Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski, Stanislaw R. Burzynski, Stanislaw Burzynski, Stan R. Burzynski, Stan Burzynski, S. R. BURZYNSKI, S. Burzynski, Arthur Burzynski, Hippocrates Hypocrite Hypocrites Critic Critics Critical HipoCritical
Liz Szabo’sUSA TODAY “killer cancer” article as interpreted by “Orac” made 3 claims [0]:
—————————————————————— “Conventional cancer treatment can also cause tumors to swell temporarily,”[1]
“due to”
“inflammation,” [2]
“A patient who isn’t familiar with this”
“phenomenon” [3]
“may assume her tumor is growing”
——————————————————————
The issue with citing these 3 studies is that each then needs to be reviewed to determine if they have any relevance to the patientsBurzynski has treated in the phase II clinical trials:
—————————————————————— [1] – 12/2009 – Pseudoprogression and pseudoresponse in the treatment of gliomas
—————————————————————— 1. Has Burzynskitreated patients with gliomas, brain tumours, or recurrent glioblastoma ?
—————————————————————— 2. Has Burzynski’spatients been treated with combined chemo-irradiation with temozolomide which may induce in 20-30% ?
—————————————————————— [2] – 5/2008 – Clinical features, mechanisms, and management of pseudoprogression in malignant gliomas
—————————————————————— 1. Has Burzynskitreated patients with glioblastoma ?
—————————————————————— 2. Have any of Burzynski’spatients been treated with temozolomide chemoradiotherapy ?
—————————————————————— 3. so-called pseudoprogression can occur in up to 20% of patients
—————————————————————— 4. can explain about 1/2 of 20%
—————————————————————— [3] – In support of this “phenomenon”, the article provides a link to a Canadian web-site which 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 sitecites 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 [4]
—————————————————————— GorskGeek stupidly suppositories:
—————————————————————— “It’s very heartening to see a story like this in a major news outlet, and I must congratulate Ms. Szabo for her thorough deconstruction of the phenomenon that is Stanislaw Burzynski“
—————————————————————— GorskGeek, just because a great portion of Liz Szabo’sUSA TODAYarticlequoted verbatim from The Skeptics™ play book, does NOT mean she was anymore successful at “deconstructing” Burzynski [5], anymore than you have NOT
—————————————————————— GorskGeek then regurgitates:
—————————————————————— “Remember how I said that Bob Blaskiewicz will want your help?”
—————————————————————– “Orac” and David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., FACS,
collectively, “GOrac” a/k/a GorskGeek thinks that signs of “Getting Worse is Getting Better” [1]😛
That’s right ! 🙂
I almost couldn’t believe my eyes, but GorskGeek seems to have come around to Burzynski’s way of thinking (according to “Dr.” Bob🙂)
GorskGeek describes it thusly:
—————————————————————– “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”
“In reality, the tumor was just returning to its previous size”
“Pseudoprogression can be a real confounder in assessing the response of brain tumors to therapy, being observed up to 28% of the time”
—————————————————————–
Here’s how GorskGeek’s“brother” in blatherskite; I’m NOT a doctor, 😷 (but I play one on The Other Burzynski Patient Group), Robert J. (don’t call me “Bobby”) “Bob” Blaskiewicz Blatherskitewicz, describes it [2] 😝:
—————————————————————– 8/27/2012, Monday[2]
“On the 27th, we hear:”
“Firstly, Amelia hasn’t quite been herself unfortunately”
“She has been very reluctant to walk, a lot more tired, slow and pretty lethargic”
“She was sick on Saturday night also”(8/25/2012)
“We are reasonably confident we have probably gone too far with the steroid reduction so we have actually increased these slightly again today”
“We decided we would rather have a happy and more alert Amelia than one who doesn’t want to do too much – so we made this decision today in coordination with the Burzynski clinic“
“We’ll see how she does”
“There is a small chance it is the tumour growing, but much more likely given the scans we have that this is due to swelling of the tumour caused by the treatment”
“Time will tell. […]”
“The symptoms we are seeing right now are a direct result of the tumour, hopefully due to it swelling, and the steroids will fix this”
“They are also what we would see if it has grown”
—————————————————————–
(Below comments by: I’m NOT a doctor, 😷 (but I play one on The Other Burzynski Patient Group), Bob Blaskiewicz 😜)
And here’s another example of something that is…desperately, desperately wrong at the Clinic 😦
The patient is being told that the tumor is swelling because of the treatment 😳
How is it that only at the Burzynski Clinic that getting worse is indistinguishable from getting better?😡
Second point:
this is a tumor on the brainstem
If a possible side effect were swelling of the thing pressing against the brainstem, you’d expect that to be on the informed consent form, right? 😐
The type of thing that would be among the “serious side effects,” right? 😮
—————————————————————–
So, to recap 😄:
—————————————————————— David H. Gorski
• ( “Getting Worse is Getting Better”) 😃
•“Conventional cancer treatment can also cause tumors to swell temporarily, due to inflammation“
—————————————————————– Amelia Saunders
•“ . . . but much more likely given the scans we have that this is due to swelling of the tumour caused by the treatment”
•“The symptoms we are seeing right now are a direct result of the tumour, hopefully due to it swelling . . . ”
—————————————————————– “Dr.” Bob Blaskiewicz (I’m NOT a doctor, 😷 but I play one on The Other Burzynski Patient Group)
• The patient is being told that the tumor is swelling because of the treatment
• How is it that only at the Burzynski Clinic that getting worse is indistinguishable from getting better?
• If a possible side effect were swelling of the thing pressing against the brainstem, you’d expect that to be on the informed consent form, right? “O”
——————————————————————
The problem with this is:
In support of this “phenomenon”, the article provides a link to a Canadian web-site [3] 😶
——————————————————————
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 [4] 😁
Get your act together, aye, CAN-A-DUH! 😇
——————————————————————
☺
😉
—————————————————————–
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 articleclaims:
—————————————————————— “Burzynski, 70, calls his drugs “antineoplastons” and says he has given them to more than 8,000 patients since 1977.”
——————————————————————
——————————————————————
However, if you select the “8,000 patients” link, the referenced page does NOT indicate that at all [2]
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— It advises:
—————————————————————— “That same year, Dr. Burzynski founded his clinic in Houston where he’s since treated over 8,000 patients.”[3]
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— Nowhere does it indicate that he “treated 8,000 patients” with antineoplastons
——————————————————————
——————————————————————
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 articlerants and raves on and on about FDA inspection reports from as far back as 1998, but at least they did quote Richard A. Jaffe:
“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)”
——————————————————————
——————————————————————
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 trial — now 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
——————————————————————
