A Critical Analysis of Wikipedia’s “Failure to Communicate”

[1] – 1st 7 comments by
“The Skeptics™”

34 – # of “The Skeptics™”
29 – # Questioning “The Skeptics™”
192 comments – “The Skeptics™”
44 – Lynne Batik
31 – Fenwicke Bootzin (Sizzling Bacon Scent) Sizzling Burnt Bacon Scent
13 – Robert (Bobby) Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz)
13 – Adam Jacobs (@DianthusMed)
12 – Jen Abe
10 – David H. Gorski (@gorskon @oracknows @ScienceBasedMed)
7 – Edward Jenner
6 – Guy Chapman (@SkepticGuy)
6 – Fred Hamlet
6 – Rene F. Najera
6 – Darren Woodward (Sebastian Armstrong @spikesandspokes on Twitter)
4 – Angela Campagna
4 – Val Perry Rendel
3 – Amy Hochberg Beaton
3 – Susan Scotvold Goodstein
3 – Karl Mamer
2 – Scott Hurst
2 – Laura Calise Neimeyer
2 – Tsu Dho Nimh
1 – Catherina Becker
1 – Vicky Forster
1 – Jan Gosau
1 – David James (@StortSkeptic)
1 – Terry D. Johnson
1 – Jen Keane
1 – Adam Levenstein
1 – Keir Liddle (@endless_psych)
1 – Matthew Miller
1 – Paul Morgan (@DrPaulMorgan)
1 – Richard Murray
1 – Scott Myers
1 – Andy Roseborrough
1 – Footy Stuff
1 – Tom Steinberg

239 comments – Questioning “The Skeptics™”
112 – Didymus Thomas *
71 – Robert Davis
15 – Jon Barratt
13 – Eric Merola
7 – Bruce Scherzer
4 – Ben Hymas
2 – Bill Doucette
2 – Teresa Kennett
2 – Krassi Kostova
2 – Jessica Ressel-Doeden
2 – Jennifer Woods
1 – Angela Campagna
1 – Jessica Guillory Garza
1 – Melissa Gilbert
1 – Russell David Humphress
1 – Karl Jobst
1 – Anya Matkowski
1 – Susanne McAllister
1 – Terri Miller
1 – Mark Mord
1 – Shannon E. Peters
1 – Chris Rodriguez
1 – Pat Rozek
1 – Cindy Samora
1 – Ric Schiff
1 – Gary Susie
1 – Kevin Thurston
1 – Laura Vincent
1 – Susan Wassenhove
* Requesting “The Skeptics™” reply when they did NOT, pointing out where they did NOT provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support their claims
38 comments with links – “The Skeptics™”
19 – Lynne Batik
5 – Fenwicke Bootzin (Sizzling Bacon Scent) Sizzling Burnt Bacon Scent
5 – Adam Jacobs (@DianthusMed)
3 – David H. Gorski (@gorskon @oracknows @ScienceBasedMed)
2 – Fred Hamlet
2 – Rene F. Najera
1 – Robert (Bobby) Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz)
1 – Andy Roseborrough

131 comments with links – Questioning “The Skeptics™”
104 – Didymus Thomas *
18 – Robert Davis
8 – Eric Merola
1 – Paul Battista
* One of “The Skeptics™” made the mistake of commenting that Burzynski, had NOT published any publications
“The Skeptics™” LIES
[2] – 3/5/2013 – Adam Jacobs

” … did you know that he’s recently removed all mention of antineoplastons from his website … “
[3] – 3/5/2013 – William M. London

” … Burzynski’s anti-cancer fantasies … “
[4] – 3/5/2013 – Paul Morgan

“As for his “gene-targeted” therapy, firstly Burzynski is simply using a cocktail of chemotherapy drugs in a random and haphazard manner with no thoughts as to the potential interactions and unpredictable toxicity of his mix of chemotherapy drugs”

“As for being “gene-targeted”, his approach could be described as “gene-targeted” in the same way as the military regard carpet bombing …”

“The Skeptics™” who got it WRONG
3/5/2013 – Rene F. Najera

“I predict this poll and subsequent comments will be taken down by the end of the day”
This “Skeptics™” must have had
confused with “The Skeptics™” like Robert (Bobby) Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz), David H. Gorski (@gorskon @oracknows @ScienceBasedMed), Adam Jacobs (@DianthusMed), and Keir Liddle (@endless_psych), who block people on their blogs
“The Skeptics™” who did NOT provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support their claims
3/6/2013 – Lynne Batik

“Dr. B is a scam artist who has found a few people he can claim to have cured, and uses those to sucker in far more people who he will bankrupt without curing”
3/4/2013 – Amy Hochberg Beaton

“I think Burzynski has proved multiple times over that his $*&% doesn’t work and he is not running a legitimate trial”
3/5/2013 – Catherina Becker

“To prey on desperate, dying people, encouraging them to fund raise, risk hundreds of thousands of dollars of debts, for life threatening humbug must be the vilest phenomenon in Medicine”

“To support such behaviour by running adverts for these vultures is equally vile”
3/4/2013 – Robert Blaskiewicz

“ANP is toxic as anything!”

“most of Burzynski’s patients never qualify for his trials”

“They all end up taking tons of chemo used off label”
3/5/2013 – Susan Scotvold Goodstein

“Airing a film that is nothing more than an advertisement / informercial for Burzynski’s 30 year medical scam is not presenting a fair and balanced program”
3/5/2013 – David H. Gorski

“Antineoplastons, however, are neither nontoxic nor an effective treatment”

“In fact, they’re definitely toxic”

“People have developed a dangeros condition called hypernatremia (too high a sodium level) as a result of antineoplaston treatment”
3/5/2013 – Adam Jacobs

“Burzynski absolutely does not research “non-toxic” treatments”

“Mostly, he uses conventional chemotherapy, but in a rather amateurish way, using unproven combinations of drugs”

“The treatment that has made him famous, antineoplastons, is highly toxic and has been known to kill people”
3/5/2013 – David James

“You run the risk of genuinely endangering people’s lives by exposing them to unproven and ridiculously expensive treatment modalities”
3/5/2013 – Adam Levenstein

“do I think that the fraud Burzynski should be promoted with an infomercial on a taxpayer-funded TV station … “
3/5/2013 – William M. London

“Colorado Public Television functions as an infomercial broadcast service for false medical prophets (who profit from Colorado Public Television’s irresponsibility)”
3/5/2013 – Paul Morgan

“Antineoplaston chemotherapy – despite the claims of Burzynski and his shills – are far from being non-toxic”

“They contain vast quantities of sodium, which results in patients having to ingest vast quantities of water to counteract the overpowering thirst generated by taking in so much sodium”

“Some patients have become grossly hypernatraemic (high serum sodium), others profoundly hypokalaemic (low serum potassium)”

“Others have developed renal failure”

“All these TOXIC SIDE EFFECTS are extremely hazardous and life-threatening”

“If you consider antineoplastons to be non-toxic, you are seriously deluded”

“If you think antineoplastons are not chemotherapy, you are also wrong”
3/5/2013 – Tsu Dho Nimh

“You are being co-opted to slather a layer of respectability over Burzynski’s quackery”

“You seem to fit the definition of a media whore … will sell out for ratings”
3/4/2013 – Val Perry Rendel

“Do I think magic voodoo bullshit should be used to profiteer from human suffering and desperation?”
3/6/2013 – Andy Roseborrough

“Burzynski not only sells
for profit at the expense of people’s health, but he tries to silence legitimate criticism via his lawyers”

3/4/2013 – Darren Woodward

” … the completely unproven, very expensive treatments sold to vulnerable people … “

” … rather than informing your audience it looks like you are trying to misinform them”

“by what measure are antineoplastines non-toxic, certainly medically they are toxic”



[1] – Critiquing Wikipedia: Burzynski Clinic, Colorado Public Television (CPT12), and Public Broadcasting System (PBS):
[2] – Burzynski updates Scientific Publications page:
[3] – Critiquing: American Cancer Society – Antineoplaston Therapy:
[4] – University of Michigan, where is alum Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski’s Grapefruits ?:
“The Skeptics™” Colorado Public Television (CPT12) – PBS Facebook comment links:
Questioning “The Skeptics™” Colorado Public Television (CPT12) PBS Facebook comments with links:


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

1. One “Orac” (Dr. David H. Gorski @oracknows @sciencebasedmed @gorskon #sciencebasedmedicine

“Burzynski naturally has lots of excuses for why the trial failed and tried to blame the investigators, but his complaints are not convincing.”

When I requested that he respond to Burzynski’s comments re the study, he would NOT touch it with the proverbial ZZ Top

“Ten-Foot Pole”

What Critic, Cynic, or one of “The Skeptics™” is going to show more Bravery and Courage than “Orac”?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
2. If antineoplastons do NOT work, why, after Dvorit D. SAMID learned of them from Burzynski, did all the research, clinical studies, and phase I, phase II, and phase III clinical trials really start to get underway on

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
3. This individual claims to be a “cancer researcher”

If this individual’s “research” is so poor as a “cancer researcher,” what does that say about “research” re the “War on Cancer”?

My review of C0nc0rdance:
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
4. This individual claims to be a “Doctor,” “oncologist,” “breast cancer specialist,” and “cancer researcher”

If this individual’s “research” is so poor as a “cancer researcher,” what does that say about “research” re the “War on Cancer”?

Paging Doctor David H. Gorski, Paging Doctor David H. Gorski: There’s Mud in your Ears … Doktor Gorski?:
He did NOT even refer to the below publication by Burzynski regarding “Treatment of Recurrent Triple-Negative Breast Cancer:”

8/2011 – Successful Treatment of Recurrent Triple-Negative Breast Cancer with Combination of Targeted Therapies
Journal of Cancer Therapy, 2011, 2, 372-376
doi:10.4236/jct.2011.23050 Published Online August 2011
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
5. Critics, Cynics, “The Skeptics™” state that Burzynski is NOT an oncologist, but can offer no explanation as to why this is supposedly “relevant,” they cannot explain if oncologists are somehow “better” than biochemists, nor do they want to answer the question:

“Does Burzynski work with any oncologists, and are any of them listed on his phase II clinical trial publications”?

Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:

16. 2003

Drugs in R and D
(Drugs in Research and Development)



Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA:

a preliminary report.
Burzynski, S.R.
Lewy, R.I.
Weaver, R.A.
Axler, M.L.
Janicki, T.J.
Jurida, G.F.
Paszkowiak, J.K.
Szymkowski, B.G.
Khan, M.I.
Bestak, M.

Drugs R D. 2003;4(2):91-101
Drugs in R&D 2003;4:91-101

Click to access 960.pdf

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
6. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) Panorama program indicated that 776 Burzynski patients with brain tumours were treated in trials before 2008
15.5% (120) survived more than 5 years

Critics, Cynics, “The Skeptics™”, what’s your survival rate?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
7. March 29, 1996

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

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

2. The … FDA’s initiatives … will allow …the agency … to rely on smaller trialsfewer patients … if there is evidence … of partial response in clinical trials

I don’t want to get into any particular … agent … except let me point out … that … the information needs to be part … of clinical trials

3. We will accept … less information … up front –

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

5. The important – point … is that information needs to be gathered … through scientific means … through clinical – trials … and I think – that’s … that’s very important uhh very … important point

You can’t … just … use an agent here – or there … you have to use it … as part of a clinical trial … so we can get information … on whether the drug works

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

7. We are committed to providing expanded accessavailabilityfor American patients for any drugthere’s reason to believemay work
A. What is the FDA’s definition of “unnecessary paperwork”?

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

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

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

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

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

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

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
8. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) Panorama program indicated that 776 Burzynski patients with brain tumours were treated in trials before 2008
Is that what the FDA means by:

rely on … fewer patients?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
9. 4/27/2013 (37:20) Fabio stated that
Burzynski had provided the FDA with 2.5 million pages of clinical trial documents

Is that what the FDA means by:

“unnecessary paperwork”?


“less information … up front”?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
10. Is this what the FDA means by:
if there is evidence … of partial response in clinical trials?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
11. Why was the United States Food and Drug Administration requiring that radiation be used in the Phase 3 Clinical Trial when Burzynski has shown better results with antineoplastons when radiation is NOT used?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
12. Who wants to defend the excuse that The Lancet gave for NOT Publishing the documentation which Burzynski sent to them, which is referred to in Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business, Part II?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
13. Review Articles on Clinical Trials: 2. 2006 – Treatments for Astrocytic Tumors in Children: Current and Emerging Strategies. Pediatric Drugs 2006;8:167-178.

Click to access 1252.pdf

2006 Adis – Pediatr Drugs 2006; 8 (3)

pg 174

2.3. Targeted Therapy

1652 adults
335 children

indicates 1,799 Burzynski patients

Is that what the FDA means by:

rely on … fewer patients?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
13. The FDA approved phase III (3) clinical trials for Antineoplastons A10 (Atengenal) and AS2-1 (Astugenal); which means that they have shown evidence of effectiveness, yet they have NOT granted Accelerated Approval for them, even though they have done so for other treatments which had NOT yet published the final results of phase II (2) clinical trials, and which did NOT have as good Complete Response, Partial Response, Stable Disease, Minor Response, Progressive Disease, Objective Response, Progression-Free Survival, etc., rates:

Burzynski: Why has the FDA NOT granted Accelerated Approval for Antineoplastons A10 (Atengenal) and AS2-1 (Astugenal) ?:

(Additional QUESTIONS being added)

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �


Post #73 – Didymus Judas Thomas

At the Tu-Quack Center Oracles of Deny to Respond tree


Post #52 – Orac

“You do realize that that means that the Mayo trial failed to find evidence of efficacy, just as I said, don’t you?”

“The default of a finding like that is that there is no evidence of efficacy, not that failure to have adequate numbers to show an effect means that there’s an effect there”

“If SRB wants to convince skeptics that his treatments work better than conventional therapy, let him publish the evidence in a peer-reviewed journal in a manner that it can be independently verified”

“Thus far, he has failed to do so.”

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

“Burzynski naturally has lots of excuses for why the trial failed and tried to blame the investigators, but his complaints are not convincing.”
Now, why don’t you tackle those ?’s?

1. “[T]he study tested a dosing regimen known to be ineffective.”

2. “[D]osages used in the study “were meant for the treatment of a single small lesion…”

3. “5 of the 6 evaluable patients had either multiple nodules or tumors larger than” said single small lesion.

4. “As the provider,” SRB “strongly suggested to the NCI that these patients receive a much higher dose, consistent with their greater tumor load.”

5. “[T]he study was closed when” SRB “insisted that the NCI either increase the dosage or inform the patients that the drug manufacturer believed that the treatment was unlikely to be effective at the dosages being used (letter to Dr M. Sznol, NCI, on 4/20/1995).”

6. “A review of the clinical data in the article … proves the validity of” SRB’s “position” per SRB

7. “Their study patients had extremely low plasma antineoplaston levels.”

8. SRB’s “phase 2 study dosage regimen produced plasma phenylacetylglutamine levels that are 35 times greater, phenylacetylisoglutamine levels 53 times greater, and phenylacetate levels 2 times greater than those reported…’”

9. “The clinical outcomes reported … based on their inadequate dosage schedule, differ dramatically from” SRB’s “phase 2 studies in which a higher dosage regimen was used.”

10. “They reported no tumor regression. In contrast, in 1 of” SRB’s “ongoing studies on protocol BT-9, 4 of 8 evaluable patients with astrocytoma had objective responses.’”

11. “The difference in outcomes is primarily due to the difference in dosage schedules,” per SRB

12. “Another factor that may have caused a lack of response in the study by … is that the duration of treatment was too brief.”

13. “Almost all the patients in their study received treatment for less than 30 days.”

14. “1 patient received only 9 days of treatment.”

15. “The current studies indicate that objective tumor responses are usually observed after 3 months of therapy.”

16. “An additional 8 months of treatment is usually needed to obtain a maximal therapeutic effect.”

17. “[A]mbiguities in the response evaluation and analysis in the article…”

a) “In 2 patients, tumor necrosis was attributed to “radionecrosis.””

b) “However, such an interpretation is clouded by the fact that antineoplaston-induced necrosis can be indistinguishable from radionecrosis.”

c) “Moreover, the analysis … could have highlighted the 2 patients with recurrent glioblastoma who survived for more than I year.”

d) “This is of interest because these patients typically have a life expectancy of 3 to 6 months.”

18. “It is regrettable that, at the time of the study … the sponsor, NCI, decided against the higher dosing regimen that I proposed and closed the study.”
IMPORTANT: The live “debate” that wasn’t-A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics:
Post #85 – Orac – April 28, 2013

“Well, DJT tried to comment last night and got caught in the moderation trap.”

“I’m not letting DJT through.”

“He’s been banned for very good reason, and I will not rescind the ban.”
My below blog contained a copy of the comment I submitted to his blog:
All Mr. Hinton would have to do is ask “Orac” to respond to my post 73 on his blog, and it would be all over, since “Orac” has adopted his “Hold the Mayo” attitude, and shows no indication that he would ever be brave enough to touch it with the proverbial ZZ Top

“Ten Foot Pole”

because he’s probably aware of what would happen if he did

One of “Orac’s” “Oracolytes” posted on Forbes (#Forbes):

“I already offered you a forum on a science blog to debate with a real respected surgical oncologist, with a guarantee that he never moderates the “debate”.”
IMPORTANT: The live “debate”-A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics:
This is Dr. David H. Gorski’s blog

Dr. Gorski censored (blocked) my comments

We are supposed to believe that he’s now NOT going to block someone’s comments???
#66 – Didymus Judas Thomas

IMPORTANT: The live “debate”-A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics | Didymus Judas Thomas’ Hipocritical Oath Blog

April 27, 2013

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Seriously ? Gorski ? Let’s remember that it is YOU who would NOT answer my questions, and instead inacted your “Hold the Mayo” posture re post 73

Let’s review your

“deconstructed his “evidence” in depth before” claim

1/21/2013 Orac posted THIS blog:

“Quoth Joe Mercola:

I love me some Burzynski antineoplastons

Posted by Orac on January 21, 2013″

” … In particular, a multicenter phase II trial carried out by investigators at the Mayo Clinic was a big failure, with a median survival of 5.2 months in patients with anaplastic oligoastrocytoma, anaplastic astrocytoma, or glioblastoma multiforme that had recurred after radiation therapy”

“Burzynski naturally has lots of excuses for why the trial failed and tried to blame the investigators, but his complaints are not convincing”
I challenged “Orac” about this and this reply was posted which included my point at the beginning of the reply:


“An excellent explanation of how dubious Stanislaw Burzynski’s activities are”

Posted by Orac on January 28, 2013
Post #52 – Orac

January 29, 2013

“CONCLUSION: Although we could not confirm any tumor regression in patients in this study, THE SMALL SAMPLE SIZE PRECLUDES DEFINITIVE CONCLUSIONS ABOUT TREATMENT EFFICACY.”

“You do realize that that means that the Mayo trial failed to find evidence of efficacy, just as I said, don’t you?”

“The default of a finding like that is that there is no evidence of efficacy, not that failure to have adequate numbers to show an effect means that there’s an effect there”

“If SRB wants to convince skeptics that his treatments work better than conventional therapy, let him publish the evidence in a peer-reviewed journal in a manner that it can be independently verified”

“Thus far, he has failed to do so”

I responded to Orac, quoting his reply at the beginning of my reply:

Post #73 – Didymus Judas Thomas

At the Tu-Quack Center Oracles of Deny to Respond tree

January 30, 2013

Post #52 – Orac

“You do realize that that means that the Mayo trial failed to find evidence of efficacy, just as I said, don’t you?”

“The default of a finding like that is that there is no evidence of efficacy, not that failure to have adequate numbers to show an effect means that there’s an effect there”

“If SRB wants to convince skeptics that his treatments work better than conventional therapy, let him publish the evidence in a peer-reviewed journal in a manner that it can be independently verified”

“Thus far, he has failed to do so”

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

“Burzynski naturally has lots of excuses for why the trial failed and tried to blame the investigators, but his complaints are not convincing.”
Now, why don’t you tackle those ?’s?

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

Click to access Feb99MayoClinicPubANP.pdf

2/1999 – A10 and AS2-1 – Phase II – Mayo Clinic Proceedings http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10069350
Phase II Study of Antineoplastons A10 (NSC 648539) and AS2-1 (NSC 620261) in Patients With Recurrent Glioma Objective:
To assess the pharmacokinetics, toxicity, and efficacy of antineoplastons A10 (NSC 648539) and AS2-1 (NSC 620261)
We initiated a phase II trial in order to determine whether evidence of antitumor activity of A10 and AS2-1 could be documented

Click to access PIIS0025619611638354.pdf

Comment in Jun; 74 (6): 641-2
Mayo Clin Proc 74(2):9 (1999)
1999 Elsevier Ltd.
DOI: 10.4065/74.2.137
Mayo Clin Proc 1999; 74: 137–45

Burzynski responded by pointing out:

6/1999 – A10 and AS2-1 – SRB http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10377942
Efficacy of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1
S R Burzynski
Mayo Clin Proc 74 (6): 641-2 (1999),
Mayo Clin Proc. 1999 Jun; 74 (6): 641-2 Comment on Mayo Clin Proc. 1999 Feb; 74 (2): 137-45 PMID .10377942 Elsevier Science
Mayo Clinic Proc. 1999; 74: 641–642 (letter) 74 (6): 641-2
Mayo Clin Proc 74 (6): 1 (1999), 1999 Elsevier Ltd.

Click to access PIIS0025619611641438.pdf

DOI: 10.4065/74.6.641

This was responded to:

6/1999 – Mayo Clin Proc 74(6):2 (1999), DOI: 10.4065/74.6.641-a
Mayo Clinic Proceedings
Volume 74, Issue 6 , Pages 641-642, June 1999

Click to access PIIS002561961164144X.pdf


1. SAMID D , Shack S, Sherman LT. Phenylacetate: a novel nontoxic inducer of tumor cell differentiation. Cancer Res . 1992; 52:1988–1992


Click to access 1988.full.pdf

2. Danesi R, Nardini D, Basolo F, Del Tacca M, SAMID D . Myers CEo Phenylacetate inhibits protein isoprenylation and growth of the androgen-independent LNCaP prostate cancer cells transfected with the T24 Ha-ras oncogene. Mol Pharmacal. 1996; 49:972–979

3. Chang SM, Kuhn LG, Robins HI, et al. Phase II study of phenylacetate in patients with recurrent malignant glioma: a North American Brain Tumor Consortium report. J Clin Oneal. 1999; 17:984–990

4. Thibault A, Cooper MR, Figg WD, et al. (SAMID D). A phase I and pharmacokinetic study of intravenous phenylacetate in patients with cancer. Cancer Res. 1994; 54:1690–1694


Click to access 1690.full.pdf

PII: S0025-6196(11)64144-X

doi: 10.1016/S0025-6196(11)64144-X

1999 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research.
Elsevier Inc.

The above four (4) references in the response to Burzynski might be relevant if all that antineoplastons consisted of was phenylacetate

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

Antineoplastons AS2-1 and AS2-5 are DERIVED FROM A10

AS2-1=4:1 mixture of PHENYLACETIC ACID (PA) and Phenylacetylglutamine (PAG or PG)

National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
General Information:
This is “what would happen” if “Orac” did have the “Bravery,” “Courage,” “Gumption,” “Intestinal Fortitude,” “Testicular Fortitude,” to address this issue:

Click to access BurzynskiTriesToExposeNCI.pdf

Burzynski: Managing social conflict in complementary and alternative medicine research: the case of antineoplastons:
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Antineoplastons: Phenylacetylglutaminate (PG or PAG), Phenylacetate (PN), and Phenylbutyrate (PB):
Phenylacetylglutamine (PG or PAG):
Phenylacetate (PN):
Phenylbutyrate (PB):
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

Wikipedia, you’ve sprung a Wiki Leak

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM
Dr. Peter A. Lipson (@palMD), posted a biased article:
A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics
on Forbes (#Forbes)

One “lilady” decided to bite off more than she could chew, when she posted:

lilady 3 weeks ago

“Ha Didymus Thomas…You opened your huge tin of Spam, months ago! And, you “Didymous Judas Thomas” and your sock puppets were banned by Wikipedia.”

lilady 3 weeks ago

“But you ARE Didymus Judas Thomas, who, along with his/her sock puppets, are banned from Wikipedia:”
If “lilady” thought that I “opened” a “huge tin of Spam, months ago!,” I hope she truly enjoys the huge tin of spinach that I opened on Wikipedia:

(This “lilady” has stated her stance on “Orac’s” “Oracolytes” blog, making it clear that this “lilady” is just another one of “The SkeptiCowards,” along with “Orac,” Guy Chapman, Boris Ogon, etc.)

The list of “The SkeptiCowards,” expands exponentially

guychapman (Guy Chapman) Critiquing “The Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics (page 9):
I show JzG what a “FACT” is: Burzynski: FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions): Clinical Trial Results:
Wikipedia, what’s your motivation?:
WikipediA or WikipediAin’t ?:
Wikipedia, your Burzynski BIAS is showing:
Having successfully proven that Jimmy (“Alabamy Jimbo“) Donal Wales’ Wiki Leaks Wikipedia was BIASED when it came to the
Burzynski Clinic
article, I decided to:

Do The “Alabamy Right” Thing

(Unlike Wikipedia: Statement Of Principles)

[[WP:SOP]] “Statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales:

(Wikipedia: Doing The Right Thing)

1. Doing The Right Thing takes many forms, but perhaps most central is the preservation of our shared vision for the neutral point of view policy and for a culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty.”

Time for a huge tin can of Alabamy WhoopA$$

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Didymus Judas Thomas

Pages in category “Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Didymus Judas Thomas”

The following 10 pages are in this category, out of 10 total. This list may not reflect recent changes (learn more).

Last modified on 25 February 2013, at 00:06
NICE TRY, WikipediAin’t!
Read THIS:
(Wikipedia: Neutral Point Of View)

“[[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,” references.” Thank you very much. (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/21/2013l”
WikipediA or WikipediAin’t ?:
Did you see THAT WikipediAin’t?
THAT’s IP address:


Let’s see where else WikipediAin’t Ain’t managed to “Do The Right Thing,” shall we?

2/12/2013 and 2/13/2013, 2 purported Wikipedian’s “outed” themselves on “Orac’s” blog (Dr. David H. Gorski, @oracknows, @gorskon, @ScienceBasedMed,
http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence, http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org,

#174 – SW – February 12, 2013
anti-Burzynski “bloggers”
These individuals are also responsible for “gate keeping” the Wikipedia Page on The Burzynski Clinic.

This issue, as well as the identities of those involved, will be covered in great length in the new 2013 “Chapter 2″ documentary.
You will notice the “anti-Burzynski bloggers” refuse to do that or adhere to reputable sources.
As one of those “gate keeping” wikipedians I find this quite laughable – not only the threat of “covering” my identity, but also the suggestion that bloggers and wikipedians (there may be an overlap, but I can assure you that I’m not a blogger) refuse to check and adhere to reputable sources

#203 – novalox – February 13, 2013

Now, let’s just wait and see djt make accusations of persecution and unfairness.

Should be entertaining to see his attempts at this.

Oh, BTW, djt, if you are still reading this, I was one of the Wikipedia editors who reported you for your trolling behaviors there.

Have fun with that
Neither of these individuals has had the testicular fortitude to bring their “A Game” and post comments or reply to questions on MY blog; which is different than “The Censoring Skeptics” blogs (Have fun with THAT):

Dr. David H. Gorski, @gorskon, @oracknows, @ScienceBasedMed,
Adam Jacobs (@DianthusMed), http://dianthus.co.uk/blog, @_JosephineJones, http://josephinejones.wordpress.com, Dr. Peter A. Lipson, (@palMD), Peter A. Lipson, Musings on the intersection of Articles Bias and Censorship, A Film Producer A Cancer Doctor And Their Critics,
Guy Chapman, guychapman, @SceptiGuy, @vGuyUK, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg, Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales, http://www.jimmywales.com, (@jimmy_wales), Forbes (#Forbes),
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics, Keir Liddle,(@Endless_Psych), http://www.thetwentyfirstfloor.com/, @rjblaskiewicz (rjblaskiewicz, Bob Blaskiewicz FauxSkeptic Exposed!, R.J. Blaskiewicz), http://www.skepticalhumanates.com
who censor others; which I do NOT do on my blog, since I actually believe in “Free Speech,” Walk the Walk, and Talk the Talk

WikipediAin’t apologist, Guy Chapman, posted:

“Ne’s like a rash over the blogs and twitter, he’s also been banned from Wikipedia which has a more robust attitude to sockpuppets and block evasion than some services.”
Guy Chapman is a Coward
Chapman makes EXCUSES and hides behind his keypad, rather than respond to questions

Critiquing “Burzynski: Another fact-blind troll, who predicted that?”:
“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.”‘

SW and novalox, which are you?

Boris Ogon

“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.”


Not so much

Waiting for the 10,000

Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech