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
(This “lilady” has stated her stance on “Orac’s” “Oracolytes” blog, making it clear that this “lilady” is just another one of “The SkeptiCowards,” along with “Orac,” Guy Chapman, Boris Ogon, etc.)
The list of “The SkeptiCowards,” expands exponentially
[[WP:SOP]] “Statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales:
(Wikipedia: Doing The Right Thing)
1. Doing The Right Thing takes many forms, but perhaps most central is the preservation of our shared vision for the neutral point of view policy and for a culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty.”
Time for a huge tin can of Alabamy WhoopA$$
Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Didymus Judas Thomas
Pages in category “Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Didymus Judas Thomas”
The following 10 pages are in this category, out of 10 total. This list may not reflect recent changes (learn more).
#174 – SW – February 12, 2013
[…] anti-Burzynski “bloggers”
[…] These individuals are also responsible for “gate keeping” the Wikipedia Page on The Burzynski Clinic.
This issue, as well as the identities of those involved, will be covered in great length in the new 2013 “Chapter 2″ documentary.
[…] You will notice the “anti-Burzynski bloggers” refuse to do that or adhere to reputable sources.
[…]
As one of those “gate keeping” wikipedians I find this quite laughable – not only the threat of “covering” my identity, but also the suggestion that bloggers and wikipedians (there may be an overlap, but I can assure you that I’m not a blogger) refuse to check and adhere to reputable sources
#203 – novalox – February 13, 2013
Now, let’s just wait and see djt make accusations of persecution and unfairness.
Should be entertaining to see his attempts at this.
Oh, BTW, djt, if you are still reading this, I was one of the Wikipedia editors who reported you for your trolling behaviors there.
“You are right now having a live “debate” in front of more than 10,000 people, and nothing you have presented suggests that you would be more coherent in person.”
4,089 views
Not so much
Waiting for the 10,000
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech“
Burzynski (49), a biochemist, discovered that peptides and hormones including butyric acid and phenylbutyrate when added to cancer cells results in their differentiation, converting them into normal cells again
Clinical trials have, however, failed to accrue patients to test this exciting concept
In the solitary phase II study, Antineoplastons [consisting of antineoplaston A10 (A10I) and AS2-1 injections] were given intravenously in escalating doses
The overall survival at 2 and 5 years was 39 and 22%, respectively, and maximum survival was more than 17 years for a patient with anaplastic astrocytoma and more than 5 years for a patient with glioblastoma
Progression-free survival at 6 months was 39%
Complete response was achieved in 11%, partial response in 11%, stable disease in 39% and progressive disease in 39% of patients (50)
PDF pg. 9 of 9
References
49. Burzynski SR
The Present Stage of Antineoplaston Research
Integr Cancer Ther 2004;3:47–58
50. Burzynski SR, Janicki TJ, Weaver RA, Burzynski B
Targeted therapy with antineoplastons A10 and AS2–1 of high-grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem glioma
“a strong consensus not to add it, with plenty of reasoned argument in support.”
“The article presents the well-sourced consensus view of the scientific/medical communities already.”
“We shouldn’t be undermining that with poorer-quality sources.”
“(1/15/2013) AND “The article gives the consensus view of the professional community, as represented by the American Cancer Society and Cancer Research UK.”
“In relation, other one-off articles are “poorer-sources”, and we must not use them to undermine the clearly presented consensus.”
[[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] [[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Alexbrn|contribs]]|[[User:Alexbrn#Conflict_of_interest_declaration|COI]] 10:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
(Alexbrn; who is a Journeyman Editor with over 2,000 edits, has been on WP over 5 1/2 years, is a native speaker of English, and has a Doctor of Philosophy degree in English)
Let’s “FACT-CHECK” Alexbrn, shall we?
(Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View)
(1/16/2013). WP:NPOV clearly indicates:
“Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing FAIRLY, PROPORTIONATELY, and as far as possible WITHOUT BIAS, ALL significant views that have been published by reliable sources.
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
ALL Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content MUST be written from a neutral point of view.
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects.
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
This policy is NONNEGOTIABLE and ALL editors and articles MUST follow it.”
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
“The principles upon which this policy is based CANNOT be superseded by OTHER POLICIES or GUIDELINES, or by editors’ consensus.”
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
(Words CAPITALIZED for emphasis only.).
“1 Explanation of the neutral point of view.”
“This page in a nutshell:”
“Articles mustn’t take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias.”
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
“This applies to both what you say and how you say it.”
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
“Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another.”
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
“As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all notable and verifiable points of view.”
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
[[WP:NPOV]] “History of NPOV:” (Content # 6). “The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered,” references.” Thank you very much. 166.205.55.30 (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/21/2013l
[[WP:SR]] “Wikipedia does not have its own views, or determine what is “correct“.
(Wikipedia: Simplified Ruleset)
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
Instead, editors try to summarize what good sources have said about ideas and information.
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
Differing views are presented objectively and without bias as they are reported in reliable sources—sources that have a reputation for being accurate.
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
Good sources are the base of the encyclopedia, and anyone must be able to realistically check whether contributions can be backed up by one.”
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs, if you do NOT think (?) that the Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology is a reliable source—source that has a reputation for being accurate and / or “Good source”, then remove ALL [[WP:MEDRS]] references to it
[[WP:NPOVFAQ]] “Balancing different views/Pseudoscience:
(Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View Frequently Asked Questions)
Balancing different views
If we’re going to represent the sum total of encyclopedic knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false.
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
The task before us is not to describe disputes as though pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority
(sometimes pseudoscientific)
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
view as the minority view, and to explain how scientists have received or criticized pseudoscientific theories.
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.”
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?
WikipediA or WikipediAin’t ?
YOU decide, because in my opinion:
Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs did NOT do this
onforb.es/11pwse9 OR THIS: http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW “3. Why is it that on the Wikipedia “Brainstem Glioma” Prognosis page it has “needs citations,” when I can do an Internet search and find reliable independent sources for that information?” http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics “The U.S. v. Article’~ court stated that the FDA’s responsibility was to protect the ultimate consumer, which included protection of “the ignorant, the unthinking and the credulous.”‘
“the ignorant
the unthinking and
the credulous.”‘
Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs, which are you?
guychapman, THIS “good evidence” that you’re “without” ?
The FDA’s Drug Review Process:
Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective
“[T]he emphasis in Phase 2 is on EFFECTIVENESS”
“This phase aims to obtain PRELIMINARY DATA on whether the drug works in people who have a certain disease or condition”
“Phase 3 studies begin if EVIDENCE of EFFECTIVENESS is shown in Phase 2″
“These studies gather more information about safety and EFFECTIVENESS, studying different populations and different dosages and using the drug in combination with other drugs” http://www.fda.gov/drugs/resourcesforyou/consumers/ucm143534.htm
“61 registered human trials, one completed, zero results published, from any of them.”
guychapman, do you mean THIS ?
clinicaltrials . gov does NOT contain the same data as the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) cancer . gov web-site:
61 TOTAL
1 – Not Yet Recruiting (Open)(Phase 3)
1 – Closed
2 – Terminated (Withdrawn due to slow enrollment)
7 – Withdrawn (This study has been withdrawn prior to enrollment)
10 – Recruiting (Open)
11 – Open (1 Not Yet Recruiting / 10 Recruiting)
40 – Active, not recruiting (Closed)
10 – Recruiting (Open)
11 – Open (1 Not Yet Recruiting / 10 Recruiting)
40 – Active, not recruiting (Closed)
10=Open
11=1 Not Yet Recruiting / 10 Recruiting
40=Closed
61-TOTAL
“The Burzynski fans’ snowstorm of irrelevant, low-grade publications in low impact journals and conference abstracts that aren’t even peer-reviewed, do not address this at all.”
guychapman, are you referring to THIS ?
The “National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Cancer Clinical Trials,
15. What happens when a clinical trial is over?”
“The results of clinical trials are OFTEN published in peer-reviewed scientific journals”
” … WHETHER OR NOT the results are published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal … “ http://m.cancer.gov/topics/factsheets/clinical-trials This makes it clear that clinical trial results “are OFTEN” published, but sometimes they are “NOT” published “in a peer-reviewed scientific journal”
“The Helsinki Declaration states the obligations of those conducting trials in humans, and getting the results (good or bad) published and available is a core requirement.”
guychapman, WHERE does the Declaration of Helsinki indicate WHEN the final results of human clinical trials MUST be published?
“Gerson’s therapy is known to be ineffective and potentially harmful, but he used patient anecdotes – people sincerely convinced they had undergone a miracle cure – to promote his business.”
“What *objective* mechanism do you propose we use to distinguish between Burzynski and the quack Gerson?”
guychapman, how about the publications and Securities and Exchange (SEC) filings cited on my page 9 critique?
“2. Burzynski has registered 61 clinical trials in humans, completed one and published no useful data from any.”
guychapman, you obviously have a very “fast and loose” definition of “no useful data”
Exactly WHAT is your definition of “no useful data”?
“Can you name any mainstream cancer research operations that have similar rates of failure to compete and publish?”
guychapman, can you name any mainstream publications like Forbes that have similar rates of failure to “compete” and publish my 15+ comments in reply to your 18 comments?
Do you think it was because they knew that I would “rip you a new one” and you would be left there as the proverbial “Emperor (who) has no clothes”?
“3. How many people do you estimate are involved, globally, in the conspiracy to suppress Burzynski’s treatment?”
“My rough guess is a few hundred thousand.”
“Can you give a better estimate with reasons?”
guychapman, let’s start with YOU, guychapman (Guy Chapman, @SceptiGuy, @vGuyUK, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg), your pals at Wikipedia; Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales, http://www.jimmywales.com, (@jimmy_wales – whom you re-twit on Twitter), JzG|Guy, Guy, Anthony (AGK) BASC, Alexbrn, Dave Dial, Drmies, NE Ent, fluffernutter, foxj, jpgordon, Guerillero, Ironholds, John, Lord Sjones23, Tom Morris, Nstrauss, Steve Pereira/SilkTork, Rhode Island Red, Arthur Rubin, Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 (Seb az86556), Sgerbic, IRWolfie, Six words, Yobol, @RudyHellzapop, @_JosephineJones, @JCmacc1, @Malboury, @DianthusMed, @medTek, @StopBurzynski, @StortSkeptic, Dr. Peter A. Lipson (@palMD), #Forbes censor(s), Dr. David H. Gorski (@gorskon, @oracknows, @ScienceBasedMed, #sciencebasedmedicine, http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence, http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org, The Faux Skeptic Revealed! Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz, R.J. Blaskiewicz, Blatherskitewicz), C0nc0rdance, Boris Ogon, lilady, JGC2013, claire G, Sharon Hill, Allen Jones, Lynne, @JCmacc1, Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan), oval wooki, Vered Yasur, (the Forbes group) and http://burzynskimovie.com/images/stories/transcript/Documents/BurzynskiTriesToExposeNCI.pdf, etc.
“4. When you talk about Antineoplastons not being chemotherapy, what, in your mind, distinguishes the intravenous administration of one chemical from the intravenous administration of another, other than the fact that it’s Burzynski doing it?”
2/13/2013 – The frequency, cost, and clinical outcomes of HYPERNATREMIA in patients hospitalized to a comprehensive CANCER center http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23404230 Over 3 month period in 2006 re 3,446 patients, most of the HYPERNATREMIA (90 %) was acquired during hospital stay
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
Support Care Cancer. 2013 Feb 13. [Epub ahead of print]
“In order to maintain their doses of ANP, patients are required to drink obscene amounts of water every day (some report up to 12 quarts or more)”
“If they fail to do so, they may lapse into unconsciousness or die”
Let’s put this in perspective
FACT: Some sources indicate:
1) A man should drink about
3 liters (101.44 ounces / 3 quarts 5.44 ounces) per day
{12 quarts = 384 ounces = 11.356 liters}
[12 quarts in 24 hours = 1/2 quart or 16 ounces per hour]
2) Extremely healthy kidneys could process about 30 ounces (approx .9 liters) of water in an hour
{30 ounces in 24 hours = 720 ounces}
[720 ounces = 22.5 quarts per day]
3) A person with healthy kidneys could develop water intoxication by drinking about 2 to 3 times what their kidneys can process
So, if extremely healthy kidneys could process about 30 ounces per hour and 12 quarts per day would require one to only drink 16 ounces per hour, that means one is being asked to drink 14 ounces less per hour than what extremely healthy kidneys could process
So even if one drinks more than 16 ounces per hour so that one does not have to be awake hourly, there is still opportunity to do that
Of course, there are certain other factors that might have to be taken into consideration depending on the patient
“6. Burzynski has convinced you that he can cure incurable cancers.”
“What figures has he given you for his five-year survival versus standard of care?”
guychapman, HERE:
2003 – Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma:
incurable recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma
6 patients were diagnosed with pilocytic astrocytoma
4 with low-grade astrocytoma
1 with astrocytoma grade 2
1 case of visual pathway glioma, a biopsy was not performed due to a dangerous location
1 patient was non-evaluable due to only 4 weeks of ANP and lack of follow-up scans
1 patient who had stable disease discontinued ANP against medical advice and died 4.5 years later
10 patients are alive and well from 2 to >14 years post-diagnosis
2004
Protocol – incurable recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma
12 – Patients Accrued
– Evaluable Patients
33% – % of Patients Showing Complete Response
25% – % of Patients Showing Partial Response
33% – % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
0 / 0% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
2005 – 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/m/pubmed/15911929 Integr Cancer Ther. 2005 Jun;4(2):168-77
13 children with recurrent disease or high risk
6 (46%) survived more than 5 years
2005
Protocol – recurrent disease or
high risk
– Patients Accrued
– Evaluable Patients
23% – % of Patients Showing Complete Response
8% – % of Patients Showing Partial Response
31% – % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
38% – % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
2006 – Targeted therapy with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 of high-grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem glioma http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16484713 Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Mar;5(1):40-7
Brainstem glioma carries the worst prognosis of all malignancies of the brain
Most patients with brainstem glioma fail standard radiation therapy and chemotherapy and do not survive longer than 2 years
Treatment is even more challenging when an inoperable tumor is of high-grade pathology (HBSG)
patients with inoperable tumor of high-grade pathology (HBSG) treated with antineoplastons in 4 phase 2 trials
22% – overall survival at 5 years
17+ years maximum survival for a patient with anaplastic astrocytoma
5+ years for a patient with glioblastoma
5+ year survival in recurrent diffuse intrinsic glioblastomas and anaplastic astrocytomas of the brainstem in a small group of patients
“They refuse to fact check anything. Namely Phase 2 results showing a 25% cure rate for brainstem glioma, never accomplished in medical history—ever.”
“Published plan as day in a ‘internationally peer-reviewed’ article.”
“You mean PMIDs 12718563 and 16484713? (These, at least, are the ones that Merola cites, which I assume is the sum total of your “fact checking.”)”
“Namely Phase 2 results showing a 25% cure rate for brainstem glioma, never accomplished in medical history—ever”
“Notice the chart on page 172 (page 8 of PDF).”
“Find just one, any single cure for this tumor type and you can’t, outside of Antineoplastons FDA sanctioned clinical trials:”
“The first reference is to Drugs in R&D 4:91 (2003).”
“The second reference is to Integrative Cancer Therapies 4:168 (2005).”
The “chart on page 172 (page 8 of PDF):”
refers to:
2006 Adis – Pediatr Drugs 2006; 8 (3)
pg 172
Treatments for Astrocytic Tumors
Table II. Treatment of diffuse, intrinsic brainstem glioma in children
Burzynski et al. [88] – Reference
Phase II – Study Type
(no. of pts) – pts = patients
RP (30) – RP = recurrent and progressive tumor – Tumor type
ANP – ANP = antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 – Treatment – ANP
OS (%) – OS = overall survival
[2y; 5y]
46.7; 30 – Efficacy
MST (mo)
19.9 – MST = median survival time
[% (no. )]
27 (8) – CR – CR = complete response
[% (no. )]
20% (6) – PR – PR = partial response
[% (no. )]
23% (7) – SD – SD = stabile disease
30% (9) – PD = progressive disease pg 177
88. Burzynski SR, Weaver RA, Janicki T. Long-term survival in phase II studies of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in patients with diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma [abstract]. Neuro-oncol 2004; 6: 386
This is the 2004 publication, NOT 2003
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/m/pubmed/15563234 Drugs R D. 2004;5(6):315-26
pg 172
Burzynski et al. [89] – Reference
Phase II – Study Type
(no. of pts) – pts = patients
RPS (10) – RPS = recurrent and progressive tumors in children aged <4y – Tumor type {(66) = most in a study}
ANP – ANP = antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 – Treatment – ANP
OS (%) – OS = overall survival
[2y; 5y] – Efficacy
60; 20 {46.7 (30) = next best study}
MST (mo)
26.3 – MST = median survival time – {19.9 = next best study}
[% (no. )]
30% (3) – CR = complete response – {27% (8) = next best study}
[% (no. )]
0% (0) – PR = partial response – {56% (1) = next best}
[% (no. )]
40% (4) – SD = stable disease – {44% (25) = best}
[% (no. )]
30% (3) – PD = progressive disease – {23% (13) = best}
(Above, I also provide the best next case to compare to)
pg 177
89. Burzynski SR, Weaver RA, Janicki TJ, et al. Targeted therapy with ANP in children less than 4 years old with inoperable brain stem gliomas [abstract]. Neuro-oncol 2005; 7: 300
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/m/pubmed/15911929 Integr Cancer Ther. 2005 Jun;4(2):168-77
pg 173
1.4.3 Targeted Therapy
“…multi-targeted therapy with ANP has shown promising results [12;88-91]”
pg 176
90. Burzynski SR, Lewy RI, Weaver RA, et al. Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma: a preliminary report. Drugs R D 2003; 4: 91-101
Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma: a preliminary report. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12718563 Drugs R D. 2003;4(2):91-101
91. Burzynski SR, Weaver RA, Janicki T. et al. Targeted therapy with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) of high-grade, recurrent and progressive brain stem glioma. Integr Cancer Ther 2006 Mar; 5 (1): 40-7
Targeted therapy with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 of high-grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem glioma. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16484713 Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Mar;5(1):40-7
30 evaluable patients with recurrent and progressive DBSG
“>40% of patients survived for more than 2 years
30% more than 5 years.”
Multi-targeted ANP therapy is free from chronic toxicity in children and adults based on the results of numerous clinical studies involving
1652 adults
335 children
[147]
pg 178
147. Burzynski SR. Annual report to the FDA, IND 43,742, 2006
pg 174
Long-term follow-up of children treated with ANP for astrocytomas revealed:
normal development
no cognitive or endocrine deficiencies
normal fertility
>5 years – substantial number of patients tumor free
>17 years – follow-up period for some patients
pg 169
1.1.4. Targeted Therapy
Clinical trials with agents affecting single targets are in progress and the preliminary results of multi-targeted therapy with
antineoplastons (ANP) A10
and
AS2-1 have been reported
[39]
small group of patients with progressive LGA, ANP
60% – CR rate – Complete Response
10% – PR rate – Partial Response
median survival 7 years 9 months
maximum survival of more than 15 years
[39]
LGA = Low-Grade Astrocytomas
Table I. Selected chemotherapy regimens for the treatment of low- grade astrocytoma in children
Burzynski [39] – Reference
Phase II d – d = Preliminary results – Study type
P – P = progressive tumor – Tumor type
(no. of pts) – pts = patients
ANP (10) – ANP = antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 – Treatment {(78) = most in a study}
OS [%] – OS = overall survival
100% (1 yr) – 90% (3 yr) – Efficacy
93 mo – MST = MST = median survival time – {96 (1 y) next closest}
CR [% (no.)]
60% (6) – CR = complete response {24 (11) next closest}
PR [% (no.)]
10% (1) – PR = partial response {60% (9) best other study}
[% (no.)]
30% (3) – SD = stable disease + MR = minor response {70% (14) best other study}
[% (no.)]
0% (0) – PD = progressive disease {4% (2) next closest}
PFS (%)
90 (1 y) – 90 (3 y) – PFS = progression-free survival {100 (1 y) – 68 (3 y) best other study
(Above, I also provide the best next case to compare to)
pg 176
39. Burzynski SR Clinical application of body epigenetic system: multi-targeted therapy for primary brain tumors. World and Ehrlich Conference on Dosing of Magic Bullets; 2004 Sep 9-11 Nurnberg
Otherwise, check with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Where are they published?
guychapman, if you have NOT yet figured THAT out…
“7. There are numerous cases where the Burzynski clinic has said a tumour is “dying from the inside”, but where it turns out that it is growing aggressively and suffering necrosis due to outstripping its blood supply; this is usually a precursor to the death of a patient only weeks after being told they were on the way to a cure.”
“How do you account for this repeated error?”
guychapman, WHERE is the documentation?
Boris Ogon
“You are right now having a live “debate” in front of more than 10,000 people, … “
3,919 views
Not so much
Waiting for the 10,000
4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
