to know
Exactly
If he was so, if he was s so persecuted and really cares about getting his treatment out to the world, why wouldn’t he ?
They’re, they’re lots of things going on here
David James has pointed this out, that a lot of questions I’m asking are not going answered
“I still don’t know how long it would take before you would have any doubts about Burzynski”
“I still have no idea, how often we can see patients reporting that signs of getting worse are getting better, before you would change your mind”
I’ve made it very clear that he just needs to have a completed study published and replicated before I support his right to go out and charge people what he’s charging for these, for these drugs, and I’m I’m just not seeing that here with you, and I I wonder what could come from, and don’t worry I will go to your site and I will comment on on on what you’ve run
Um, but, you know, I I I I it’s hard for Skeptics to imagine, what could be gained from engaging with you, if there seems to be no conceivable way, that we can, one, get a straight answer for, how many patients will have to report that getting worse is getting better before you starting doubting your opinion, or, uh, how many uh, uh, how many years does this have to go on before you decide that, “No, we probably just can’t produce the goods”
One of the interesting things about Doubting Thomas that I think you should definitely consider for yourself, is that at some point, when faced with the real opportunity to prove or disprove his assertions, he doubted himself
And that’s important
And that’s where you’re falling short in the analogy
I’ve laid out exactly what it would take for me to turn on a fucking dime
I have, I have made it abundantly clear what I need
Gorski has made it abundantly clear
Everybody else, Guy, and David, and Josephine Jones, uh, the Morgans, all of them have made it abundantly clear, what it would take to change our minds, and you’ve never done that
And even in this, this was an opportunity to do that
To come up with a basis for understanding, where it’s like, you know what, If we can show this, you know, if we can show a this guy, that, that, there, that his standards are not being met, then, you know, we could possibly have some sort of ongoing dialogue after this
Why wasn’t that study
Why wasn’t that , that that that, still . . again, it it doesn’t seem really to to approach the the the, main question here
You know, um . . what are the standards that you have that it isn’t, what are your standards to show that it isn’t efficacious ?
Why was the Mayo
Why was the Mayo study delayed ?
Well you said you had so many years before you finish it and go in
Why, why did it take so long ?
I have something for you, okay ?
Send me that
Could you send me that study the way that it was published because um, just just send me the final study, um, to my e-mail address
Um, because, I can ask that question of those researchers, why was this study in this time, and what happened in-between
Why did it take so long for it, for it to come out
Right
Um, but it it would, perhaps, answer the question; because you’re using it as an example on the basis of which to dismiss criticism, whether or not, uh, it is the standard, and therefor you’re allowed to accept that Burzynski hasn’t published until 2016, or, um, it’s an anomaly, which is also a possibility, that most stuff comes out more quickly
I I, yeah, the other thing that David James points out is, you know, why 2016 when he’s had 36 years already ?
Treating people
You would expect the Burzynski Patient Group to be a lot bigger after 36 years, and in fact is
So, if you’re unsure about this stuff, if you’re unsure about the the time to publication, why are you defending it so hard, other than saying, “I don’t know, I really need to”
Uh about the
The reasons, the reasons for which that he’s, no, why are you defending him so hard, when you’re unsure ?
I’ve backed-up everything that
Every time that I’ve tried
and then other people
Way back
It is about
It is about as efficacious
Yeah, I’ve, and and I based that on a a a that type of thing
You, you, you can read that how you want, right ?
There
He does have the accent though
Right ?
No
Alright ?
No, but listen, like, it it it’s not, it, we we don’t understand why you defend himself so hard, when there is such a paucity of of of information out there
Um
Even if it’s true or false you, honestly though
Even if it’s true or false, in in that particular instance, you know, eh let’s just say that you’re right
Gorski gets that point completely wrong
It has no bearing on whether or not, ANP works
That’s a Red Herring
You’re just focusing on this, on this little niggly stuff, where the real question, is does it work ?
Are patients getting better at a better rate then not
or otherwise ?
We’re were talking about whether or not there’s evidence to suggest it works
The FDA, see that’s the thing
You, the FDA are are, you know, you invest them with, we’re just, we’re just circling around again
Uh um, alright
Well, this has gone on for rather a, longer than I thought it would
Um, I, uh, wanna thank you for coming on here
I wasn’t sure that you would actually do it
Um, I’m glad that you did
I’m glad that we talked
Um, I will look at your web-site, and we will, uh, we, uh, you, oh make sure that I I go to your blog and and I talk there
Um
Please do
And I will look at those
Maybe not in the next few days; I’ve got a lot going on but
Alright
Um
I don’t think he is
I don’t think he’s afraid
I just think he’s got a lot going on
He is act, a full-time surgical oncologist and researcher
He does have insane am, he has to pick and choose his battles
And if, if if he saw that we were going to ultimately be circling around our same arguments again and again; kind of like we’ve done here, um, he uh, you, he doesn’t have time for that, I don’t think
Alright
I I would ask that you to to go back over The The Other Burzynski Patient Group and take their stories seriously, because they deserve at least the same amount of consideration that the survivors do
That’s my
That’s my kids, okay
Well, Thanks for much for talking
I greatly appreciate it
Alright
Take it easy

The Burzynski Skeptics

======================================
The Skeptics who are too SkepticScared too debate Burzynski
======================================
David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D
Orac
@gorskon
@oracknows
@ScienceBasedMed
#sciencebasedmedicine
Wayne State University
Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Center / Institute
Detroit, Michigan
——————————————————————
http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence/
——————————————————————
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/
——————————————————————
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
——————————————————————
http://www.med.wayne.edu/surgery/faculty/DGorski.html
——————————————————————
http://cancerbiologyprogram.med.wayne.edu/faculty/gorski.php
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
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.

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

@StortSkeptic Yes, but can #Burzynski time travel? https://twitter.com/gorskon/status/363147810620702721
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
Robert J. (Bob) Blaskiewicz, Professor
Bob Blaskiewicz Faux Skeptic Exposed!
@rjblatherskiewicz
Blatherskitewicz
University of Wisconsin
rbutr
r-but-r
Eau Claire, Wisconsin
——————————————————————
http://www.skepticalhumanities.com/
——————————————————————
http://virtualskeptics.com/
——————————————————————
http://rbutr.com/
——————————————————————
http://blog.rbutr.com/
——————————————————————
http://www.uwec.edu/Staff/blaskir/
——————————————————————
http://www.csicop.org/author/rblaskiewicz
——————————————————————
http://necss.org/speakers/bob-blaskiewicz/
——————————————————————
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/speakers/blaskiewicz_bob
——————————————————————
http://lanyrd.com/2013/tam/sckkdy/
======================================
http://thehoustoncancerquack.com/
——————————————————————
http://anp4all.com/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz)
6/3/13, 3:49 PM

@FauxSkeptic @bbc5live I believe he said, “Put up or shut up, you little bitch.” Something like that.
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
David James
@StortSkeptic
#SkepticCanary
@skepticCanary
The Skeptic Canary
Skeptic Canary Show
——————————————————————
http://www.skeptical.gb.net/
——————————————————————
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/skepticcanary/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
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.

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
Guy Chapman
guychapman
@SceptiGuy
@vGuyUK
United Kingdom
——————————————————————
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg/
======================================
Adam Jacobs
@DianthusMed
Dianthus Medical
London, United Kingdom
——————————————————————
http://www.dianthus.co.uk/blog/
======================================
Peter Bowditch
@RatbagsDotCom
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Peter Bowditch (@RatbagsDotCom) tweeted at 8:09pm – 19 Feb 13:

Of course it’s always possible that the money launderers are appearing as themselves in the #Burzynski advertisement.

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Josephine Jones
@_JosephineJones
——————————————————————
http://josephinejones.wordpress.com/
======================================
Keir Liddle
@Endless_Psych
——————————————————————
http://www.thetwentyfirstfloor.com/
——————————————————————
http://the21stfloor.tumblr.com
——————————————————————
http://twentyfirstfloormirror.wordpress.com
——————————————————————
http://www.thetwentyfirstfloor.com/?p=8146/
======================================
Paul Morgan
@drpaulmorgan
Cardiff, Wales
——————————————————————
http://medicine.cf.ac.uk/person/prof-paul-morgan/
======================================
FW
@frozenwarning
National Health Service (NHS)
Britain
United Kingdom
——————————————————————
Skeptics enjoy commenting on things that they do not know if it’s true or not

FW (@frozenwarning) tweeted at 5:01am – 14 Mar 13:

If it’s true that #burzynski and his adman Merola have insinuated that parents are to blame for Amelia’s death that’s utterly disgusting.

======================================
Rhys Morgan
Wales
——————————————————————
http://rhysmorgan.co/blog
——————————————————————
http://thewelshboyo.wordpress.com
======================================
Boris Ogon
@BorisOgon
“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
——————————————————————
The Poxes Blog
https://thepoxesblog.wordpress.com
======================================
MedTek
@medtek
======================================
Quidama
@IAmBreastCancer
======================================
lilady
======================================
Peter A. Lipson, M.D.
@palMD
——————————————————————
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/peter-a-lipson-md/
——————————————————————
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
——————————————————————
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
PalMD (@palmd) tweeted at 9:12am – 20 Apr 13:

Didnt take long for the Burzynski trolls to show up. http://t.co/EHgW0hnLAc

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Dan Buzzard (@DanBuzzard) tweeted at 10:18am – 31 Mar 12:

@BurzynskiSaves I don’t care what you think. My only concern is for the cancer patients. People like #burzynski make me sick.

Sheila Herron (@Ac2cSheila) tweeted at 1:54pm – 31 Mar 12:

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

The Lancet Oncology Peer Review Team D-12-01519: #FAIL

Eric Merola revealed in Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II (2), at (1:29:53), that The Lancet Oncology Peer Review Team D-12-01519, in 2 hours 8 minutes and 51 seconds, refused to publish Burzynski’s 11/26/2012 phase 2 clinical trial Progression-Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS) re patients 8 – 16 years after diagnosis, results
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/critiquing-in-which-the-latest-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-cure-is-reviewed-with-insolence-2/
Here is the “back story” involving the Critics, Cynics, “The Skeptics™”, SkeptiCowards©
======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 5:12pm – 20 Dec 12:

@drpaulmorgan @dianthusmed Pick a medical journal Paul…

======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 5:28pm – 20 Dec 12:

@BurzynskiMovie @dianthusmed 1. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2. The Lancet Oncology. 3. New England Journal of Medicine. (1/2)

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 4:26am – 16 Feb 13:

@dianthusmed @annacapunay #burzynski ask the Lancet, Adam.

======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
John (@JohnDaily15) tweeted at 1:18pm – 16 Feb 13:

@BurzynskiMovie @dianthusmed @annacapunay if u want 2 see burzynski published data then ask the Lancet to pull their socks up @endless psych
https://twitter.com/JohnDaily15/status/303047378246705153
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 1:54pm – 17 Feb 13:

@SceptiGuy @sdmack Asked the Lancet yet Guy? #burzynski

======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 2:32pm – 18 Feb 13:

@gorskon @mrhawkes @BurzynskiSaves Ask the Lancet why it is not published, Gorski.

======================================
THE #Burzynski TWITTER WAR (#TwitterWar)
======================================
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 3:45pm – 20 Dec 12:

——————————————————————
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 4:30pm – 20 Dec 12:

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:32pm – 20 Dec 12:

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:33pm – 20 Dec 12:

@drpaulmorgan Maybe if we tell him name of a good journal, he’ll pretend #burzynski published in it in his next movie?

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Alan Henness (@zeno001) tweeted at 4:33pm – 20 Dec 12:

——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:34pm – 20 Dec 12:

——————————————————————
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 4:37pm – 20 Dec 12:

——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:39pm – 20 Dec 12:

——————————————————————
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 4:40pm – 20 Dec 12:

——————————————————————
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Burzynski: Japan publications:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/burzynski-japan/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Burzynski and AACR (American Association for Cancer Research):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/burzynski-and-aacr-american-association-for-cancer-research/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:41pm – 20 Dec 12:

======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 5:12pm – 20 Dec 12:

@drpaulmorgan @dianthusmed Pick a medical journal Paul…

======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 5:28pm – 20 Dec 12:

@BurzynskiMovie @dianthusmed 1. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2. The Lancet Oncology. 3. New England Journal of Medicine. (1/2)

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 5:31pm – 20 Dec 12:

——————————————————————
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 5:32pm – 20 Dec 12:

——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 2:46am – 16 Feb 13:

======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 4:26am – 16 Feb 13:

@dianthusmed @annacapunay #burzynski ask the Lancet, Adam.

======================================
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:59am – 16 Feb 13:

@BurzynskiMovie And why, pray tell, do you think the Lancet would know about #burzynski’s trials? Are you claiming he submitted there?

——————————————————————
Phil Harris (@Phil_Harris10) tweeted at 8:33am – 16 Feb 13:

@dianthusmed @annacapunay BurzynskiMovie Please explain why you refer to ‘The Lancet’ for info on #burzynski studies?

——————————————————————
Phil Harris (@Phil_Harris10) tweeted at 8:44am – 16 Feb 13:

@dianthusmed @BurzynskiMovie @annacapunay Can’t see any positive reference to #burzynski in the Lancet. What’s their point

——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 8:54am – 16 Feb 13:

@Phil_Harris10 I’m guessing @BurzynskiMovie thinks if he says #burzynski’s published in the Lancet, the fanbois will just believe it

——————————————————————
MedTek (@medtek) tweeted at 9:17am – 16 Feb 13:

@dianthusmed @Phil_Harris10 I suspect @BurzynskiMovie is saying that the Lancet has refused to publish #burzynski?

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
John (@JohnDaily15) tweeted at 1:18pm – 16 Feb 13:

@BurzynskiMovie @dianthusmed @annacapunay if u want 2 see burzynski published data then ask the Lancet to pull their socks up @endless psych
https://twitter.com/JohnDaily15/status/303047378246705153
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Steve Mack (@sdmack) tweeted at 6:32am – 17 Feb 13:

——————————————————————
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 6:41am – 17 Feb 13:

——————————————————————
Steve Mack (@sdmack) tweeted at 7:42am – 17 Feb 13:

——————————————————————
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 9:24am – 17 Feb 13: .

======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 1:54pm – 17 Feb 13:

@SceptiGuy @sdmack Asked the Lancet yet Guy? #burzynski

======================================
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:28pm – 17 Feb 13:

@BurzynskiMovie If #Burzynski’s reference style is “have you asked the Lancet yet?” that might explain why he his publications are rejected

——————————————————————
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:30pm – 17 Feb 13:

——————————————————————
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:35pm – 17 Feb 13:

——————————————————————
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:37pm – 17 Feb 13:

——————————————————————
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:44pm – 17 Feb 13:

——————————————————————
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 1:05pm – 18 Feb 13:

——————————————————————
BurzynskiSaves (@BurzynskiSaves) tweeted at 1:24pm – 18 Feb 13:

——————————————————————
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 2:11pm – 18 Feb 13:

——————————————————————
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 2:15pm – 18 Feb 13:

——————————————————————
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 2:16pm – 18 Feb 13:

——————————————————————
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 2:30pm – 18 Feb 13:

======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 2:32pm – 18 Feb 13:

@gorskon @mrhawkes @BurzynskiSaves Ask the Lancet why it is not published, Gorski.

======================================
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:32pm – 18 Feb 13:

——————————————————————
THE #Burzynski TWITTER WAR (#TwitterWar)
——————————————————————
Alan Henness @zeno001
Phil Harris @Phil_Harris10
Keir Liddle @endless psych
Guy Chapman @SceptiGuy
Adam Jacobs Dianthus Medical @dianthusmed
Dr. Paul Morgan @drpaulmorgan
MedTek @medtek
Dr. David H. Gorski (@gorskon)

——————————————————————
The majority of the above twits have tweeted on Twitter since the movie was available, and NONE of them have the “testicular fortitude” to provide a reason that The Lancet’s excuse for NOT publishing, is acceptable, including Dr. Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan), who suggested The Lancet

Eric Merola:

“All I can say to everyone reading this:”

“Think for yourself”

“Question everything, including me and my films”

@JoeRogan,

Question THIS!!!

“Joe Rogan Questions Everything”

@SyFy
======================================
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 4:30pm – 20 Dec 12:
@dianthusmed Neither claim having any evidence to support them. #Burzynski
——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:32pm – 20 Dec 12:
@drpaulmorgan I’d still love to know why @BurzynskiMovie is asking about journals. Guess we’ll have to wait until he’s asked his boss
——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:33pm – 20 Dec 12:
@drpaulmorgan Maybe if we tell him name of a good journal, he’ll pretend #burzynski published in it in his next movie?
——————————————————————
Alan Henness (@zeno001) tweeted at 4:33pm – 20 Dec 12:
@dianthusmed @drpaulmorgan @BurzynskiMovie That might take a while…
——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:34pm – 20 Dec 12:
@zeno001 @drpaulmorgan @BurzynskiMovie Yeah. Well, I’m certainly not holding my breath
——————————————————————
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 4:37pm – 20 Dec 12:
@dianthusmed @BurzynskiMovie I think it’s just obfuscation.
——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:39pm – 20 Dec 12:
@drpaulmorgan @BurzynskiMovie Yes, very likely. All designed to distract from important stuff on #burzynski, like bit.ly/vbUfgo
——————————————————————
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 4:40pm – 20 Dec 12:
@dianthusmed Like all those registered* Japanese trials? #Burzynski
*not registered anywhere
——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:41pm – 20 Dec 12:
@drpaulmorgan If by “registered”, you mean “fictitious”, then yes, exactly like that #burzynski
======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 5:12pm – 20 Dec 12:
@drpaulmorgan @dianthusmed Pick a medical journal Paul…
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 5:28pm – 20 Dec 12:
@BurzynskiMovie @dianthusmed 1. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2. The Lancet Oncology. 3. New England Journal of Medicine. (1/2)
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 5:32pm – 20 Dec 12:
@BurzynskiMovie @dianthusmed Do you want me to go on? How about #Burzynski picks from this list impactfactor.weebly.com/oncology.html
——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 2:46am – 16 Feb 13:
@annacapunay I see you’re supporting #burzynski. Can you explain why he won’t publish his data? 61 trials registered, none published. Why?
======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 4:26am – 16 Feb 13:
@dianthusmed @annacapunay #burzynski ask the Lancet, Adam.
======================================
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:59am – 16 Feb 13:
@BurzynskiMovie And why, pray tell, do you think the Lancet would know about #burzynski’s trials? Are you claiming he submitted there?
——————————————————————
Phil Harris (@Phil_Harris10) tweeted at 8:33am – 16 Feb 13:
@dianthusmed @annacapunay BurzynskiMovie Please explain why you refer to ‘The Lancet’ for info on #burzynski studies?
——————————————————————
Phil Harris (@Phil_Harris10) tweeted at 8:44am – 16 Feb 13:
@dianthusmed @BurzynskiMovie @annacapunay Can’t see any positive reference to #burzynski in the Lancet. What’s their point
——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 8:54am – 16 Feb 13:
@Phil_Harris10 I’m guessing @BurzynskiMovie thinks if he says #burzynski’s published in the Lancet, the fanbois will just believe it
——————————————————————
MedTek (@medtek) tweeted at 9:17am – 16 Feb 13:
@dianthusmed @Phil_Harris10 I suspect @BurzynskiMovie is saying that the Lancet has refused to publish #burzynski?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
John (@JohnDaily15) tweeted at 1:18pm – 16 Feb 13:
@BurzynskiMovie @dianthusmed @annacapunay if u want 2 see burzynski published data then ask the Lancet to pull their socks up @endless psych
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Steve Mack (@sdmack) tweeted at 6:32am – 17 Feb 13:
2013 – Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II (Feb 16, 2013 Trai…: youtu.be/wGJpDNrcSEo via @YouTube
——————————————————————
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 6:41am – 17 Feb 13:
@sdmack Extended paean to a man who has conducted over 60 trials and published none, then wonders why the medical world does not believe him
——————————————————————
Steve Mack (@sdmack) tweeted at 7:42am – 17 Feb 13:
@SceptiGuy
——————————————————————
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 9:24am – 17 Feb 13:
@sdmack Point refuted a thousand times. Most are conference proceedings or not peer reviewed. No credible per-reviewed #Burzynski pubs.
======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 1:54pm – 17 Feb 13:
@SceptiGuy @sdmack Asked the Lancet yet Guy? #burzynski
======================================
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:28pm – 17 Feb 13:
@BurzynskiMovie If #Burzynski’s reference style is “have you asked the Lancet yet?” that might explain why he his publications are rejected
——————————————————————
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:30pm – 17 Feb 13:
@BurzynskiMovie ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=(…+”Lancet”[Journal]
——————————————————————
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:35pm – 17 Feb 13:
@BurzynskiMovie Obviously you don’t mean ow.ly/hNgfB as it is in no way an endorsement of #Burzynski or his methods.
——————————————————————
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:37pm – 17 Feb 13:
@BurzynskiMovie You probably meant this extremely well argued piece: ow.ly/hNgla – directly relevant to #Burzynski.
——————————————————————
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:44pm – 17 Feb 13:
@dianthusmed @Phil_Harris10 @drpaulmorgan @medtek ow.ly/hNgE1 (not a study, an editorial, makes no claim to judgment re validity)
——————————————————————
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 1:05pm – 18 Feb 13:
Most abstracts submitted to conferences get a poster presentation. Were #burzynski abstracts for talks? I doubt it. @SceptiGuy @sdmack
——————————————————————
BurzynskiSaves (@BurzynskiSaves) tweeted at 1:24pm – 18 Feb 13:
@gorskon So there’s no peer-reviewed literature by #Burzynski in this list?Please say yes.. please say yes.. burzynskiclinic.com/publications.h… @sdmack
——————————————————————
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 2:11pm – 18 Feb 13:
@gorskon @SceptiGuy @sdmack Yes, many were (ex: Neuro-Oncology). You’d know that if you understood definition of *research*. #burzynski
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 2:16pm – 18 Feb 13:
——————————————————————
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 2:15pm – 18 Feb 13:
Funny, @BurzynskiMovie, but many of those #burzynski “studies” don’t show up on searches of PubMed. Not a good sign. @SceptiGuy @sdmack
——————————————————————
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 2:16pm – 18 Feb 13:
Funny, but no one I know ever said that #burzynski has “no” peer-reviewed studies. Learn to read, @BurzynskiSaves. @sdmack
——————————————————————
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 2:30pm – 18 Feb 13:
It’s easy for #burzynski to shut his critics up: Publish the data and show that it supports ANPs! @mrhawkes @BurzynskiSaves @BurzynskiMovie
======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 2:32pm – 18 Feb 13:
@gorskon @mrhawkes @BurzynskiSaves Ask the Lancet why it is not published, Gorski.
======================================

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

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:

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

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

Wikipedia, your Burzynski BIAS is showing

As I have proven previously, Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia is BIASED, when it comes to the Burzynski Clinic Wikipedia article:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzynski_Clinic
WikipediA or WikipediAin’t ?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/wikipedia-or-wikipediaint/
Wikipedia, what’s your motivation?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/wikipedia-whats-your-motivation/
I show JzG what a “FACT” is: Burzynski: FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions): Clinical Trial Results:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/i-show-jzg-what-a-fact-is-burzynski-faq-frequently-asked-questions-clinical-trial-results/
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/
12/26/2012 I requested that Wikipedia add the below Houston’s KPRC News article re Lola A. Quinlan, to the Burzynski Clinic Wikipedia article, considering that they had previously posted there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzynski_Clinic
Lawsuits

“In January 2012, Lola Quinlan, an elderly, stage IV cancer patient, sued Dr Burzynski…”

“Please add re WP:NPOV that Burzynski’s attorney, Richard Jaffe has disputed Lola Quinlan’s claims:
“On February 1, 2012, Dr. Burzynski’s attorney, Richard Jaffe, disputed Lola Quinlan’s allegations on Houston’s KPRC News.”

http://m.click2houston.com/news/Houston-cancer-doctor-draws-new-complaints-from-patients/-/16714936/8581480/-/hmrbjk/-/index.html

http://www.jag-lawfirm.com/burzynski-suit-kprc-02012012.html
Thank you very much.” Didymus Judas Thomas 15:03, 26 December 2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burzynski_Clinic&diff=prev&oldid=529836971
So, what was Wikipedia’s NON-BIASED rational wiki reasoning for NOT including this Houston, Texas, news article reference?

Dear Didymus Judas Thomas,

The Wikipedia page Talk:Burzynski Clinic has been changed on
December 26, 2012 by Arthur Rubin

See
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burzynski_Clinic&diff=next&oldid=529836971
to view this change.

Editor’s summary: /* Law Suits */ So?

Contact the editor:
mail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Arthur_Rubin
wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arthur_Rubin
Arthur Rubin advised:

“:So? [OR] Disputing it in the media probably means he doesn’t have a case. [/OR] In any case, a lawyer disputing the allegations against his client is not even news.” — Arthur Rubin 15:24, 26 December 2012

I had the impression that Arthur Rubin had not even bothered to read the article in question, and replied:

“::Arthur Rubin, I’m not sure what relevance your above post has re WP:NPOV since the article includes statements from attorneys representing both sides.”. 17:51, 27 December 2012 Didymus Judas Thomas 12/27/2012

Arthur Rubin’s, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ response?

SILENCE

Well, you know the saying:

Silence IS Golden

(Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View)

WP:NPOV clearly indicates:
“Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing FAIRLY, PROPORTIONATELY, and as far as possible WITHOUT BIAS, ALL significant views that have been published by reliable sources.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

“ALL Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content MUST be written from a neutral point of view.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

“NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

“This policy is NONNEGOTIABLE and ALL editors and articles MUST follow it.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

“The principles upon which this policy is based CANNOT be superseded by OTHER POLICIES or GUIDELINES, or by editors’ consensus.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

(Words CAPITALIZED for emphasis only.).

“1 Explanation of the neutral point of view.”

“This page in a nutshell:”

“Articles mustn’t take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

“This applies to both what you say and how you say it.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

“Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

“As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all notable and verifiable points of view.”.

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

[[WP:NPOV]] “History of NPOV:” (Content # 6). “The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered.”

(Wikipedia: Simplified Ruleset)

[[WP:SR]] “Wikipedia does not have its own views, or determine what is “correct.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

“Instead, editors try to summarize what good sources have said about ideas and information.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

“Differing views are presented objectively and without bias as they are reported in reliable sources—sources that have a reputation for being accurate.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

“Good sources are the base of the encyclopedia, and anyone must be able to realistically check whether contributions can be backed up by one.”.

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

[[WP:NPOVFAQ]]

(Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View Frequently Asked Questions)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ
[[WP:NPOVFAQ]]

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias
[[WP:CSB]]

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

Is Wikipedia’s Burzynski BIAS showing?

YOU decide, because in my opinion it IS, since this piece of “Yellow Journalism” is referenced in the Burzynski Clinic Wikipedia article:

2010 film, Burzynski – Cancer is Serious Business

Prior to the debut of “Burzynski”, Houston Press correspondent Craig Malisow mocked the film’s lack of objectivity, characterizing it as “a puff-piece paean that cherrypicks facts and ignores any criticism”, and criticized the project for presenting only Burzynski’s side of the story.” [60]
60^ Malisow, Craig (2010-06-02). “Stanlislaw Burzynski: New Movie Proves He’s A Cancer-Fighting Giant – Houston News – Hair Balls”. Blogs.houstonpress.com. Retrieved 2011-11-25.

Jun 2, 2010 – Houston’s Stanislaw Burzynski, who sells a so-called cancer …

(Hair Balls hasn’t seen the movie, but nowhere in the … )

So, in a nutshell, Wikipedia will reference “Yellow Journalism” by a “Hack” who posts an article about a movie he has NOT even seen, but will NOT reference a news article which is posted on Lola A. Quinlan’s attorney’s web-site, which contains comments from her attorney, as well as Dr. Stanislaw R. Burzynski’s attorney

Wikipedia, your BIAS is showing

“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.”‘

“the ignorant

the unthinking and

the credulous.”‘

Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’, which are you?

I show JzG what a “FACT” is: Burzynski: FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions): Clinical Trial Results:

Burzynski: FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions): Clinical Trial Results:
redd.it/1e458n
FAQ
http://po.st/SLDlJ
Who is JzG and why should you care?

JzG claims there is a “misleading factoid”

JzG does NOT seem to comprehend that the reason something is titled as a “FACT,” is because it is NOT misleading

JzG does NOT seem to understand that indicating that a “FACT” is misleading, is oxymoronic

It is a “FACT” that:

“Trial results are not always publicly available, even after a clinical trial ends”

(Source: U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health)

An individual with the same initials (JzG also known as JzG|Guy) is one of the “gatekeepers” of the “Burzynski Clinic” Wikipedia page, as I documented HERE:

guychapman (Guy Chapman) Critiquing “The Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics (page 9)
redd.it/1dpsj6
(Guy Chapman, @SceptiGuy, @vGuyUK, guychapman)

http://redd.it/1dpsj6
Wikipedia apologist Guy Chapman’s United Kingdom “blahg:”
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg
Wikipedia, what’s your motivation?:
redd.it/1dk974
WP
http://t.co/N7ErbunCV2
JzG are you related to Guy Chapman?

I consider him to be a coward

Wikipedia’s “Neutral” policy history clearly indicates:

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

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

(Wikipedia: Neutral Point Of View)

This is also a “factoid,” and the JzG|Guy “gatekeeper” on Wikipedia gave it the same amount of respect JzG gives the U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health

Which leads one to wonder if they are twins, considering that one had the testicular fortitude to post a comment, and the other is a coward and trumpets U.K. views

One JzG|Guy commented on Wikipedia:

> “We are told that 2013 will be a big year, but apparently his plan is to

> release another bullshit movie not to publish useful research.” JzG|Guy
> User:JzG/help|Help! 21:52, 24 December 2013
>
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Didymus_Judas_Thomas&diff=next&oldid=528610760
to view this change

and:
>
> “There is unlikely to be any dispassionate debate over ANPs while Burzynski
> continues with his unethical practices.” JzG|Guy User:JzG/help|Help!
> 12:43, 26 December 2012
>
> Continues with his unethical practices.? Yet TMB/SOAH had their
> case dismissed? Is WP judge, jury, & executioner?

>
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burzynski_Clinic&diff=next&oldid=529537854
to view this change.

I could really care less what JzG|Guy’s “opinion” is, since:

Wikipedia’s “Neutral” policy history clearly indicates:

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

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

(Wikipedia: Neutral Point Of View)

As the old military saying goes:

If I wanted your opinion … (Wikipedia) … I’d beat it out of you

In this blog post reply, Wikipedia shill “JzG” presents a single myopic misleading meme for a number of reasons in respect of Stanislaw Burzynski

JzG posits:

“Most obvious of these is that of the 61 trials registered by Burzynski over nearly two decades, only one has even been completed.”

WHAT “completed” trial is JzG referring to?

Good question, since I have yet to find one of “The Skeptics” who could adequately describe what Protocol, start date, and completion date apply to this “one” trial they keep mentioning

Antineoplaston Therapy in Treating Patients With Stage IV Melanoma
Phase II
Status: COMPLETED
Age: 18 and over
Protocol IDs: CDR0000066552, BC-ME-2, NCT00003509

11/25/1997 – FORM 10-SB
http://pdf.secdatabase.com/2573/0000950110-97-001598.pdf
ME-2 PHASE II STUDY OF ANTINEOPLASTONS A10 AND AS2-1 IN PATIENTS WITH MALIGNANT MELANOMA
8 40
7/26/96 – Revised
10/4/96 – Revised
4/14/97 – Revised

11/1/1999 – First received

5/23/2009 – Last updated

5/2009 – Last verified
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/archive/NCT00003509
Burzynski Clinical Trials (The SEC filings):
redd.it/1e2f2i
5/1/2012 Certain prospective protocols which have reached a Milestone:
http://redd.it/1e2f2i
Antineoplaston Therapy in Treating Patients With Stage IV Melanomau
Melanoma (Skin)
Drug: antineoplaston A10
Drug: antineoplaston AS2-1
Phase II / Phase 2
COMPLETED
Age 18 and over
Protocol IDs
CDR0000066552
BC-ME-2, NCT00003509

http://cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/BC-ME-2
2009_05_26 Study Changes Recruitment status, Recruitment, Misc.
1 clinical_study study_id
2
is_fda_regulated Yes
is_section_801 Yes
delayed_posting No
resp_party name_title Stanislaw R. Burzynski
name_title organization Burzynski Clinic
organization resp_party

Fm: Active, not recruiting
To: COMPLETED

status date
Fm: 2008-04
To: 2009-05

date
Fm: 2008-01
To: 2005-02

last_release_date
Fm: 2008-07-23
To: 2009-05-23

http://clinicaltrials.gov/archive/NCT00003509/2009_05_26/changes
“COMPLETED:”

2009-05-23 (5/23/2009)

To put this in perspective, the below study done in 2006, was NOT published until about 7 years later, in 2013

2/13/2013 – The frequency, cost, and clinical outcomes of HYPERNATREMIA in patients hospitalized to a comprehensive CANCER center
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23404230
Over 3 month period in 2006 re 3,446 patients, most of the HYPERNATREMIA (90 %) was acquired during hospital stay

Division of Internal Medicine, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA

Department of General Internal Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

Division of Endocrinology, Mayo Clinic

Support Care Cancer. 2013 Feb 13. [Epub ahead of print]

Supportive Care in Cancer
February 2013

DOI
10.1007/s00520-013-1734-6

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00520-013-1734-6

JzG continues:

“Then there’s the fact that unpublished trials are not generally acceptable when applying for approval for a drug, or when promoting the drug (in this case it’s hardly relevant as he appears to have no intention of applying for approval; the trials seem to be used as an end-run around restrictions on his use of unapproved drugs).”

JzG ignores:

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: Declaration of Helsinki:
redd.it/1e4ybx
Helsinki
http://po.st/ajl2Xy
The Declaration of Helsinki does NOT indicate WHEN final (completed) results of human clinical trials MUST be published

Burzynski: The FDA’s Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective:
redd.it/1e6gvj
Nowhere does it indicate that final (completed) human clinical trial results MUST be published in a peer-reviewed scientific medical journal
http://redd.it/1e6gvj
JzG comments:

“Why does the medical and scientific community not accept Burzynski’s claims to cure cancer? Because he has failed to publish credible evidence. The few papers he has published are neither compelling nor generally useful in evaluating his claims.”

JzG where is / are YOUR in-depth review(s) of the 2003-2007 phase II clinical trials preliminary reports?

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

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.”
http://burzynskimovie.com/images/stories/transcript/Documents/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:
http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/17c.pdf
PDF:
http://www.who.int/bulletin/archives/79(4)373.pdf
National Institutes of Health-HISTORY:
http://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/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”

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

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”

Forbes Learns a Lesson, but Not the Right One: Censorship and Bias re: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics

onforb.es/11pwse9
4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM
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, Contributor

posted an article of a very dubious nature on Forbes (#Forbes), which censored (deleted) comments submitted and screen-captured as having been posted to the article comments section

What did Forbes do to rectify this embarrassing blunder?

Well, they did NOT do what Wikipedia is supposed to do (Do the RIGHT THING), they instead changed their comment acceptance function so that it now does NOT post the comments to the comment section; where they can be screen- saved to show that you submitted them, but now prevents the comments from being posted to the comments section before being reviewed by their censor(s)

I was able to submit comments and screen save them to show I submitted them, but the below, for example, was still censored

Thursday, 5/2/2013-ATTEMPT 1:

Didymus Thomas 30 minutes ago

Mr. Ogon, is this one of the Kurume, Japan case studies you were referring to?
Randomized Phase II Study of Hepatic Arterial Infusion with or without Antineoplastons as Adjuvant Therapy after Hepatectomy for liver Metastases from Colorectal Cancer. Annals of Oncology 2010;21:viii221

Reply

Didymus Thomas 20 minutes ago

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

Didymus Thomas 4 hours ago

Mr. Ogon, you commented:
“One further has to take into account the fact that Scamley has been known to employ idiosyncratic definitions, such as classifying tumor *growth* as “STABLE DISEASE” for “less than 50% reduction in size but no more than 50% increase in size of the tumor mass, lasting for at least twelve weeks.””
FDA has advised:
5/2007 – “Guidance for Industry – Food and Drug Administration”
“Clinical Trial Endpoints for the Approval of Cancer Drugs and Biologics”
“”STABLE DISEASE should not be a component of ORR”
“STABLE DISEASE can reflect the natural history of disease””
(Pg. 10 of 22 = actual pg. 7 of PDF)
“…STABLE DISEASE can be more accurately assessed by TTP or PFS analysis (see below)”
“Also, STABLE DISEASE can be more accurately assessed by TTP or PFS analysis (see below)”
(Pg. 11 of 22 = actual pg. 8 of PDF)
“Time to Progression and Progression-Free Survival”
“TTP – Time to Progression”
“PFS – Progression-Free Survival”
“TTP and PFS have served as primary endpoints for drug approval”
(Pg. 11 of 22 = actual pg. 8 of PDF)
And in addition, the below 2005 non-Burzynski study also uses “STABLE DISEASE?”
Role of temozolomide after radiotherapy for newly diagnosed diffuse brainstem glioma in children
Results of a multiinstitutional study (SJHG-98)

Reply

Didymus Thomas 15 minutes ago

Mr. Chapman, you commented:
” … the failure to publish any usable results from any single trial is grossly unethical”
“ 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”

Reply

Didymus Thomas 9 minutes ago

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

Reply

Didymus Thomas 1 minute ago

2003-2006 phase II clinical trial preliminary reports.
The co-authors might include an oncologist:
Drugs R D.
2003;4(2):91-101
2004;5(6):315-26
Integr Cancer Ther.
2005 Jun;4(2):168-77
2006 Mar;5(1):40-7

Friday, 5/3/2013-ATTEMPT 2

(Note how I shortened the comment):

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

Mr. Ogon, 5/2007 – “Guidance for Industry – Food and Drug Administration”
“Clinical Trial Endpoints for the Approval of Cancer Drugs and Biologics”
“Stable disease can reflect the natural history of disease”
“Also, stable disease can be more accurately assessed by TTP or PFS analysis”
“TTP – Time to Progression”
“PFS – Progression-Free Survival”
“TTP and PFS have served as primary endpoints for drug approval”
The below study also uses “stable disease”
Cancer. 2005 Jan 1;103(1):133-9 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.20741

Share your comment:

Saturday, 5/4/2013-ATTEMPT 3

Note how I further shortened the comment):

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

Mr. Ogon, 5/2007 – “Guidance for Industry – Food and Drug Administration, Clinical Trial Endpoints for the Approval of Cancer Drugs and Biologics:” “Stable disease can reflect the natural history of disease”
This study uses “stable disease:”. Cancer. 2005 Jan 1;103(1):133-9 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.20741

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

Forbes posted the 1 below comment out of the above:

Didymus Thomas 3 days ago
Mr. Ogon, is this one of the Kurume, Japan case studies you were referring to?
Randomized Phase II Study of Hepatic Arterial Infusion with or without Antineoplastons as Adjuvant Therapy after Hepatectomy for liver Metastases from Colorectal Cancer. Annals of Oncology 2010;21:viii221

One would hope that Forbes would learn a lesson about censoring individual’s comments, but instead, it seems that they learned a lesson about how to block comments

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)

“The Skeptic” Critics

guychapman (Guy Chapman, @SceptiGuy, @vGuyUK)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg/
A United Kingdom (UK) blahg

Guy Chapman comments on “Orac’s”:
(http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence)

FW (@frozenwarning): I work for the NHS in the UK

frozenwarning comments on “Orac’s”:
(http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence)

rjblaskiewicz (Bob Blaskiewicz, R.J. Blaskiewicz, @rjblaskiewicz)
http://www.skepticalhumanities.com

Bob Blaskiewicz comments on “Orac’s”:
(http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence)

lilady comments on “Orac’s”:
(http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence)

Peter Lipson (@palMD)
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/author/palmd/

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/editorial-staff/peter-a-lipson-md/

Dr. David H. Gorski (“Orac,” @gorskon, @oracknows, @ScienceBasedMed, #sciencebasedmedicine
runs:
http://www.scienceblogs/Insolence
and is the editor of:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org
and is a “pal” of his “bud:”. Dr. Peter A. Lipson)

Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan)

Paul Morgan comments on “Orac’s”:
(http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence)

What do all of those “Skeptic” Critics have in common?

Dr. David H. Gorski (“Orac”)

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/

Boris Ogon (@borisogon)

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

3,921 views

Not so much

Waiting for the 10,000

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM

A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics

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

guychapman (Guy Chapman) Critiquing “The Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics (page 9)

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

guychapman 5 days ago

“Well, this has flushed out i the comments most of what we’ve seen on Twitter and the blogs over the past year or two.”

guychapman, hardly
redd.it/1czvol
Forbes censors Peter Lipson
http://redd.it/1czvol
“Speech is best countered by more
http://www.reddit.com/tb/1czvol
speech” article comments:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/forbes-censors-peter-lipson-speech-is-best-countered-by-more-speech-article-comments
"On the one side we have the true believers claiming that there is a cure, that it’s being denied, that people would “otherwise die” (begging the question), and asking for “respect” and “decency”"

guychapman, THIS cure ?
http://burzynskimovie.com/images/stories/transcript/Documents/BurzynskiTriesToExposeNCI.pdf
"(as if it is respectful and decent to claim to cure cancer without good evidence)."

guychapman, THIS “good evidence” that you’re “without” ?

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
"On the other side we have one really very simple point: show me the evidence."

guychapman, THIS “good evidence” that you’re “without” ?

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
“61 registered human trials, one completed, zero results published, from any of them.”

guychapman, do you mean THIS ?

clinicaltrials . gov does NOT contain the same data as the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) cancer . gov web-site:

61 TOTAL
1 – Not Yet Recruiting (Open)(Phase 3)
1 – Closed
2 – Terminated (Withdrawn due to slow enrollment)
7 – Withdrawn (This study has been withdrawn prior to enrollment)
10 – Recruiting (Open)
11 – Open (1 Not Yet Recruiting / 10 Recruiting)
40 – Active, not recruiting (Closed)

The below 1st link: 10 Active (Open):
http://cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/search/results?protocolsearchid=11475951
The below 2nd link: 25 Closed-1st screen / 15 Closed-1 Completed-2nd screen:
http://cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/search/results?protocolsearchid=11476036
NONE of the above are “UNKNOWN” per the above 2 National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) links:

10 – Recruiting (Open)
11 – Open (1 Not Yet Recruiting / 10 Recruiting)
40 – Active, not recruiting (Closed)

10=Open
11=1 Not Yet Recruiting / 10 Recruiting
40=Closed
61-TOTAL

“The Burzynski fans’ snowstorm of irrelevant, low-grade publications in low impact journals and conference abstracts that aren’t even peer-reviewed, do not address this at all.”

guychapman, are you referring to THIS ?

The “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”

“The Helsinki Declaration states the obligations of those conducting trials in humans, and getting the results (good or bad) published and available is a core requirement.”

guychapman, WHERE does the Declaration of Helsinki indicate WHEN the final results of human clinical trials MUST be published?

Burzynski: Declaration of Helsinki
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-declaration-of-helsinki
guychapman 5 days ago

“I have some questions for the Burzynski fans.”

guychapman, I have some questions for you

Is it just me, or does it seem like I’m repeating what I already provided HERE?

Critiquing “The Skeptic”
redd.it/1do1ah
Burzynski Critics: A Film
http://redd.it/1do1ah
Producer, A Cancer
http://www.reddit.com/tb/1do1ah
Doctor, And Their Critics (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/
“1. Burzynski’s claims are superficially similar to those of Max Gerson.”

“Gerson’s therapy is known to be ineffective and potentially harmful, but he used patient anecdotes – people sincerely convinced they had undergone a miracle cure – to promote his business.”

“What *objective* mechanism do you propose we use to distinguish between Burzynski and the quack Gerson?”

guychapman, how about the publications and Securities and Exchange (SEC) filings cited on my page 9 critique?

“2. Burzynski has registered 61 clinical trials in humans, completed one and published no useful data from any.”

guychapman, you obviously have a very “fast and loose” definition of “no useful data”

Exactly WHAT is your definition of “no useful data”?

“Can you name any mainstream cancer research operations that have similar rates of failure to compete and publish?”

guychapman, can you name any mainstream publications like Forbes that have similar rates of failure to “compete” and publish my 15+ comments in reply to your 18 comments?

Do you think it was because they knew that I would “rip you a new one” and you would be left there as the proverbial “Emperor (who) has no clothes”?

“3. How many people do you estimate are involved, globally, in the conspiracy to suppress Burzynski’s treatment?”

“My rough guess is a few hundred thousand.”

“Can you give a better estimate with reasons?”

guychapman, let’s start with YOU, guychapman (Guy Chapman, @SceptiGuy, @vGuyUK,
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg),
your pals at Wikipedia; Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales,
http://www.jimmywales.com,
(@jimmy_wales – whom you re-twit on Twitter), JzG|Guy, Guy, Anthony (AGK) BASC, Alexbrn, Dave Dial, Drmies, NE Ent, fluffernutter, foxj, jpgordon, Guerillero, Ironholds, John, Lord Sjones23, Tom Morris, Nstrauss, Steve Pereira/SilkTork, Rhode Island Red, Arthur Rubin, Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 (Seb az86556), Sgerbic, IRWolfie, Six words, Yobol, @RudyHellzapop, @_JosephineJones, @JCmacc1, @Malboury, @DianthusMed, @medTek, @StopBurzynski, @StortSkeptic, Dr. Peter A. Lipson (@palMD), #Forbes censor(s), Dr. David H. Gorski (@gorskon, @oracknows, @ScienceBasedMed, #sciencebasedmedicine,
http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence,
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org,
The Faux Skeptic Revealed! Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz, R.J. Blaskiewicz, Blatherskitewicz), C0nc0rdance, Boris Ogon, lilady, JGC2013, claire G, Sharon Hill, Allen Jones, Lynne, @JCmacc1, Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan), oval wooki, Vered Yasur, (the Forbes group) and
http://burzynskimovie.com/images/stories/transcript/Documents/BurzynskiTriesToExposeNCI.pdf, etc.

“4. When you talk about Antineoplastons not being chemotherapy, what, in your mind, distinguishes the intravenous administration of one chemical from the intravenous administration of another, other than the fact that it’s Burzynski doing it?”

guychapman, THIS:

“High Dose ANPA chemotherapy IV drip”

“…an unapproved drug, not ordinary “chemotherapy”
https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/27/27.F3d.153.93-2071.html
“5. When you speak about ANPs not being toxic, what, in your mind, distinguishes the side effects of “non-toxic” ANPs”

“(nausea, hypernatraemia, stroke etc)”

“form the side effects of other, “toxic” drugs?”

guychapman, THIS:

Burzynski: HYPERNATREMIA:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/burzynski-hypernatremia
FACT: Is “HYPERNATREMIA” listed on the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) list as a possible “Adverse Effect” of antineoplastons?:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/healthprofessional/page6
I do NOT see HYPERNATREMIA or STROKE on the list

2/13/2013 – The frequency, cost, and clinical outcomes of HYPERNATREMIA in patients hospitalized to a comprehensive CANCER center
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23404230
Over 3 month period in 2006 re 3,446 patients, most of the HYPERNATREMIA (90 %) was acquired during hospital stay

Division of Internal Medicine, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA

Department of General Internal Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

Division of Endocrinology, Mayo Clinic

Support Care Cancer. 2013 Feb 13. [Epub ahead of print]

Supportive Care in Cancer
February 2013

DOI
10.1007/s00520-013-1734-6
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00520-013-1734-6
HYPERNATREMIA in the U.S.:

“HYPERNATREMIA is the most common electrolyte disorder in the United States”

“In some cases, CANCER may cause the condition …”
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000394.htm
“A Burzynski critic has posted:”

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

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

Let’s put this in perspective

FACT: Some sources indicate:

1) A man should drink about
3 liters (101.44 ounces / 3 quarts 5.44 ounces) per day

{12 quarts = 384 ounces = 11.356 liters}

[12 quarts in 24 hours = 1/2 quart or 16 ounces per hour]

2) Extremely healthy kidneys could process about 30 ounces (approx .9 liters) of water in an hour

{30 ounces in 24 hours = 720 ounces}

[720 ounces = 22.5 quarts per day]

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

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

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

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

“6. Burzynski has convinced you that he can cure incurable cancers.”

“What figures has he given you for his five-year survival versus standard of care?”

guychapman, HERE:

2003 – Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma:

a preliminary report
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12718563
Drugs R D. 2003;4(2):91-101

recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma

of all 12 patients
2 years / 33.3% – Survival
2 / 17% – alive and tumour free for over 5 years since initial diagnosis

from the start of treatment
5 years – 1 alive for more than
4 years – 1 alive for more than

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

2004 – Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in children with recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma :

a preliminary report
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15563234
Drugs R D. 2004;5(6):315-26

incurable recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma

6 patients were diagnosed with pilocytic astrocytoma

4 with low-grade astrocytoma
1 with astrocytoma grade 2

1 case of visual pathway glioma, a biopsy was not performed due to a dangerous location

1 patient was non-evaluable due to only 4 weeks of ANP and lack of follow-up scans

1 patient who had stable disease discontinued ANP against medical advice and died 4.5 years later

10 patients are alive and well from 2 to >14 years post-diagnosis

2004
Protocol – incurable recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma
12 – Patients Accrued
– Evaluable Patients
33% – % of Patients Showing Complete Response
25% – % of Patients Showing Partial Response
33% – % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
0 / 0% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease

2005 – Long-term survival of high-risk pediatric patients with primitive neuroectodermal tumors treated with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15911929
Integr Cancer Ther. 2005 Jun;4(2):168-77

13 children with recurrent disease or high risk

6 (46%) survived more than 5 years

2005
Protocol – recurrent disease or
high risk
– Patients Accrued
– Evaluable Patients
23% – % of Patients Showing Complete Response
8% – % of Patients Showing Partial Response
31% – % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
38% – % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease

2006 – Targeted therapy with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 of high-grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem glioma
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16484713
Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Mar;5(1):40-7

Brainstem glioma carries the worst prognosis of all malignancies of the brain

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

Treatment is even more challenging when an inoperable tumor is of high-grade pathology (HBSG)

patients with inoperable tumor of high-grade pathology (HBSG) treated with antineoplastons in 4 phase 2 trials

22% – overall survival at 5 years

17+ years maximum survival for a patient with anaplastic astrocytoma

5+ years for a patient with glioblastoma

5+ year survival in recurrent diffuse intrinsic glioblastomas and anaplastic astrocytomas of the brainstem in a small group of patients

18 – evaluable

2006
Protocol – high-grade pathology (HBSG)
– Patients Accrued
18 – Evaluable Patients
11% – % of Patients Showing Complete Response
11% – % of Patients Showing Partial Response
39% – % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
39% – % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease

2007 – Recent clinical trials in diffuse intrinsic brainstem glioma

Review Article
http://www.cancer-therapy.org/CT/v5/B/HTML/42._Burzynski,_379-390.html
Cancer Therapy Vol 5, 379-390, 2007

(Forbes)

Boris Ogon 1 week ago

(citing AstroturfWatch)

“They refuse to fact check anything. Namely Phase 2 results showing a 25% cure rate for brainstem glioma, never accomplished in medical history—ever.”

“Published plan as day in a ‘internationally peer-reviewed’ article.”

“You mean PMIDs 12718563 and 16484713? (These, at least, are the ones that Merola cites, which I assume is the sum total of your “fact checking.”)”

“Namely Phase 2 results showing a 25% cure rate for brainstem glioma, never accomplished in medical history—ever”

“Notice the chart on page 172 (page 8 of PDF).”

“Find just one, any single cure for this tumor type and you can’t, outside of Antineoplastons FDA sanctioned clinical trials:”
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1252.pdf
“The first reference is to Drugs in R&D 4:91 (2003).”

“The second reference is to Integrative Cancer Therapies 4:168 (2005).”

The “chart on page 172 (page 8 of PDF):”
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1252.pdf
refers to:

2006 Adis – Pediatr Drugs 2006; 8 (3)

pg 172

Treatments for Astrocytic Tumors

Table II. Treatment of 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
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
[% (no. )]
27 (8) – CR – CR = complete response
[% (no. )]
20% (6) – PR – PR = partial response
[% (no. )]
23% (7) – SD – SD = stabile disease
30% (9) – PD = progressive disease

pg 177

88. Burzynski SR, Weaver RA, Janicki T. Long-term survival in phase II studies of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in patients with diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma [abstract]. Neuro-oncol 2004; 6: 386

This is the 2004 publication, NOT 2003

Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in children with recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma : a preliminary report.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15563234
Drugs R D. 2004;5(6):315-26

pg 172

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}

(Above, I also provide the best next case to compare to)

pg 177

89. Burzynski SR, Weaver RA, Janicki TJ, et al. Targeted therapy with ANP in children less than 4 years old with inoperable brain stem gliomas [abstract]. Neuro-oncol 2005; 7: 300

Long-term survival of high-risk pediatric patients with primitive neuroectodermal tumors treated with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15911929
Integr Cancer Ther. 2005 Jun;4(2):168-77

pg 173

1.4.3 Targeted Therapy

“…multi-targeted therapy with ANP has shown promising results [12;88-91]”

pg 176

90. Burzynski SR, Lewy RI, Weaver RA, et al. Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma: a preliminary report. Drugs R D 2003; 4: 91-101

Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma: a preliminary report.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12718563
Drugs R D. 2003;4(2):91-101

91. Burzynski SR, Weaver RA, Janicki T. et al. Targeted therapy with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) of high-grade, recurrent and progressive brain stem glioma. Integr Cancer Ther 2006 Mar; 5 (1): 40-7

Targeted therapy with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 of high-grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem glioma.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16484713
Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Mar;5(1):40-7

30 evaluable patients with recurrent and progressive DBSG

“>40% of patients survived for more than 2 years
30% more than 5 years.”

27% – CR – Complete Response
20% – PR – Partial Response
23% – SD – Stable Disease
30% – PD – Progressive Disease
[12,88]

pg 175

12. Burzynski SR Targeted therapy for brain tumors In: Columbus, F editor. Brain cancer research progress. New York: Nova Science Publishers Inc 2005

pg 173

10 evaluable children
aged <4 years diagnosed with DBSG treated with ANP
youngest 3-month-old infant
[89]

60% – 2-year survival rate
20% – 5-year survival rate
maximum survival more than 7 years

30% – CR – Complete Response
40% – SD – Stable Disease
30% – PD – Progressive Disease
[89]

“The results are compiled in table II.”

pg 174

2.3. Targeted Therapy

Multi-targeted ANP therapy is free from chronic toxicity in children and adults based on the results of numerous clinical studies involving

1652 adults
335 children
[147]

pg 178

147. Burzynski SR. Annual report to the FDA, IND 43,742, 2006

pg 174

Long-term follow-up of children treated with ANP for astrocytomas revealed:
normal development
no cognitive or endocrine deficiencies
normal fertility

>5 years – substantial number of patients tumor free
>17 years – follow-up period for some patients

pg 169

1.1.4. Targeted Therapy

Clinical trials with agents affecting single targets are in progress and the preliminary results of multi-targeted therapy with
antineoplastons (ANP) A10
and
AS2-1 have been reported
[39]

small group of patients with progressive LGA, ANP
60% – CR rate – Complete Response
10% – PR rate – Partial Response
median survival 7 years 9 months
maximum survival of more than 15 years
[39]

LGA = Low-Grade Astrocytomas

Table I. Selected chemotherapy regimens for the treatment of 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 {(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}
CR [% (no.)]
60% (6) – CR = complete response {24 (11) next closest}
PR [% (no.)]
10% (1) – PR = partial response {60% (9) best other study}
[% (no.)]
30% (3) – SD = stable disease + MR = minor response {70% (14) best other study}
[% (no.)]
0% (0) – PD = 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

(Above, I also provide the best next case to compare to)

pg 176

39. Burzynski SR Clinical application of body epigenetic system: multi-targeted therapy for primary brain tumors. World and Ehrlich Conference on Dosing of Magic Bullets; 2004 Sep 9-11 Nurnberg

Burzynski Clinical Trials (The SEC filings):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/11/burzynski-clinical-trials-2
Who has audited these figures?

guychapman, YOU just did

Otherwise, check with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

Where are they published?

guychapman, if you have NOT yet figured THAT out…

“7. There are numerous cases where the Burzynski clinic has said a tumour is “dying from the inside”, but where it turns out that it is growing aggressively and suffering necrosis due to outstripping its blood supply; this is usually a precursor to the death of a patient only weeks after being told they were on the way to a cure.”

“How do you account for this repeated error?”

guychapman, WHERE is the documentation?

Boris Ogon

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

3,919 views

Not so much

Waiting for the 10,000

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM

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