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:

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

— David Gorski (@gorskon) March 30, 2013

——————————————————————
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

Click to access 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

Click to access 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

Click to access 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

Click to access 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

Click to access 1218.pdf

Neuro-Oncology. 2004; 6: 384
Volume 6 Issue 4 October 2004
Abstracts from the Society for Neuro-Oncology Ninth Annual Meeting, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, November 18-21, 2004
======================================
[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

Click to access 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

Click to access 1146.pdf

Neuro-Oncology. 2004; 6: 427
Volume 6 Issue 4 October 2004
Abstracts from the Eleventh International Symposium on Pediatric Neuro-Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts, June 13-16, 2004
======================================
[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

Click to access 1147.pdf

Neuro-Oncology. 2004; 6: 428
Volume 6 Issue 4 October 2004
Abstracts from the Eleventh International Symposium on Pediatric Neuro-Oncology
======================================
[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

Click to access 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

Click to access 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

Click to access 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

Click to access 5825.pdf

�
http://m.ict.sagepub.com/content/5/1/40.long?view=long&pmid=16484713
======================================
[13] 2006 (Pgs. 167-168)
——————————————————————

Click to access 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

Click to access 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

Click to access 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

Click to access 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

Click to access 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)

Click to access 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

Click to access 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

Click to access 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

Click to access 8637.pdf

Neuro-Oncology 2010; 12:iv72.
Volume 12 Supplement 4 November 2010
======================================

Advertisement

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

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

— David Gorski (@gorskon) July 14, 2013

——————————————————————
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
======================================

Click to access 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
======================================

Click to access 970.pdf

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

Click to access 994.pdf

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

Click to access 1145.pdf

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

Click to access 1146.pdf

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

Click to access 1147.pdf

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

Click to access 1194.pdf

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

Click to access 1220.pdf

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

Click to access 1252.pdf

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

Click to access 2105.pdf

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

Click to access 5825.pdf

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

Click to access 7287.pdf

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

Click to access 7853.pdf

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

Click to access 7898.pdf

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

Click to access 8397.pdf

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

Click to access 8637.pdf

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

Click to access 8638.pdf

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

Click to access 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/
======================================