Critiquing: Doctor accused of selling false hope to families (USA TODAY NEWS, NATION, Liz Szabo, USA TODAY)

20131116-002847.jpg
I gave Liz Szabo and USA TODAY the chance to act like a Spike Lee joint and “Do the Right Thing”, the same day their article came out [1]

I gave them the opportunity to prove that their article was a legitimate piece of journalism with some semblance of integrity, and NOT just akin to one of “The Skeptics™ phoned-in “rubber-stamped” yellow journalism hit pieces

Instead, it seems that Liz Szabo and / or USA TODAY decided to act as if they had rolled a Spike Lee joint

I sent an e-mail with 2 editorial corrections, and only one (correcting Lisa Merritt’s comment
link from taking the reader to the 1999 Mayo Clinic report instead of to her comments), was corrected [2]

The 2nd correction which they #FAILED to do, earns them well deserved INSOLENCE
——————————————————————
The article claims:
——————————————————————
Burzynski, 70, calls his drugs “antineoplastons” and says he has given them to more than 8,000 patients since 1977.”
——————————————————————

20131116-004037.jpg
——————————————————————
However, if you select the “8,000 patients” link, the referenced page does NOT indicate that at all [2]
——————————————————————

20131116-064344.jpg
——————————————————————
It advises:
——————————————————————
“That same year, Dr. Burzynski founded his clinic in Houston where he’s since treated over 8,000 patients.” [3]
——————————————————————

20131116-064326.jpg
——————————————————————
Nowhere does it indicate that he “treated 8,000 patients” with antineoplastons
——————————————————————

20131116-064409.jpg
——————————————————————
The question that Liz Szabo and USA TODAY should answer, is:

1. Who is your “fact-checker”, and
2. are they smarter than a 5th grader ?
——————————————————————
In fact, Burzynski’s 2002 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing advises:

” … in 1997, his medical practice was expanded to include traditional cancer treatment options such as chemotherapy, gene targeted therapy, immunotherapy and hormonal therapy in response to FDA requirements that cancer patients utilize more traditional cancer treatment options in order to be eligible to participate in the Company’s Antineoplaston clinical trials” [4]
——————————————————————
The article continues:
——————————————————————
“Individual success stories can be misleading, said Arthur Caplan, a professor and head of the division of bioethics at NYU Langone Medical Center”
——————————————————————
The question Arthur Caplan should be asking is:

Why has the United States Food and Drug Administration required Burzynski’s clinical trial patients to fail conventional therapies; such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation, BEFORE they are allowed to be treated with antineoplaston therapy ?

If the F.D.A. did NOT impose these restrictions upon Burzynski’s clinical trials, then the question Arthur Caplan raises would be moot
——————————————————————
The article quotes Dr. Jan Buckner as saying:
——————————————————————
“When I hear a story that is way out of the norm, the first question I ask is,

‘OK, is the diagnosis even correct?‘ ”

Buckner said”

“If the diagnosis wasn’t right to start with, it doesn’t matter what the treatment was.”

“Brain tumors are notoriously difficult to diagnose, Buckner says”

“When dealing with rare brain cancer, doctors may disagree about how to interpret imaging results up to 40% of the time”
——————————————————————
I wonder if Dr. Jan Buckner would agree with David Gorski; who is a BREAST cancer oncology specialist, and NOT a BRAIN cancer oncology specialist, who has the presumptiveness to speculate that 3 different medical opinions could have misdiagnosed Tori Moreno in August 1998; who was diagnosed with a very large tumor, about 3 inches in the largest diameter and located in the brain stem, which was too risky for surgery, and about which her parents were told by ALL 3, that Tori’s brain cancer was fatal and, she would die in a few days or at the most, 2-6 weeks, and that there was nothing that could be done, and was finally put on Burzynski’s antineoplaston therapy in October, when she was about 3 ½ months old, and in such condition that they were afraid that she might die at any time, David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., FACS; who claims, “I do know cancer science” , has the audacity, because of his “book learnin'” has the temerity to postulate his “science-based medicine theory” that Miller’s Children at Long Beach Memorial misdiagnosed Tori Moreno’s inoperable stage 4 BSG

David Gorski has the gall to profer that City of Hope misdiagnosed Tori Moreno’s inoperable stage 4 brain stem glioma

David Gorski has the chutzpah to pontificate that Dr. Fred Epstein in New York misdiagnosed Tori Moreno’s inoperable stage IV brainstem glioma [5]
——————————————————————
The article then quotes Peter Adamson, chair of the Children’s Oncology Group:
——————————————————————
“But these therapies may have delayed benefits, taking weeks or months to shrink a tumor

“So patients treated by Burzynski may credit him for their progress, just because he was the last doctor to treat them, says Peter Adamson, chair of the Children’s Oncology Group, an NCI-supported research network that conducts clinical trials in pediatric cancer

Conventional cancer treatment can also cause tumors to swell temporarily, due to inflammation

“A patient who isn’t familiar with this phenomenon may assume her tumor is growing

“When that swelling subsides, patients may assume it’s because of Burzynski, Adamson says”
——————————————————————
This is laughable

In support of this “phenomenon” , the article provides a link to a Canadian web-site [6]

The site posits:
——————————————————————
“RT/TMZ is now widely practiced and the standard of care for appropriately selected patients, we are learning more about the consequences of RT/TMZ”

“One phenomena, termed Pseudo-Progression (psPD)…”
——————————————————————
The problem is that this only applies to “Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM)”, and the article provides NO proof whatsoever, that any of Burzynski’s “Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM)” patients have taken “RT/TMZ”
——————————————————————
Additionally, the site cites the reference as:

Sanghera, Perry, Sahgal, et al., “Sunnybrook Health Sciences Odette Cancer Centre” (in press, Canadian Journal of Neuroscience)

(“In press” refers to journal articles which have been accepted for publication, but have not yet been published)

However, the journal article in question was published 1/2010, so it has NOT been “in press” for over 3 years and 7 months [7]

Get your act together, aye, Canada !
——————————————————————
The article rants and raves on and on about FDA inspection reports from as far back as 1998, but at least they did quote Richard A. Jaffe:

“In Burzynski’s defense, Jaffe notes that inspection reports represent preliminary findings

“The FDA has not yet issued final conclusions”
——————————————————————
The article posts this ridiculous claim:
——————————————————————
“Yet the National Cancer Institute says there is no evidence that Burzynski has cured a single patient, or even helped one live longer
——————————————————————
That’s NOT what this seems to suggest [8]
——————————————————————
Then the article quotes pediatric oncologist Peter Adamson, a professor of pediatrics and pharmacology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, in what will no doubt soon be known as a “classic”:
——————————————————————
“He’s a snake oil salesman,” says pediatric oncologist Peter Adamson, a professor of pediatrics and pharmacology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia”
——————————————————————
All I’d like to know is, which rock did this clown crawl out from under ?

Dr. Adamson, please advise which “snake oil” has been granted Orphan Drug Designation (“ODD”) from the United States Food and Drug Administration [9], and which “snake oil” has been approved for, and used in, phase III clinical trials ? [10]
——————————————————————
Q: Is it, it the phase 2 trial is finished ?

A: “Mhmm”

Q: but they’re still accepting people ?

A: “Yeah”

Q: on more like a special ?

A: Special basis, and, um, sometimes compassionate grounds

A: “(compassion exception)”

A: “Uh, exceptions

Q: That’s normal ?

A: “Yes”
“So”

A: “(Yes I guess it is a funding issue ?)”

Q: Right

A: “(Like FDA, during the 2nd phase of clinical trials they found the data to be, real, real one, and they gave him the ok to go for 3rd phase of clinical trials, but just to go through this process you would probably need $100,000)”
——————————————————————

20131116-164617.jpg

20131021-200529.jpg

20131021-200553.jpg
——————————————————————
Oh, wait !!

Dr. Adamson, when you say “snake oil”, I take it you are referring to the low-dose chemotherapy that Burzynski uses ?

Dr. Adamson, do you know what a “hack” is ?
——————————————————————
In regards to the Merritt’s, the article has:
——————————————————————
“The couple say that Burzynski misled them about the type of treatment that would be offered, as well as the cost”

My questions about the Merritt’s are:

1. Where is their complaint to the Texas Medical Board ?

2. Where is their lawsuit ? Couldn’t they find an attorney to take their case pro bono ?
——————————————————————
The article continues:
——————————————————————
“Yet even Jaffe has acknowledged that the trialnow in its 17th year — was more about politics than science”

“In his 2008 memoirs, Galileo’s Lawyer, Jaffe called it “a joke.”

“”It was all an artifice, a vehicle we and the FDA created to legally give the patients Burzynski’s treatment,” Jaffe said
——————————————————————
What Liz Szabo and her friends at USA TODAY fail to let the readers know, is that this only applied to one trial:
——————————————————————
Burzynski’s lawyer is obviously referring to the CAN-1 clinical trial mentioned in Burzynski’s 11/25/1997 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing [11]
——————————————————————
One trial that is retrospective is CAN-1 Clinical Trial
——————————————————————
CAN-1 PHASE II STUDY OF ANTINEOPLASTONS A10 AND AS2-1 IN

PATIENTS WITH REFRACTORY MALIGNANCIES

133 patients
——————————————————————
Clinical trial of patients treated by Dr. Burzynski through 2/23/1996
——————————————————————
FDA has indicated it will not accept data generated by this trial since it was not a wholly prospective one
——————————————————————
The article continues in the same vein:
——————————————————————
“In an interview, Burzynski said developing new drugs is complex and takes time

“Yet the FDA has approved 108 cancer drugs since Burzynski began his trial”
——————————————————————
Ms. Szabo and “pals” conveniently “forgets” to educate their audience that Burzynski was using Fleming’s One-sample multiple testing procedure for phase II clinical trials [13], which requires that if the 1st 20 patients meet certain criteria, 20 additional patients are added [14]
——————————————————————
“Well, we cannot publish until the time is right” (laughs)

Yeah

“If you would like to publish the results of, of a
10 year survival, for instance”

Mmm

“Which we have
Nobody has over 10 year survival in
malignant brain tumor, but we do, and if you like to do it right, it takes time to prepare it, and that’s what we do now
What we publish so far
We publish numerous, uh, publications which were, interim reports when we are still continuing clinical trials
Now we are preparing, a number of publications for final reports
[15]
——————————————————————
Then Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition makes an outlandish statement, which is quoted in the article:
——————————————————————
“Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition, describes the FDA’s tolerance of Burzynski as “outrageous.”

“They have put people at risk for a long time,” says Visco, an attorney and breast cancer survivor

“That’s completely unacceptable”

“How can anyone look at these facts and believe that there is a real clinical trial going on … rather than just using the FDA and the clinical trial system to make money?”
——————————————————————
I have a suggestion for Ms. Visco

Take your hypocrisy and ask the American Cancer Society if they are still engaged in this kind of activity:

1. AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY: More Interested In Accumulating Wealth Than Saving Lives [15]

2. National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society: Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest [16]
——————————————————————
Then, ask the American Cancer Society, why is it that 10 years ago, estimated breast cancer deaths were expected to be 39,800 (15%), and this year it was 39,620 (14%), which is ONLY 180 LESS than 10 years ago ?
——————————————————————
Estimated Breast Cancer Deaths (Women)-USA
——————————————————————
2013☝39,620 (14%)
2012👇39,510 (14%)
2011👇39,520 (15%)
2010👇39,840 (15%)
2009👇40,170 (15%)
2008☝40,480 (15%)
2007👇40,460 (15%)
2006☝40,970 (15%)
2005👇40,410 (15%)
2004☝40,110 (15%)
2003☝39,800 (15%)
2002
39,600 (15%)
—————————————————————–
American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures (2002-2013)
—————————————————————–
And then ask the American Cancer Society, why is it that 10 years ago, the estimated NEW breast cancer cases were expected to be 211,300 (32%), and this year it was 232,340 (29%), which is 21,340 MORE than it was 10 years ago ?
——————————————————————
Estimated New Breast Cancer (Women) – USA
——————————————————————
2013☝232,340 (29%)
2012👇226,870 (29%)
2011☝238,480 (30%)
2010☝207,090 (28%)
2009☝192,370 (27%)
2008☝182,460 (26%)

2007👇178,480 (26%)
2006☝212,920 (31%)
2005👇211,240 (32%)
2004☝215,900 (32%)
2003☝211,300 (32%)
2002
_-_203,500 (31%)
—————————————————————–
American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures (2002-2013)
——————————————————————
And after that, ask Susan G. Komen how much is spent on legal action to protect her brand, compared to how much is spent on breast cancer research and prevention ?
——————————————————————
Visco, the breast cancer advocate

“I do NOT know why it took YOU so long.”
——————————————————————
The article continues with:
——————————————————————
“Yet hypernatremia is one of antineoplastons’ most common side effects, known to doctors for two decades”
——————————————————————
Yet, “The Skeptics™” refuse to discuss:
——————————————————————
2/13/2013 – The frequency, cost, and clinical outcomes of hypernatremia in patients hospitalized to a comprehensive cancer center

Over 3 month period in 2006 re 3,446 patients, most of the hypernatremia (90 %) was acquired during hospital stay [19]

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
——————————————————————
9/1999 – The changing pattern of hypernatremia in hospitalized children [20]

Department of Pediatrics, Texas Children’s Hospital, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
——————————————————————
So, after all that, my question for USA TODAY is, does Liz Szabo, Michael Stravato, Jerry Mosemak or Robert Hanashiro have a
journalism degree ?

Because if any of them do, the institution they obtained it from most be so proud of this piece of “fish wrap” you produced

Thank you, USA TODAY, for censoring my 18 comments

I guess you must be (“intellectual”) cowards

At least Forbes had the GRAPEFRUITS to post some of my comments
——————————————————————
You’ve just been served, INSOLENTLY
——————————————————————
USA TODAY, GONE TOMORROW
——————————————————————

20131116-084820.jpg

20131116-085357.jpg

20131116-084833.jpg

20131116-084847.jpg

20131116-084909.jpg

20131116-084924.jpg

20131116-084937.jpg

20131116-085152.jpg

20131116-085218.jpg

20131116-085311.jpg

20131116-085436.jpg

20131116-085528.jpg

20131116-085550.jpg

20131116-085608.jpg

20131116-085629.jpg

20131116-084804.jpg

20131116-084745.jpg
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – 11/15/2013 – USA TODAY NEWS, NATION
Doctor accused of selling false hope to families
Liz Szabo, USA TODAY
——————————————————————
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/15/stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-controversy/2994561/
======================================
[2] – Mayo Clinic – 1999 – report: Lisa Merritt
——————————————————————
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/816819-mayo-clinic-1999-report.html
======================================
[3] – 2012 – former Burzynski web-site screenshots, Pg 3 of 62;
——————————————————————
http://www.circare.org/info/bri/burzynski_fdauntitled_promo_2012.pdf
======================================
[4] – 4/26/2013 – Burzynski: FDA requirements that cancer patients utilize more traditional cancer treatment options in order to be eligible to participate in the Company’s Antineoplaston CLINICAL TRIALS:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/burzynski-fda-requirements-that-cancer-patients-utilize-more-traditional-cancer-treatment-options-in-order-to-be-eligible-to-participate-in-the-companys-antineoplaston-clinical-trials/
======================================
[5] – 11/14/2013 – Critiquing: Why we fight for patients (Why we fight your patience) TAM 2013, TAM2013, “The Amazing Meeting” 2013 #TAM2013 http://www.theamazingmeeting.com
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/14/tam-2013-tam2013-tam2013-the-amazing-meeting-2013-the-amazing-meeting-httptheamazingmeeting-com-httpwww-theamazingmeeting-com/
======================================
[6] – Phenomenon – Brain Tumour Foundation of Canada
——————————————————————
http://www.braintumour.ca/1649/ask-the-expert-psuedo-progression-gbm
======================================
[7] – Pseudoprogression following chemoradiotherapy for glioblastoma multiforme
Can J Neurol Sci. 2010 Jan;37(1):36-42
——————————————————————
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20169771/
======================================
[8] – 9/19/2013 – Critiquing: National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) CancerNet “fact sheet” :
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/critiquing-national-cancer-institute-nci-at-the-national-institutes-of-health-nih-cancernet/
======================================
[9] – FDA Orphan Drug Designation
——————————————————————
http://www.burzynskiresearch.com/assets/PressRelease_12022008_BZYR(2).pdf
======================================
[10] – 11/7/2013Pete Cohen chats with Sonali Patil, Ph.D., Research Scientist at The Burzynski Clinic:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/07/pete-cohen-chats-with-sonali-patil-ph-d-research-scientist-at-the-burzynski-clinic/
======================================
[11] – 7/9/2013 – Burzynski: The Original 72 Phase II Clinical Trials:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/09/burzynski-the-original-72-phase-ii-clinical-trials/
======================================
[12] – 8/21/2013 – Critiquing David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/critiquing-david-h-gorski-md-phd-facs-www-sciencebasedmedicine-orgeditorial-staffdavid-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
======================================
[13] – 2003 – pg. 94
——————————————————————
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/960.pdf
======================================
[14] – 3/1982 – Biometrics 1982; 38: 143-51
——————————————————————
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7082756/
======================================
[15] – 11/9/2013Pete Cohen chats with Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski – Interview #2:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/09/pete-cohen-chats-with-dr-stanislaw-burzynski-interwiew-2/
======================================
[16] – AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY: More Interested In Accumulating Wealth Than Saving Lives
——————————————————————
http://www.wnho.net/acs.pdf
======================================
[17] – 9/11/2013 – National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society: Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/national-cancer-institute-and-american-cancer-society-criminal-indifference-to-cancer-prevention-and-conflicts-of-interest/
—————————————————————
[18] – 11/13/2013 – The War on Cancer (I don’t think it means, what you think it says it means) #Winning?
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/httpcancer-orgacsgroupscontentepidemiologysurveilancedocumentsdocumentacspc-036845-pdf/
======================================
[19] – 4/24/2013 – Burzynski: HYPERNATREMIA:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/burzynski-hypernatremia/
======================================
[20] – 9/1999 – Pediatrics. 1999 Sep;104(3 Pt 1):435-9
——————————————————————
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10469766/
======================================

20131116-002912.jpg

Advertisements

Critiquing David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/

Critiquing David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/

“Our only goal is to promote high standards of science in medicine”
——————————————————————
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/
——————————————————————
So proclaims Science Based Medicine . org

6/10/2013 Gorski published:
======================================
BBC Panorama investigates Stanislaw Burzynski
——————————————————————
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/bbc-panorama-investigates-stanislaw-burzynski/
======================================
“Burzynski hasn’t published anything other than case reports, tiny case series, and unconvincing studies, mostly (at least over the last decade or so) in crappy journals not even indexed on PubMed”
——————————————————————
Gorski’s above statement makes me wonder if PhD’s are handed out to any hack that requests one

Burzynski has published at least 4 publications which list all of the patients and information like:
======================================
[2] 16. 2003
(Pgs. 95-96) data charts
(Pg. 95)

Case
Sex
Age
Date of initial diagnosis
Tumor histology
Tumour location
Tumour size
Previous therapies
Karnofsky performance status
KPS baseline
Date of recurrence
(Pg. 96)
Start date
Stop date
Days on treatment
Dosage
Response
Status / date of death
Progression date
Survival time (weeks) from start
Time (weeks) to progression
Last contact

======================================
[9] 17. 2004
(Pgs. 316 + 318-321) data charts
(Pg. 316)

Gender
Age
Tumour histology
Tumour size (total of measured lesions)
Previous therapies
Karnofsky performance status
(Pg. 318)
Case
Age at admission
Sex
Ethnicity
Date of initial diagnosis
Pathology code
Visual Pathway Glioma (VPG)
Karnofsky baseline
Previous treatment
Multicentric tumour location
(Pg. 319)
” ”
(Pg. 320)
Case
Start date
Stop date
Days on treatment
Average dosage (IV treatment / PO treatment)
(Pg. 321)
Case
Response
Maximum response date
Time to maximum response (months)
Radiological PD as of 1/03/04
Progression Free Survival (PFS) (year)
Status
Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) baseline
Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) follow-up
Reason for withdrawal
Survival time from diagnosis (years)

======================================
[10] 18. 6/2005
(Pgs. 169 + 171
..172) data charts
(Pg. 169)

Gender
Tumor type
Tumor spread
Previous therapies
Age
Karnofsky performance status
(Pg. 171)
Case
Protocol
Gender
Age at Admission (years)
Ethnicity
Date of Initial Diagnosis
Tumor Type
Tumor Dissemination
Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) Baseline
Previous treatment
(Pg. 172)
Case
Start Date
Stop Date
Days on Treatment
Average Dosage g/kg/d (A10 / AS2-1)

Case
Response
Radiological PD
Progression Free Survival (PFS) (month)
Status
Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) Baseline
Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) Follow-up
Reason for Withdrawal
Overall Survival from Diagnosis (OSD) (month)
Overall Survival from Start (OSS) (month)

======================================
[12] 19. 3/2006
(Pgs. 42-45) data charts
(Pg. 42)

Gender
Age
Tumor history
Tumor size at baseline
Previous therapies
Karnofsky Performance Status
(Pg. 43)
Case
Protocol
Sex
Age (years)
Date of Initial Diagnosis
Tumor Type
Tumor Dissemination
Recurrence
Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) Baseline
Previous Treatment
(Pg. 44)
Case
Start Date
Stop Date
Days On
Average Dosage g/kg/d (A10 / AS2-1)
(Pg. 45)
Case
Response
Radiological PD
Progression Free Survival (PFS) (months)
Status
Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) Baseline
Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) Follow-Up
Reason for Withdrawal
Overall Survival from Diagnosis (OSD) (month)
Overall Survival from Start of antineoplaston(OST) (month)

======================================
Maybe Gorski should try “deconstructing” some of these, especially the ones where patients did NOT have chemotherapy or radiation therapy

I’ve even provided a handy reference list

But by George, I’m George Dubya dubious that Gorski can handle it, given his track record
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[18] 12/2009 (Pg. 923)
1 – Special Exception (SE)
——————————————————————
[3] 1. 3/2004 (Pg. 52)
10 – subgroup
——————————————————————
[3] 1. 3/2004 (Pg. 55)
10 – Japan
——————————————————————
[11] 7. 7/2005 (Pg. 300)
10 – children
——————————————————————
[2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 98)
11 – Special Exception (SE)
——————————————————————
[7] 4. 10/2004 (Pg. 427)
11 – children
4 – children Study (ST)
7 – children Special Exception (SE)
——————————————————————
[1] 1. 10/2003 (Pg. 358)
12 – children
——————————————————————
[2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 91)
1st 12 – Study (ST)
——————————————————————
[4] 4. 9/2004 (Pg. 257)
12
——————————————————————
[9] 17. 2004 (Pg. 316)
1st 12 – children
——————————————————————
[15] 10. 6/2008 (Pg. 450)
1st 12 – children
——————————————————————
[10] 18. 6/2005 (Pgs. 169 + 176)
13 – children
——————————————————————
[8] 5. 10/2004 (Pg. 428)
17
——————————————————————
[20] 14. 6/2010 (Pg. ii95)
17
——————————————————————
[12] 19. 3/2006 (Pgs. 40-41 + 46)
18
——————————————————————
[3] 1. 3/2004 (Pg. 50)
19 – children
——————————————————————
[3] 1. 3/2004 (Pg. 55)
19 – Japan
——————————————————————
[14] 8. 10/2006 (Pg. 466)
19
——————————————————————
[16] 10/2008 (Pg. 821)
20
——————————————————————
[17] 12/2008 (Pg. 1067)
20
——————————————————————
[21] 15. 11/2010 (Pg. iv72)
20
——————————————————————
[5] 2. 10/2004 (Pg. 384)
22
——————————————————————
[6] 3. 10/2004 (Pg. 386)
31 – Special Exception (SE)
——————————————————————
[19] 13. 12/2009 (Pg. 951)
40
——————————————————————
[19] 13. 12/2009 (Pg. 951)
52 – Special Exception SE)
——————————————————————
[3] 1. 3/2004 (Pg. 55)
56 – Japan
——————————————————————
[6] 3. 10/2004 (Pg. 386)
60
——————————————————————
[3] 1. 3/2004 (Pg. 52)
62
——————————————————————
[3] 1. 3/2004 (Pg. 53)
80
——————————————————————
[13] 2006
30 (Pg. 173)
335 – children (Pg. 174)
1652 – adults (Pg. 174)
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[18] 12/2009 (Pg. 923)
1 – evaluable Special Exception (SE)
——————————————————————
[2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 91)
1st 10 – evaluable Study (ST)
——————————————————————
[3] 1. 3/2004 (Pg. 52)
10 – evaluable subgroup
——————————————————————
[3] 1. 3/2004 (Pg. 55)
10 – evaluable Japan
——————————————————————
[11] 7. 7/2005 (Pg. 300)
10 – evaluable children
——————————————————————
[2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 98)
11 – evaluable Special Exception (SE)
——————————————————————
[7] 4. 10/2004 (Pg. 427)
11 – evaluable children
4 – evaluable children Study (ST)
7 – evaluable children Special Exception (SE)
——————————————————————
[1] 1. 10/2003 (Pg. 358)
12 – evaluable children
——————————————————————
[9] 17. 2004 (Pg. 316)
1st 12 – evaluable children
——————————————————————
[15] 10. 6/2008 (Pg. 450)
1st 12 – evaluable children
——————————————————————
[10] 18. 6/2005 (Pgs. 169 + 176)
13 – evaluable children
——————————————————————
[21] 15. 11/2010 (Pg. iv72)
13 – evaluable
——————————————————————
[8] 5. 10/2004 (Pg. 428)
17 – evaluable
——————————————————————
[20] 14. 6/2010 (Pg. ii95)
17 – evaluable
——————————————————————
[3] 1. 3/2004 (Pg. 51)
18 – evaluable children
——————————————————————
[12] 19. 3/2006 (Pgs. 40-41 + 46)
18 – evaluable
——————————————————————
[3] 1. 3/2004 (Pg. 55)
19 – evaluable Japan
——————————————————————
[14] 8. 10/2006 (Pg. 466)
19 – evaluable
——————————————————————
[16] 10/2008 (Pg. 821)
20 – evaluable
——————————————————————
[17] 12/2008 (Pg. 1067)
20 – evaluable
——————————————————————
[5] 2. 10/2004 (Pg. 384)
22 – evaluable
——————————————————————
[6] 3. 10/2004 (Pg. 386)
31 – evaluable Special Exception (SE)
——————————————————————
[19] 13. 12/2009 (Pg. 951)
52 – evaluable Special Exception SE)
——————————————————————
[3] 1. 3/2004 (Pg. 55)
56 – evaluable Japan
——————————————————————
[6] 3. 10/2004 (Pg. 386)
60 – evaluable
——————————————————————
[3] 1. 3/2004 (Pg. 52)
62 – evaluable
——————————————————————
[3] 1. 3/2004 (Pg. 53)
80 – evaluable
——————————————————————
[13] 2006
30 – evaluable (Pg. 173)
335 – children (Pg. 174)
1652 – adults (Pg. 174)
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[1] 1. 10/2003 (Pg. 358)
escalating doses of ANP intravenous injections (IV) and subsequently capsules (po)
——————————————————————
[2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 91)
Patients received escalating doses of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 by intravenous bolus injections
——————————————————————
[2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 93)
Antineoplaston therapy was administered in gradually escalating doses by intermittent bolus injections 6 times a day using a portable Provider 6000 dual-channel pump (Abbott Laboratories, North Chicago, IL, USA)
——————————————————————
[5] 2. 10/2004 (Pg. 384)
ANP was given in escalating doses by intravenous bolus injections
——————————————————————
[9] 17. 2004 (Pg. 317)
Gradually escalating doses were administered by intermittent bolus injections 6 times a day using a portable Provider 6000 dual channel pump (Abbott Laboratories, North Chicago, IL, USA)
——————————————————————
[12] 19. 3/2006 (Pg. 40)
Antineoplastons A10 (A10I) and AS2-1 injections, were given in escalating doses by intravenous injections
——————————————————————
[20] 14. 6/2010 (Pg. ii95)
Patients received escalating doses of intravenous A10 and AS2-1 6 times daily
12 or more weeks – ANP
or
at least 4 weeks – ANP but developed progressive disease (PD)
——————————————————————
[21] 15. 11/2010 (Pg. iv72)
Patients received escalating doses of intravenous ANP 6 times daily
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 93)
Dose escalation was necessary to prevent peritumoral oedema
——————————————————————
[9] 17. 2004 (Pg. 317)
Gradual dose escalation was necessary to prevent peritumoral oedema
——————————————————————
[12] 19. 3/2006 (Pg. 44)
ANP was given by intravenous injections in escalating doses to prevent peritumoral oedema
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 93)
Treatment consisted of daily intravenous injections of antineoplaston A10 (300 mg / mL) and AS2-1 (80 mg / mL) through a Broviac or equivalent catheter
——————————————————————
[4] 4. 9/2004 (Pgs. 257-260)
he was admitted for administration of intravenous antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 through a subclavian venous catheter by intermittent bolus injections 6 times per day using a portable pump
——————————————————————
[7] 4. 10/2004 (Pg. 427)
intravenous injection of ANP
——————————————————————
[8] 5. 10/2004 (Pg. 428)
intravenous infusions of ANP
——————————————————————
[9] 17. 2004 (Pg. 317)
300 mg / ML – Daily intravenous injections of A10
——————————————————————
[9] 17. 2004 (Pg. 317)
80 mg / ML – Daily intravenous injections of AS2-1
——————————————————————
[9] 17. 2004 (Pg. 317)
administered through a subclavian venous catheter
——————————————————————
[9] 17. 2004 (Pg. 315)
ANP intravenously initially and subsequently orally
——————————————————————
[10] 18. 6/2005 (Pg. 169)
intravenous infusions of 2 formulations of ANP, A10 and AS2-1
——————————————————————
[10] 18. 6/2005 (Pg. 170)
IV ANP
——————————————————————
[11] 7. 7/2005 (Pg. 300)
ANP was given intravenously daily through a subclavian venous catheter and double channel infusion pump
——————————————————————
[12] 19. 3/2006 (Pg. 42)
Treatment involved daily intravenous injections of A10I and AS2-1
——————————————————————
[12] 19. 3/2006 (Pg. 42)
The injections were administered every 4 hours through a subclavian venous catheter via a dual-channel infusion pump
——————————————————————
[14] 8. 10/2006 (Pg. 466)

ANP was given intravenously daily through a subclavian venous catheter and a double-channel infusion pump
——————————————————————
[15] 10. 6/2008 (Pg. 450)
Treatment consisted of intravenous infusions of antineoplastons (ANP) A10 and AS2-1
——————————————————————
[16] 10/2008 (Pg. 821)
ANP was administered intravenously daily through a subclavian central venous catheter by a double-channel infusion pump
——————————————————————
[17] 12/2008 (Pg. 1067)
ANP was administered intravenously daily through a subclavian venous catheter via a double-channel infusion pump
——————————————————————
[18] 12/2009 (Pg. 923)
The patient received intravenous injections of ANP every 4 hours through a subclavian central venous catheter via a double channel infusion pump followed by PO ANP only
——————————————————————
[18] 12/2009 (Pg. 923)
6/8/2000 – PO ANP
——————————————————————
[18] 12/2009 (Pg. 923)
IV ANP
——————————————————————
[19] 13. 12/2009 (Pg. 951)
ANP was administered daily through a subclavian venous catheter via a double channel infusion pump
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[9] 17. 2004 (Pg. 317)
Intravenous injections were discontinued after determination of CR, PR, or stable disease (SD)
——————————————————————
[9] 17. 2004 (Pg. 317)
After discontinuation of injections, the patients continued A10 and AS2-1 in 0.5g capsules
——————————————————————
[18] 12/2009 (Pg. 923)
7/8/2004 – discontinued
——————————————————————
[18] 12/2009 (Pg. 923)
2/1999 – CR
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[5] 2. 10/2004 (Pg. 384)
4.3 months – median duration of administration
——————————————————————
[21] 15. 11/2010 (Pg. iv72)
4.4 months – median duration of treatment
——————————————————————
[14] 8. 10/2006 (Pg. 466)
4 1/2 months – median duration of i.v. ANP
——————————————————————
[12] 19. 3/2006 (Pg. 40)
5 months – median duration of antineoplaston administration
——————————————————————
[8] 5. 10/2004 (Pg. 428)
5.2 months – administered median
——————————————————————
[19] 13. 12/2009 (Pg. 951)
5.4 months – median duration of treatment (ST)
——————————————————————
[19] 13. 12/2009 (Pg. 951)
5.6 months – median duration of treatment (SE)
——————————————————————
[7] 4. 10/2004 (Pg. 427)

5.7 months – average duration of ANP
——————————————————————
[16] 10/2008 (Pg. 821)
5.7 months – median duration of treatment
——————————————————————
[2] 16. 2003 (Pgs. 91 + 96)
6 months – median duration of treatment
——————————————————————
[17] 12/2008 (Pg. 1067)
6.5 months – median duration of treatment
——————————————————————
[1] 1. 10/2003 (Pg. 358)

9.5 months – median duration of IV ANP
——————————————————————
[11] 7. 7/2005 (Pg. 300)
9 1/2 months – median duration of administration
——————————————————————
[9] 17. 2004 (Pgs. 315 + 320)
16 months (1 year 4 months) average duration of intravenous ANP
——————————————————————
[15] 10. 6/2008 (Pg. 450)
16.5 months – median
——————————————————————
[9] 17. 2004 (Pg. 320)
19 months – average duration of oral ANP
——————————————————————
[10] 18. 6/2005 (Pgs. 168 + 170)
20 months (1 year 8 months) administered average duration
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[1] 1. 10/2003 (Pg. 358)
28.6 months – median duration of po ANP
After obtaining at least minor response (SD), the treatment continued with po ANP
——————————————————————
[4] 4. 9/2004 (Pg. 257)
655 consecutive days – administration of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 with the exception of a few short interruptions
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[16] 10/2008 (Pg. 821)
5.69 g/kg/day – median average dosage of A10
——————————————————————
[17] 12/2008 (Pg. 1067)
5.8 g/kg/day – median average dosages of A10
——————————————————————
[21] 15. 11/2010 (Pg. iv72)
6.0 g/kg/day – median average dosages of A10
——————————————————————
[5] 2. 10/2004 (Pg. 384)
6.37 g/kg/day – average dosage of Antineoplaston A10
——————————————————————
[1] 1. 10/2003 (Pg. 358)
7.95 g/kg/day – average dosage of A10
——————————————————————
[9] 17. 2004 (Pgs. 315 + 320)
7.95 g/kg/day – average dosage of A10
——————————————————————
[15] 10. 6/2008 (Pg. 450)
8.36 g/kg/day – average dosage of A10
——————————————————————
[19] 13. 12/2009 (Pg. 951)
9.0 g/kg/day – median of average dosages of A10 (ST)
——————————————————————
[14] 8. 10/2006 (Pg. 466)
9.2 g/kg/day – average dosage of A10
——————————————————————
[12] 19. 3/2006 (Pg. 40)
9.22 g/kg/day – average dosage of A10I
——————————————————————
[8] 5. 10/2004 (Pg. 428)
9.4 g/kg/d – median of average dosages of A10
——————————————————————
[19] 13. 12/2009 (Pg. 951)
9.4 g/kg/day – median of average dosages of A10 (SE)
——————————————————————
[10] 18. 6/2005 (Pgs. 168 + 170)
10.30 g/kg/day – average dosage of A10
——————————————————————
[7] 4. 10/2004 (Pg. 427)
10.6 g/kg/d – median of average dosages of A10
——————————————————————
[2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 91)
11.3 g/kg/day – average dosage of A10
——————————————————————
[11] 7. 7/2005 (Pg. 300)
12.16 g/kg/day – average dosage of A10
======================================
[2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 96)
5.3-16.1 g/kg/day – dosage of A10
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[1] 1. 10/2003 (Pg. 358)
0.28 g/kg/d – average dosage of A10 and AS2-1
After obtaining at least minor response (SD), the treatment continued with po ANP
——————————————————————
[9] 17. 2004 (Pg. 320)
0.28 g/kg/day – average dosage of A10 and AS2-1
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[4] 4. 9/2004 (Pg. 257)
8.15 g/kg/d – maximum dosage of A10
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 96)
11.3 g/kg/day – average maximum dosage of A10
——————————————————————
[12] 19. 3/2006 (Pg. 42)
13.37 g/kg/day – maximum dosage of A10I (SD = 7.36 g/kg/day)
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 93)
20 g/kg/day – highest tolerated or effective dosage of A10 not exceeding
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 96)
331.4 kg – maximum total dose of A10
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[5] 2. 10/2004 (Pg. 384)
0.24 g/kg/day – average dosage of Antineoplaston AS2-1
——————————————————————
[17] 12/2008 (Pg. 1067)
0.24 g/kg/day – median average dosages of AS2-1
——————————————————————
[16] 10/2008 (Pg. 821)
0.28 g/kg/day – median average dosage of AS2-1
——————————————————————
[19] 13. 12/2009 (Pg. 951)
0.3 g/kg/day – median of average dosages of AS2-1 (ST and SE)
——————————————————————
[21] 15. 11/2010 (Pg. iv72)
0.3 g/kg/day – median average dosages of AS2-1
——————————————————————
[12] 19. 3/2006 (Pg. 40)
0.31 g/kg/day – average dosage of AS2-1
——————————————————————
[14] 8. 10/2006 (Pg. 466)
0.32 g/kg/day – average dosage of AS2-1
——————————————————————
[9] 17. 2004 (Pgs. 315 + 320)
0.33 g/kg/day – average dosage of AS2-1
——————————————————————
[1] 1. 10/2003 (Pg. 358)
0.34 g/kg/d – average dosage of AS2-1
——————————————————————
[15] 10. 6/2008 (Pg. 450)
0.37 g/kg/day – average dosage of AS2-1
——————————————————————
[10] 18. 6/2005 (Pgs. 168 + 170)
0.38 g/kg/day – average dosage of AS2-1
——————————————————————
[2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 91)
0.4 g/kg/day – average dosage of AS2-1
——————————————————————
[7] 4. 10/2004 (Pg. 427)
0.4 g/kg/d – median of average dosages of AS2-1
——————————————————————
[8] 5. 10/2004 (Pg. 428)
0.4 g/kg/d – median of average dosages of AS2-1
——————————————————————
[11] 7. 7/2005 (Pg. 300)
0.41 g/kg/day – average dosage of AS2-1
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 96)
0.2-0.6 g/kg/day – dosage of AS2-1
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[4] 4. 9/2004 (Pg. 257)
0.35 g/kg/d – maximum dosage of
AS2-1
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 96)
0.4 g/kg/day – average maximum dosage of AS2-1
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 93)
0.4 g/kg/day – highest tolerated or effective dosage of AS2-1 not exceeding
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[12] 19. 3/2006 (Pg. 42)
0.49 g/kg/day – maximum dosage of AS2-1 (SD = 0.26 g/kg/day)
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 96)
23.9 kg – maximum total dose of AS2-1
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[1] 1. 10/2003 (Pg. 358)
1 / 9% – nonevaluable due to only 4 weeks of treatment and lack of follow-up scans
This patient died while on treatment due to a brain infarct and was counted as a treatment failure
——————————————————————
[7] 4. 10/2004 (Pg. 427)
1 – nonevaluable
——————————————————————
[9] 17. 2004
1 – nonevaluable due to only receiving 4 weeks of ANP and no follow-up scans
This patient died while receiving ANP due to a nonhemorrhaging brain infarction and was considered a treatment failure (Pg. 320)
(only 4 weeks after initiation of ANP Pg. 321)
(There was no evidence that these were treatment related deaths Pg. 321)
——————————————————————
[2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 96)
Patient 2 unable to be evaluated because didn’t have follow-up MRI to determine response
——————————————————————
[2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 96)
Patient 11 unable to be evaluated because died of intratumoral hemorrhage and her duration of treatment was too short to short for evaluation of response
——————————————————————
[8] 5. 10/2004 (Pg. 428)
2 – nonevaluable due to lack of follow-up scans
——————————————————————
[7] 4. 10/2004 (Pg. 427)
3 Special Exception (SE) – nonevaluable
——————————————————————
[21] 15. 11/2010 (Pg. iv72)
7 – couldn’t be evaluated due to an inadequate duration of treatment and lack of follow-up magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans
——————————————————————
[19] 13. 12/2009 (Pg. 951)
12 – not evaluable due to too short a duration of treatment and lack of follow-up MRIs
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 97)
4 – died from the tumour
4 – died from aspiration pneumonia
2 – intratumoral bleeding
——————————————————————
[7] 4. 10/2004 (Pg. 427)
One CR patient developed recurrence after premature discontinuation of ANP and obtained a 2nd CR after ANP was restarted
This patient who initially had multiple metastases to the brain and spinal cord died due to aspiration pneumonia and was confirmed by autopsy as disease free
——————————————————————
[9] 17. 2004
1 patient who had stable disease discontinued ANP against medical advice and died 4.5 years later (Pgs. 315 + 320)
(There was no evidence that these were treatment related deaths Pg. 321)
——————————————————————
[10] 18. 6/2005
1 patient passed away after 6 years, 10 months from the start of the treatment (3 years after discontinuation of ANP)
The cause of death was recurrent pneumonia, possibly due (Pg. 170)
to chronic immunosuppression from chemotherapy administered prior to ANP (patient 1) (Pg. 172)
——————————————————————
[12] 19. 3/2006 (Pg. 45)
The deaths of 12 patients were most likely tumor related
——————————————————————
[12] 19. 3/2006 (Pg. 45)
There was a single death due to a pulmonary embolism
——————————————————————
[12] 19. 3/2006 (Pg. 45)
2 cases of death possibly resulting from aspiration pneumonia
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 97)
The 2 surviving patients weren’t previously treated with chemotherapy and radiation therapy and didn’t develop pneumonia or intratumoral bleeding
——————————————————————
[10] 18. 6/2005 (Pg. 169)
6 hadn’t received prior chemotherapy or radiation
——————————————————————
[10] 18. 6/2005 (Pg. 175)
6 long-term
——————————————————————
[12] 19. 3/2006 (Pgs. 40-41)
6 – didn’t have radiation therapy or chemotherapy
——————————————————————
[16] 10/2008 (Pg. 821)
No patients received radiation or chemotherapy before starting ANP, but 6 patients underwent surgery and 14 had biopsy only
——————————————————————
[18] 12/2009 (Pg. 923)
The tumor was inoperable
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[2] 16. 2003
Patient 3 (Pg. 95)
Patient 8 (Pg. 95)
Case 10 (Pgs. 96-97)
——————————————————————
[3] 1. 3/2004
Case Study, Patient 1 (Pgs. 50-51)
Case Study, Patient 2 (Pgs. 51-52)
Case Study, Patient 3 (Pgs. 53-54)
Case Study, Patient 4 (Pg. 54)
Case Study, Patient 5 (Pg. 55)
——————————————————————
[9] 17. 2004
Case 8 (Pgs. 321-322)
Case 10 (Pgs. 321 + 323)
——————————————————————
[10] 18. 6/2005 (Pgs. 172-173)
Patient 4
——————————————————————
[10] 18. 6/2005 (Pgs. 173-174)
Patient 11
——————————————————————
[12] 19. 3/2006 (Pgs. 45-46)
Case Report Patient 12
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 94)
Trial design – Fleming
——————————————————————
[9] 17. 2004 (Pg. 317)
Trial design – Fleming
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
Gorski has claimed:
======================================
6/7/2013 “Unlike Mr. Merola, I am indeed very concerned with getting my facts correct”
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/07/i-want-my-anp/
======================================
6/5/2013 “ … I do know cancer science”
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/05/odds-and-ends-about-burzynski-clinic/
======================================
11/2/2012 “Personally, having pored over Burzynski’s publications … “
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/11/02/stanislaw-burzynski-fails-to-save-another-patient/
======================================
5/8/2013 “I’ve searched Burzynski’s publications … “
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/05/08/eric-merola-and-stanislaw-burzynskis-secret-weapon-against-the-skeptics-fabio-lanzoni-part-2/
======================================
☆AnthonyJeselnik☆
🚫GorskonOrac🚫
You tweeted 12:44pm-3/30/13📄

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

——————————————————————
Defend your tweet😅
#Burzynski—
(@FauxSkeptic) May 23, 2013

——————————————————————
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
——————————————————————
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”

(What Gorski did is termed: “cherry-picking”)

Maybe #ScienceBasedMedicine needs to change this
——————————————————————
“Our only goal is to promote high standards of science in medicine”
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
References:
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/scientific-publications.html
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[1] 1. 10/2003 (Pg. 358)
——————————————————————
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
Phase II study of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in children with recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma
A preliminary report
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/970.pdf
Neuro-Oncology. 2003; 5: 358
Volume 5 Issue 4 October 2003
======================================
[2] 16. 2003 (Pgs. 91-101)
——————————————————————
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials
BT-11 – BRAIN STEM GLIOMA
Special exception (SE) to BT-11
DRUGS IN R&D
Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma:
a preliminary report
recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma
Drugs in R and D
(Drugs in Research and Development)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12718563
Drugs In R and D / Drugs in Research and Development:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12718563
Drugs R D. 2003;4(2):91-101
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/960.pdf
Drugs in R&D 2003;4:91-101
======================================
[3] 1. 3/2004 (Pgs. 47-58)
——————————————————————
Review Articles on Clinical Trials:
INTEGRATIVE CANCER THERAPIES
The Present State of Antineoplaston Research
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/994.pdf
Integrative Cancer Therapies 2004;3:47-58
Volume 3, No. 1, March 2004
DOI: 10.1177/1534735-403261964
======================================
[4] 4. 9/2004 (Pgs. 257-261)
——————————————————————
Case Reports:
INTEGRATIVE CANCER THERAPIES
Special exception (SE) to BT-11 BRAIN STEM GLIOMA
Long-term survival and complete response of a patient with recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioblastoma multiforme
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1145.pdf
Integrative Cancer Therapies 2004;3:257-261
Volume 3, Number 3 September 2004
======================================
[5] 2. 10/2004 (Pg. 384)
——————————————————————
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
BT-20 Patients With GLIOBLASTOMA MULTIFORME (GBM)
Phase II study of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in recurrent glioblastoma multiforme
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1218.pdf
Neuro-Oncology. 2004; 6: 384
Volume 6 Issue 4 October 2004
Abstracts from the Society for Neuro-Oncology Ninth Annual Meeting, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, November 18-21, 2004
======================================
[6] 3. 10/2004 (Pg. 386)
——————————————————————
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
(DBSG) (Study (ST) and Special Exception (SE))
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
Long-term survivals in phase II studies of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in patients with diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1219.pdf
Neuro-Oncology. 2004; 6: 386
Volume 6 Issue 4 October 2004
======================================
[7] 4. 10/2004 (Pg. 427)
——————————————————————
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
(AT/RT of CNS) (Study (ST) and Special Exception (SE))
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
BT-14 CHILDREN WITH RHABDOID TUMOR OF THE CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM
Phase II studies of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in children with atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumors (AT/RT) of the central nervous system
A preliminary report
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1146.pdf
Neuro-Oncology. 2004; 6: 427
Volume 6 Issue 4 October 2004
Abstracts from the Eleventh International Symposium on Pediatric Neuro-Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts, June 13-16, 2004
======================================
[8] 5. 10/2004 (Pg. 428)
——————————————————————
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
BT-12 CHILDREN WITH PRIMITIVE NEUROECTODERMAL TUMORS (PNET)
Treatment of primitive neuroectodermal tumors (PNET) with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP)
Preliminary results of phase II studies
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1147.pdf
Neuro-Oncology. 2004; 6: 428
Volume 6 Issue 4 October 2004
Abstracts from the Eleventh International Symposium on Pediatric Neuro-Oncology
======================================
[9] 17. 2004 (Pgs. 315-326)
——————————————————————
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
DRUGS IN R&D
Drugs in R and D
(Drugs in Research and Development)
Pg. 317
BT-13 – children with low-grade astrocytoma
BT-23 – children with visual pathway gliomas
Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in children with recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma
A Preliminary Report
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15563234
Drugs R&D 2004;5(6):315-326
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15563234
Drugs R D. 2004;5(6):315-26
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1194.pdf
======================================
[10] 18. 6/2005 (Pgs. 168-177)
——————————————————————
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
INTEGRATIVE CANCER THERAPIES
BT-12 children with PRIMITIVE NEUROECTODERMAL TUMORS (PNET)
CAN-01 (CAN-1) PATIENTS WITH REFRACTORY MALIGNANCIES
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/pubmed/15911929
Integrative Cancer Therapies 2005;4(2):168-177
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15911929
Integr Cancer Ther. 2005 Jun;4(2):168-77
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1220.pdf
DOI: 10.1177/1534735405276835
http://m.ict.sagepub.com/content/4/2/168.long?view=long&pmid=15911929
Volume 4 Number 2 June 2005
======================================
[11] 7. 7/2005 (Pg. 300)
——————————————————————
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
BT-11 BRAIN STEM GLIOMA
Targeted therapy with ANP in children less than 4 years old with inoperable brain stem gliomas. Neuro-Oncology. 2005; 7:300
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1224.pdf
Volume 7 Issue 3 July 2005
Abstracts from the World Federation of Neuro-Oncology Meeting
======================================
[12] 19. 3/2006 (Pgs. 40-47)
——————————————————————
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
BT-03

BT-11 BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (BSG)
BT-18
6. MIXED GLIOMA
ADULT PATIENTS WITH MIXED GLIOMA
“mixed glioma”, a type of primary malignant brain tumor (PMBT)
BT-22
8. CHILDREN WITH PRIMARY MALIGNANT BRAIN TUMORS
CAN-01 (CAN-1)
PATIENTS WITH REFRACTORY MALIGNANCIES
Burzynski, S.R., Janicki, T.J., Weaver, R.A., Burzynski, B. Targeted therapy with Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 of high grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem glioma. Integrative Cancer Therapies 2006;5(1):40-47
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16484713
Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Mar;5(1):40-7
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16484713
DOI: 10.1177/1534735405285380
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/5825.pdf

http://m.ict.sagepub.com/content/5/1/40.long?view=long&pmid=16484713
======================================
[13] 2006 (Pgs. 167-168)
——————————————————————
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1252.pdf
======================================
[14] 8. 10/2006 (Pg. 466)
——————————————————————
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
BT-11 BRAIN STEM GLIOMA
Treatment of multicentric brainstem gliomas with antineoplastons (ANP) A10 and AS2-1. Neuro-Oncology. 2006; 8:466
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/2105.pdf
Volume 8 Issue 4 October 2006
Abstracts for the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO)
======================================
[15] 10. 6/2008 (Pg. 450)
——————————————————————
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
Interim Reports on Clinical Trials:
(OPG)
BT-23 – CHILDREN WITH VISUAL PATHWAY GLIOMA
Phase II study of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in children with optic pathway glioma:
A preliminary report
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/7287.pdf
Neuro-Oncology 2008; 10:450
Volume 10 Issue 3 June 2008
======================================
[16] 10/2008 (Pg. 821)
——————————————————————
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
Phase II study of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in patients with newly diagnosed anaplastic astrocytoma:
A preliminary report
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/7853.pdf
Neuro-Oncology 2008; 10:821
Volume 10 Issue 5 October 2008
======================================
[17] 12/2008 (Pg. 1067)
——————————————————————
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
Phase II study of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 infusions (ANP) in patients with recurrent anaplastic astrocytoma
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/7898.pdf
Neuro-Oncology 2008; 10:1067
Volume 10 Issue 6 December 2008
======================================
[18] 12/2009 (Pg. 923)
——————————————————————
Case Reports:
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
Over a 10-year survival and complete response of a patient with diffuse intrinsic brainstem glioma (DBSG) treated with antineoplastons (ANP)
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/8638.pdf
Neuro-Oncology 2009; 11:923
Volume 11 Issue 6 December 2009
======================================
[19] 13. 12/2009 (Pg. 951)
——————————————————————
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
BT-11 BRAIN STEM GLIOMA
(Study (ST) and Special Exception (SE))
Phase II study of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 in patients with brainstem glioma
Protocol BC-BT-11
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/8639.pdf
Neuro-Oncology 2009, 11:951.
Volume 11 Issue 6 December 2009
Abstracts from the Third Quadrennial Meeting of the World Federation of Neuro-Oncology (WFNO) and the Sixth Meeting of the Asian Society for Neuro-Oncology (ASNO), May 11-14, 2009, Yokohama, Japan
======================================
[20] 14. 6/2010 (Pg. ii95)
——————————————————————
Interim Reports on Clinical Trials:
BT-13 – CHILDREN WITH LOW GRADE ASTROCYTOMA
A Phase II Study of Antineoplaston A-10 and AS-1 Injections in children with low-grade astrocytomas
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/8397.pdf
Neuro-Oncology 2010; 12, ii95.
Volume 12 Issue 6 June 2010
Antineoplaston A10 (Atengenal)
Antineoplaston AS2-1 (Astugenal)
======================================
[21] 15. 11/2010 (Pg. iv72)
——————————————————————
Interim Reports on Clinical Trials:
BT-18 – ADULT PATIENTS WITH MIXED GLIOMA
Preliminary Results of a Phase II Study of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in Adult Patients with Recurrent Mixed Gliomas
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/8637.pdf
Neuro-Oncology 2010; 12:iv72.
Volume 12 Supplement 4 November 2010
======================================

Does David H. “Orac” Gorski, M.D., Ph.D, really CARE about Breast Cancer patients?

Dr. Gorski (@gorskon @OracKnows @ScienceBasedMed
http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence
#ScienceBasedMedicine
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org)
is advertised as being a “Breast Cancer Specialist”

The question is, does he really CARE about Breast Cancer patients?

2000-2001, clinical studies were conducted on breast cancer patients in Egypt, using antineoplaston A10
======================================
Burzynski: Egypt antineoplaston publications:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-egypt-antineoplaston-publication/
======================================
7/3/2000 they noted:
——————————————————————
Antineoplastons first described by Burzynski are naturally occurring peptides and amino acid derivatives, which control neoplastic growth
——————————————————————
Antineoplaston A-10 level measured in urine of:
31 breast cancer patients
17 normal women
——————————————————————
Significantly lower antineoplaston A-10 levels detected among patients with breast cancer
——————————————————————
Data suggest strong inverse association of urinary antineoplaston A-10 level with breast cancer
——————————————————————
Potential utility of antineoplaston A-10 as predictive test for women at risk of developing breast cancer
======================================
8/31/2000 they noted:
—————————————————————
Antineoplastons are naturally occurring cytodifferentiating agents
—————————————————————
Chemically, they are medium and small sized peptides, amino acid derivatives and organic acids, which exist in blood, tissues and urine
—————————————————————
Findings confirm presence of immune defects among patients with breast cancer and results should stimulate development of new strategies to induce and augment immunity for treatment of breast cancer
—————————————————————
Antineoplaston A-10 may provide rational basis for designing trials to employ its immune modulatory potentials as adjuvant therapy in breast cancer patients
======================================
12/2000 they noted:
—————————————————————
4 new piperidinedione A10 analogs synthesized and tested for antimitotic activity on human breast cancer cell line against prototype A10 and antibreast cancer drug tamoxifen
—————————————————————
DNA binding capacity of compounds evaluated against A10
—————————————————————
“3A” and “3C” had weaker biological profiles than lead compound A10
—————————————————————
“3B” and “3D” were several-fold more potent antiproliferative agents than A10 and tamoxifen and had significantly higher capacity to bind DNA than A10
======================================
10/1/2001 they noted:
—————————————————————
Reports on structural characterization of new antineoplaston (ANP) representatives
—————————————————————
Combination heat with pH modification had virtually no effect on obtained peaks, attesting to stability and purity of compounds
—————————————————————
One had superior affinity to DNA than prototype ANP-A10
======================================
8/2005 Antineoplastons such as A10 include naturally occurring peptides and amino acid derivatives that CONTROL NEOPLASTIC GROWTH OF CELLS
——————————————————————
Findings indicate antineoplaston A10 ANTITUMOR EFFECT could be utilized as effective therapy for breast cancer patients
——————————————————————
Antineoplaston induces G1 arrest by PKCα and MAPK pathway in SKBR-3 breast cancer cells
Hideaki H TSUDA Antineoplaston A10
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16012735
Antineoplaston induces G1 arrest by PKCo and MAPK pathway in SKBR-3 breast cancer cells
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16012735
Antineoplaston induces G(1) arrest by PKCalpha and MAPK pathway in SKBR-3 breast cancer cells
http://www.spandidos-publications.com/or/14/2/489
Oncol Rep. 8/2005; 14(2):489-94
http://gyouseki.kurume-u.ac.jp/PDF/ichiran_2005.pdf
Oncol Rep 14(2):489-94 (2005)
http://research.kurume-u.ac.jp/K90RES.php?scode=49485632873864
Oncol Rep. 2005; 14:489–94
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/iub.574/abstract
Oncol. Rep. 14, 489–494
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/iub.574/full
Oncology Reports, 8/2005, Volume 14 Number 2
Pages: 489-494
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/iub.574/asset/574_ftp.pdf?v=1&t=hbr9z60q&s=0b1c1e8655db9c54b45dbf72062e8b11cb7895ac
Oncology Reports, Spandidos Publications
Department of Surgery, Kurume University School of Medicine, Kurume, Fukuoka, Japan
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
1/2008 Novel mechanism through which all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and antineoplaston, ANTICANCER DRUG, CAUSED CELL GROWTH INHIBITION IN BREAST CANCER CELLS through effects on intracellular pathways
——————————————————————
Antineoplaston caused down-regulation of PKCalpha protein expression, resulting in INHIBITION of ERK MAPK phosphorylation, with resultant INHIBITION of Rb phosphorylation leading to G(1) arrest

Preclinical studies of molecular-targeting diagnostic and therapeutic strategies against breast cancer
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18224398
antineoplaston
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/18224398
Breast Cancer 15(1):73-8 (2008)
DOI: 10.1007/s12282-007-0015-y
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12282-007-0015-y
15(1):73-8
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p724x34746l56v73
Department of Surgery, Kurume University, Fukuoka, Japan
http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/10021288533
======================================
Burzynski has made it clear that:

… antineoplaston A10 rather than antineoplaston AS2-1 is main active drug
—————————————————————
Pg. 99
—————————————————————
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/960.pdf
—————————————————————
Burzynski has been using the “Parent” generation of antineoplastons in the phase II clinical trials, and could NOT just switch to new antineoplaston analogs which may produce better results

Also, Burzynski has made it clear that successive generations of antineoplastons have been developed which may also produce better results
—————————————————————
To those who seemed to think Burzynski’s phase II clinical trials were taking too long, he was following science based medicine’s:
—————————————————————
Pg. 94
—————————————————————
2-stage phase II clinical trial design proposed by Fleming [3]
—————————————————————
Pg. 100 References
—————————————————————
3. Fleming TR. One-sample multiple testing procedure for phase II clinical trials. Biometrics 1982; 38: 143-51
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7082756/
Biometrics. 1982 Mar;38(1):143-51
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7082756/
Biometrics Vol. 38, No. 1, Mar., 1982
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2530297?uid=3739656&uid=2460338175&uid=2460337855&uid=2&uid=4&uid=83&uid=63&uid=3739256&sid=21102549294733
—————————————————————
To those who have made ridiculous statements to the effect that Burzynski is a murderer, and ignore that he has dealt with patients whom science based medicine’s chemotherapy therapy and / or radiation therapy did NOT work, what’s the difference when science based medicine fails?
——————————————————————
33 / 100% – DIED OF DISEASE PROGRESSION
——————————————————————
2004 – Supratentorial high-grade ASTROCYTOMA and DIFFUSE BRAINSTEM GLIOMA:
——————————————————————
two challenges for the pediatric oncologist
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15047924/
Oncologist. 2004;9(2):197-206
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15047924/
Oncologist 9, 197-206
http://m.theoncologist.alphamedpress.org/content/9/2/197.long
Division of Neuro-Oncology, Department of Hematology-Oncology, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA
======================================
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.

—————————————————
To those who say that antineoplastons are toxic, what is the difference with science based medicine’s chemotherapy therapy or radiation therapy when we know that NOT all patients will experience all possible side-effects of a drug?

The successive generations of antineoplastons may be even better and have less potential side-effects
=====================================
10/1/2010 As degradation product of Antineoplaston A10 in vivo, PHENYLACETYL GLUTAMINE showed ANTITUMOR ACTIVITIES
——————————————————————
Designed and radiosynthesized PHENYLACETYL GLUTAMINE derivative, achieved under mild reaction condition
——————————————————————
radiochemical purity of (S)-2-((S)-2-(4-(3-fluoropropyl)benzamido)-3-phenylpropanamido)pentanedioic acid ([18F]FBPPA) was 98%, and best radiochemical yield was up to 46%
——————————————————————
results revealed it might become potential PET imaging agent for DETECTING TUMORS
——————————————————————
Antineoplaston A10 phenylacetyl glutamine (PG) – (S)-2-((S)-2-(4-(3-[18F]fluoropropyl)benzamido)-3-phenylpropanamido)pentanedioic acid labeled with 18F
http://www.springerlink.com/content/tj0177485773007t
(S)-2-((S)-2-(4-(3-[18 F] fluoropropyl) benzamido)-3-phenylpropanamido) pentanedioic acid labeled with 18 F
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10967-010-0633-2?LI=true
Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, 2010, 286, 1, 135
http://www.springerlink.com/content/tj0177485773007t
October 2010, Volume 286, Issue 1, pp 135-140
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10967-010-0633-2
DOI
10.1007/s10967-010-0633-2
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10967-010-0633-2/fulltext.html
Burzynski References: 5. – 6.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1021/js960120y/abstract

http://www.springerlink.com/content/tj0177485773007t
======================================
Antineoplastons as a blood or urine “cancer test”:
—————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/antineoplastons-as-a-blood-or-urine-cancer-test/
======================================

Critiquing: Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski, M.D., Ph.D, L.I.A.R.

L.I.A.R.

Lacking
Integrity
And
Respect

Respect is EARNED

Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski has NOT earned respect

Neither does he deserve it

6/4/2013 Gorski made an amazing admission:
======================================
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/04/stanislaw-burzynski-versus-the-bbc/
======================================
“Dr. Elloise Garside, a research scientists, echoes a lot of the questions I have, such as”

“how Burzynski never explains which genes are targeted by antineoplastons … “
——————————————————————
Gorski has claimed:
======================================
6/7/2013 “Unlike Mr. Merola, I am indeed very concerned with getting my facts correct”
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/07/i-want-my-anp/
======================================
6/5/2013 “ … I do know cancer science”
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/05/odds-and-ends-about-burzynski-clinic/
======================================
11/2/2012 “Personally, having pored over Burzynski’s publications … “
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/11/02/stanislaw-burzynski-fails-to-save-another-patient/
======================================
5/8/2013 “I’ve searched Burzynski’s publications … “
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/05/08/eric-merola-and-stanislaw-burzynskis-secret-weapon-against-the-skeptics-fabio-lanzoni-part-2/
======================================
7/22/2013 I published the below article on my blog:
======================================
Critiquing: In which Orac does Stanislaw Burzynski propagandist Eric Merola a favor…:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/critiquing-in-which-orac-does-stanislaw-burzynski-propagandist-eric-merola-a-favor/
======================================
“… because Gorski and others do NOT seem to understand how antineoplastons (ANP) A10 (Atengenal) and AS2-1 (Astugenal) work, I provide the relevant Burzynski publications and page #’s for them to review:
——————————————————————
Gorski, here’s

” … how Burzynski never explains which genes are targeted by antineoplastons … “
======================================
[1] Pg. 98
——————————————————————
ras oncogenes
tumor suppressor gene p53
ras oncogene protein p21ras
p21 gene

======================================
[2] Pg. 47
——————————————————————
oncogenes
tumor suppressor genes

——————————————————————
Pg. 48
——————————————————————
gene p53
WRN gene

——————————————————————
Mechanism of Action of Antineoplaston
——————————————————————
tumor suppressor genes
oncogenes
p21 protein
p53 gene

——————————————————————
Pg. 49
——————————————————————
tumor suppressor gene p53
tumor suppressor gene p21

======================================
[3] Pg. 257
——————————————————————
tumor suppressor genes
oncogenes

——————————————————————
Pg. 260 Discussion
——————————————————————
oncogene AKT2
oncogene RAS
oncogene MYCC
tumor suppressor p53
tumor suppressor p21
tumor suppressor PTEN
tumor suppressor INI1

======================================
[4] Pg. 385
——————————————————————
AKT2 pathway
TGFB1 pathway
RAS
TP53
p21

======================================
[5] Pg. 386
——————————————————————
RAS pathway
AKT2 pathway
TGFB1 pathway
p53 tumor suppressor gene
p21 tumor suppressor gene

======================================
[6] Pg. 323 Discussion
——————————————————————
TP53 gene
——————————————————————
Pgs. 323-324
——————————————————————
RAS oncogene
TP53 tumor suppressor gene
p21 tumor suppressor gene
NF1 tumor suppressor gene
p21 RAS protein
RNAi
dsRNA
siRNA
RAS oncogene pathway (GF-RTK-RAS)
oncogenes
oncogene AKT2

======================================
[7] Pg. 173 Discussion
——————————————————————
proto-oncogene MYCC, ERBB2
——————————————————————
Pg. 174
——————————————————————
sonic hedgehog (SHH) receptor patched (PTCH)
MYCC
MYC-MAX dimers
G1-S
gene CCD2 (encoding cyclin D2)
gene CDK4 (which encodes cyclin dependent kinase 4)
KIP1
(or p27)
CUL-1
CKS
MYC
cyclin E-CDK2
INK4B
(or p15)
p21
cyclin E/CDK2
MIZ1 (MYC-interacting zinc finger protein 1)
CDKN1A
CDKN2B
MAD protein
MEFD2D (MADS box transcription enhancer factor
17p
tumor-suppressor gene HIC-1 (hypermethylated in cancer-1)
RAS/MAPK
RAS pathway
RAS protein
AKT2
BCL2
BCL-X
BAX

——————————————————————
Pgs. 175-176 Charts
======================================
[8] Pg. 40
——————————————————————
RAS
AKT
TP53
PTEN
INI1
p21
MYCC
apoptosis pathway
DNA
p21 protein
RAS oncogene
INI1 protein
BCL-X

——————————————————————
Pg. 41 Targeted Therapy with Antineoplastons chart
——————————————————————
protein p21
RAS oncogene
RAS
BCL-2
tumor suppressor gene TP53
tumor suppressor gene p21
DNA
oncogene AKT2
oncogene MYCC
tumor suppressor gene PTEN
tumor suppressor gene MAD
INI1 protein
BCL-X protein

——————————————————————
Pg. 46 Discussion / Conclusion
——————————————————————
AKT/PTEN
RAS
p53
p21
MYCC
apoptosis pathways

======================================
[9] Pg. 384 E. Multitargeted therapy
——————————————————————
RAS pathway
AKT2 pathway
TP53 pathway
PTEN
INI1
p21 pathway
MYCC
apoptosis pathways
TGFB1 pathway
MAD

======================================
[10] Pg. 1068
——————————————————————
AKT2 pathway
MYCC pathway
TGFB1
PTEN tumor suppressor gene
MAD tumor suppressor gene
RANBP1
INI protein
RAS pathway
BCL2 pathway
tumor suppressor TP53
tumor suppressor p21

======================================
[11] Pg. 923
——————————————————————
AKT pathway
RAS pathway
TP53 pathway
p21 pathway
PTEN pathway

======================================
Burzynski, Hideaki Tsuda (Japan), and the p53 gene:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/burzynski-hitoshi-tsuda-japan-and-the-p53-gene/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
References:
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/scientific-publications.html
======================================
[1] 2003
——————————————————————
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials
16. 2003 (BT-11)
Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma: a preliminary report
DRUGS IN R&D
——————————————————————
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12718563
——————————————————————
Drugs in R and D
——————————————————————
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12718563
——————————————————————
(Drugs in Research and Development)
——————————————————————
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/960.pdf
——————————————————————
Drugs R D. 2003;4(2):91-101
Drugs in R&D 2003;4:91-101
======================================
[2] 3/2004
——————————————————————
Review Articles on Clinical Trials:
1. 3/2004
The Present State of Antineoplaston Research
——————————————————————
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/994.pdf
——————————————————————
Integrative Cancer Therapies 2004;3:47-58
Volume 3, No. 1, March 2004
DOI: 10.1177/1534735-403261964
Volume 3 Number 1 March 2004
======================================
[3] 9/2004
——————————————————————
Case Reports:
4. 9/2004 (Special Exception (SE) to BT-11 Study (ST))
Long-term survival and complete response of a patient with recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioblastoma multiforme
——————————————————————
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1145.pdf
——————————————————————
Integrative Cancer Therapies 2004;3:257-261
Volume 3, Number 3 September 2004
DOI: 10.1177/1534735404267748
======================================
[4] 10/2004
——————————————————————
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
2. 10/2004
Phase II study of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in recurrent glioblastoma multiforme
——————————————————————
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1218.pdf
——————————————————————
Neuro-Oncology. 2004; 6: 384
Volume 6 Issue 4 October 2004
Abstracts from the Society for Neuro-Oncology Ninth Annual Meeting, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, November 18-21, 2004
======================================
[5] 10/2004
——————————————————————
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
3. 10/2004 (Study (ST) and Special Exception (SE))
Long-term survivals in phase II studies of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in patients with diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma
——————————————————————
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1219.pdf
——————————————————————
Neuro-Oncology. 2004; 6: 386
Volume 6 Issue 4 October 2004
======================================
[6] 2004
——————————————————————
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
17. 2004 (BT-13 and BT-23)
Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in children with recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma :
a preliminary report
DRUGS IN R&D
——————————————————————
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15563234
——————————————————————
Drugs in R and D
——————————————————————
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15563234
——————————————————————
(Drugs in Research and Development)
——————————————————————
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1194.pdf
——————————————————————
Drugs R D. 2004;5(6):315-26
Drugs R&D 2004;5(6):315-326.
======================================
[7] 6/2005
——————————————————————
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
18. 6/2005 (CAN-01 and BT-12)
Burzynski, S.R., Weaver, R.A., Janicki, T., Szymkowski, B., Jurida, G., Khan, M., Dolgopolov, V.
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/pubmed/15911929
——————————————————————
Integr Cancer Ther. 2005 Jun;4(2):168-77
——————————————————————
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15911929
——————————————————————
Integrative Cancer Therapies 2005;4(2):168-177
——————————————————————
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1220.pdf
——————————————————————
DOI: 10.1177/1534735405276835
——————————————————————
http://m.ict.sagepub.com/content/4/2/168.long?view=long&pmid=15911929
——————————————————————
Volume 4 Number 2 June 2005
======================================
[8] 3/2006
——————————————————————
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
19. 3/2006 (BT-03, BT-11, BT-18, and CAN-01)
Targeted therapy with Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 of high grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem glioma.
——————————————————————
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16484713
——————————————————————
Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Mar;5(1):40-7
——————————————————————
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16484713
——————————————————————
Integrative Cancer Therapies 2006;5(1):40-47
——————————————————————
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/5825.pdf
——————————————————————
DOI: 10.1177/1534735405285380
——————————————————————
http://m.ict.sagepub.com/content/5/1/40.long?view=long&pmid=16484713
======================================
[9] 12/2007
——————————————————————
Review Articles on Clinical Trials:
3. 12/2007
Recent clinical trials in diffuse intrinsic brainstem glioma. Cancer Therapy 2007; 5, 379-390.
——————————————————————
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/5692.pdf
——————————————————————
Review Article
Cancer Therapy Vol 5, 379-390, 2007
——————————————————————
http://www.cancer-therapy.org/CT/v5/B/HTML/42._Burzynski,_379-390.html
——————————————————————
Volume 5 Number 2 December, 2007
======================================
[10] 12/2008
——————————————————————
Interim Reports on Clinical Trials:
12. 12/2008
(BT-8 – PATIENTS WITH ANAPLASTIC ASTROCYTOMA)
(BT-15 – ADULT PATIENTS WITH ANAPLASTIC ASTROCYTOMA)
Phase II study of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 infusions (ANP) in patients with recurrent anaplastic astrocytoma
——————————————————————
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/7898.pdf
——————————————————————
Neuro-Oncology 2008; 10:1067
Volume 10 Issue 6 December 2008
Abstracts for the Eighth Congress of the European Association for Neuro-Oncology (EANO), Sept. 12-14, 2008, Barcelona, Spain
======================================
[11] 12/2009
——————————————————————
Case Reports:
1. 12/2009 (BT-11 Special Exception (SE))
Over a 10-year survival and complete response of a patient with diffuse intrinsic brainstem glioma (DBSG) treated with antineoplastons (ANP).
——————————————————————
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/8638.pdf
——————————————————————
Neuro-Oncology 2009; 11:923.
Volume 11 Issue 6 December 2009
Abstracts from the Third Quadrennial Meeting of the World Federation of Neuro-Oncology (WFNO) and the Sixth Meeting of the Asian Society for Neuro-Oncology (ASNO), May 11-14, 2009, Yokohama, Japan
======================================

Critiquing: Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski, M.D., Ph.D, LIAR: Stanislaw Burzynski versus the BBC

Believe in Facts ???

Get out the popcorn !!!
——————————————————————
Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski is a liar

Let me put that in bold for emphasis

Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski is a liar

Open wide and say ahhhhhhh …

DR. DAVID H. “ORAC” GORSKI IS A LIAR
——————————————————————
Much better !!!

Some things just look much better when they come in 3’s

And that must be what “Orac” is god thinks, since he seems to live by the the edict of the 3 wise monkeys:
——————————————————————
See No Evil

Hear No Evil

Speak No Evil
——————————————————————
Of course, to Gorski, Evil is any truth which he disagrees with, which he acts like does NOT exist, and obviously can NOT find on the Internet with his Commodore 64, or whatever piece of garbage he’s using, which he must have set to block any websites he wishes to NOT see
——————————————————————
Gorski, the Hypocrite, calls me a “CRANK”, which is especially hilarious, considering how much better my research is than his, without the bias

LIES

Misdirection

Disinformation

Misinformation

MisDisInformation
——————————————————————
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 3:24am – 14 Jul 13:

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

——————————————————————
If I wanted to lower myself to Gorski’s level, I could delete comments from my blog
——————————————————————
6/4/2013, Gorski must have evacuated this from deep within his bowels:
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Stanislaw Burzynski versus the BBC
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/04/stanislaw-burzynski-versus-the-bbc/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
I was busy at the time reviewing the British Broadcasting Corporation’s Panorama bit on Burzynski:
======================================
6/4/2013

The British are Coming, The British are Coming: Critiquing “Curing cancer or ‘selling hope’ to the vulnerable?”:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/04/the-british-are-coming-the-british-are-coming-critiquing-curing-cancer-or-selling-hope-to-the-vulnerable/
======================================
6/7/2013

IT MAY NOT BE SCIENCE: Critiquing “Curing cancer or ‘selling hope’ to the vulnerable?”:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/it-may-not-be-science-critiquing-curing-cancer-or-selling-hope-to-the-vulnerable/
======================================
But now that I have some time, lets all enjoy Gorski’s LIES

Misdirection

Disinformation

Misinformation

MisDisInformation

While I DISS his MisDisInformation

Since the dates involved are important in exposing Gorski’s LIES, Gorski states:
——————————————————————
“After yesterday’s epic deconstruction of the latest propaganda-fest from … Eric Merola, on his most admired subject, “brave maverick doctor” Stanislaw Burzynski”
——————————————————————
(6/3/2013) in relation to Gorski’s cherry-picked “review” which I critiqued:
======================================
7/18/2013

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/
======================================
Gorski posits:
——————————————————————
“I needed something science-based to cleanse the rancid taste of intelligence-insulting nonsense from my mind”
——————————————————————
My understanding of Gorski’s definition of #ScienceBasedMedicine is:

1. Visualize a Victim

2. Create biased blogposts utilizing:

a. LIES

b. Misdirection

c. Disinformation

d. Misinformation

e. MisDisInformation

Gorski advises:
——————————————————————
“I was interviewed over the phone by a producer of the show and exchanged e-mails to answer questions”
——————————————————————
I am NOT certain what qualifications BBC Panorama thought that Gorski has in order for him to be interviewed about Burzynski, unless they wanted the perspective of a LIAR

Gorski mentions “False balance”, which readers of his and / or my blog are all too familiar with when it comes to “Orac”

He whines that there is:
——————————————————————
” … zero mention of how Burzynski recently managed to beat an effort by the Texas Medical Board to strip him of his medical license by throwing his employed doctors under the bus …”
——————————————————————
This seems to be:

Misdirection

Disinformation

Misinformation

by Gorski, as anyone can read the case documents:
======================================
Burzynski: Texas Medical Board (TMB) and State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/burzynski-texas-medical-board-tmb-and-state-office-of-administrative-hearings-soah/
======================================
and note that, as Richard A. Jaffe points out, Burzynski was:

1. NOT even in the USA during one of the patients care

2. there was no evidence that Burzynski met either patient

3. Burzynski was NOT the Doctor of Record for either patient

4. If the SOAH had an actual case, they could have gone after the actual Doctors of Record

What Gorski blogs is NOT worth the paper it is NOT written on

EVERYTHING Gorski blogs should be “Fact-Checked” for accuracy

He also ejects:
——————————————————————
” … only the most superficial treatment of how in general it is considered unethical to demand payment from patients to participate in clinical trials”
——————————————————————
though he provides NO basis in FACT for this statement

He also laments:
——————————————————————
“No, and there isn’t any mention of how the Burzynski Clinic waged a campaign of harassment against bloggers who criticized Burzynski back in 2011”
——————————————————————
What Gorski does NOT mention is that:

there isn’t any mention of how the bloggers waged a campaign of harassment against Burzynski

with their:

LIES

Misdirection

Disinformation

Misinformation
======================================
I find Rhys Morgan abnormally prehensile:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/i-find-rhys-morgan-abnormally-prehensile/
======================================
Gorski cries:
——————————————————————
“Indeed, one of the victims of that harassment, Rhys Morgan, was interviewed by the Panorama crew, but he was informed that his interview was cut from the final version because it didn’t fit the narrative”
——————————————————————
I thought it humorous when The Skeptics™ whined on Twitter that Rhys Morgan wasn’t going to make the cut

What was he going to say ?

How he copied all of his Burzynski blogsplats from other people’s blogs?

Gorski mentions:
——————————————————————
“All you have to do is to read Saul Green’s reports on Quackwatch and in The Cancer Letter from the 1990s”
——————————————————————
Of course, Gorski conveniently forgets to mention Green’s Confict-of-Interest, since Green was associated with a lawsuit against Burzynski

But then again, Gorski seems to have conveniently forgotten his own possible COI, which someone posted a link to on Twitter:
——————————————————————
David Gorski’s Financial PHARMA Ties What He Didn’t Tell You:
http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/06/david-gorskis-financial-pharma-ties-what-he-didnt-tell-you.html
——————————————————————
Gorski fumes:
——————————————————————
“One of them reminded me very much of the conversation with her NHS oncologist that Laura Hymas recorded and allowed Eric Merola to include in his propaganda piece, except that in video it is so much more intense”

“In this scene, the oncologist tries to point out to Ms. Petagine that he doesn’t know what Burzynski is doing or how to take care of her daughter when she returns”
——————————————————————
I guess the National Heath Service oncologist is possibly like Gorski, and he doesn’t know what Burzynski is doing because he has NOT read Burzynski’s publications:
=====================================
7/22/2013

Critiquing: In which Orac does Stanislaw Burzynski propagandist Eric Merola a favor… :
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/critiquing-in-which-orac-does-stanislaw-burzynski-propagandist-eric-merola-a-favor/
======================================
Gorski flabbergasts:
——————————————————————
“The report includes interviews with experts like Professor Richard Grundy of Nottingham Children’s Hospital”

“Grundy points out that Burzynski has not published the complete results of any of his phase II clinical trials”
——————————————————————
What Gorski does NOT point out, is that for being a supposed “expert”, he sure does NOT give the impression that he’s taken the time to read Burzynski’s 2003-2010 phase II (2) clinical trials preliminary reports, in order to qualify as an “expert” on anything related to Burzynski

Gorski continues on as is his custom of being long-winded without much in the way of results:
——————————————————————
” … how Burzynski has abused the clinical trial process to keep treating patients with antineoplastons without actually having to do the science that any other doctor would be required to do to validate a new treatment”
——————————————————————
However, Gorski FAILS to address these issues:
======================================
WHAT IS MISDIRECTION? Critiquing “Antineoplastons: Has the FDA kept its promise to the American people ?”:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/what-is-misdirection-critiquing-antineoplastons-has-the-fda-kept-its-promise-to-the-american-people/
======================================
Gorski marches onward, jackbooted:
——————————————————————
“Dr. Elloise Garside, a research scientists, echoes a lot of the questions I have, such as how Burzynski never explains which genes are targeted by antineoplastons, what the preclinical evidence supporting their efficacy are, or what the scientific rationale is to expect that they might have antitumor activity”

“(Yes, we’re talking prior plausibility, baby!)”
——————————————————————
So, Gorski is saying that Dr. Elloise Garside has something in common with the “expert”, Professor Richard Grundy

Gorski rants on:
——————————————————————
“The preponderance of evidence supports the contention that they dont’ work, but there is uncertainty, which Burzynski exploits to the max”
——————————————————————
Amazing !!!

The United States Food and Drug Administration has authorized phase III (3) clinical trials, which means:
======================================
“[T]he emphasis in Phase 2 is on EFFECTIVENESS”

“Phase 3 studies begin if EVIDENCE of EFFECTIVENESS is shown in Phase 2″
======================================
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/
======================================
Gorski then blesses us with:
——————————————————————
” … the claims in some of the Q&A’s after screenings of Eric Merola’s most recent movie that Burzynski’s papers have been rejected without being sent out for peer review”

“Studies submitted to journals won’t be published without going out for peer-review”

“Maybe he’s referring to some of the papers we’ve heard about from Mr. Cohen and others that were editorially rejected and not even sent out for peer review because the editor either didn’t think them appropriate or didn’t want to waste the reviewers’ time”
——————————————————————
Gorski, who did a “review” of Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II (2), 6/3/2013, somehow magically “forgets” the very next day, that the documentary indicates that Burzynski submitted a phase II (2) clinical trial for publication, and was refused in 2 hours 8 minutes and 51 seconds, and Gorski is as silent as the dead about the lame reason given for NOT publishing it
======================================
See #12:
======================================
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/
======================================
How disingenuous, Gorski

Your opinion should mean

Nada

Zip

Zero

“Orac,” the false god continues on his rampage:
——————————————————————
“In science, all that matters is what you publish, and Burzynski hasn’t published anything other than case reports, tiny case series, and unconvincing studies, mostly (at least over the last decade or so) in crappy journals not even indexed on PubMed”
——————————————————————
Gorski gives NO reason for NOT doing what I have done on my blog, or any relevance of a publication NOT being listed on PubMed:
======================================
The #Burzynski B.S. App:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/06/the-burzynski-b-s-app-2/
======================================
Gorski comes to what he must think is his penultimate moment:
——————————————————————
“Without a doubt, the most effective part of the story is the segment in which Dr. Jeanine Graf of the Texas Children’s Hospital is introduced”

“Dr. Graf is the director of the pediatric intensive care unit there and has taken care of lots of Burzynski patients, as her hospital is “just down the road” from the Burzynski Clinic and these unfortunate children are brought to her hospital when they decompensate”

“Particularly damning is how Ms. Petagine said that the Texas Children’s Hospital Staff “were always cleaning up Burzynski’s messes.””

“If there’s one thing Panorama did right in this report, it’s showing how seeing so many already dying children show up in our ICU because of hypernatremia due to antineoplaston therapy will do that”
——————————————————————
Again, Gorski FAILS to discuss:
======================================
Burzynski: HYPERNATREMIA:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/burzynski-hypernatremia/
======================================
And:
——————————————————————
“Perhaps the most devastating part of this segment was seeing Dr. Graf stating, point blank, that she’s never seen a Burzynski patient survive”
——————————————————————
What is REALLY “devastating” is that Gorski is NOT able to indicate exactly how MANY patients this allegedly applies to, because, whereas Gorski’s fave reporter, Richard Bilton, wants to know how many Burzynski patients were treated in the phase II (2) clinical trials, he acts like Gorski’s “bud”, Dr. Peter A. Lipson, who also has had “issues” with consistency
======================================
Dr. Peter A. Lipson (and / or his Censor(s)) is a Coward: Critiquing “A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics”:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/dr-peter-a-lipson-and-or-his-censors-is-a-coward-critiquing-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/
======================================
Gorski then rattles off:
——————————————————————
“Burzynski smirks when asked how many patients he’s treated and how many have survived, dodging the question by saying that the FDA won’t let him until he’s published his results”

“Bilton tells him that’s not true; the FDA has told him that Burzynski can tell him as long as he doesn’t promote antineoplastons”

“Burzynski asks Bilton why he doesn’t have a letter from the FDA”
——————————————————————
If Gorski had bothered to read all the comments I posted on his blog re my Burzynski research, he would know that Burzynski has every right to be wary

But Gorski’s arrogance, dismissiveness, and condescension make him his own worst enemy

He then faceplants:
——————————————————————
“Burzynski then promises that antineoplastons will be approved “soon””

“(they almost certainly won’t)”
——————————————————————
I guess Gorski can now see the future, and is all-knowing and omnipotent

But then again, “Orac” is god

“god” goes on to say:
——————————————————————
“Ultimately, the Burzynski Clinic did release some results, stating that 776 patients with brain tumors were treated in trials and that 15.5% have survived five years”

“Of course, this is an utterly meaningless factoid”

“because we don’t know what kinds of tumors, what gradess, how they were treated beforehand, or any other confounding factors”
——————————————————————
But this is because Gorski prefers NOT to pay attention; welcome to “Short Attention Span Theatre”, or seeming to NOT read Burzynski’s publications:
======================================
Colorado Public Television – PBS:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/09/colorado-public-television-pbs/
======================================
My Critique of Bob Blaskiewicz (Colorado Public Television – PBS CPT12):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/my-critique-of-bob-blaskiewicz-colorado-public-television-pbs-cpt12/
======================================
Gorski posted comments on the Colorado Public Television (PBS) (CPT12) Facebook page where this was posted:
======================================

======================================
6/5/2013 Gorski continued his blatherskite:
——————————————————————
Odds and ends left over after the Panorama Burzynski Clinic report: Burzynski versus his own SEC filing
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/05/odds-and-ends-about-burzynski-clinic/
——————————————————————
This is where I start leading to heapin’ helpings of not-so-Respectful Insolence

Gorski posts:
——————————————————————
“(stay classy, Stash, stay classy)”
——————————————————————
I am NOT positive as to why a LIAR would advise Burzynski to “stay classy” when he has absolutely NO moral or ethical standing to do so

The proverbial “pot calling the kettle, black”

Gorski blathers:
——————————————————————
” … in January the Burzynski Clinic removed all references to antineoplaston therapy on its website … “
——————————————————————
As I stated up top, Gorski must have his computer set so that it will NOT access Burzynski’s website, since I posted this:
======================================
3/12/2013

Burzynski updates Scientific Publications page:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/burzynski-updates-scientific-publications-page/
======================================
This includes the link to Burzynski’s ANTINEOPLASTON publications, which Gorski claims do NOT exist on Burzynski’s website

Perhaps this helps explain Gorski’s lack of knowledge re antineoplastons

Gorski admits:
——————————————————————
“Now I’m not a businessman, and I don’t understand anything but the very basics of business”
——————————————————————
But then goes on to claim:
——————————————————————
“but I do know cancer science”
——————————————————————
Gorski goes on to comment on material which I posted on his blog

Comment #128 Didymus Judas Thomas

At the Tu-Quack Center Correcting Orac’s EPIC & Legendary Research

February 2, 2013
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/21/quoth-joe-mercola-i-love-me-some-burzynski-antineoplastons/
“Yet in the report, we read:”
——————————————————————
On February 23, 2010, the Company entered into an agreement with Cycle Solutions, Inc., dba ResearchPoint (“Research Point”) to initiate and manage a 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”
——————————————————————
It’s good to see that in JUNE, Gorski is finally catching up to what I posted on his blog in FEBRUARY

Gorski goes on to comment:
——————————————————————
“Of course, given that after three years the clinical trial hasn’t been opened, more than likely no reputable institution wants to partner with the Burzynski Research Institute, and ResearchPoint collected its checks”
——————————————————————
This is the same Gorski who allegedly blogged about the documentary which covered this issue, which he “supposedly” did a“review” on

Gorski, who above claimed that he does NOT understand “business”, suddenly puts on his “lawyer” hat
——————————————————————
“There’s a lot of legalese and FDA bureau-speak, but the meaning should be fairly clear to a layperson”:

“Indeed, even the report seems to concede that antineoplastons will likely never be approved, even going so far to point out that “the Company cannot predict if and/or when it will submit an NDA [New Drug Application] to the FDA, nor can the Company estimate the number or type of additional trials the FDA may require.””

“Burzynski also warns that “there can be no assurance that an NDA for Antineoplastons, as a treatment for cancer, will ever be approved by the FDA.””

“That hardly sounds as though antineoplastons will be approved “soon.””
——————————————————————
I find it remarkable that Gorski, while admitting above that he does NOT understand
“business”, seemingly expects the reader to believe that he understands “legalese”

Gorski bounds on in his new found knowledge as a “legal mastermind”:
——————————————————————
“Another interesting tidbit in the SEC filing is Burzynski’s report of the results of several of his clinical trials”

“They aren’t really “results’ per se, in that the information presented really isn’t provided in a form that really allows other investigators to evaluate it and potentially replicate it”

“Basically it’s a big table listing Burzynski Research Institute clinical trials and response rates reported”

“One thing that I noticed right away is that in most trials, the number of evaluable patients is smaller, sometimes much smaller, than the number of patients accrued”

“This is a huge red flag”

“For instance, in trial BT-20, there were 40 patients accrued by only 22 were evaluable”

“This sort of dropoout rate is a huge red flag”

“We don’t know the reasons for this dropout rate”

“It could certainly skew the results, but even that’s impossible to tell from just a table of response rates and no further information”
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
The ONLY “HUGE RED FLAG” is how inept Gorski is
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Gorski, you’re no Craig Masilow, but you are a LIAR
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
I’ve done the 1st one for you
======================================
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/960.pdf

Pg. 96

2 patients unable to be evaluated

patient 2 didn’t have follow-up MRI to determine response

patient 11 died of intratumoral hemorrhage and duration of treatment too short for evaluation of response
======================================
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/970.pdf


======================================
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/994.pdf


======================================
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1145.pdf


======================================
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1146.pdf


======================================
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1147.pdf


======================================
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1194.pdf


======================================
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1220.pdf


======================================
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1252.pdf


======================================
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/2105.pdf


======================================
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/5825.pdf


======================================
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/7287.pdf


======================================
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/7853.pdf


=====================================
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/7898.pdf


======================================
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/8397.pdf


======================================
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/8637.pdf


======================================
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/8638.pdf


======================================
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/8639.pdf


======================================
And THIS is the Gorski who has claimed to have reviewed almost all of Burzynski’s antineoplaston publications
======================================
11/2/2012

“Personally, having pored over Burzynski’s publications … “
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/11/02/stanislaw-burzynski-fails-to-save-another-patient/
======================================
5/8/2013

“I’ve searched Burzynski’s publications … “
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/05/08/eric-merola-and-stanislaw-burzynskis-secret-weapon-against-the-skeptics-fabio-lanzoni-part-2/
======================================

Critiquing: In which Orac does Stanislaw Burzynski propagandist Eric Merola a favor…

“Orac” / Dr. David H. Gorski posted his lame 6/3/2013 excuse for a review of Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II (2), and I critiqued it:

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/
7/17/2013 Gorski pushed out his “best” effort:

In which Orac does Stanislaw Burzynski propagandist Eric Merola a favor…
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/07/17/in-which-orac-does-stanislaw-burzynski-propagandist-eric-merola-a-favor/
After my Epic Sharknado Deconstruction of “Orac’s” “review,” I thought it only fair to continue the feeding frenzy with a Burzynski Texas Tornado

Believe it or not, I’m going to do “Dr.” Gorski (who particularly likes me, to the point of thinking, apparently, that I’m a white research supremacist) a favor

“Dr.” Gorski, as you recall, is a supposed “Doctor,” oncologist, breast cancer specialist, cancer (cough-cough) “researcher” who was responsible for two dubious propaganda reviews about documentary films which Eric Merola made re: Stanislaw Burzynski, the cancer doctor who has used “antineoplastons” to treat cancer without having published any final clinical trial evidence that they do what he claims, since his 1st completed phase II (2) clinical trial in 2009

However, no worries

M. D. Anderson did a clinical trial in 2006 and did NOT publish the final results until 6-7 years later, 2/13/2013

Based on that criteria, Burzynski has until 2016-2017 to publish

Back in 2010, Merola released the first of a dynamic duo of films, the first of which was called Burzynski The Movie: Cancer Is A Serious Business (as Gorski likes to call it, by adding an “A” in the title)

The sequel, the slightly less pretentiously titled Burzynski: Cancer Is A Serious Business, Part 2 (as Gorski again likes to call it with the “A”), was then released June 1 on various pay-per-view modes

As has been pointed out, it’s better than the first, and it features direct attacks on The Skeptics™, or SkeptiCowards©, if you will, who had the temerity to criticize Burzynski and Merola over the last couple of years with their school-yard bully attacks, NOT having the intestinal testicular fortitude to back up their claims with any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) in support of their blatherskite, which they found worthy enough to defend on my blog

Merola is apparently trying to recreate the success of his previous strategy, which involved letting people watch the movie online for free for limited periods of time on websites like Mercola.com

I link directly to the Mercola.com link to the second Burzynski movie, because I want to give Mercola more Google juice than he already has

The movie was, however, on Vimeo until July 20:

BURZYNSKI: CANCER IS SERIOUS BUSINESS, PART II (2013) from BurzynskiMovie on Vimeo
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/07/13/burzynski-cancer-film.aspx
If you want to see what the fuss was about and whether my criticisms of The Skeptics™, or SkeptiCowards©, were valid, now’s your chance

If you want to see the highlighted attack on The Skeptics™ SkeptiCowards©, it begins around 1:19 h into the movie

Yes, I’m encouraging you to watch Burzynski 2

It’s a beautiful example of all the things that Gorski tried to inculcate #TAM2013 attendees against

Indeed, dissecting this magnum opus is an excellent way to teach oneself critical thinking, much as dissecting creationist tripe is

Unfortunately, Gorski is unable to do this, because individuals like me, exist and will NOT let him get away with his disingenuous hack attacks

Other key points include:

Laura Hymas interview and the recording of her discussion with her oncologist (approximately 0:28 h in)

This section is horrifying (to Gorski, at least) to watch, as he can’t help but feel how dicey and ethical the situation that poor UK NHS oncologist found himself in with Hymas and her family demanding that he help her be part of one of Burzynski’s “clinical trials” by agreeing to be the local physician and agreeing to order various scans

The end of the story of Amelia Saunders (approximately 0:58 h in)

This is one where Merola caused Gorski true revulsion, as he basically implied that Amelia died because her parents took her off the antineoplastons

Or you can read what Eric Merola REALLY posted on Twitter:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/18/fact-checking-httpthehoustoncancerquack-com/
Hideaki Tsuda’s clinical trial (approximately 1:31 h in)

Gorski wonders why he hasn’t yet published, just like he wonders why Burzynski hasn’t published, but Gorski, SkeptiCoward© that he is, can NOT seem to explain why The Lancet Oncology Peer Review Team D-12-01519 refused to publish Burzynski’s 11/26/2012 (1:29:53) phase 2 clinical trial Progression-Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS) re patients 8 – 16 years after diagnosis, results

Those of you who watch it, let Gorski know what you think

Those of you who can only watch part of it, let Gorski know what you think of that section

Remember, though, Gorski will BLOCK you if you question HIS infallibility, because he and his “Oracolytes” would rather comment on things that have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Burzynski, like:

“it is possible to link without boosting google rankings through the “no-follow command”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nofollow I learned about this from Bob Blaskiewicz, who proposed that we use this when linking to dubious websites in our posts”

Gorski makes unreliable excuses for NOT doing research re Burzynski, so I did it for him

Burzynski: Complete Response, Partial Response, Stable Disease, Progressive Disease, Objective Response, and Response:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/04/burzynski-complete-response-partial-response-stable-disease-progressive-disease-objective-response-and-response/
Burzynski: Progression-Free Survival (PFS):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/04/burzynski-progression-free-survival/
Antineoplastons: Adverse Effects:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/antineoplastons-adverse-effects/
Burzynski: Acknowledgements, Authors, and Co-Investigators:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/03/burzynski-acknowledgements/
Burzynski: Institutional Review Board (IRB):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/burzynski-institutional-review-board-irb/
And because Gorski and others do NOT seem to understand how antineoplastons (ANP) A10 (Atengenal) and AS2-1 (Astugenal) work, I provide the relevant Burzynski publications and page #’s for them to review:
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/scientific-publications.html
======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials
16. 2003 (BT-11)
Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma: a preliminary report.
DRUGS IN R&D
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12718563
Drugs in R and D
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12718563
(Drugs in Research and Development)
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/960.pdf
Drugs R D. 2003;4(2):91-101
Drugs in R&D 2003;4:91-101

Pg. 92
Antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 are synthetic derivatives of phenylacetate (PN) acid, glutamine and isoglutamine

A10 is sterile solution of sodium phenylacetylisoglutiminate (isoPG) in 4 : 1 ratio

Antineoplaston AS2-1 is sterile solution of sodium phenylacetate (PN) and phenylacetylglutaminate (PG) in 4 : 1 ratio

Pg. 97
Discussion
Pg. 99

======================================
Review Articles on Clinical Trials:
1. 3/2004
The Present State of Antineoplaston Research
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/994.pdf
Integrative Cancer Therapies 2004;3:47-58
Volume 3, No. 1, March 2004
DOI: 10.1177/1534735-403261964
Volume 3 Number 1 March 2004

Pg. 47
Pg. 48
Mechanism of Action of Antineoplaston
Pg. 49
Pg. 50

The reason for 50% Progressive Disease (PD) in studies is long dose-escalation process, which extends to more than a month’s time period, before the optimal dosage is reached

Pg. 56
Conclusion

======================================
Case Reports:
4. 9/2004 (Special Exception (SE) to BT-11 Study (ST))
Long-term survival and complete response of a patient with recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioblastoma multiforme
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1145.pdf
Integrative Cancer Therapies 2004;3:257-261
Volume 3, Number 3 September 2004
DOI: 10.1177/1534735404267748

Pgs. 257-258
Pg. 260
Discussion
Pg. 261

======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
2. 10/2004
Phase II study of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in recurrent glioblastoma multiforme
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1218.pdf
Neuro-Oncology. 2004; 6: 384
Volume 6 Issue 4 October 2004
Abstracts from the Society for Neuro-Oncology Ninth Annual Meeting, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, November 18-21, 2004

Pg. 385
======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
3. 10/2004 (Study (ST) and Special Exception (SE))
Long-term survivals in phase II studies of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in patients with diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1219.pdf
Neuro-Oncology. 2004; 6: 386
Volume 6 Issue 4 October 2004

Antineoplastons (ANP) consist of 3 active ingredients including sodium salts of phenylacetylglutamine (PG), phenylacetylisoglutimine (isoPG), and phenylacetic acid (PN)

Preclinical data supports that the mechanism of antineoplastic activity in DBSG, involves interruption of signal transmission in the RAS, (PN) AKT2, and TGFB1 (PG) pathways, activation of p53 and p21 tumor suppressor genes (PN) and apoptosis (PG and isoPG)

======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
17. 2004 (BT-13 and BT-23)
Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in children with recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma :
a preliminary report
DRUGS IN R&D
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15563234
Drugs in R and D
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15563234
(Drugs in Research and Development)
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1194.pdf
Drugs R D. 2004;5(6):315-26
Drugs R&D 2004;5(6):315-326.

Pg. 316
Pg. 324
Discussion

======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
18. 6/2005 (CAN-01 and BT-12)
Burzynski, S.R., Weaver, R.A., Janicki, T., Szymkowski, B., Jurida, G., Khan, M., Dolgopolov, V.
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/pubmed/15911929
Integr Cancer Ther. 2005 Jun;4(2):168-77
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15911929
Integrative Cancer Therapies 2005;4(2):168-177
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1220.pdf
DOI: 10.1177/1534735405276835
http://m.ict.sagepub.com/content/4/2/168.long?view=long&pmid=15911929
Volume 4 Number 2 June 2005

Pg. 168
Pg. 174
Discussion
Pgs. 175-176

======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
19. 3/2006 (BT-03, BT-11, BT-18, and CAN-01)
Targeted therapy with Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 of high grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem glioma.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16484713
Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Mar;5(1):40-7
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16484713
Integrative Cancer Therapies 2006;5(1):40-47
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/5825.pdf
DOI: 10.1177/1534735405285380
http://m.ict.sagepub.com/content/5/1/40.long?view=long&pmid=16484713

Pgs. 40-41
Pg. 46
Discussion
Conclusion

======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
8. 10/2006
Treatment of multicentric brainstem gliomas with antineoplastons (ANP) A10 and AS2-1.
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/2105.pdf
Neuro-Oncology. 2006; 8:466.
Volume 8 Issue 4 October 2006
Abstracts for the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO)

Pg. 466
Antineoplastons (ANP) are synthetic analogues of naturally occurring phenylacetylglutamine (PG), phenylacetylisoglutimine (isoPG), and phenylacetate (PN)

======================================
Review Articles on Clinical Trials:
3. 12/2007
Recent clinical trials in diffuse intrinsic brainstem glioma. Cancer Therapy 2007; 5, 379-390.
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/5692.pdf
Review Article
Cancer Therapy Vol 5, 379-390, 2007
http://www.cancer-therapy.org/CT/v5/B/HTML/42._Burzynski,_379-390.html
Volume 5 Number 2 December, 2007

Pg. 381
Pg. 384
E. Multitargeted therapy

======================================
Interim Reports on Clinical Trials:
11. 10/2008
(BT-8 – PATIENTS WITH ANAPLASTIC ASTROCYTOMA)
(BT-15 – ADULT PATIENTS WITH ANAPLASTIC ASTROCYTOMA)
Phase II study of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in patients with newly diagnosed anaplastic astrocytoma:
A preliminary report
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/7853.pdf
Volume 10 Issue 5 October 2008
Neuro-Oncology 2008; 10:821
Abstracts for the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Society for Neuro-Oncology, November 20-23, 2008

Pg. 821

Antineoplastons (ANP) are synthetic analogs of naturally occurring phenylacetylglutamine (PG), phenylacetylisoglutimine (isoPG), and phenylacetate (PN)

Antineoplastons (ANP) is a multi-targeted therapy affecting signal transduction, the cell cycle, the TCA cycle, and apoptosis

======================================
Interim Reports on Clinical Trials:
12. 12/2008
(BT-8 – PATIENTS WITH ANAPLASTIC ASTROCYTOMA)
(BT-15 – ADULT PATIENTS WITH ANAPLASTIC ASTROCYTOMA)
Phase II study of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 infusions (ANP) in patients with recurrent anaplastic astrocytoma
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/7898.pdf
Neuro-Oncology 2008; 10:1067
Volume 10 Issue 6 December 2008
Abstracts for the Eighth Congress of the European Association for Neuro-Oncology (EANO), Sept. 12-14, 2008, Barcelona, Spain

Antineoplastons (ANP) affects multiple targets, and its components have different mechanisms of action

A10 interferes with signaling in the AKT2 and MYCC pathways, blocks expression of TGFB1, activates the PTEN and MAD tumor suppressor genes, and normalizes nuclear transport by decreasing the expression of RANBP1, which may restore the activity of the mutated INI protein

AS2-1 interferes with signal transmission in the RAS and BCL2 pathways and activates expression of the tumor suppressors TP53 and p21

======================================
Case Reports:
1. 12/2009 (BT-11 Special Exception (SE))
Over a 10-year survival and complete response of a patient with diffuse intrinsic brainstem glioma (DBSG) treated with antineoplastons (ANP).
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/8638.pdf
Neuro-Oncology 2009; 11:923.
Volume 11 Issue 6 December 2009
Abstracts from the Third Quadrennial Meeting of the World Federation of Neuro-Oncology (WFNO) and the Sixth Meeting of the Asian Society for Neuro-Oncology (ASNO), May 11-14, 2009, Yokohama, Japan

Antineoplastons (ANP) is a multi-targeted therapy that is well tolerated with minimal and reversible adverse events and has multiple different mechanisms of action by affecting the AKT, RAS, TP53, p21, and PTEN pathways
======================================