Wikipedia or Wikipediantic ? – wants your 3 pounds of flesh (WikiPEEdia, UR all INe)

20131208-231916.jpg
[WP:SOP] Statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then. 7.”)

Due & undue weight: [3]

“The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant & should not be considered,”

[WP:NPOV] “History of NPOV:” (Content # 6, Note 3)

(Neutral Point of View)
——————————————————————
TRANSLATION: Wikipedia editors, YOUR OPINION IS NOT RELEVANT
——————————————————————
MEANING: It is meaningless to attempt to slather your biased OPINION all over Wikipedia like butter on Texas toast, since supposedly, we only care about verifiable FACTS
======================================
Wikipedia, what the problem is ?

Jimmy Donal Wales

Who ?

No, “The Who” is actually really British !

(as opposed to some “furreigner” who plops across the pond, wants to pound one of your pelts after a celebrity hunt, pops it in his bonnet, pip-pips about, and mounts it up on his rented wall along with what’s left of his balls)

I’m writing, of course, about “Jimbo,” the one who got away . . . Thankfully

The recipient of the write-up earlier this year in The New York Times [1] (Oh, pithy !!)
——————————————————————
Wales, who no longer runs the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia

“He applies his libertarian worldview to the Internet and has taken on institutions like the United States government
——————————————————————
You must be bloody well right joking me

(joking me ? Quit jokin’ me !)

JimCrow’s ’bout as “libertarian” as Fidel Castro with a gun in his hand and (f)lies between his teeth; from traveling with the windows down

Stephen Colbert shoulda seen that comin’ from a 8 mile away

Hey Stephen, Report’ THAT !!!
——————————————————————
“He grew up in Huntsville, Ala., the son of a teacher and a retail man
——————————————————————
And obviously, he didn’t “learnt” well

I think a refund’s in order

And here’s your free school Insolence to go with it

Happy eat in’

It is claimed that “HE” spends time:
——————————————————————
“traveling the world giving talks on free speech and Internet freedom
——————————————————————
seriously ?

Seriously ??

SERIOUSLY ???

Welcome to MizFitTV

What would “Jymboree” know about “free speech” and “Internet freedom,“ anyway ?

How many days did you serve your country in the United States military ?

Oh, you did NOT realize that while you were in San Diego, you could have signed that contract ?

After all, he’s no Vincent Kennedy McMahon”
(“HE” knows where “HIS” GRAPEFRUITS are)
======================================
“B.D.F.L., or the Benevolent Dictator for Life”
——————————————————————
How ’bout:

Big
Disappointing
Fascist
Loser ?
——————————————————————
Argumentum ad Jimbonem” means dutifully following what Wales says, but there are even arguments about that”
——————————————————————
WP:NICETRY, but that’s “SHEEPLE”
——————————————————————
“One Wikipedia editor said, for instance, that Wales was no longer comfortable with the B.D.F.L. description”
——————————————————————
Jiminy Cricket !

Whazzamatta Jiminy?

Did “FASCIST” hit a bit too close to home ?
——————————————————————
“(There is, among some, a debate over what to call him)”

“Some users have also disputed the Latinized version of “Jimbo.”

“(Should it be “Jimboni” or “Jimbini”?)”
——————————————————————
Can you smell what “The Rock” is cookin’ ?

La-La-La-La-Laaaaaaawwww, JIMBRONI !!!!!!!

Get ready, and bend over, ’cause I’m gonna shine this thing up, turn it sideways, and shove it straight up your Candy AstroTurf hatch
——————————————————————
Introduction (statement of principles) [WP:SOP]

“This is a statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then”
——————————————————————
(Or if you go by The New York Times article, [1] Jimbroni is the co-founder” who tries to re-write history to make it appear that “HE” is the one-and-only Fascist Founder ?)
——————————————————————
“I should point out that these are my principles, such that I am the final judge of them”

This does not mean that I will not listen to you, but it does mean that at some ultimate, fundamental level, this is how Wikipedia will be run”
——————————————————————
No, actually, it DOES mean that he will NOT listen to you, as was the case when he ignored my 2/7/2013 appeal

In his defense, perhaps Kate Garvey has his balls
——————————————————————
Principles

1. “Wikipedia’s success to date is entirely a function of our open community”

“This community will continue to live and breathe and grow only so long as those of us who participate in it continue to Do The Right Thing

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
——————————————————————
The problem with this Wacky Tobacky “We are the (Wiki) World” WikiWhOReD Wonderland Jimbroni’s living in, is that “HE” has NOT been Doing The Right Thing since “HE” abdicated “his” “neutral point of view policy” and “culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty,” to “The Skeptics”

“The Skeptics,” who serve as gatekeepers of the Burzynski Clinic article, and who cite Dr. David H. Gorski a/k/a “Orac” aka GorskGeek as if he were a “reliable source”

“The Skeptics,” who bring new meaning to the term “Wikipedia Zero”

“The Skeptics,” who are Intellectual Cowards like their false god Gorski, the Closet Communist of Science-Based Medicine a/k/a Science-Basted Medicine aka Science-Based Mudicine (Spinning Bowel Movement), Wiki Wordsmith Wannabes, nut-jobbers, stale from their failure at the National Peanut Festival in Dothan, Alabama
——————————————————————
3. ““You can edit this page right now” is a core guiding check on everything that we do”

“We must respect this principle as sacred”
——————————————————————
Do the lies just dribble off your chin like phlegm?

You canNOT just go in and “edit” the Burzynski Clinic article “page right now”

That statement is pure, unadulterated Alabama B.S.

That’s NOT a “sacred principle,” it’s sacré “bull”
——————————————————————
7. “Anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity”
——————————————————————
Unfortunately, you do NOT practice what you preach, do you, HYPOCRITE ?
——————————————————————
“They should be encouraged constantly to present their problems in a constructive way”
——————————————————————
So that you can ignore the problem(s), right, Jimbroni ?
——————————————————————
“Anyone who just complains without foundation, refusing to join the discussion, should simply be rejected and ignored”
——————————————————————
THAT would automatically exclude all of “The Skeptics” now, wouldn’t it ?
——————————————————————
“We must not let the “squeaky wheel” be greased just for being a jerk
——————————————————————
Jimbroni, why have you allowed “The Skeptics” to choose from their “squeaky” wheel-house bag o’ tricks, get all “greased” up and jerk” so many people around in such a big CIRCLE-JERK, for so long?
——————————————————————
8. “Diplomacy consists of combining honesty and politeness

“Both are objectively valuable moral principles”

“Be honest with me, but don’t be mean to me”

“Don’t misrepresent my views for your own political ends, and I’ll treat you the same way”
——————————————————————
“Honesty” and “politeness” are really great buzzwords,” Jimbroni, but they are as foreign to your “Skeptics,” as “moral principles”
——————————————————————
A great example of the questionable “honesty” and “moral principles” of one of your apparatchiks, was demonstrated 2/3/2013, 6:56, when I sent an arbitration appeal e-mail to Wikipedia, advising, in part, that the e-mail listed on Wikipedia; as the one that blocked users should use, did NOT work, because there was NO “@” sign in it

There was a . (period) where the “@” sign belonged
——————————————————————

20131212-173725.jpg

20131212-173745.jpg
——————————————————————
2/3/2013, 8:11 AM, Anthony (AGK) BASC
wikiagk@gmail.com
advised:

“Everything you have said in that e-mail demonstrates a misunderstanding or misreading of Wikipedia policy”
——————————————————————

20131212-173821.jpg

20131212-173851.jpg
——————————————————————
Check the “time” and “place” where you are, so that you, too, can advise, that according to Wikipedia, pointing out to them that the e-mail they advise people to use, DOES NOT WORK; because there is no “@” sign in it (instead, there’s a . (period)), translates into meaning:
——————————————————————
“Everything you have said in that e-mail demonstrates a misunderstanding or misreading of Wikipedia policy”
======================================
Core principles

Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset [WP:SR]

Wikipedia does not have its own views, or determine what is “correct”
——————————————————————
I wish I could LIE like that, but I have a conscience
======================================
12/24/2012, Monday – 3:52 pm – 21:52 (UTC) –
“We are told that 2013 will be a big year, but apparently his plan is to release another bullshit movie not to publish useful research”

[User Talk:JzG|Guy] ([User JzG/help|Help!]) [2]

20131212-205521.jpg
——————————————————————
“Bullshit movie” ?
——————————————————————

20131212-210534.jpg
——————————————————————
Does anyone other than me NOT think it a “coinkydink” that some “Guy” on Wikipedia, going by the name “Guy”, using the same 2 words (“Bullshit movie”) as a “Guy” on Twitter ?
======================================
2. Founding principles:

“Neutrality is mandatory . . . “
——————————————————————
I call B.S.

Neutrality is mandatory,” EXCEPT on the Burzynski Clinic article, controlled by “The Skeptics”
——————————————————————
4. “Ignore all rules (IAR):”

“Rules on Wikipedia are not fixed in stone”
——————————————————————
Especially when Jimbroni allows “The Skeptics”
to “dictator” the “rules”
——————————————————————
“The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule

“The common purpose of building an encyclopedia trumps both”

“This means that any rule can be broken for a very good reason, if it ultimately helps to improve the encyclopedia”
——————————————————————
And “The Skeptics” are NOT required to provide ANY reason for having broken “any rule”
——————————————————————
“It doesn’t mean that anything can be done just by claiming IAR, or that discussion is not necessary to explain one’s decision”
——————————————————————
But do NOT expect Wikipedia to require anything from The Skeptics”
——————————————————————
Founding principles

1. “Neutral point of view (NPOV) as a mandatory editorial principle”
—————————————————————–
EXCEPT when it comes to the Burzynski Clinic article
——————————————————————
12/26/2012 – I attempted to get Wikipedia to reference the interview which Burzynski’s attorney, Richard (Rick) A. Jaffe, and Lola Quinlan’s attorney; who posted it on his web-site, had given: [4]

20131213-073026.jpg
Please add re WP:NPOV that Burzynski’s attorney, Richard Jaffe has disputed Lola Quinlan’s claims:

“On February 1, 2012, Dr. Burzynski’s attorney, Richard Jaffe, disputed Lola Quinlan’s allegations on Houston’s KPRC News.”

Thank you very much.[[User: Didymus Judas Thomas 15:03, 12/26/2012 (UTC)
——————————————————————
So? [OR] Disputing it in the media probably means he doesn’t have a case. [/OR] In any case, a lawyer disputing the allegations against his client is not even news. — [[User: Arthur Rubin 15:24, 12/26/2012 (UTC)

20131213-072937.jpg
Arthur Rubin, I’m not sure what relevance your above post has re WP:NPOV since the article includes statements from attorneys representing both sides

17:51, 12/27/2012 (UTC) Didymus Judas Thomas

20131213-072956.jpg

20131213-073014.jpg

20131212-231332.jpg
======================================
12/24/2012, Monday – 3:54 pm (21:54.UTC) – “What they mean is that nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it, which necessarily means that it’s not considered in the least promising.”

[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([User JzG/help|Help!])

20131212-235933.jpg
“Nobody else is doing meaningful work on it” ?

Ignores independent research done in Poland, Russia, Korea, Egypt, Japan, & China which specifically reference SRB’s publications in their publications re antineoplastons & phenylacetylglutamine (PG); which is AS2-5, & includes phase III trials published in China & continued research being published in China 12/17/2012?

FACTS:

1. I pointed out to Wikipedia, a 12/17/2012 scientific publication re antineoplastons, which referenced Burzynski @ 22. (antineoplaston AS21)

2. 7 days after this scientific journal was published, Wikipedia’a “Guy (Help!’s) ”response, Monday, 12/24/2012 @ 3:54 pm, is to advise me:

“What they mean is that nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it, which necessarily means that it’s not considered in the least promising.”

Guy (Help!) 3:54 pm, 12/24/2012, Monday

3. So, Wikipedia’s, Guy (Help!), defines an event having been published 7 days ago (12/17/2012 to 12/24/2012) as:

“…nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it…”

12/17/2012
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3524164
CDA-2 (cell differentiation agent 2), a URINARY preparation
http://po.st/g71N8P
CDA-2 and its main component PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINE (PG or PAG)
Antineoplaston AS2-5 is PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINE (PAG or PG)
http://redd.it/1dk974
Antineoplaston AS2-1 is a 4:1 mixture of phenylacetic acid (PA) and PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINE (PAG or PG)
Antineoplastons AS2-5 and AS2-1 are derived from Antineoplaston A10
BURZYNSKI Reference: 22.
antineoplaston AS21
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0052117
======================================
12/26/2012, Wednesday – 12:43 – “There is unlikely to be any dispassionate debate over ANPs while Burzynski continues with his unethical practices.”

JzG|Guy User:JzG/help|Help!

20131213-064500.jpg
Wikipedia: Judge, Jury, Executioner
======================================

20131213-065902.jpg
“The world, right now, considers Burzynski to be at best unethical and at worst a quack…”?

Since when did Wikipedia conduct a world-wide “opinion poll” re Burzynski ?

And if Wikipedia is correct, how did this happen ?

Burzynski referenced by other Cancer researchers:

2011 – Phase II trial of tipifarnib and radiation in children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas
http://neuro-oncology.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/3/298.full
University of California—San Francisco

Children’s Hospital Boston, Massachusetts

St Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee

Seattle Children’s Hospital, Seattle, Washington

Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Children’s National Medical Center, Washington, DC

Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Ohio

Neuro Oncol (2011) 13 (3): 298-306
doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noq202

5.723 Impact Factor

25. ↵ Burzynski SR
Treatments for astrocytic tumors in children: current and emerging strategies
Paediatr Drugs. 2006;8:167-178
http://link.springer.com/article/10.2165%2F00148581-200608030-00003
Pediatric Drugs
May 2006, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 167-178
======================================

20131213-081001.jpg
——————————————————————
Rhode Island Red attempts to get away with misquoting me:
——————————————————————

20131213-081015.jpg
——————————————————————
“The other argument is that the secondary sources (i.e., respected cancer organizations, FDA, etc.) are not reliable because they are Burzynski’s “competitors”

[[User: Rhode Island Red]] 4:18 pm, Yesterday (UTC−6)
======================================

20131213-085153.jpg

20131213-085209.jpg

20131213-085227.jpg

20131213-085242.jpg

20131213-085308.jpg
——————————————————————
What a Wipocrite (Wiki + Hypocrite)

Steve Pereira (SilkTork) is such a “WIPOCRITE,” that he claims:
——————————————————————
“the community were united that your contributions were biased”
——————————————————————
He conveniently; like a good little mini-Jimbroni would, ignores ALL of his fellow WIPOCRITES comments, which completely ignored:
——————————————————————
([WP:SOP] Statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then. 7.”)

Due & undue weight: [3]

“The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant & should not be considered,”

[WP:NPOV] “History of NPOV:” (Content # 6, Note 3)

(Neutral Point of View)
——————————————————————
1. 12/24/2012, Monday – 3:52 pm – 21:52 (UTC) – “We are told that 2013 will be a big year, but apparently his plan is to release another bullshit movie not to publish useful research”
——————————————————————
2. 12/24/2012, Monday – 3:54 pm (21:54.UTC) – “What they mean is that nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it, which necessarily means that it’s not considered in the least promising.”
——————————————————————
3. 12/26/2012, Wednesday – 12:43 – “There is unlikely to be any dispassionate debate over ANPs while Burzynski continues with his unethical practices.”
——————————————————————
4. 12/30/2012 8:58 “The world, right now, considers Burzynski to be at best unethical and at worst a quack…”?
——————————————————————
Am I NOT the only one convinced that “the community” was also “united” in something more than just their “goose-stepping ?
——————————————————————
Pereira, the imperfect ‘pedia Pimp tries to Wow his readers by waxing WikiWhOReD, by ignoring that ALL the previous BIASED opinion B.S. that his fellow-Facist forged ahead with, and which Wikipediantic history says means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING (say it again) because it is their BIASED OPINION and is ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS, and it was as so much WikiLitter, well, he’s just facist-free speechless about that, as any Jimbroni AstroTurf Twerk should be
======================================
To show exactly what zealots these WikiPimps are, just absorb this exchange:
——————————————————————
“The Burzynski Clinic Article has:

“…a Mayo Clinic study found no benefit….”

But that was not what the study concluded

See below:
——————————————————————
“CONCLUSION:

Although we could not confirm any tumor regression in patients in this study, the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions about treatment efficacy.”
——————————————————————
In the interest of Neutrality, please remove the reference to Mayo entirely or change to;
——————————————————————
“…a Mayo Clinic study found that “the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions about treatment efficacy.”
——————————————————————
Thank you very much

Didymus Judas Thomas 21:12, 12/10/2012
——————————————————————
“How is “found no benefit” not a a fair and pithy description of the Mayo Clinic study’s summary?”

Alexbrn 21:24, 12/10/2012
——————————————————————
“I feel this should be changed under WP:NPOV because not every reader is going to understand the “Fair & Pithy” reason I was provided

I feel that the average reader reading this will read it as meaning a study was done & completed with the necessary # of people for an effective study, when that was not the conclusion as pointed out in my above post

Thank you very much.”

Didymus Judas Thomas 11:02, 12/18/2012
——————————————————————
NO RESPONSE

That’s right !

“NO RESPONSE” from the “mini-b” (a/k/a “mini-brain”), wannabe Fascists who are so zealous about using their alleged “Fair and Pithy” “found no benefit” WikiWhOReD; which they utilize in an effort to deceive those who are NOT smarter than a fifth-grader

These WikiPimps are so certain of the righteousness of their evangelical cause, that they do NOT even have the “GRAPEFRUITS” to use what the study’s conclusions actually said, and let the chips fall where they may

There are a lot of “chips” falling at Wikipedia

“BULL CHIPS”

JIMBRONI, you’re no Maggie Thatcher

You can’t even wear her pants
——————————————————————
Margaret Thatcher: “The Iron Lady”

Jimbroni: “No iron in the pants”
——————————————————————
Jimbroni’s list of Facist, mini-Hitler, Monty Pythonesque Women’s underwear wearing Wannabes on Wikipediantic:

1. Alexbrn
2. fluffernutter
3. NE Ent
4. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 (Seb az86556)
5. Tom Morris
6. Guerillero
7. Dave Dial
8. John
9. Nstrauss
10. Yobol
11. Drmies
12. foxj
13. Ironholds
14. Rhode Island Red
15. Anthony (AGK) BASC wikiagk@gmail.com
16. Steve Pereira (Silk Tork) silktork@gmail.com
——————————————————————
WikiWhOReD (Wiki + Word + Whore): Pimping a word. Attempting to deceive someone by means of misdirection with words
——————————————————————
The South will rise again, just not in Jimbroni’s pants
——————————————————————
Happy Friday the 13th, Wikipediantic
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – 6/27/2013Jimmy Wales Is Not an Internet Billionaire (By AMY CHOZICK):
——————————————————————
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/magazine/jimmy-wales-is-not-an-internet-billionaire.html
======================================
[2] – 12/24/2012, Monday – 3:52 pm – 21:52 (UTC) – [User Talk:JzG|Guy] ([User:JzG/help|Help!])
——————————————————————
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burzynski_Clinic&diff=next&oldid=529537854
======================================
[3] – 12/26/2012Lola A. Quinlan:
——————————————————————
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burzynski_Clinic&diff=prev&oldid=529836971
——————————————————————
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burzynski_Clinic&diff=next&oldid=529836971
——————————————————————
Houston’s KPRC News:
——————————————————————
http://m.click2houston.com/news/Houston-cancer-doctor-draws-new-complaints-from-patients/-/16714936/8581480/-/hmrbjk/-/index.html
——————————————————————
Lola A. Quinlan’s attorney’s web-site:
——————————————————————
http://www.jag-lawfirm.com/burzynski-suit-kprc-02012012.html
======================================
[4] –
——————————————————————
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Didymus_Judas_Thomas&diff=next&oldid=528610760
======================================

20131213-082217.jpg

20131213-082233.jpg

20131213-082247.jpg

20131213-082302.jpg

20131213-082316.jpg

20131213-082331.jpg

20131213-082346.jpg

20131213-082404.jpg

20131213-082422.jpg

20131213-082437.jpg

20131213-082452.jpg

20131213-082508.jpg

20131213-083448.jpg

20131213-083506.jpg

20131213-083521.jpg

20131213-083539.jpg

20131213-083554.jpg

20131213-083611.jpg

20131213-083626.jpg

20131213-083646.jpg

20131213-083701.jpg

20131213-083720.jpg

20131213-083758.jpg

20131213-083822.jpg

20131213-083839.jpg

20131213-083859.jpg

20131213-083914.jpg

20131213-083929.jpg
These mini-b’s went so far as to allege all sorts of sockpuppetry

Wikipediantic, why don’t you list all the dates and times I was supposedly doing all of these activities; and don’t forget to include all the time I spent blogging, on Twitter, making comments on articles, etc., and once you have all that data compiled, explain how one individual could do all that in a 24-hour day

That’s right Wikipediantic

I’m challenging you to put up or shut up your cornholio

Advertisements

Wikipedia, do you serve up Mud Pies with your Wikipedia Lies ?

As part of my exposé of who put the “BiaS in “WikipedBiaS, one of the articles I posted was:

“Wikipedia, what’s your motivation?”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/wikipedia-whats-your-motivation/

>
See

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Didymus_Judas_Thomas&diff=next&oldid=528610760

to view this change

The world, right now, considers Burzynski to be at best unethical and at
> worst a quack…”. Guy (Help!) 08:58, 30 December 2012
>

The world ?

WOW

Now THAT is impressive

I was NOT aware that Wikipedia is able to advise us all of what the “opinion” of “The world ?,” is

I wonder if that depends on what the definition of “IS,” is?

(Thank you, Bill Clinton, for providing us all with THAT gem)

If “The world ” truly “right now, considers Burzynski to be at best unethical and at worst a quack,” how dare these people have the audacity and temerity to reference “HIS work

(I wonder if they received the Wikipedia Burzynski Clinic “gatekeepers’ official stamp of approval before they published this – I hate to think of what is going to happen to them if they did NOT … Will WikipedBiaS hurl Mud in their general direction? – I shudder to think)

Phase II trial of tipifarnib and radiation in children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21339191/
University of California—San Francisco
http://neuro-oncology.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/3/298.full
Children’s Hospital Boston, Massachusetts
http://neuro-oncology.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/3/298.abstract?sid=d8920297-2724-43af-a977-912b544cb1eb
St Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee
http://neuro-oncology.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/3/298.full?sid=c3337236-34fb-43df-8667-2bf20ff1b4ff
Seattle Children’s Hospital, Seattle, Washington
http://neuro-oncology.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/3/298.full.pdf?sid=d8920297-2724-43af-a977-912b544cb1eb
Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
http://m.neuro-oncology.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/3/298.long?view=long&pmid=21339191
Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
http://m.neuro-oncology.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/3/298.full.pdf
Children’s National Medical Center, Washington, DC
http://m.neuro-oncology.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/3/298.abstract
Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Ohio

Neuro Oncol (2011) 13 (3): 298-306
doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noq202

5.723 Impact Factor

25. ↵ Burzynski SR
Treatments for astrocytic tumors in children: current and emerging strategies

Paediatr Drugs. 2006;8:167-178
http://link.springer.com/article/10.2165%2F00148581-200608030-00003
Pediatric Drugs
May 2006, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 167-178

Burzynski referenced by other Cancer researchers:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/burzynski-referenced-by-other-cancer-researchers/
“The Skeptics:” Your problem is, Wikipedia IS censored:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/the-skeptics-your-problem-is-wikipedia-is-censored/
Wikipedia, what’s your motivation?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/wikipedia-whats-your-motivation/
guychapman (Guy Chapman) Critiquing “The Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics (page 9):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/05/guychapman-guy-chapman-critiquing-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics-page-9/
I show JzG what a “FACT” is: Burzynski: FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions): Clinical Trial Results:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/i-show-jzg-what-a-fact-is-burzynski-faq-frequently-asked-questions-clinical-trial-results/
WikipediA or WikipediAin’t?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/wikipedia-or-wikipediaint/
Wikipedia, your Burzynski BIAS is showing:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/18/wikipedia-your-burzynski-bias-is-showing/
Wikipedia, you’ve sprung a Wiki Leak:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/wikipedia-youve-sprung-a-wiki-leak/
On the 6th day, HE created WIKIPEDIA, and on the 7th, WikipedBiaS:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/30/on-the-6th-day-he-created-wikipedia-and-on-the-7th-day-wikipedbias/
Wikipedia: Burzynski Clinic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzynski_Clinic
Wikipedia: Burzynski Clinic (Mobile)
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzynski_Clinic
Wikipedia: Burzynski Clinic Talk Page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Burzynski_Clinic

Wikipedia, you’ve sprung a Wiki Leak

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM
onforb.es/11pwse9
Dr. Peter A. Lipson (@palMD), posted a biased article:
http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW
A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics
on Forbes (#Forbes)

One “lilady” decided to bite off more than she could chew, when she posted:

lilady 3 weeks ago

“Ha Didymus Thomas…You opened your huge tin of Spam, months ago! And, you “Didymous Judas Thomas” and your sock puppets were banned by Wikipedia.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Didymus_Judas_Thomas
and:

lilady 3 weeks ago

“But you ARE Didymus Judas Thomas, who, along with his/her sock puppets, are banned from Wikipedia:”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Didymus_Judas_Thomas
If “lilady” thought that I “opened” a “huge tin of Spam, months ago!,” I hope she truly enjoys the huge tin of spinach that I opened on Wikipedia:

(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

guychapman (Guy Chapman) Critiquing “The Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics (page 9):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/05/guychapman-guy-chapman-critiquing-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics-page-9/
I show JzG what a “FACT” is: Burzynski: FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions): Clinical Trial Results:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/i-show-jzg-what-a-fact-is-burzynski-faq-frequently-asked-questions-clinical-trial-results/
Wikipedia, what’s your motivation?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/wikipedia-whats-your-motivation/
WikipediA or WikipediAin’t ?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/wikipedia-or-wikipediaint/
Wikipedia, your Burzynski BIAS is showing:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/18/wikipedia-your-burzynski-bias-is-showing/
Having successfully proven that Jimmy (“Alabamy Jimbo“) Donal Wales’ Wiki Leaks Wikipedia was BIASED when it came to the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzynski_Clinic
Burzynski Clinic
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzynski_Clinic
article, I decided to:

Do The “Alabamy Right” Thing

(Unlike Wikipedia: Statement Of Principles)

[[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).

User:166.205.55.18
User:166.205.55.23
User:166.205.55.24
User:166.205.55.30
User:166.205.55.40
User:166.205.68.19
User:166.205.68.25
User:166.205.68.43
User:166.205.68.44
User:166.205.68.49
Last modified on 25 February 2013, at 00:06
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Didymus_Judas_Thomas
NICE TRY, WikipediAin’t!
redd.it/1efn0f
Read THIS:
http://redd.it/1efn0f
(Wikipedia: Neutral Point Of View)

“[[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”
http://www.reddit.com/tb/1efn0f
WikipediA or WikipediAin’t ?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/wikipedia-or-wikipediaint/
Did you see THAT WikipediAin’t?
http://po.st/xLSBJ7
THAT’s IP address:

166.205.55.30

User:166.205.55.18
User:166.205.55.23
User:166.205.55.24
»→User:166.205.55.30←«
User:166.205.55.40
User:166.205.68.19
User:166.205.68.25
User:166.205.68.43
User:166.205.68.44
User:166.205.68.49

Let’s see where else WikipediAin’t Ain’t managed to “Do The Right Thing,” shall we?

2/12/2013 and 2/13/2013, 2 purported Wikipedian’s “outed” themselves on “Orac’s” blog (Dr. David H. Gorski, @oracknows, @gorskon, @ScienceBasedMed,
http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence, http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org,
#sciencebasedmedicine)

#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.

Have fun with that
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/02/08/will-the-fda-finally-slap-down-stanislaw-burzynski-for-good
Neither of these individuals has had the testicular fortitude to bring their “A Game” and post comments or reply to questions on MY blog; which is different than “The Censoring Skeptics” blogs (Have fun with THAT):

Dr. David H. Gorski, @gorskon, @oracknows, @ScienceBasedMed,
http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence,
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org,
Adam Jacobs (@DianthusMed), http://dianthus.co.uk/blog, @_JosephineJones, http://josephinejones.wordpress.com, Dr. Peter A. Lipson, (@palMD), Peter A. Lipson, Musings on the intersection of Articles Bias and Censorship, A Film Producer A Cancer Doctor And Their Critics,
Guy Chapman, guychapman, @SceptiGuy, @vGuyUK, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg, Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales, http://www.jimmywales.com, (@jimmy_wales), Forbes (#Forbes),
onforb.es/11pwse9,
http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics, Keir Liddle,(@Endless_Psych), http://www.thetwentyfirstfloor.com/, @rjblaskiewicz (rjblaskiewicz, Bob Blaskiewicz FauxSkeptic Exposed!, R.J. Blaskiewicz), http://www.skepticalhumanates.com
who censor others; which I do NOT do on my blog, since I actually believe in “Free Speech,” Walk the Walk, and Talk the Talk

WikipediAin’t apologist, Guy Chapman, posted:

“Ne’s like a rash over the blogs and twitter, he’s also been banned from Wikipedia which has a more robust attitude to sockpuppets and block evasion than some services.”
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg/2013/03/burzynski-another-fact-blind-troll-who-predicted-that/
“Ne’s”?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Didymus_Judas_Thomas&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop
Guy Chapman is a Coward
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Didymus_Judas_Thomas
Chapman makes EXCUSES and hides behind his keypad, rather than respond to questions

Critiquing “Burzynski: Another fact-blind troll, who predicted that?”:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/critiquing-burzynski-another-fact-blind-troll-who-predicted-that
“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.”‘

SW and novalox, which are you?

Boris Ogon

“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

Wikipedia, your Burzynski BIAS is showing

As I have proven previously, Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia is BIASED, when it comes to the Burzynski Clinic Wikipedia article:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzynski_Clinic
WikipediA or WikipediAin’t ?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/wikipedia-or-wikipediaint/
Wikipedia, what’s your motivation?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/wikipedia-whats-your-motivation/
I show JzG what a “FACT” is: Burzynski: FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions): Clinical Trial Results:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/i-show-jzg-what-a-fact-is-burzynski-faq-frequently-asked-questions-clinical-trial-results/
guychapman (Guy Chapman) Critiquing “The Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics (page 9):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/05/guychapman-guy-chapman-critiquing-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics-page-9/
12/26/2012 I requested that Wikipedia add the below Houston’s KPRC News article re Lola A. Quinlan, to the Burzynski Clinic Wikipedia article, considering that they had previously posted there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzynski_Clinic
Lawsuits

“In January 2012, Lola Quinlan, an elderly, stage IV cancer patient, sued Dr Burzynski…”

“Please add re WP:NPOV that Burzynski’s attorney, Richard Jaffe has disputed Lola Quinlan’s claims:
“On February 1, 2012, Dr. Burzynski’s attorney, Richard Jaffe, disputed Lola Quinlan’s allegations on Houston’s KPRC News.”

http://m.click2houston.com/news/Houston-cancer-doctor-draws-new-complaints-from-patients/-/16714936/8581480/-/hmrbjk/-/index.html

http://www.jag-lawfirm.com/burzynski-suit-kprc-02012012.html
Thank you very much.” Didymus Judas Thomas 15:03, 26 December 2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burzynski_Clinic&diff=prev&oldid=529836971
So, what was Wikipedia’s NON-BIASED rational wiki reasoning for NOT including this Houston, Texas, news article reference?

Dear Didymus Judas Thomas,

The Wikipedia page Talk:Burzynski Clinic has been changed on
December 26, 2012 by Arthur Rubin

See
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burzynski_Clinic&diff=next&oldid=529836971
to view this change.

Editor’s summary: /* Law Suits */ So?

Contact the editor:
mail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Arthur_Rubin
wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arthur_Rubin
Arthur Rubin advised:

“:So? [OR] Disputing it in the media probably means he doesn’t have a case. [/OR] In any case, a lawyer disputing the allegations against his client is not even news.” — Arthur Rubin 15:24, 26 December 2012

I had the impression that Arthur Rubin had not even bothered to read the article in question, and replied:

“::Arthur Rubin, I’m not sure what relevance your above post has re WP:NPOV since the article includes statements from attorneys representing both sides.”. 17:51, 27 December 2012 Didymus Judas Thomas 12/27/2012

Arthur Rubin’s, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ response?

SILENCE

Well, you know the saying:

Silence IS Golden

(Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View)

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 Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

“ALL Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content MUST be written from a neutral point of view.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

“NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

“This policy is NONNEGOTIABLE and ALL editors and articles MUST follow it.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

“The principles upon which this policy is based CANNOT be superseded by OTHER POLICIES or GUIDELINES, or by editors’ consensus.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ 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 Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

“This applies to both what you say and how you say it.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ 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 Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ 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 Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ 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.”

(Wikipedia: Simplified Ruleset)

[[WP:SR]] “Wikipedia does not have its own views, or determine what is “correct.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

“Instead, editors try to summarize what good sources have said about ideas and information.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ 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 Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ 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 Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

[[WP:NPOVFAQ]]

(Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View Frequently Asked Questions)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ
[[WP:NPOVFAQ]]

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias
[[WP:CSB]]

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

Is Wikipedia’s Burzynski BIAS showing?

YOU decide, because in my opinion it IS, since this piece of “Yellow Journalism” is referenced in the Burzynski Clinic Wikipedia article:

2010 film, Burzynski – Cancer is Serious Business

Prior to the debut of “Burzynski”, Houston Press correspondent Craig Malisow mocked the film’s lack of objectivity, characterizing it as “a puff-piece paean that cherrypicks facts and ignores any criticism”, and criticized the project for presenting only Burzynski’s side of the story.” [60]
60^ Malisow, Craig (2010-06-02). “Stanlislaw Burzynski: New Movie Proves He’s A Cancer-Fighting Giant – Houston News – Hair Balls”. Blogs.houstonpress.com. Retrieved 2011-11-25.

Jun 2, 2010 – Houston’s Stanislaw Burzynski, who sells a so-called cancer …

(Hair Balls hasn’t seen the movie, but nowhere in the … )

So, in a nutshell, Wikipedia will reference “Yellow Journalism” by a “Hack” who posts an article about a movie he has NOT even seen, but will NOT reference a news article which is posted on Lola A. Quinlan’s attorney’s web-site, which contains comments from her attorney, as well as Dr. Stanislaw R. Burzynski’s attorney

Wikipedia, your BIAS is showing

“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.”‘

Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’, which are you?

WikipediA or WikipediAin’t ?

Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia is BIASED, as I have proven previously:

Wikipedia, what’s your motivation?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/wikipedia-whats-your-motivation/
I show JzG what a “FACT” is: Burzynski: FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions): Clinical Trial Results:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/i-show-jzg-what-a-fact-is-burzynski-faq-frequently-asked-questions-clinical-trial-results/
guychapman (Guy Chapman) Critiquing “The Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics (page 9)
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/05/guychapman-guy-chapman-critiquing-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics-page-9/
1/13/2013 I requested that Wikipedia add this antineoplaston review article to the Burzynski Clinic Wikipedia article:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzynski_Clinic
8/2008 – REVIEW ARTICLE
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/18682440
Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Present Day Oncology Care:
redd.it/1edfpd
Promises and Pitfalls
http://redd.it/1edfpd
Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology
http://m.jjco.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2008/08/05/jjco.hyn066.full.pdf#page=1
Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2008 Aug;38(8):512-20
http://jjco.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/8/512.full?sid=5c546408-071e-4148-abd3-6c295dd5c6d7
doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyn066. Epub 2008 Aug 5
http://jjco.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/8/512.full.pdf?sid=f8e0a3cc-2912-40e5-a7c2-dbd6db4b3c1d
Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Parel, Mumbai, India

PDF pg. 5 of 9

PHARMACOLOGIC AND BIOLOGIC TREATMENTS

BURZYNSKI

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

Integr Cancer Ther 2006;5:40–7
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Burzynski_Clinic
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burzynski_Clinic&diff=prev&oldid=533137378
to view this change.

*Per [[WP:NPOV]] & [[WP:MEDRS ]] please add at the end of the Burzynski Clinic section; based on “Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Present Day Oncology Care: Promises and Pitfalls,” “Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology” (which can be reviewed in HTML
http://jjco.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/8/512.full?sid=5c546408-071e-4148-abd3-6c295dd5c6d7 or PDFs at pg. 5 of 9 & reference at pg. 9
http://jjco.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/8/512.full.pdf?sid=f8e0a3cc-2912-40e5-a7c2-dbd6db4b3c1d
http://m.jjco.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2008/08/05/jjco.hyn066.full.pdf#page=1 ):
+
:”A 2008 medical review stated that Burzynski “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.” “In the solitary phase II study” of “Antineoplastons” [consisting of A10 (A10I) and AS2-1 injections], “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.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/18682440 &
+
*based on “The Oncologist,” “Complementary and Alternative Therapies for Cancer” (which can be reviewed in HTML
http://theoncologist.alphamedpress.org/content/9/1/80.full?sid=aeef6d69-bf46-4bd0-93b0-f259cd21d416 or PDFs at pg. 4 of 10 & references at pg.. 7
http://theoncologist.alphamedpress.org/content/9/1/80.full.pdf
http://www.oncocure.ca/assets/byTopic/IntegrativeOncology/2-CAM%20Therapies%20in%20CA-Oncologist%202004.pdf ):
+
:”A 2004 Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center medical review stated that antineoplastons therapy “research at the Burzynski Institute was permitted under an Investigational New Drug permit. The group’s preliminary report from a single-arm phase II study of 12 patients showed a 50% response rate.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/14755017
Thank you very much. [[User:Didymus Judas Thomas|Didymus Judas Thomas]] ([[User talk:Didymus Judas Thomas|talk]]) 23:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/13/2013

A search of “Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology” on Wiki, displays:
http://www.wikipedia.org/
Search results:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%22Japanese+Journal+of+Clinical+Oncology%22&go=Go
View (previous 20 | next 20) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

A search HERE:
http://www.wikisearch.com/
About 152 results (0.16 seconds)

A review of those entries show that Wikipedia allows the

“Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology”

to be listed as a [[WP:MEDRS]] source

(Wikipedia: Medical Resources)

So, what was Wikipedia’s NON-BIASED rational wiki reasoning for NOT including this medical journal review article reference?

Alexbrn advised:

Contact the editor:
mail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Alexbrn
wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alexbrn
“It seems clear from previous discussion on this page there is no WP:CONSENSUS to add the material you are requesting; quite the opposite in fact:”

“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)


See
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burzynski_Clinic&diff=next&oldid=533161058
to view this change.

(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?

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ
[[WP:NPOVFAQ]]

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias
[[WP:CSB]]

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?

I show JzG what a “FACT” is: Burzynski: FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions): Clinical Trial Results:

Burzynski: FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions): Clinical Trial Results:
redd.it/1e458n
FAQ
http://po.st/SLDlJ
Who is JzG and why should you care?

JzG claims there is a “misleading factoid”

JzG does NOT seem to comprehend that the reason something is titled as a “FACT,” is because it is NOT misleading

JzG does NOT seem to understand that indicating that a “FACT” is misleading, is oxymoronic

It is a “FACT” that:

“Trial results are not always publicly available, even after a clinical trial ends”

(Source: U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health)

An individual with the same initials (JzG also known as JzG|Guy) is one of the “gatekeepers” of the “Burzynski Clinic” Wikipedia page, as I documented HERE:

guychapman (Guy Chapman) Critiquing “The Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics (page 9)
redd.it/1dpsj6
(Guy Chapman, @SceptiGuy, @vGuyUK, guychapman)

http://redd.it/1dpsj6
Wikipedia apologist Guy Chapman’s United Kingdom “blahg:”
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg
Wikipedia, what’s your motivation?:
redd.it/1dk974
WP
http://t.co/N7ErbunCV2
JzG are you related to Guy Chapman?

I consider him to be a coward

Wikipedia’s “Neutral” policy history clearly indicates:

“The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered, …”

[[WP:NPOV]] “History of NPOV:” (Content # 6, Note 3)

(Wikipedia: Neutral Point Of View)

This is also a “factoid,” and the JzG|Guy “gatekeeper” on Wikipedia gave it the same amount of respect JzG gives the U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health

Which leads one to wonder if they are twins, considering that one had the testicular fortitude to post a comment, and the other is a coward and trumpets U.K. views

One JzG|Guy commented on Wikipedia:

> “We are told that 2013 will be a big year, but apparently his plan is to

> release another bullshit movie not to publish useful research.” JzG|Guy
> User:JzG/help|Help! 21:52, 24 December 2013
>
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Didymus_Judas_Thomas&diff=next&oldid=528610760
to view this change

and:
>
> “There is unlikely to be any dispassionate debate over ANPs while Burzynski
> continues with his unethical practices.” JzG|Guy User:JzG/help|Help!
> 12:43, 26 December 2012
>
> Continues with his unethical practices.? Yet TMB/SOAH had their
> case dismissed? Is WP judge, jury, & executioner?

>
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burzynski_Clinic&diff=next&oldid=529537854
to view this change.

I could really care less what JzG|Guy’s “opinion” is, since:

Wikipedia’s “Neutral” policy history clearly indicates:

“The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered, …”

[[WP:NPOV]] “History of NPOV:” (Content # 6, Note 3)

(Wikipedia: Neutral Point Of View)

As the old military saying goes:

If I wanted your opinion … (Wikipedia) … I’d beat it out of you

In this blog post reply, Wikipedia shill “JzG” presents a single myopic misleading meme for a number of reasons in respect of Stanislaw Burzynski

JzG posits:

“Most obvious of these is that of the 61 trials registered by Burzynski over nearly two decades, only one has even been completed.”

WHAT “completed” trial is JzG referring to?

Good question, since I have yet to find one of “The Skeptics” who could adequately describe what Protocol, start date, and completion date apply to this “one” trial they keep mentioning

Antineoplaston Therapy in Treating Patients With Stage IV Melanoma
Phase II
Status: COMPLETED
Age: 18 and over
Protocol IDs: CDR0000066552, BC-ME-2, NCT00003509

11/25/1997 – FORM 10-SB
http://pdf.secdatabase.com/2573/0000950110-97-001598.pdf
ME-2 PHASE II STUDY OF ANTINEOPLASTONS A10 AND AS2-1 IN PATIENTS WITH MALIGNANT MELANOMA
8 40
7/26/96 – Revised
10/4/96 – Revised
4/14/97 – Revised

11/1/1999 – First received

5/23/2009 – Last updated

5/2009 – Last verified
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/archive/NCT00003509
Burzynski Clinical Trials (The SEC filings):
redd.it/1e2f2i
5/1/2012 Certain prospective protocols which have reached a Milestone:
http://redd.it/1e2f2i
Antineoplaston Therapy in Treating Patients With Stage IV Melanomau
Melanoma (Skin)
Drug: antineoplaston A10
Drug: antineoplaston AS2-1
Phase II / Phase 2
COMPLETED
Age 18 and over
Protocol IDs
CDR0000066552
BC-ME-2, NCT00003509

http://cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/BC-ME-2
2009_05_26 Study Changes Recruitment status, Recruitment, Misc.
1 clinical_study study_id
2
is_fda_regulated Yes
is_section_801 Yes
delayed_posting No
resp_party name_title Stanislaw R. Burzynski
name_title organization Burzynski Clinic
organization resp_party

Fm: Active, not recruiting
To: COMPLETED

status date
Fm: 2008-04
To: 2009-05

date
Fm: 2008-01
To: 2005-02

last_release_date
Fm: 2008-07-23
To: 2009-05-23

http://clinicaltrials.gov/archive/NCT00003509/2009_05_26/changes
“COMPLETED:”

2009-05-23 (5/23/2009)

To put this in perspective, the below study done in 2006, was NOT published until about 7 years later, in 2013

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]

Supportive Care in Cancer
February 2013

DOI
10.1007/s00520-013-1734-6

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00520-013-1734-6

JzG continues:

“Then there’s the fact that unpublished trials are not generally acceptable when applying for approval for a drug, or when promoting the drug (in this case it’s hardly relevant as he appears to have no intention of applying for approval; the trials seem to be used as an end-run around restrictions on his use of unapproved drugs).”

JzG ignores:

Burzynski: What happens when a clinical trial is over?:

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”

Burzynski: Declaration of Helsinki:
redd.it/1e4ybx
Helsinki
http://po.st/ajl2Xy
The Declaration of Helsinki does NOT indicate WHEN final (completed) results of human clinical trials MUST be published

Burzynski: The FDA’s Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective:
redd.it/1e6gvj
Nowhere does it indicate that final (completed) human clinical trial results MUST be published in a peer-reviewed scientific medical journal
http://redd.it/1e6gvj
JzG comments:

“Why does the medical and scientific community not accept Burzynski’s claims to cure cancer? Because he has failed to publish credible evidence. The few papers he has published are neither compelling nor generally useful in evaluating his claims.”

JzG where is / are YOUR in-depth review(s) of the 2003-2007 phase II clinical trials preliminary reports?

guychapman (Guy Chapman) Critiquing “The Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics (page 9)

onforb.es/11pwse9

http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics
Didymus Judas Thomas, Contributor

Musings on the intersection of Articles, Bias, and Censorship

(The Big 3: A.B.C.)

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM

A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics

guychapman 5 days ago

“Well, this has flushed out i the comments most of what we’ve seen on Twitter and the blogs over the past year or two.”

guychapman, hardly
redd.it/1czvol
Forbes censors Peter Lipson
http://redd.it/1czvol
“Speech is best countered by more
http://www.reddit.com/tb/1czvol
speech” article comments:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/forbes-censors-peter-lipson-speech-is-best-countered-by-more-speech-article-comments
"On the one side we have the true believers claiming that there is a cure, that it’s being denied, that people would “otherwise die” (begging the question), and asking for “respect” and “decency”"

guychapman, THIS cure ?
http://burzynskimovie.com/images/stories/transcript/Documents/BurzynskiTriesToExposeNCI.pdf
"(as if it is respectful and decent to claim to cure cancer without good evidence)."

guychapman, THIS “good evidence” that you’re “without” ?

Burzynski – The Antineoplaston Randomized Japan Phase II Clinical Trial Study:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/burzynski-the-antineoplaston-randomized-japan-phase-ii-clinical-trial-study
"On the other side we have one really very simple point: show me the evidence."

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)

The below 1st link: 10 Active (Open):
http://cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/search/results?protocolsearchid=11475951
The below 2nd link: 25 Closed-1st screen / 15 Closed-1 Completed-2nd screen:
http://cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/search/results?protocolsearchid=11476036
NONE of the above are “UNKNOWN” per the above 2 National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) links:

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?

Burzynski: Declaration of Helsinki
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-declaration-of-helsinki
guychapman 5 days ago

“I have some questions for the Burzynski fans.”

guychapman, I have some questions for you

Is it just me, or does it seem like I’m repeating what I already provided HERE?

Critiquing “The Skeptic”
redd.it/1do1ah
Burzynski Critics: A Film
http://redd.it/1do1ah
Producer, A Cancer
http://www.reddit.com/tb/1do1ah
Doctor, And Their Critics (page 9)
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/critiquing-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics-page-9/
“1. Burzynski’s claims are superficially similar to those of Max Gerson.”

“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?”

guychapman, THIS:

“High Dose ANPA chemotherapy IV drip”

“…an unapproved drug, not ordinary “chemotherapy”
https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/27/27.F3d.153.93-2071.html
“5. When you speak about ANPs not being toxic, what, in your mind, distinguishes the side effects of “non-toxic” ANPs”

“(nausea, hypernatraemia, stroke etc)”

“form the side effects of other, “toxic” drugs?”

guychapman, THIS:

Burzynski: HYPERNATREMIA:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/burzynski-hypernatremia
FACT: Is “HYPERNATREMIA” listed on the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) list as a possible “Adverse Effect” of antineoplastons?:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/healthprofessional/page6
I do NOT see HYPERNATREMIA or STROKE on the list

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]

Supportive Care in Cancer
February 2013

DOI
10.1007/s00520-013-1734-6
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00520-013-1734-6
HYPERNATREMIA in the U.S.:

“HYPERNATREMIA is the most common electrolyte disorder in the United States”

“In some cases, CANCER may cause the condition …”
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000394.htm
“A Burzynski critic has posted:”

“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:

a preliminary report
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12718563
Drugs R D. 2003;4(2):91-101

recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma

of all 12 patients
2 years / 33.3% – Survival
2 / 17% – alive and tumour free for over 5 years since initial diagnosis

from the start of treatment
5 years – 1 alive for more than
4 years – 1 alive for more than

2003
Protocol – recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma
12 – Patients Accrued
10 – Evaluable Patients
2 / 20% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
3 / 30% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
3 / 30% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease

2004 – 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

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

18 – evaluable

2006
Protocol – high-grade pathology (HBSG)
– Patients Accrued
18 – Evaluable Patients
11% – % of Patients Showing Complete Response
11% – % of Patients Showing Partial Response
39% – % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
39% – % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease

2007 – Recent clinical trials in diffuse intrinsic brainstem glioma

Review Article
http://www.cancer-therapy.org/CT/v5/B/HTML/42._Burzynski,_379-390.html
Cancer Therapy Vol 5, 379-390, 2007

(Forbes)

Boris Ogon 1 week ago

(citing AstroturfWatch)

“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:”
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1252.pdf
“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):”
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1252.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.”

27% – CR – Complete Response
20% – PR – Partial Response
23% – SD – Stable Disease
30% – PD – Progressive Disease
[12,88]

pg 175

12. Burzynski SR Targeted therapy for brain tumors In: Columbus, F editor. Brain cancer research progress. New York: Nova Science Publishers Inc 2005

pg 173

10 evaluable children
aged <4 years diagnosed with DBSG treated with ANP
youngest 3-month-old infant
[89]

60% – 2-year survival rate
20% – 5-year survival rate
maximum survival more than 7 years

30% – CR – Complete Response
40% – SD – Stable Disease
30% – PD – Progressive Disease
[89]

“The results are compiled in table II.”

pg 174

2.3. Targeted Therapy

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

Burzynski Clinical Trials (The SEC filings):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/11/burzynski-clinical-trials-2
Who has audited these figures?

guychapman, YOU just did

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”

Critiquing “The Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics (page 9)

onforb.es/11pwse9

http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics
Didymus Judas Thomas, Contributor

Musings on the intersection of Articles, Bias, and Censorship

(The Big 3: A.B.C.)

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM

A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics

guychapman 5 days ago

“Ah yes, a 1996 news story based on claims from the clinic.”

guychapman, would you like an opportunity to re-read the below and try again?

junkeeroo 1 week ago

The Washington Times, December 5, 1996:

Doctor’s lifesaving effort could land him in prison
– FDA ignores cancer drug’s success

HOUSTON – Federal prosecutors concede that a cancer doctor they will put on trial here in January for using an innovative but unapproved drug has been “saving lives.”

guychapman, that’s NOT

“…claims from the clinic”

“Bold claims, too. Since then he’s registered 61 clinical trials.”

guychapman, that’s NOT taking into consideration the 72 clinical trials listed on the Securities and Exchange (SEC) filings for

11/25/1997 – Form 10-SB

11/25/1997 – Company sponsoring 72 Phase II clinical trials conducted pursuant to INDs filed with FDA which are currently ongoing

“Where are the published results that back his claims?”

guychapman, HERE:

Burzynski Clinical Trials (The SEC filings):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/11/burzynski-clinical-trials-2
guychapman,

“The FDA is a large organisation made up of all kinds of people from clerks to political appointees.”

“No whistleblowers.”

guychapman, how do YOU know?

Surely YOU do NOT expect people to believe something just because you posted it?

Considering your stellar track-record

Where is your independent reliable citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s)?

“Great conspiracy, really well controlled.”

guychapman, I posted this on your “blahg:”
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg
and it was censored (removed)”:

Are you a coward like “Orac,” @gorskon, @oracknows, @ScienceBasedMed, Dr. David H. Gorski?
http://burzynskimovie.com/images/stories/transcript/Documents/BurzynskiTriesToExposeNCI.pdf
“Especially since it necessarily also covers MSKCC, NCI, ACS, CRUK and dozens of other organisations.”

guychapman, where are their reliable independent antineoplaston clinical studies?

“I think the number of people engaged in actively suppressing Burzynski’s miracle cure must be in the hundreds of thousands by now and includes lab technicians, scientists, doctors, regulators, politicians and charities in at least ten countries.”
http://t.co/N7ErbunCV2
guychapman, like THIS?
redd.it/1dk974
Wikipedia, what’s your motivation?
http://redd.it/1dk974
Didymus Judas Thomas’
http://www.reddit.com/tb/1dk974
Hipocritical Oath Blog
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/wikipedia-whats-your-motivation/
“Conspiracies that watertight could give you the world on a plate.”

“I mean, Watergate only involved a handful of people and it was busted almost immediately.”

guychapman, you employ a favorite tactic of critics like you

It seems you are more interested in addressing form (CAPITALIZATION) over substance (the real issues)

Maybe you think that your verbosity (17 posts) will somehow lend credibility to your 3 comments re the Declaration of Helsinki; which does NOT state WHEN human clinical trial results MUST be published, and even though you have repeatedly proclaimed that Burzynski has NOT published the FINAL results of any of his phase 2 clinical trials, you have NOT provided any indication as to WHEN any of those trials were completed so that they can be compared to the 2006 study I cited whose results were published in 2013

You also commented:

“In order to claim that he can cure incurable tumours, he needs to publish high quality clinical trial evidence in peer-reviewed journals,”

yet you do NOT provide any citation, reference, or link that overrides the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) information re publication which I have commented on previously.

It is apropo you commented:

“Watergate only involved a handful of people and it was busted almost immediately,”

since President Nixon is credited with starting the

“War on Cancer”

and when Watergate occurred he was told that there was a cancer on the Presidency, but Watergate occurred in 1972 and Nixon didn’t resign until 2 years later, in 1974

It is also appropriate that you mention oncologist David Gorski; who disclosed on social media that Peter Lipson is his “pal”

Did you review Burzynski’s 2003-2006 phase 2 clinical trials preliminary reports to see if any of the authors listed on them is an oncologist?

No?

That’s why your observation that Burzynski (a biochemist) is NOT an oncologist, is irrelevant

Do you have any proof to back up your remarkable claim:

“Against that we have an anonymous shill who takes every word of the Burzynski clinic and its supporters as Revealed Truth”?

No?

That’s because you’re wrong about that just like the other issues I’ve listed above

Mr. Chapman, you attempts at obfuscation of the issues, does not impress

guychapman 5 days ago

You don’t really understand the scientific concept of proof do you?

guychapman, you do NOT really understand the concept of proof, do you?

“That probably explains why you are swallowing Burzynski’s PR hook line and sinker.”

guychapman, NO, unlike you, I actually reviewed things and am able to provide “citations,” “references,” and / or “links”

“In order to claim that he can cure incurable tumours, he needs to publish high quality clinical trial evidence in peer-reviewed journals.”

guychapman, where is your “citation(s),” “reference(s),” and / or “link(s)”?

“He needs to publish his science in a way that others can understand and replicate.”

guychapman, do you mean, like THIS?

Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski Publications:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/stanislaw-rajmund-burzynski-publications
Burzynski updates Scientific Publications page:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/burzynski-updates-scientific-publications-page
Antineoplastons, which were first described by Burzynski:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/antineoplastons-which-were-first-described-by-burzynski
Burzynski: Poland antineoplaston publications:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-poland-antineoplaston-publications
Burzynski: South Korea antineoplaston publications:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-south-korea-antineoplaston-publications
Burzynski: Russia antineoplaston publications:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-russia-antineoplaston-publications
Burzynski: Egypt antineoplaston publications:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-egypt-antineoplaston-publication
Burzynski: Japan antineoplaston publications:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/burzynski-japan
Burzynski: China antineoplaston publications:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-china-antineoplaston-publications
Burzynski and China / Taiwan, ROC:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/burzynski-china-taiwan-roc
Burzynski and Taiwan, ROC
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/burzynski-taiwan-roc
Burzynski, China, and Dvorit D. Samid:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/burzynski-china-dvorit-d-samid
Burzynski, Ming-Cheng Liau, and Gi-Ming Lai:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/02/24/burzynski-ming-cheng-liau-gi-ming-lai
Review Article: Antineoplastons:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/review-article-antineoplastons
Burzynski – The Antineoplaston Randomized Japan Phase II Clinical Trial Study:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/burzynski-the-antineoplaston-randomized-japan-phase-ii-clinical-trial-study
“The people who need to understand and replicate his work in order to validate it, have been complaining for two decades and more that he has failed to do this.”

guychapman, WHO are “The people”?

“The appeal to conspiracy as an excuse for failure to publish any compelling results is a stable feature of quackery.”

guychapman, YOU ARE part of the “conspiracy” as long as you remain silent and play “dumb” about things like “censorship” and “bias” by Wikipedia; who you are the “apologist” for, and Forbes

“It is not a feature of science as such.”

And neither is your ignorance and inability to provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s)

guychapman 5 days ago

“That was 1996. Since then he’s registered 60 phase II and eon phase III clinical trials.”

guychapman, “eon”?

“Of these he has completed only one, and has failed to publish any meaningful data from any”

guychapman, where is your in-depth review of these publications?

Drugs in R and D (Drugs in Research and Development)

Drugs R D. 2003;4(2):91-101
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12718563
Drugs R D. 2004;5(6):315-26
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15563234
Integrative Cancer Therapies

Integr Cancer Ther. 2005 Jun;4(2):168-77
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15911929
Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Mar;5(1):40-7
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16484713
2007
http://www.cancer-therapy.org/CT/v5/B/HTML/42._Burzynski,_379-390.html

http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1252.pdf
Critiquing “The Skeptic” Burzynski
redd.it/1dld1j
Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer
http://redd.it11dld1j
Doctor, And Their Critics (page 8)
http://www.reddit.com/tb/1dld1j

https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/03/critiquing-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics-page-8/
“(which is in contravention of the Helsinki Protocol governing human trials).”

guychapman, exactly WHERE does the Declaration of Helsinki indicate THAT?

Burzynski: Declaration of Helsinki
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-declaration-of-helsinki
“There’s only so much cherry picking you can do.”

guychapman, YOU are the “cherry-picking” King

“The scientific consensus is based on the totality of evidence, or rather in this case the totality of lack of credible evidence.”

guychapman, YOU have NOT provided “credible evidence” of anything, other than your own ignorance:

The dishonesty of Guy Chapman, “The Skeptics” shill
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/12/the-dishonesty-of-guy-chapman-the-skeptics-shill
guychapman 5 days ago

“PDJT aka “Astroturfwatch” – the irony of a contributor to an astroturfing campaign of the magnitude of Burzynski’s calling skeptics for non-existent astroturfing is amusing.”

guychapman, are you related to, or know this “lilady”?

Orac, a lilady, the
redd.it/1dgqa1
Oracolytes: “The Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A
http://redd.it/1dgqa1
Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And
http://www.reddit.com/tb/1dgqa1
Their Critics:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/01/orac-a-lilady-the-oracolytes-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/
because you sound similar to lilady with your ASSumptions
“You say:”

“Find just one, any single cure for this tumor type and you can’t, outside of Antineoplastons”

guychapman, NO, “you” did NOT say that, since I am NOT “you”

(Forbes)

Didymus Thomas 5 days ago

As former President Ronald Reagan used to say: “Well, there you go again.”

Let me make this perfectly clear and unambiguous as I can.

1. I am NOT Dr. Stanislaw R. Burzynski, I have never worked for him, I have never met him.

2. I am NOT AstroTurfWatch.

3. I am NOT Eric Merola, I have never worked for him, I have never met him.

4. I am NOT Randy Hinton, I have never met him, this article is the first place I have seen his name.

“What you mean is:”

“Find just one, any single cure for this tumor type and you can’t, including Antineoplastons”.

guychapman, when are you going to show whether you are just a coward or not, and PROVE IT?

“Because the point about which you are in denial is that there is no credible evidence that antineoplastons cure anything.”

guychapman, WHAT does this indicate?

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
“The endlessly repeated list of low quality publication does not come anywhere close to filling in the gap which ought to be filled by the sixty-one human trials he never published – and all the available evidence indicates he never had any intention of doing so.”

guychapman, WHAT does this indicate?

The “FACT” one should know is that 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)

The below 1st link: 10 Active (Open):
http://cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/search/results?protocolsearchid=11475951
The below 2nd link: 25 Closed-1st screen / 15 Closed-1 Completed-2nd screen:
http://cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/search/results?protocolsearchid=11476036
NONE of the above are “UNKNOWN” per the above 2 National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) links:

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

“I don’t think he cares any more about the Helsinki Declaration than he does about any other area of medical ethics.”

guychapman, have you even read the Declaration of Helsinki?

Because if you had, you should be able to indicate which section supports your comment

WHAT was that you were saying about “ethics”?

guychapman 5 days ago

“There’s an interesting parallel with Burzynski here.”

guychapman, there’s an interesting parallel with guychapman, Guy Chapman, @SceptiGuy, @vGuyUK, and the Wikipedia Guys: JzG|Guy and Guy (Help!)
http://t.co/N7ErbunCV2
Wikipedia, what’s your motivation?
redd.it/1dk974
Didymus Judas Thomas’
http://redd.it/1dk974
Hipocritical Oath Blog
http://www.reddit.com/tb/1dk974

https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/wikipedia-whats-your-motivation/
“Hoxsey, too, used patient anecdotes and conspiracy theories to sustain his business in the absence of credible evidence for a cure;”

guychapman, thank you for bringing up the issue of:

“absence of credible evidence”

THAT describes you to a “T”

If the shoe fits, wear it

“How do you recommend we should tell the difference between Burzynski and his shill Merola, and the palpable fraud and quack Hoxsey?”

guychapman,

“How do you recommend we should tell the difference between guychapman and his shill Guy Chapman, and the palpable fraud and quack @SceptiGuy / @vGuyUK?”

Guy (Help!)

User:JzG/help|Help!

Trust me, Guy, nothing can help YOU

Boris Ogon 6 days ago

“One interesting element is that Merola himself hasn’t shown up to defend his vexatious DMCA claim, which he has effectively admitted to be meritless by offering to drop it if c0nc0rdance can somehow get the after-the-fact third-party mirrors to not include his E-mail address.”

Boris Ogon, did you entirely ignore the Forbes article?

"A well-known “vlogger” who goes by the handle “C0nc0rdance” reports receiving a DMCA take-down notice from Eric Merola after posting a video critical of Burzynski."

"According to C0nc0rdance:
He objected to my “Fair Use” of a small low-res image of his movie poster.”

“Instead, he drops a post on his Facebook page complaining about this article and mischaracterizing the situation, and 10 minutes later, his adherents appear and start babbling incoherently.”

Boris Ogon, are you referring to THIS?

My review of C0nc0rdance:
redd.it/1dm31j

http://redd.it/1dm31j

http://www.reddit.com/tb/1dm31j

https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/23/my-review-of-c0nc0rdance
Mr. Ogon, I guess you were too lazy to type it, sort of like your “research”?

Burzynski, The Movie shared a link.
about an hour ago

“Wow, and people say the “Skeptics” (aka Astroturf campaign) aren’t powerful and with the system behind them.”

“This is what happens when I take down a YouTube video making false claims against my film and Burzynski as well as illegally using copyrighted images of me without permission within (not to mention publishing my personal emails in which I received countless profanity filled threats also in their YouTube post, and they claim “we” threaten – this is the system fighting back, hard):

“Again, Eric: Section 512(f) isn’t entirely toothless.”

Mr. Ogon, though your “research,” IS

"Send some more bogus takedowns and see what happens."

Mr. Ogon, do you mean THIS?

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
Dr. Lipson does not opine about the manufactured “hysteria” activities by the Burzynski “Critics,” that occurred on Twitter, YouTube, and other social media sites, which entailed this “fact-challenged” video being “mirrored” (duplicated), a ridiculous amount of times

Boris Ogon 5 days ago

For anyone unfamiliar with the tiresome tactic of “Didymus [Judas] Thomas” of trying to drive signal-to-noise ratio into the ground while being completely unable to respond coherently, this is not a bad place to start:
http://goo.gl/f59kT
He was eventually blocked under the “Competence is Required” policy and started shooting off typically garbled E-mails to Jimmy Wales demanding personal attention.

Mr. Ogon, do you have a relationship with Wikipedia?

Mr. Ogon, did you research THIS on Wikipedia?

[“Remedies may be appealed to, and amended by, Jimbo Wales, …”

([[WP:AP]] Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy 2.9 Appeal of decisions)]

Mr. Ogon, are you referring to THIS?
http://t.co/N7ErbunCV2
Wikipedia, what’s your motivation?
redd.it/1dk974
Didymus Judas Thomas’
http://redd.it/1dk974

http://www.reddit.com/tb/1dk974
Hipocritical Oath Blog
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/wikipedia-whats-your-motivation/
Mr. Ogon, why don’t you bring your coward self over to my blog where I do NOT censor comments, and let’s find out how you do under Sunshine and Blue Sky?

Boris Ogon

“You are right now having a live “debate” in front of more than 10,000 people, … “

3,907 views

Not so much

Waiting for the 10,000

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM

Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”