Critiquing: Dr. B. Paul Morgan, Intensivist, Cardiff, Wales

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Dr. Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) revealed how inept he is by NOT being able to answer if he watched Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II (2) and saw The Lancet Oncology rejection e-mail #FAIL
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[1]
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
Dr. Paul Morgan, why is this unpublished when YOU suggested Burzynski publish in The Lancet Oncology ?
——————————————————————

——————————————————————

——————————————————————
The Lancet Oncology Peer Review Team D-12-01519: #FAIL:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/25/the-lancet-oncology-peer-review-team-d-12-01519-fail/
——————————————————————
http://medicine.cf.ac.uk/person/prof-paul-morgan/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
@FrozenWarning has proven to have a credibility deficit
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[2]
——————————————————————

======================================
[3]
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
Thawing out “The Skeptics” @FrozenWarning (FrozenBoring):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/01/thawing-out-the-skeptics-frozenwarning-frozenboring/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
@_JosephineJones honors Twitter and Storify with another half-baked attempt
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[4]
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
Critiquing: Dr. Burzynski is under attack, again. By Suzanne Somers:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/10/critiquing-dr-burzynski-is-under-attack-again-by-suzanne-somers/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Gorski is a joke if he thinks @BurzynskiMovie should do what I’ve already done
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[5]
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
Critiquing: Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski and The Skeptics™:
http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/critiquing-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-and-the-skeptics/
——————————————————————
Critiquing: Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski, M.D., Ph.D, L.I.A.R.:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/07/critiquing-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-m-d-ph-d-l-i-a-r/
——————————————————————
Critiquing Dr David H. “Orac” Gorski, M.D., Ph.D, LIAR: Stanislaw Burzynski versus the BBC:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/04/critiquing-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-m-d-ph-d-liar-stanislaw-burzynski-versus-the-bbc/
——————————————————————
“Orac” is god, the False god, his “Oracolytes,” and the Cult of MUD:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/30/is-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-down-and-out-in-detroit-and-an-ethically-bankrupt-researcher/
——————————————————————
Critiquing: Stanislaw Burzynski: On the arrogance of ignorance about cancer and targeted therapies:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/26/x/
——————————————————————
Burzynski: Oh, RATS!!!:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/26/the-lancet-oncology-peer-review-team-d-12-01519-fail-2/
——————————————————————
2 hours 8 minutes and 51 seconds

The Lancet Oncology Peer Review Team D-12-01519: #FAIL:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/25/the-lancet-oncology-peer-review-team-d-12-01519-fail/
——————————————————————
Is Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski Down and Out in Detroit and an Ethically Bankrupt Researcher ?:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/23/is-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-down-and-out-in-detroit-and-an-ethically-bankrupt-researcher-2/
——————————————————————
Critiquing: How Stanislaw Burzynski became Burzynski the Brave Maverick Doctor, part 1:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/critiquing-how-stanislaw-burzynski-became-burzynski-the-brave-maverick-doctor-part-1/
——————————————————————
Critiquing: In which the latest movie about Stanislaw Burzynski “cancer cure” is reviewed…with Insolence:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/critiquing-in-which-the-latest-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-cure-is-reviewed-with-insolence-2/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Guy Chapman does NOT have any credibility
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[6]
======================================

——————————————————————
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/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Bob Blaskiewicz does NOT know what he is talking about
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[7]
======================================

——————————————————————
Perfessor Robert J. (Bob) Blaskiewicz Blatherskitewicz:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/31/the-burzynski-b-s-app/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[1] Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 4:55pm – 11 Aug 13:
——————————————————————
@frozenwarning @TheLancet Of course. But by asking #Burzynski & co to supply rejection letters – which likely don’t exist – lies exposed.
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[2] FW (@frozenwarning) tweeted at 3:43pm – 11 Aug 13:
——————————————————————
I see #burzynski now telling pts the Japanese study on ANPs has been rejected by @TheLancet too. Pull the other one Stan, that joke is old.
——————————————————————
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[3] FW (@frozenwarning) tweeted at 3:54pm – 11 Aug 13:
——————————————————————
For those who don’t know how academic publishing works, #burzynski claim work is being rejected is a pile of crap. Doesn’t work like that
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[4] Josephine Jones (@_JosephineJones) tweeted at 2:46am – 11 Aug 13:
——————————————————————
Suzanne Somers makes false claims about #Burzynski and his critics. http://storify.com/_JosephineJones/conversation-with-gorskon-drpaulmorgan-suzannesome
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[5] David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 3:37pm – 11 Aug 13:
——————————————————————
Funny how @BurzynskiMovie can’t ever seem to point out any substantive errors in any of my posts. @SuzanneSomers @drpaulmorgan
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[6] Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 4:40pm – 11 Aug 13:
——————————————————————
RT @MariAnnLisenbe @SuzanneSomers There are options other than cut, burn and poison << Die, for example. As most Burzynski patients do.
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[7] Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) tweeted at 8:44pm – 11 Aug 13:
——————————————————————
@Brian_Sniffen @geofft Except Burzynski doesn’t have a cancer cure. His research is so bad, he can’t even publish. Shameful.
======================================

Is Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski Down and Out in Detroit and an Ethically Bankrupt Researcher ?

After Gorski’s “research” of Burzynski’s phase I (1) clinical trials:

Critiquing: How Stanislaw Burzynski became Burzynski the Brave Maverick Doctor, part 1:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/critiquing-how-stanislaw-burzynski-became-burzynski-the-brave-maverick-doctor-part-1/
he asserts:

“For one thing, in 1976 Burzynski had no animal data to speak of”

“In fact, the question of animal studies is an interesting one”

“Both Elias and Jaffe recount a story in which ANPs didn’t work in animal tumors, and Burzynski has been quoted in multiple places as claiming that ANPs are species-specific and that ANPs derived from human blood and urine don’t work in animal tumor models”

“This is in contrast to what Null reports in his near-contemporaneous account, in which he stated that in tissue culture and animal models Burzynski’s ANPs worked “specifically against certain types of cancer,” all with “no toxic side effects”

“It makes one wonder whether the “species specificity” was an excuse developed later to explain the lack of animal data”
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH)

Laboratory/Animal/Preclinical Studies:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/healthprofessional/page4
“Burzynski states that antineoplaston A is species-specific because it had no therapeutic effect when the human preparation was tested on animal tumor systems”

“Although this finding limits the usefulness of animal model testing, the developer has suggested that a “marked” therapeutic effect was produced in a xenograft bearing human tumor tissue.[1]”

“This claim is made only for antineoplaston A”

“Other formulations of antineoplastons have not been tested in animal models”

Gorski should REALLY read his own blog:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/21/quoth-joe-mercola-i-love-me-some-burzynski-antineoplastons/
Comment #158 – Didymus Judas Thomas

At the Tu-Quack Center Educate Orac Oracle Phase I

February 4, 2013

.11/15/1982.- 2 Toronto physicians, Martin E. Blackstein, Head of the Division of Oncology at Mount Sinai Hospital & Daniel E. Bergsagel, Chief of Medicine at Princess Margaret Hospital, visited the Burzynski clinic & research institute
.
Both were powerful & respected physicians in the Canadian cancer establishment
.
They returned with a blistering, critical report
.
The essence of their critique was
.
(1) there was little evidence that antineoplastons had significant antitumor activity against human or animal cancers;
.
(2) SRB’s argument that antineoplastons were species-specific created a line of argument for avoiding standard animal & tissue culture screens & required testing in humans
.
SRB cooperated but was dubious
.
There were several test-tube & preventative models in which the drug had showed effectiveness, but the standard NCI pre-screen, P388 mouse leukemia, was not 1 of them. …
.
As he had predicted, these compounds were not effective against mouse leukemia
.
SRB reasonably suggested that NCI try the Antineoplastons in cell-culture assays that were similar to “human solid tumors, especially adenocarcinoma of the breast” …
.
SRB was hardly alone in voicing doubts about the P388 mouse model
.
1983 – Ironically, it was Dr. John Vendetti himself, chief of the NCI’s Drug Evaluation Branch, who coauthored an article in which he argued the limitations of this very mouse system
.
Scientists at NCI had found, for instance, that of 79 drugs which had previously been judged negative in the P388, 14 showed “significant activity” when retested in cell culture assays [1] [2]

Comment #163 – Didymus Judas Thomas

February 4, 2013

Orac’s blog hates links reformatting (www removed)
.
[1] http://www.commonweal.org/pubs/choices/21.html
[2] 9 Moss, The Cancer Ind., 14, 299-300
(Ralph Moss, The Cancer Industry)

27. Burzynski SR, Hendry LB, Mohabbat MO, et al. Purification of structure determination, synthesis and animal toxicity studies of antineoplaston A10. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Congress of Chemotherapy. Vienna, Austria; 1983:17, PS. 12.4 11-4.

34. Burzynski SR, Mohabbat MO, Burzynski B. Animal toxicology studies on oral formulation of antineoplaston A10. Drug Exptl Clin Res. 1984;10:113-118.

40. Ashraf AQ, Liau MC, Kampalath BN, et al. Pharmacokinetic study of radioactive antineoplaston A10 following oral administration in rats. Drugs Exptl Clin Res. 1987;13(suppl 1):45-50.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3569015/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/3569015/
43. Ashraf AQ, Kampalath BN, Burzynski SR. Pharmacokinetic analysis of antineoplaston A10 injections following intravenous administration in rats. Adv Exptl Clin Chemother. 1988;6:33-39.