Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski, Stanislaw R. Burzynski, Stanislaw Burzynski, Stan R. Burzynski, Stan Burzynski, S. R. BURZYNSKI, S. Burzynski, Arthur Burzynski, Hippocrates Hypocrite Hypocrites Critic Critics Critical HipoCritical
I gave Liz Szabo and USA TODAY the chance to act like a Spike Lee joint and “Do the Right Thing”, the same day their article came out [1]
I gave them the opportunity to prove that their article was a legitimate piece of journalism with some semblance of integrity, and NOT just akin to one of “The Skeptics™ phoned-in “rubber-stamped” yellow journalism hit pieces
Instead, it seems that Liz Szabo and / or USA TODAY decided to act as if they had rolled a Spike Lee joint
I sent an e-mail with 2 editorial corrections, and only one (correcting Lisa Merritt’s comment link from taking the reader to the 1999 Mayo Clinic report instead of to her comments), was corrected [2]
The 2nd correction which they #FAILED to do, earns them well deserved INSOLENCE
——————————————————————
The articleclaims:
—————————————————————— “Burzynski, 70, calls his drugs “antineoplastons” and says he has given them to more than 8,000 patients since 1977.”
——————————————————————
——————————————————————
However, if you select the “8,000 patients” link, the referenced page does NOT indicate that at all [2]
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— It advises:
—————————————————————— “That same year, Dr. Burzynski founded his clinic in Houston where he’s since treated over 8,000 patients.”[3]
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— Nowhere does it indicate that he “treated 8,000 patients” with antineoplastons
——————————————————————
——————————————————————
The question that Liz Szabo and USA TODAY should answer, is:
1. Who is your “fact-checker”, and 2. are they smarter than a 5th grader ?
——————————————————————
In fact, Burzynski’s 2002 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing advises:
” … in 1997, his medical practice was expanded to include traditional cancer treatment options such as chemotherapy, gene targeted therapy, immunotherapy and hormonal therapy in response to FDA requirements that cancer patients utilize more traditional cancer treatment options in order to be eligible to participate in the Company’s Antineoplaston clinical trials”[4]
——————————————————————
The article continues:
—————————————————————— “Individual success stories can be misleading, said Arthur Caplan, a professor and head of the division of bioethics at NYU Langone Medical Center”
——————————————————————
The question Arthur Caplan should be asking is:
Why has the United States Food and Drug Administration required Burzynski’s clinical trial patients to fail conventional therapies; such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation, BEFORE they are allowed to be treated with antineoplaston therapy ?
If the F.D.A. did NOT impose these restrictions upon Burzynski’s clinical trials, then the question Arthur Caplan raises would be moot
——————————————————————
The article quotes Dr. Jan Buckner as saying:
—————————————————————— “When I hear a story that is way out of the norm, the first question I ask is,
‘OK, is the diagnosis even correct?‘ ”
“Buckner said”
“If the diagnosis wasn’t right to start with, it doesn’t matter what the treatment was.”
“Brain tumors are notoriously difficult to diagnose, Buckner says”
“When dealing with rare brain cancer, doctors may disagree about how to interpret imaging results up to 40% of the time”
——————————————————————
I wonder if Dr. Jan Buckner would agree with David Gorski; who is a BREAST cancer oncology specialist, and NOT a BRAIN cancer oncology specialist, who has the presumptiveness to speculate that 3 different medical opinions could have misdiagnosed Tori Moreno in August 1998; who was diagnosed with a very large tumor, about 3 inches in the largest diameter and located in the brain stem, which was too risky for surgery, and about which her parents were told by ALL 3, that Tori’s brain cancer was fatal and, she would die in a few days or at the most, 2-6 weeks, and that there was nothing that could be done, and was finally put on Burzynski’s antineoplaston therapy in October, when she was about 3 ½ months old, and in such condition that they were afraid that she might die at any time, David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., FACS; who claims, “I do know cancer science”, has the audacity, because of his “book learnin'” has the temerity to postulate his “science-based medicine theory” that Miller’s Children at Long Beach Memorial misdiagnosed Tori Moreno’s inoperable stage 4 BSG
David Gorski has the gall to profer that City of Hope misdiagnosed Tori Moreno’s inoperable stage 4 brain stem glioma
David Gorski has the chutzpah to pontificate that Dr. Fred Epstein in New York misdiagnosed Tori Moreno’s inoperable stage IV brainstem glioma [5]
——————————————————————
The article then quotes Peter Adamson, chair of the Children’s Oncology Group:
—————————————————————— “But these therapies may have delayed benefits, taking weeks or months to shrink a tumor“
“So patients treated by Burzynski may credit him for their progress, just because he was the last doctor to treat them, says Peter Adamson, chair of the Children’s Oncology Group, an NCI-supported research network that conducts clinical trials in pediatric cancer“
“Conventional cancer treatment can also cause tumors to swell temporarily, due to inflammation“
“A patient who isn’t familiar with this phenomenon may assume her tumor is growing“
“When that swelling subsides, patients may assume it’s because of Burzynski, Adamson says”
——————————————————————
This is laughable
In support of this “phenomenon”, the article provides a link to a Canadian web-site [6]
The site posits:
—————————————————————— “RT/TMZ is now widely practiced and the standard of care for appropriately selected patients, we are learning more about the consequences of RT/TMZ”
“One phenomena, termed Pseudo-Progression (psPD)…”
——————————————————————
The problem is that this only applies to “Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM)”, and the article provides NO proof whatsoever, that any of Burzynski’s “Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM)” patients have taken “RT/TMZ”
——————————————————————
Additionally, the site cites the reference as:
Sanghera, Perry, Sahgal, et al., “Sunnybrook Health Sciences Odette Cancer Centre” (in press, Canadian Journal of Neuroscience)
(“In press” refers to journal articles which have been accepted for publication, but have not yet been published)
However, the journal article in question was published 1/2010, so it has NOT been “in press” for over 3 years and 7 months [7]
Get your act together, aye, Canada!
——————————————————————
The articlerants and raves on and on about FDA inspection reports from as far back as 1998, but at least they did quote Richard A. Jaffe:
“The FDA has not yet issued final conclusions”
——————————————————————
The article posts this ridiculous claim:
—————————————————————— “Yet the National Cancer Institute says there is no evidence that Burzynski has cured a single patient, or even helped one live longer“
——————————————————————
That’s NOT what this seems to suggest [8]
——————————————————————
Then the article quotes pediatric oncologist Peter Adamson, a professor of pediatrics and pharmacology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, in what will no doubt soon be known as a “classic”:
—————————————————————— “He’s a snake oil salesman,” says pediatric oncologist Peter Adamson, a professor of pediatrics and pharmacology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia”
——————————————————————
All I’d like to know is, which rock did this clown crawl out from under ?
Dr. Adamson, please advise which “snake oil” has been granted Orphan Drug Designation (“ODD”) from the United States Food and Drug Administration [9], and which “snake oil” has been approved for, and used in, phase III clinical trials ? [10]
—————————————————————— Q: Is it, it the phase 2 trial is finished ?
A:“Mhmm”
Q: but they’re still accepting people ?
A:“Yeah”
Q: on more like a special ?
A:“Special basis, and, um, sometimes compassionate grounds“
A:“(compassion exception)”
A:“Uh, exceptions“
Q: That’s normal ?
A:“Yes” “So”
A:“(Yes I guess it is a funding issue ?)”
Q: Right
A:“(Like FDA, during the 2nd phase of clinical trials they found the data to be, real, real one, and they gave him the ok to go for 3rd phase of clinical trials, but just to go through this process you would probably need $100,000)”
——————————————————————
——————————————————————
Oh, wait !!
Dr. Adamson, when you say “snake oil”, I take it you are referring to the low-dose chemotherapy that Burzynski uses ?
Dr. Adamson, do you know what a “hack” is ?
——————————————————————
In regards to the Merritt’s, the article has:
—————————————————————— “The couple say that Burzynski misled them about the type of treatment that would be offered, as well as the cost”
My questions about the Merritt’s are:
1. Where is their complaint to the Texas Medical Board ?
2. Where is their lawsuit ? Couldn’t they find an attorney to take their case pro bono ?
——————————————————————
The article continues:
—————————————————————— “Yet even Jaffe has acknowledged that the trial — now in its 17th year — was more about politics than science”
“In his 2008 memoirs, Galileo’s Lawyer, Jaffe called it “a joke.””
“”It was all an artifice, a vehicle we and the FDA created to legally give the patients Burzynski’s treatment,” Jaffe said“
——————————————————————
What Liz Szabo and her friends at USA TODAY fail to let the readers know, is that this only applied to one trial:
—————————————————————— Burzynski’s lawyer is obviously referring to the CAN-1 clinical trial mentioned in Burzynski’s 11/25/1997 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing [11]
—————————————————————— One trial that is retrospective is CAN-1 Clinical Trial
—————————————————————— CAN-1 PHASE II STUDY OF ANTINEOPLASTONS A10 AND AS2-1 IN
PATIENTS WITH REFRACTORY MALIGNANCIES
133 patients
—————————————————————— Clinical trial of patients treated by Dr. Burzynski through 2/23/1996
—————————————————————— FDA has indicated it will not accept data generated by this trial since it was not a wholly prospective one
——————————————————————
The article continues in the same vein:
——————————————————————
“In an interview, Burzynski said developing new drugs is complex and takes time”
“Yet the FDA has approved 108 cancer drugs since Burzynski began his trial”
—————————————————————— Ms. Szabo and “pals” conveniently “forgets” to educate their audience that Burzynski was using Fleming’s One-sample multiple testing procedure for phase II clinical trials [13], which requires that if the 1st 20 patients meet certain criteria, 20 additional patients are added [14]
—————————————————————— “Well, we cannot publish until the time is right” (laughs)
Yeah
“If you would like to publish the results of, of a 10 year survival, for instance”
Mmm
“Which we have
Nobody has over 10 year survival in malignant brain tumor, but we do, and if you like to do it right, it takes time to prepare it, and that’s what we do now
What we publish so far
We publish numerous, uh, publications which were, interim reports when we are still continuing clinical trials
Now we are preparing, a number of publications for final reports“[15]
——————————————————————
Then Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition makes an outlandish statement, which is quoted in the article:
—————————————————————— “Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition, describes the FDA’s tolerance of Burzynski as “outrageous.””
“They have put people at risk for a long time,” says Visco, an attorney and breast cancer survivor”
“That’s completely unacceptable”
“How can anyone look at these facts and believe that there is a real clinical trial going on … rather than just using the FDA and the clinical trial system to make money?”
——————————————————————
I have a suggestion for Ms. Visco
Take your hypocrisy and ask the American Cancer Society if they are still engaged in this kind of activity:
1.AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY: More Interested In Accumulating Wealth Than Saving Lives [15]
2.National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society: Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest [16]
——————————————————————
Then, ask the American Cancer Society, why is it that 10 years ago, estimated breast cancer deaths were expected to be 39,800 (15%), and this year it was 39,620 (14%), which is ONLY 180 LESS than 10 years ago ?
—————————————————————— Estimated Breast Cancer Deaths (Women)-USA
—————————————————————— 2013☝39,620 (14%)
2012👇39,510 (14%)
2011👇39,520 (15%)
2010👇39,840 (15%)
2009👇40,170 (15%) 2008☝40,480 (15%)
2007👇40,460 (15%) 2006☝40,970 (15%)
2005👇40,410 (15%) 2004☝40,110 (15%)
2003☝39,800 (15%)
2002 – 39,600 (15%)
—————————————————————– American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures (2002-2013)
—————————————————————–
And then ask the American Cancer Society, why is it that 10 years ago, the estimated NEW breast cancer cases were expected to be 211,300 (32%), and this year it was 232,340 (29%), which is 21,340 MORE than it was 10 years ago ?
—————————————————————— Estimated New Breast Cancer (Women) – USA
—————————————————————— 2013☝232,340 (29%)
2012👇226,870 (29%) 2011☝238,480 (30%)
2010☝207,090 (28%)
2009☝192,370 (27%)
2008☝182,460 (26%)
2007👇178,480 (26%) 2006☝212,920 (31%)
2005👇211,240 (32%) 2004☝215,900 (32%)
2003☝211,300 (32%)
2002_-_203,500 (31%)
—————————————————————– American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures (2002-2013)
——————————————————————
And after that, ask Susan G. Komen how much is spent on legal action to protect her brand, compared to how much is spent on breast cancer research and prevention ?
—————————————————————— Visco, the breast cancer advocate
“I do NOT know why it took YOU so long.”
——————————————————————
The article continues with:
—————————————————————— “Yet hypernatremia is one of antineoplastons’ most common side effects, known to doctors for two decades”
——————————————————————
Yet, “The Skeptics™” refuse to discuss:
—————————————————————— 2/13/2013 – The frequency, cost, and clinical outcomes of hypernatremia in patients hospitalized to a comprehensive cancer center
Over 3 month period in 2006 re 3,446 patients, most of the hypernatremia (90 %) was acquired during hospital stay [19]
Division of Internal Medicine, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
Department of General Internal Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
Division of Endocrinology, Mayo Clinic
—————————————————————— 9/1999 – The changing pattern of hypernatremia in hospitalized children [20]
Department of Pediatrics, Texas Children’s Hospital, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
——————————————————————
So, after all that, my question for USA TODAY is, does Liz Szabo, Michael Stravato, Jerry Mosemak or Robert Hanashiro have a journalism degree ?
Because if any of them do, the institution they obtained it from most be so proud of this piece of “fish wrap” you produced
Thank you, USA TODAY, for censoring my 18 comments
I guess you must be (“intellectual”) cowards
At least Forbes had the GRAPEFRUITS to post some of my comments
—————————————————————— You’ve just been served, INSOLENTLY
—————————————————————— USA TODAY, GONE TOMORROW
——————————————————————
Gorski wants to play in the kitchen, but he can’t take the heat
2/18/2013, Gorski posted his 1st book report on Hannah Bradley
Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski’s cancer “success” stories [1]
The year 2012 was rung out and the year 2013 was rung in by news that “Orac” Check-My-Facts-Hack, propagandist for “brave maverick doctor” Dr. David H. Gorski, who claims that sugar doesn’t feed cancer [2], is releasing a sequel to his wildly successful hackumentary (in “The Skeptics™” underground, that is) “How Stanislaw Burzynski became Burzynski the Brave Maverick Doctor, part 1” [3] 😃
In fact, the sequel is coming out on BFD (Blogs For Dummies) on …, well …, just any day now ! 😳
I somehow doubt that GorsKon will send me a screenerBFD to review, but I did review the 4blogettes he posted on Science Based Medicine; home of: “Our only goal is to promote high standards of science in medicine” [4], and National Geographic’s(#NatGeo)Science blogs, because it easily falls into a genre that I like to refer to as medical propaganda posts, which are almost always made in support of dubious blogs re medical treatments 😊
Gorhac’s mostly lame jokes about proposed titles aside (e.g., Burzynski II:”“Pathetic Googleloo, Burzynski II:”This Time It’s Pee-Reviewed, or even Burzynski II: FAQ Harder), it’s very clear that in the wake of his decision to drop his “[I]f I had screwed up, I would have admitted it” [5]claim re Burzynski on a technicality, and his very own spin doctor named “BOrac, are planning on a huge publicity blitz, in which @gorskon will be portrayed as, yes, a “brave maverick doctor” whom “They” (as in the BPG (Burzynski Patient Group), 3’s company, and the Don’t Mess with Texas Board of Education, a.k.a “DJT”) tried to keep down but failed because he has The Natural Cure For Rancor“Two Turntables and a Mr. Microphone” 😝
I come back to this again because Gorac’s strategy for Burzynski II, as I pointed out, is going to involve “conversion stories” of “The Skeptics™” who didn’t believe in @oracknows magic “[I]f I had screwed up, I would have admitted it”, but do now, after Bob ‘n Weave Blaskiewicz proclaimed during the 9/28/2013 “Burzynski Discussion” Google+ Hangout:“I think that professionally he would make, he he he would follow-up on these things” (2:01:00)[6], claims that he’s 75% sure of the identity of someone who has been critical of his work (like me) [7], and, of course, sucky stories 😜
“DOHrac’s” 4 posts consists of four elements:
Bias, MisDisInformation, (anecdotes), including “EOrac’s” “sucky stories”, contrasted with a rehash of “conspiracy theories” from his “review” of the first movie about the “cancer destablishment” trying to suppress common sense with pseudononsense 😄
Never mind that, even if he were FDA-approved, he would be in the same class as “The Skeptics™” that are disdained on social media as being more for hyper-“bull” than anything else because they have been giving B.S. for a long time ☺
He states: “One notes that Burzynski’s protocol requires at least 18 months of near-continuous infusion of high doses of his antineoplastons“
Does Gorski provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support his claim ?
no
“mOResmACk” reminds me of Pink
That would be the Pink in Pink Floyd, singing: “We don’t need no edumacation”, because he’s like the churlish schoolboy so intent on getting on to make his 2nd mud pie, that he pulls a wanker on the 1st one
Maybe he should learn how to do real “cancer research” like I posted 8/21/2013 [8]
——————————————————————
10/2004 (Pg. 384) 4.3 months – median duration of administration
——————————————————————
11/2010 (Pg. iv72) 4.4 months – median duration of treatment
——————————————————————
10/2006 (Pg. 466) 4 1/2 months – median duration of i.v. ANP
——————————————————————
3/2006 (Pg. 40) 5 months – median duration of antineoplaston administration
——————————————————————
10/2004 (Pg. 428) 5.2 months – administered median
——————————————————————
12/2009 (Pg. 951) 5.4 months – median duration of treatment (ST)
——————————————————————
12/2009 (Pg. 951) 5.6 months – median duration of treatment (SE)
——————————————————————
10/2004 (Pg. 427) 5.7 months – average duration of ANP
——————————————————————
10/2008 (Pg. 821) 5.7 months – median duration of treatment
—————————————————————— 2003 (Pgs. 91 + 96) 6 months – median duration of treatment
——————————————————————
12/2008 (Pg. 1067) 6.5 months – median duration of treatment
——————————————————————
10/2003 (Pg. 358) 9.5 months – median duration of IV ANP
——————————————————————
7/2005 (Pg. 300) 9 1/2 months – median duration of administration
—————————————————————— 2004 (Pgs. 315 + 320) 16 months (1 year 4 months) average duration of intravenous ANP
——————————————————————
6/2008 (Pg. 450) 16.5 months (1 year 4.5 months) – median
——————————————————————
2004 (Pg. 320)
19 months – average duration of oral ANP
——————————————————————
6/2005 (Pgs. 168 + 170)
20 months (1 year 8 months) administered average duration
——————————————————————
10/2003 (Pg. 358)
28.6 months (2 years 4.6 months) – median duration of po ANP
After obtaining at least minor response (SD), the treatment continued with po ANP
——————————————————————
9/2004 (Pg. 257)
655 consecutive days – administration of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 with the exception of a few short interruptions
—————————————————————— Gorski continues:
“Attacks on skeptics and critics of Burzynski“
“If you don’t believe me, just read question #12 in Merola’s FAQ, in which he states,
“You will notice the ‘anti-Burzynski’ bloggers refuse to do that or adhere to reputable sources”
—————————————————————— Gorski, you did NOT even provide any “source” for your “claim” that:
” … Burzynski’s protocol requires at least 18 months of near-continuous infusion of high doses of his antineoplastons“
—————————————————————— Gorski adds:
“You might say, they are preying on desperate cancer patients and families of cancer patients by carelessly misleading their readers about Burzynski and his invention.””
—————————————————————— Gorski, let’s check and see where else YOU are “carelessly misleading” your “readers”
One marvels at your amazing level of protestation ッ
However, every movie needs a villain, and it doesn’t take “sidekick” abilities to guess why “The Skeptics™” are portrayed as villains
—————————————————————— Gorski gratuitously gabs on:
“Merola also direly accuses and threatens,
“In the worst case scenarios, some bloggers intentionally publish fabricated information to their readers in an attempt to curb new patients from going to the Burzynski Clinic“
“I can hardly wait”
—————————————————————— Gorski, did you mean to “intentionally publish fabricated information” ? 😮
—————————————————————— “Neither can, I bet, a fair number of lawyers“
—————————————————————— Gorski, who’s your lawyer ?
—————————————————————— Gorski plods onward:
“An attempt to reframe Burzynski’s enormous bills for his antineoplaston therapy and criticism that he’s making clinical trial subjects pay to be in his clinical trials”
—————————————————————— Gorski, BITE ME 🙂
Does Gorski provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support his claim ?
——————————————————————
CHEMOTHERAPY: 9/24/2012 – hospitals routinely marking up prices on cancer drugs 2 to 10 times over cost
Some markups far higher
nearly $4,500 for 240-milligram dose of irinotecan to treat colon or rectal cancer average sales price: less than $60
about $19,000 1-gram dose of rituximab to treat lymphoma and leukemia roughly 3 times average sales price
about $680 50 milligrams of cisplatin markup: more than 50 times average sales price
Avastin, about $90,000 a year http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/09/24/3549634/prices-soar-as-hospitals-dominate.html
——————————————————————
5/14/2012 – Oral anti-cancer medications generally considered pharmacy benefit
Instead of co-payment plan members often pay % of cost — up to 50% in some cases — with no annual out-of-pocket limit
drugs expensive often costing 10s of 1,000s of $s a year http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-05-14/national/35457286_1_lung-cancer-drug-drugs-work-multiple-myeloma-patients
——————————————————————
RADIATION: 1/4/2013 – new study most comprehensive cost analysis ever, compared costs and outcomes associated with various types of treatment for all forms of disease, ranged from $19,901 for robot-assisted prostatectomy to treat low-risk disease, $50,276 for combined radiation therapy for high-risk disease http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2013/01/13370/how-prostate-cancer-therapies-compare-cost-and-effectiveness
——————————————————————
3/15/2012 – Using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data, 26,163 women with localized breast cancer had undergone surgery and radiation 2001 to 2005
found Medicare billing for IMRT increased 0.9% diagnosed 2001 to 11.2% diagnosed 2005
average cost radiation treatment during 1st year $7,179 for non-IMRT $15,230 with IMRT
billing for IMRT more than 5 times higher in regions across nation where local Medicare coverage determinations favorable to IMRT compared to regions where unfavorable
“The new claim is that Burzynski isn’t making patients pay for his antineoplastons (see question #13 in Merola’s FAQ), just for “clinical management” (as if that weren’t incredibly transparent) Vindication”
—————————————————————— Gorski, “NEW CLAIM” ?
2/4/2013 my post #180 on YOUR blog addressed this “new claim” by referencing a 3/12/1996 note before you posted your article 2/18/2013 [9]
—————————————————————— 3/12/1996: 2nd – 4th paragraphs (2/4/2013 post #180)
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— Gorski, makes an excuse:
“The last time I discussed Merola’s forthcoming movie, I mentioned that he had contacted me in December and asked me to appear as a Burzynski critic“
“After consultation with skeptics with more media savvy than I, not to mention the PR department at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute (whom I thought it wise to give fair warning that one of their faculty might be featured as evil incarnate in a new documentary and to give the background on what it’s all about, in case there were press inquiries), I politely declined“
—————————————————————— Gorski is like fetid HOT AIR, all words and NO action
—————————————————————— Gorski fumes:
“While going on and on about how he thinks most of us have “good motives” and how we want to be the white knight riding in to save patients from quackery (a desire he somehow manages to convey with clear dismissiveness and contempt), Merola turns immediately around to claim that we don’t know what we’re talking about and we don’t read the literature“
—————————————————————— Gorski, YOU really “don’t know what” you’re “talking about” and I’m just getting warmed up 🙂
—————————————————————— Gorski has smoke coming out his ears:
“This, of course, is complete nonsense, as I’ve read many of Burzynski’s papers (such as they are), delved into ClinicalTrials.gov to look at his clinical trials, examined the plausibility of his claims from a scientific standpoint, and examined the literature from others, both on antineoplastons and related topics”
“I’ve dissected Burzynski’s claims for antineoplastons based on science, assessed his “personalized, gene-targeted cancer therapy” claims and found them wanting, and pointed out how what he is peddling isn’t really anything new at all (more on that later), all based on my knowledge, skills, and understanding of cancer as a breast cancer surgeon and researcher”
“No doubt that’s why Merola needs to discredit me“
—————————————————————— Gorski, Eric Merola does NOT need “to discredit” you
YOU have already done a yeoman’s job of discrediting yourself [10] 🙂
—————————————————————— Gorski posits:
“Other bloggers who have been critical of Burzynski might or might not have my scientific background, but they’ve delved just as deeply into his claims and the evidence for them, and, as I have, they’ve found them highly overinflated and largely not based in science”
—————————————————————— Gorski, unfortunately, is NOT able to name these “[o]ther bloggers”
—————————————————————— Gorski deposits:
“They’ve also taken on aspects of the Burzynski phenomenon, such what I consider to be his questionable ethics and finding out what happened to a lot of patients who trusted Burzynski, far better than I have”
“Merola’s dismissal of Burzynski’s critics is, quite frankly, insulting to them and to me.”
—————————————————————— Gorski fails to mention the very “questionable ethics” of his intrepid research bud Bob [11]
—————————————————————— Gorski rants:
“I don’t know what sort of attacks on the UK bloggers who produce the bulk of the skeptical blog posts about Burzynski are coming in Burzynski II, but when it comes to me no doubt Merola is referring to this bit of yellow journalism in 2010 from an antivaccine propagandist named Jake Crosby, entitled David Gorski’s Financial Pharma Ties:”
“What He Didn’t Tell You”
——————————————————————
Does Gorski provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support his claim that it’s:
“UK bloggers who produce the bulk of the skeptical blog posts about Burzynski” ?
“What He Didn’t Tell You” ?
NO
—————————————————————— Gorski blots:
“Predictable and tiresome attacks aside, Pete and Hannah’s video made me curious about the specific success stories that Merola will focus on as “proof” that Burzynski is on to something; so I decided I should look into their stories”
“On the surface to those not familiar with cancer they do look like success stories”
“If one digs deeper, the true story is a lot murkier”
—————————————————————— Doctor “G” omits, that once “one digs deeper”, HIS“story is a lot murkier”
—————————————————————— Gorski A.D.D.s:
“More importantly, as I will show, even if they really are success stories—which is not at all clear—they do not constitute convincing evidence of the general efficacy of Burzynski’s antineoplastons, nor do they justify what I consider to be Burzynski’s highly unethical behavior.”
—————————————————————— More importantly, as I will show, is what I consider to be Gorski’s highly unethical behavior
—————————————————————— Gorski flails away:
“I will start with Hannah Bradley’s story because I’ve watched the entire 40 minute video Hannah’s Anecdote (whose title is even more appropriate than perhaps Pete Cohen imagined when he made it)”
“The documentary ends triumphantly several months after the events portrayed during the bulk of the film with Hannah apparently having had a complete response to Burzynski’s antineoplaston therapy:”
——————————————————————
Let me just first say something before I begin my usual analysis
I love these reviews 😘
I really do
Yes, it’s true that GorsGeek can be a bit annoying with his seeming desire to validate everything he flogs about some perceived “offender,”as being applicable to him, but I want GorskGeek and “HOrac” to be able to live a long and full life together, growing old in each other’s company
I really do
In fact, I’d love to hang with these two and maybe buy them a pint or two at their local pub (except that it’s pointed out multiple times that GOrackGeek should no longer drink alcohol)
“Such is not my intent, but what are skeptics supposed to do?”
“Shy away from undertaking a dispassionate analysis of patient anecdotes used to promote dubious cancer therapies for fear of what patients will say?”
—————————————————————— Gorski, it might actually help IF you knew how to do a proper “dispassionate analysis” 😐
—————————————————————— Gorski cites from the Team Hannah blog
“Hannah’s treatment options are very limited and her life expectancy is for this type of tumour is normally around 18 months and this is why I started a mission to find people who had the same condition and are still alive today”
“I managed to track down a number of these people to speak to them.”
“In his movie, Pete points out that these people all led back to Burzynski“
Gorski interjects:
“Of course, as I’ve said before, dead patients don’t produce testimonials for alternative cancer cures“
——————————————————————
One wonders why Gorski even makes this comment as the number of patients Pete contacted re Burzynski’s “alternative cancer” cure, were obviously NOT dead 😮
—————————————————————— Gorski segues on to:
“Not long after they appear at the Burzynski Clinic, they meet with doctors there who tell them that Hannah’s most recent MRI scan showed progression of her tumor (around 8:30 in the movie)”
“Now, I’m not a radiologist, much less a neuroradiologist, but I wondered at all the enhancement on the superficial area of the brain, just under where her neurosurgeon must have raised the bone flap to remove what he could of the tumor“
“One wonders if much of the remaining enhancement could be still post-surgical and post-radiation change“
“Certainly, the tumor is cystic-appearing, and after surgery such cysts would likely shrink and be reabsorbed even if the tumor were to keep growing”
—————————————————————— Gorski, if you were NOT in a such a rush to post your blog article “ad homineming” Josh Duhamel, you could have taken the time to do proper “cancer research” and maybe listen to the 9/24/2012 @YouTube video of Pete Cohen talking with Neurosurgeon (Consultant) Juan F. Martinez-Canca (20:31)
After all, HE is an actual NEUROSURGEON
——————————————————————
——————————————————————
Or you could read the transcript I made of the video [12]
——————————————————————
Or you could have contacted him and asked questions http://www.neurokonsilia.com/About-Us.html
—————————————————————— Gorski tangents:
“Be that as it may, there were a number of things I found very interesting in this video”
“First, I notice that nowhere was there anything mentioned about enrolling Hannah on a clinical trial“
—————————————————————— Gorski, if you had let Hannah know you were going to do your article about her, she might have churned her 4/4/2013 article out faster just for you, where she advises:
“Luckily I was able to take part in a phase 2 clinical trial in Texas, USA”[13]
—————————————————————— Gorski stupefies:
“Given what a thorough videographer Pete obviously is, I find this omission very curious”
“Certainly, given how much detail he’s used in this video and in his vlogs I’d expect that if the subject of clinical trials was mentioned he would have included it”
—————————————————————— Gorski, if you were NOT so busy “getting the popcorn” as you “watched the entire 40 minute video Hannah’s Anecdote”, you might have actually noticed at (7:14):
—————————————————————— 12/12/2011 – Day 2 – Monday
Meeting with Dr. Yi and Dr. Greg Burzynski at Burzynski Clinic
—————————————————————— Dr. Greg Burzynski – “We have permission to start you on the antineoplastons”
“Mhmm”
Dr. Greg Burzynski – “which as you know are in the final stages of drug approval”
“Yeah”
Dr. Greg Burzynski – “Dr. Yi is the oncologist on this case”
—————————————————————— Gorski, did you SEE THAT ?
An ONCOLOGIST at the Burzynski Clinic, working with Burzynski
(No wonder you left that out !)
—————————————————————— Gorski ejects:
“The other thing that struck me was just how much Burzynski is full of it when he advertises antineoplastons as not being chemotherapy and, more importantly, as being nontoxic“
“At least a third of the video consisted of the difficulties that Hannah had with her treatment, including high fevers, a trip to the emergency room, and multiple times when the antineoplaston treatment was stopped“
“She routinely developed fevers to 102° F, and in one scene her fever reached 103.9° F“
“She felt miserable, nauseated and weak“
“I’ve seen chemotherapy patients suffer less”
—————————————————————— Gorski whines:
“I’ve seen chemotherapy patients suffer less”, but this is purely “anecdotal”
“At least a third of the video consisted of the difficulties that Hannah had with her treatment”
Let’s do the math, shall we ?
——————————————————————
In America (48 days)
12/11/2011 (Sunday) – 1/27/2012 (Friday)
[4:52 – 35:43]
—————————————————————— Burzynski Clinic 47 days – (7 weeks)
12/12/2011 (Monday) – 1/26/2012 (Thursday)
[5:37 – 35:43]
—————————————————————— 12/13/2011 (Tuesday) Day 3
after catheter – Hickman line surgery
(painful / really painful) [10:30]
—————————————————————— 12/14/2011 (Wednesday) Day 4
(feeling wrecked / absolutely wrecked) [10:52]
—————————————————————— 12/24/2011 (Saturday) Day 14
fever
bad breathing
uncontrollable chills couldn’t stop shivering all Saturday night [18:10]
—————————————————————— 12/25/2011 (Sunday) Day 15
fever
flu symptoms
bad breathing
headache
in bed
absolutely exhausted
little bit of swelling back of head [18:10]
—————————————————————— 12/27/2011 (Tuesday) Day 17
temp 102
temp down / up [19:04]
—————————————————————— 12/28/2011 (Wednesday) Day 18
exhausted
close to breaking / cracking [19:04]
—————————————————————— 12/29/2011 (Thursday) Day 19
hospital – E.R.
“I’m at my wits end”
“I don’t feel I can take anymore” [20:07]
—————————————————————— 12/30/2011 (Friday) Day 20
last week up & down
fever
chills
shaking
viral infection
bacterial infection
had to go to E.R. [20:22]
—————————————————————— 12/31/2011 (Saturday) Day 21
fever in middle of night
flu-like symptoms
temp 102 [21:53]
—————————————————————— 1/1/2012 (Sunday) Day 22
feel drunky
felt like completely drunk
double vision
Nurse said anti-seizure drug she hadn’t taken before
bit shaky [22:34]
—————————————————————— 1/15/2012 (Sunday) Day 36
antibiotics 1st day [24:33]
—————————————————————— 1/16/2012 (Monday) Day 37
over 102 Monday night
antibiotics 2nd day [25:24]
—————————————————————— 1/17/2012 (Tuesday) Day 38
fever
temp 101.8
throat infection
antibiotics been on 3 days [25:24]
—————————————————————— 1/20/2012 (Friday) Day 41
fever 104 (103.9) Friday night [26:54]
—————————————————————— 1/21/2012 (Saturday) Day 42
temp up to 104 (103.9)
Dr. on-call – Ibuprofen
102.5
yesterday afternoon (blood) rash ? [27:50]
—————————————————————— 1/23/2012 (Monday) Day 44
some itch [28:35] ======================================
47 days – Burzynski Clinic 31 days – treatmentNOTmentioned 16 days – treatment mentioned ====================================== 12/25/2011 (Sunday) Day 15 off ANP [18:10]
—————————————————————— 12/27/2011 (Tuesday) Day 17 back on ANP off ANP – temp 102
temp down / up [19:04]
—————————————————————— 12/28/2011 (Wednesday) Day 18 on ANP much smaller dose [19:04]
—————————————————————— 12/29/2011 (Thursday) Day 19
hospital – E.R. [20:07]
—————————————————————— 12/30/2011 (Friday) Day 20
last week up & down off on off on off ANP [20:22]
—————————————————————— 12/31/2011 (Saturday) Day 21
temp 102 [21:53]
—————————————————————— 1/15/2012 (Sunday) Day 36
antibiotics 1st day [24:33]
—————————————————————— 1/16/2012 (Monday) Day 37
over 102 Monday night
antibiotics 2nd day [25:24]
—————————————————————— 1/17/2012 (Tuesday) Day 38
temp 101.8 off ANP (If 102 take off ANP)
antibiotics been on 3 days [25:24]
—————————————————————— 1/20/2012 (Friday) Day 41
fever 104 (103.9) Friday night [26:54]
—————————————————————— 1/21/2012 (Saturday) Day 42 off ANP – temp up to 104 (103.9)
102.5 [27:50] ====================================== 5 – off ANP
May have beenoff ANP5 to 6 days out of 47? ====================================== 12/27/2011 (Tuesday) Day 17
temp 102
temp down / up [19:04]
—————————————————————— 12/29/2011 (Thursday) Day 19
hospital – E.R. [20:07]
—————————————————————— 12/31/2011 (Saturday) Day 21
temp 102 – in middle of night [21:53]
—————————————————————— 1/16/2012 (Monday) Day 37
temp over 102 Monday night
antibiotics 2nd day [25:24]
—————————————————————— 1/17/2012 (Tuesday) Day 38
temp 101.8
antibiotics been on 3 days [25:24]
—————————————————————— 1/20/2012 (Friday) Day 41
temp 104 (103.9) Friday night [26:54]
—————————————————————— 1/21/2012 (Saturday) Day 42
102.5 [27:50] ====================================== 6 days – temperature mentioned
temp 102 – temp down / up – 12/27/2011 102 in middle of night – 12/31/2011 102+ Monday night – 1/16/2012 temp 101.8 – 1/17/2012 104 (103.9) Friday night – 1/20/2012 102.5 – 1/21/2012 ====================================== Gorski scatterbrains on:
“I was also very puzzled at how the Burzynski Clinic could allow a cancer patient to linger with a fever of 102° F and sometimes higher, accompanied by shaking chills, in a temporary lodging without admitting her to the hospital“
——————————————————————
Does Gorski provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support his claim ?
“It’s not clear what sort of workup was done to evaluate Hannah either, what her white blood cell count was, or what her other labs were“
“Did they draw blood cultures?”
“Did they get urinalyses and cultures?”
“Did they do chest X-rays to rule out pneumonia?”
—————————————————————— Gorski, maybe you should have asked Wayne Dolcefino
Or maybe you should have gone to the Burzynski Clinic
Oh, wait
You think you know everything and could NOT learn anything by going there 😅
—————————————————————— Gorski at least gets one thing correct:
“It’s all very unclear, other than that she apparently was given some antibiotics at some point”
—————————————————————— 1/15/2012 Monday Day 36 antibiotics 1st day
—————————————————————— 1/16/2012 Tuesday Day 37 antibiotics 2nd day
—————————————————————— 1/17/2012 (Tuesday) Day 38 antibiotics been on 3 days
—————————————————————— Gorski wonders:
“Did she have the flu, given her flu-like symptoms, or was this due to her antineoplaston therapy?“
—————————————————————— Gorski, why not “speculate” like “The Skeptics™” usually do ?
—————————————————————— 12/24/2011 (Saturday) Day 14 fever
bad breathing
shivering all night
—————————————————————— 12/25/2011 (Sunday) Day 15 flu symptoms
breathing
headache
uncontrollable chills couldn’t stop off ANP absolutely exhausted
in bed
little bit of swelling back of head
—————————————————————— 12/27/2011 (Tuesday) Day 17 back on ANP temp 102 – off ANP temp down / up
—————————————————————— 12/28/2011 (Wednesday) Day 18 on ANP much smaller dose exhausted – close to breaking / cracking
—————————————————————— 12/29/2011 (Thursday) Day 19 hospital – E.R.
—————————————————————— 12/30/2011 (Friday) Day 20 last week up & down off on off on off fever
chills
shaking
viral infection
bacterial infection
—————————————————————— 12/31/2011 (Saturday) Day 21 temp 102 – fever in middle of night
Dr. SRB thinks flu-like symptoms or tumor actually breaking down
—————————————————————— 1/16/2012 (Monday) Day 37 temp 102+ Monday night
—————————————————————— 1/17/2012 (Tuesday) Day 38 throat infection temp 101.8 – fever – off ANP antibiotics been on 3 days
—————————————————————— 1/20/2012 (Friday) Day 41 104 (103.9) – fever – Friday night
—————————————————————— 1/21/2012 (Saturday) Day 42 temp up to 104
Dr. on-call – Ibuprofen 102.5 – off ANP yesterday afternoon rash
—————————————————————— Gorski ponders:
“The reaction of the clinic staff (i.e., rather blasé, even though at one point Hannah clearly demonstrates a change in mental status, appearing “drunk” and complaining of double-vision) made me wonder if this sort of problem was a common occurrence”
—————————————————————— Gorski, what’s the matter ?
Did you grab another handful of popcorn ?
—————————————————————— 1/1/2012 (Sunday) Day 22Burzynski Clinic feel drunky
felt like completely drunk
double vision
bit shaky Nurse said anti-seizure drug she hadn’t taken before [22:34]
—————————————————————— Gorski, what are some of the side-effects of “anti-seizure” medications ?
dizziness
double-vision
drowsiness
imbalance
loss of coordination
Problems with motor skills
Problems with tasks requiring sustained performance
nausea
slurred speech
staggering
mental disturbances
serious mood changes
—————————————————————— http://umm.edu/health/medical/reports/articles/epilepsy
—————————————————————— Gorski continues his assault on the popcorn:
“At another point, Pete and Hannah come to believe that the fevers might have been due to the tumor breaking down, which strikes me as implausible”
—————————————————————— Gorski, if it “strikes” you “as implausible”, then why did you ask, above ?
“Did she have the flu, given her flu-like symptoms, or was this due to her antineoplaston therapy?“
—————————————————————— 12/31/2011 (Saturday) Day 21 temp 102 – fever in middle of night Dr. SRB thinks flu-like symptoms OR tumor actually breaking down [21:53]
—————————————————————— Gorski blunders along:
“Later, she develops an extensive rash“
—————————————————————— 1/23/2012 (Monday) Day 44 Pete sent pic to Dr. SRB who gave name from pic and Pete verified [28:35]
—————————————————————— Gorski bumbles onward:
“It’s difficult to tell for sure what it is at the resolution of the video, but it looks like erythema multiforme, which is generally an allergic rash”
“What’s the most likely cause of such a rash?”
“Guess”
“Erythema multiforme is usually a drug reaction”
—————————————————————— Gorski, what can cause “Erythema multiforme” ?
“Does this mean that Burzynski’s antineoplaston treatment worked for Hannah?“
“Sadly, the answer is:”
“Not necessarily”
“It might have”
“It might not have”
“Why do I say this?”
“First, she didn’t have much residual disease after surgery and radiotherapy, and in fact it’s hard to tell how much is tumor and how much is postop and radiation effect“
—————————————————————— Gorski, I think it’s safe to say that neurosurgeon Dr. Martinez knows much better than you and your speculation
—————————————————————— Gorski
“Second, the median survival for anaplastic astrocytoma (which is a form of glioma) is around 2 to 3 years, and with different types of radiation therapy five year survival is around 15% or even higher”
—————————————————————— Gorski provides a link to a site which advises [14]:
High-grade tumors grow rapidly and can easily spread through the brain“
High-grade tumors are much more aggressive and require very intensive therapy
All patients with high-grade astrocytomas receive both radiation therapy and chemotherapy regardless of age
Prognosis is poor in this group of patients
—————————————————————— Gorski’s 2nd linked source advises [15]:
These highly aggressive tumors often occur in young adults and typically recur or progress to a grade 4 glioblastoma within several years of diagnosis, despite treatment with surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy
Tumor more resistant to therapy and patients have shorter median survival of only 2 to 3 years
—————————————————————— Gorski’s 3rd link [16] showcases his lame research as one has to read through almost the entire article to find the reference, which directs the reader to yet another publication [17]:
Gorski FAILS to advise the reader that the 2002 study is titled:
“Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) for previously untreated malignant gliomas“
Hannah Bradley’s WAS previously treated
Gorski also FAILS to advise the reader if this study included patients with grade 3 or 4 tumors
—————————————————————— Gorski claims:
“Thus, long term survival for patients with astrocytomas is not so rare that Hannah’s survival is so unlikely that the most reasonable assumption has to be that it was Burzynski’s treatment that saved her”
—————————————————————— Gorski, nice claim, but you did NOT really prove it
—————————————————————— Gorski suspects:
“More likely, Hannah is a fortunate outlier, although it’s hard for me to say even that because, at only two years out from her initial diagnosis, she’s only just reached the lower end of the range of reported median survival times for her disease”
—————————————————————— Gorski, the operative word is “outLIER”
Gorski then goes all “conspiracy theory” about a supposed “cryptic Facebook post”, a “vlog entry no longer exists”, “Hannah and Pete supposedly being “evasive”, “using vague terms”, a “little blip”, and “lack of new scans”
Next, little green “popcorn munchin'” men 👽
—————————————————————— 3/4/2013 Gorski drops “conspiracy theory, part II” on an unsuspecting audience [19]:
Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski’s cancer “success” stories update: Why is the release of the Burzynski sequel being delayed?
It’s no secret that I happen to NOT be on several mailing lists of “The Skeptics™”whose dedication to science is—shall we say?—questionable
As I delved deeper, I learned that Gorski’s evidence for the “questioning” of the anticancer efficacy of “antineoplaston therapy” doesn’t hold up; that his “questioning” of “personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy” is anything but; and that he’s an orphan now in what appears to me to be a strategy to bypass restrictions on his use of proper “cancer research “
The CliffsNotes version for those who don’t want to read Gorsack’s previous lengthy post is that he claims Hannah’s tumor, an astrocytoma (which is a form of glioma) did indeed appear to regress, but that regression can likely be explained by the surgery and radiation therapy that she had
Even then, however, he claims it would not be evidence that the antineoplastons saved her because there are occasional complete remissions in this tumor type, and long term survivors, although uncommon, are not so uncommon that Hannah must be evidence that antineoplastons are so miraculously effective that they saved her when conventional medicine could not
Gorski’s claims are anecdotal, as he failed miserably to provide the necessary citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support his claims
Gorski claims:
“I try very hard not to cross that line, and I think I’ve been successful, for instance, here”
But I proved again, above, how he fails and fails again with his “amateurish” attempts at proper “cancer research”
Similarly, Gorski realizes that it is very effective to appeal to emotions and cast Burzynski’s as heartless
Gorski inserts other Burzynski patients into his posts about Pete and Hannah
—————————————————————— GORSKI FAIL #1 – “One notes that Burzynski’s protocol requires at least 18 months of near-continuous infusion of high doses of his antineoplastons“
—————————————————————— GORSKI FAIL #2 – “The new claim is that Burzynski isn’t making patients pay for his antineoplastons (see question #13 in Merola’s FAQ), just for “clinical management” (as if that weren’t incredibly transparent) Vindication”
—————————————————————— GORSKI FAIL #3 – “First, I notice that nowhere was there anything mentioned about enrolling Hannah on a clinical trial“
—————————————————————— GORSKI FAIL #4 – “Certainly, given how much detail he’s used in this video and in his vlogs I’d expect that if the subject of clinical trials was mentioned he would have included it“
—————————————————————— GORSKI FAIL #5 – “The reaction of the clinic staff (i.e., rather blasé, even though at one point Hannah clearly demonstrates a change in mental status, appearing “drunk”and complaining of double-vision) made me wonder if this sort of problem was a common occurrence”
—————————————————————— GORSKI FAIL #6 – Well, I could add more … 🙂
——————————————————————
My apologies to the following co-authors if you ever had to check the “cancer research” of one: Gorski D., Gorski DH, D H Gorski,
“He also stated quite frankly during the Google Hangout that nothing will ever change his mind”
—————————————————————— Woo, Bob did NOT provide enough evidence that would cause me to “change my mind”
—————————————————————— “So what’s the point of any further discourse?”
—————————————————————— Woo, the point is, it gives you the opportunity to explain why you lied to The Guardian [2]
—————————————————————— “His idea of “debate” is having critics post comments on his blog; whether that is to drive up page views or merely to seek attention we’ll never know”
—————————————————————— Woo, who suggested leaving comments on my blog ?
Bob ? [3]
9/28/2013 Google+ Hangout
—————————————————————— 1:13:00
—————————————————————— “Okay, I’ll look at that, and I will respond to it once I’ve taken a look at that, okay ?“
“Um, and I’ll respond on your web-site“
“Um, seems only fair“
—————————————————————— 1:14:00
—————————————————————— 2:09:00
—————————————————————— “… and don’t worry I will go to your site and I will comment on on on what you’ve run“
—————————————————————— 2:10:15
—————————————————————— 2:18:00
—————————————————————— “Um, I will look at your web-site, and we will, uh, we, uh, you, oh make sure that I I go to your blog and and I talk there“
—————————————————————— 2:19:00
—————————————————————— “What none of us understands is his motivation”
“I have discussed this privately in e-mails with Bob B. and you, Guy”
“When asked about this during the session on Saturday all he said was that he wanted to correct what he perceives as misinformation from Burzynski critics on social media”
—————————————————————— Woo, you’re obviously NOT from Texas
It’s like a whole ‘notherCountry
My motivation ?
I am a Texan and an American and I do NOT have any respect for individuals who lie about cancer treatment on social media
Verstehen ?
There’s a saying:
“Don’t mess with Texas”
—————————————————————— “It has to go deeper than that”
“He didn’t wake up one day and out of the blue decide he was going to champion Burzynski”
“He has to have some connection, either personal or commercial”
—————————————————————— Woo, you’re still wrong
Prove it
—————————————————————— “The sheer amount of time and effort he’s pored into writing hundreds, if not thousands of comments on science blogs, his rabid attempts to edit Wikipedia and his own blog posts indicates he something invested”
—————————————————————— Woo, why don’t you count the amount of comments I posted on “Orac’s” Respectful Insolence science blog and let everyone know the results ?
—————————————————————— “He denied he works for Burzynski as he stated he doesn’t even live in Texas anymore, but that is irrelevant”
“I don’t believe Marc Stephens lived in Texas for the duration of time he represented the clinic”
—————————————————————— Woo, who cares what you think about Marc Stephens ?
Prove it
—————————————————————— “I wish he would just be honest and tell us why he has spent devoted so much of his time over the past year (almost) promoting and supporting Burzynski (and Merola, for that matter)”
—————————————————————— Woo, where have I been “promoting and supporting” them ?
Everything on my blog is devoted to showing how “The Skeptics™” lie
—————————————————————— “I was going to say it would be hard to go back to calling him an idiot after hearing him speak on Saturday, as he became humanized”
—————————————————————— Woo, I have no problem calling you an “idiot” after you lied about me [2]
—————————————————————— “His folksy “y’all” and his laughter made him a real person”
“He was no longer just words on a screen, but a living, breathing human being”
“However after seeing the Tweets he posted immediately following the Hangout, where he reverted to his juvenile insults, his name-calling, his inability to write a coherent sentence and his out-and-out lack of respect for people like you and Dr. Gorksi has made me reevaluate my stance”
—————————————————————— Woo, please cite one of these “supposed”Tweetsyou have a problem with
Surely you did NOT think I was giving Bobcarte blanche to continue on Twitter without proving his case ?
—————————————————————— “He simply deserves to be ignored”
“He has a serious personality disorder and doesn’t merit any of our attention ever again”
—————————————————————— Woo, my personality is serious enough NOT to lie about people to The Guardian
Do you have a serious “compulsive liar” personality disorder ?
====================================== Guy Chapman – 10/2/2013 – 12:26 am
“He kind of admitted it when he said that he’d be persuaded by the FDA not having granted phase 3 approval; defining your rejection criteria according to some test whose outcome is already know is one of the techniques used by homeopaths”
—————————————————————— Guy, which homeopathic “remedy” has received Orphan Drug Designation (ODD) and FDA Phase 3 approval ?
—————————————————————— “You do not interpret this thing as I would like, therefore you are denying this thing happened, therefore you lie, is another,”
—————————————————————— Guy, what massive cognitive dissonance dreamworld are you living in ?
====================================== Guy Chapman – 10/2/2013 – 12:28 am
“Actually, we know what he is”
“A troll”
“Why did we let ourselves get sucked in?”
—————————————————————— “Troll” is an excusecowards use to try and label someone in order to claim that they should NOT be put in a position to do something they agreed to
====================================== IamBreastCancer – 10/2/2013 – 12:27 am
“Excellent summary, Guy”
“I agree with WooFighter that his motivation is suspect, but there are some desperately lonely attention-seeking people out there who will grasp onto any controversial issue just to get “in the game.””
“As a cancer patient myself, I was struck by the fact that he could yammer on for almost 2-1/2 hours without showing a shred of concern or compassion for cancer patients or legitimate cancer treatment questions”
“His behavior before, during and since the debate clearly shows he absolutely has no regard for real facts or evidence”
“I’m thankful that he’s unable to write coherently, as it cripples his capacity for causing harm to cancer patients”
“Unlike so many other charlatans out there, I don’t think he represents much of a threat to patient safety, just a lot of noise and bandwidth waste”
“His 15 minutes of fame needs to end”
—————————————————————— Quidama, I’m sorry you have cancer, but it sounds to me like you seriously need a “reality check”: [4]
—————————————————————— A. Tried to “control the conversation” 1. Bob Blaskiewicz
2.
—————————————————————— B.Interrupted the other individual the most: 1. 30+ – Bob Blaskiewicz interrupted DJT
2. (20+ back at ya) – DJT interrupted BB
—————————————————————— C.Asked the most questions: 1. Bob Blaskiewicz
2.
—————————————————————— D.Most speaking time: 1. Bob Blaskiewicz
2.
—————————————————————— E.Most words: 1. 13,933 – Bob Blaskiewicz
2. 8,847 – DJT
—————————————————————— F.Most characters: 1. 66,123 – Bob Blaskiewicz
2. 43,245 – DJT
—————————————————————— G.Acted as if they were teaching a class, and dictating what your possible responses were, implying that they did NOT consider this to be a “debate” where the participants were free to choose their own responses: 1. Bob Blaskiewicz
2.
—————————————————————— H.Proved they do NOT know how to debate 1. Bob Blaskiewicz
2.
—————————————————————— I.Proved they do NOT have manners 1. Bob Blaskiewicz
2.
—————————————————————— J.Must have thought they were on the Morton Downey Jr. talk show (or do you prefer Jerry Springer ?) 1. Bob Blaskiewicz
2.
—————————————————————— K.Controlled themself best:
1. 2. DJT
—————————————————————— L.Did NOT need help from any pro-position pundits
1. 2. DJT
—————————————————————— “Thanks for all you do!”
—————————————————————— You’re welcome
I see “The Skeptics™” have descended on The Telegraph[1], just like they did on Forbes[2], and are attempting to “control the conversation” there, in the same manner
“The Skeptics™”LIE, comments get deleted, It’s like Forbes Part II (bias, biased, censor, censors, censored, censoring, censorship)
“The Skeptics™” obviously did NOT learn from their #epic Skeptic #fail #failure there
I wonder if “The Skeptics™” have taken a peek at #Forbes and seen that some of my comments which were removed, now have reappeared, as media sources find out how “The Skeptics™” operate ?
I also see that “The Skeptics™”fave oncologist has commented on the article and one of “The Skeptics™” has tried to get their Lord and Master, The King of “The Skeptics™”#epicSkeptic#fail#failureDisaster to join him in the pollution of another media source [3]
Mark McAndrew
Three people here have posted the link to Doctor Gorski’s response to this actual article
About as on-topic as it gets – and not their own work either
You, on the other hand, have spammed at least 12 people here with the exact same link to the “Didymus Judas Thomas’ Hipocritical Oath Blog” (sic), which – surprise – has absolutely nothing to do with this article
Is 12 less or more than 3, Diddy?
Who’s the liar?
Mr. McAndrew, did you get screenshots?
I only counted 10, which was provided because it backs up my comments
As far as who has posted your fave oncologist’s link
4 – Mark McAndrew 2 – lilady, R.N. 1 – Margaret Hardman 1 – David Doran
Do I really need to list the # of times Guy Chapman has cited his own blog?
And you were on your fave oncologist’s blog trying to get him to post here
Difference without a distinction
Guten Tag 🙂
DJT, USA
Mr. McAndrew, why don’t you ask your fave oncologist to reveal who I am so that I can prove him wrong?
Then you can try and prove that I work for the clinic after I prove him wrong
Problem solved
See how easy that is?
And you don’t end up looking like the
proverbial “village idiot” like one of “The Skeptics” who posts things without “fact-checking” them
I enjoy taking screenshots of my posts
Do you?
Sayanora
DJT, USA
Guy Chapman
All of homeopathy, or just the imponderables?
—————————————————————— Didymus Judas Thomas
Mr. Chapman, I’m quite surprised that you’ve been mum about this particular Homeopathy publication on PubMed?
Cell Biochem Funct. 2013 Feb 13. doi: 10.1002/cbf.2960
[Epub ahead of print]
—————————————————————— DJT – Didymus Judas Thomas
—————————————————————— BB – Bob Blaskiewicz
====================================== (0:12:00)
—————————————————————— DJT – Well a lot of the time I’m making fun of y’all’s favorite oncologist, the way he words his blogs, and uhmmm I cite specifically from the FDA, from from the National Cancer Institute, from these other scientific sources, from scientific publications
I give people specific information so they can fact-check me, unlike a lot of The Skeptics who just go out there and say things and publish things on social media, they provide no back-up for their uhhh sayings
—————————————————————— (0:13:00)
—————————————————————— DJT – And so I’ve tried to add those things and allow people to search, on specific things like publications, or what I posted about The Lancet, or specifically about The Skeptics, or specifically about the oncologist
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— DJT – Well the thing is, when you accepted this hangout, I published my newest blog article and I specifically listed all the information I had critiqued from you previously including Amelia, and I posted the specific Twitter responses by BurzynskiMovie; which is probably Eric, to your issues with Amelia, and he disagrees with what the oncologist posted, and so I pretty much let his Twitter responses stand to what the oncologist said
—————————————————————— 0:14:24
======================================
If it's true that #burzynski and his adman Merola have insinuated that parents are to blame for Amelia's death that's utterly disgusting.
====================================== DJT – Well what I find interesting about these other doctors is like like the doctors mentioned in the movie and BBC Panorama’s report and in some of these newspaper articles where they are mentioned again is that these doctors never do a review of Burzynski’s scientific publications and including our favorite oncologist who refuses to do so [4]
“I think” ====================================== 11/2/2012 – “Personally having pored over Burzynski’s publications” ======================================
DJT – Oh yeah he says he’s read everything but uh you know he claims that he’s uhmmm reviewed, reviewed uh Burzynski’s personalized gene targeted therapy but he, but then just a few months ago he admitted, you know, I don’t know where Burzynski says which genes are targeted by antineoplastons
And I pointed out which specific publications that Burzynski published, publications which specifically mention which genes are targeted by antineoplastons, and I said how can you claim that you’ve read and reviewed every Burzynski publication and you didn’t know which genes are targeted by antineoplastons when that’s specifically in the publications ?
To me that tells me that you do not know how antineoplastons work be because you just admitted you don’t know which genes Burzynski talks about
I mean that’s just funny as heck to me that he would say that [5]
—————————————————————— 0:25:07
—————————————————————— DJT – But the other issue is that Skeptics have posted on there that he could not get that accelerated approval until he had published a phase 2 trial and that is exactly not the case because other drugs have been given accelerated approval before their results were published in phase 2 clinical trial publications, cuz, so that question remains as well [6] ====================================== “Temodar and Avastin both had proper, completed, and published phase II trials before approval” ======================================
====================================== Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) tweeted at 10:44am – 31 Jul 13:
@TomLemley1 @AceofSpadesHQ @mikespillane The FDA won’t approve his drug until he ever finishes and publishes a trial. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?te…
And so when I critique an oncologist or any other Skeptic I always provide source material so people can always fact-check me and I specifically said that people should fact-check everything ummm that the oncologist should say because he has, I’ve proven him to be frequently incorrect about his information and misleading
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— 0:44:00
—————————————————————— DJT – The thing that’s funny is that people can say, ohhh Burzynski charges a lot, but the fact is, so does chemo, radiation, and some of these newspaper articles that have been published, and specifically in the movie, Burzynski 2, one of the people mentioned how much someone was paying for standard treatment
And I noticed our favorite oncologist didn’t comment about that in his movie review [7]
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— 1:11:04
—————————————————————— BB – “There’s something that that we don’t know, you’re coming, honestly we didn’t know what to expect when we talked to you”
“We, were looking at the design, of your web-site and wondering whether or not we would be able to get a a coherent sentence out of you, because the web-site is disorganized, uh”
“Um, at at at at least it’s the organization is not apparent to the readers“
“Um, and um according to”
—————————————————————— DJT
That’s like, that’s like saying that Gorski’s web-site is disorganized, his blog is like anti vaccine one day, Burzynski the next, blah blah blah
—————————————————————— BB – “No, that is tied together”
—————————————————————— 1:12:00
—————————————————————— BB – “But let me, we know that that the the, the central concern is Burzynski“ ======================================
This is so Hilarious
Bob, why don’t you give a detailed explanation of how my blog with all its different search functions, is more “disorganized” than yours, and how about an in-depth data-analysis of Gorski’s “Respectful Insolence” blog, listing the # of Burzynski articles versus other articles
Oh
By the way, if you have NOT yet figured it out, my entire blog is Burzynski related ====================================== DJT – Well I think that people who really believe in “Free Speech,” and when it’s done rationally, I mean, Gorski would never, really respond to any of my questions, so I
—————————————————————— BB – “Did he, did he leave them up ?”
“Did he leave them up ?”
—————————————————————— DJT – Well I know that he specifically removed a review I did uh of his review of Burzynski I on his web, on his blog
But he’s pretty much left a lot of my comments up that I’ve seen
Uh, but he never really responded to my questions about, what he based his beliefs upon
—————————————————————— 1:27:00
—————————————————————— BB – “Right, um, do you think that he is required to answer you ?”
—————————————————————— DJT – Well I would think, if you’re going to base your position on a certain thing, and then you can’t back it up with scientific literature, uh, you should answer, maybe not specifically to me, but answer the question
Answer to your readers [8]
—————————————————————— BB – “Right”
—————————————————————— DJT – You know, I can tell his readers come on my blog because it shows that they come on my blog
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— 1:34:00
—————————————————————— BB – “Um, you know, Gorski blogs under his real name, and is critical of uh, uh, also, let’s face it, everyone know, knows who “Orac” is”
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— 1:39:00
—————————————————————— BB – “Uh, what’s next for you”
—————————————————————— DJT – Well I’ll just keep reviewing the, any inaccurate statements I see posted
You know, it depends on if it’s Gorski, you know
Gorski’s gone on there and posted inaccurate stuff, and I call him out, you know he’s basically said on his blog, you know, if I do something inaccurate, you know, I’ll ‘fess up to it
====================================== ====================================== 6/3/2013 – “[I]f I had screwed up, I would have admitted it” ======================================
Well, I’ve pointed out where he’s done that and said “Hey, you said you were gonna ‘fess up to it”
If I said on my blog that I was going to ‘fess up to doing something wrong, and you caught me, well, then I should, come out and say, “Okay, you got me”
But Gorski won’t even do that, you know, he just continues to go on down the road, as if
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— 1:56:02
—————————————————————— DJT – Well, I’m sure, I’m sure Gorskiwould have a comment about that, as he’s commented previously about how he thinks uh Burzynski should publish
—————————————————————— BB – “Oh I, I I I certainly don’t think that he would put a lot of stock in it, but I, I, I know Dave Gorski enough, he wants this to work”
“He has patients who are dying, you know”
“And if if if let’s say that that Burzynski could get ah his gene-targeted therapy to work on breast cancer patients in in a reliable way, that would be, such a help to these people, that that Gorski’s trying to help”
—————————————————————— 1:57:10
—————————————————————— BB – “Um, yea, it doesn’t matter now whether or not Burz, whether or not Gorski agrees with how Burzynski publishes” ======================================
This is Laughable
Nowhere have I seen any indication from Gorski of a positive nature towards Burzynski [9] ====================================== DJT – Like I said before
Like I said before on my blog, you know, even if Burzynski publishes his phase 2 information, Gorski can just jump up and down and say, “Well, that just shows evidence of efficacy, you know, it’s not phase 3, so it doesn’t really prove it”
—————————————————————— 1:58:04
—————————————————————— DJT – So then he can go on, you know, for however many years he wants to
—————————————————————— BB – “But he is a, the thing is, the thing is, you thing you have to understand is Gorski, Gorski is a genuine expert, in matters re re regarding on oncology studies“
I mean, he has a”
—————————————————————— DJT – Well,
—————————————————————— BB – “He, He’s able to convince people, he’s able to convince people, on the strength of his record, to give him money to carry out research”
People who know what they’re talking about”
To give him money to carry out his research”
Right ?”
—————————————————————— DJT – This is, this is a guy who must phone it in because, he went in there and posted the old Josephine Jones response that, you know, no drugs had been approved by the FDA without their final phase 2 publication 1st being published, which was not a factual statement, and you’ve made the same statement
So I, I’m thinking that Gorski just bought her statement and took it and ran with it, and before he fact-checked it, and what, what happened, it was wrong
—————————————————————— 1:59:00
—————————————————————— DJT – I mean, Gorski needs to stop phoning stuff in, and check his sources before he posts stuff, because I’ve found many cases where, he hasn’t seemed to do that, and that’s why I question him
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— DJT – He’s done more than the case studies
He’s specifically given uh, almost all the information om an oncologist would want
And Gorski, and Gorski
—————————————————————— BB – “Except for a ph, completed phase 3 clinical trial”
——————————————————————
(laughing)
DJT – I mean, I love Gorski, but he comes up with these stupid excuses like, “Well, Burzynski is not an oncologist”
—————————————————————— 2:01:00
—————————————————————— DJT – Well, Gorski doesn’t go go in there and look at his other, his phase 2 clinical trial publications, as far as the preliminary reports, and look at the co-authors, and see if any of those guys are oncologists, and that they’re working with Gorski, I mean they’re working with Burzynski
I find that ridiculous
——————————————————————
Uh, Guy Chapman, “It’s a blog, not a peer-reviewed publication”
—————————————————————— BB – “Um, so, it it is kind of, slightly disingenuous to hold uh Gorski to the same . . standard that you would, it on his blog“
“I think that professionally he would make, he he he would follow-up on these things” ====================================== PROVE IT [10] ====================================== 2:03:03
—————————————————————— DJT – I mean, Gorski doesn’t want to deal with the issues
Hey, I’ve said it to Gorski
He liked to back his stuff up on the Mayo study, yet he wouldn’t, he wouldn’t uh debate about the Mayo study
He likes to say, “Well, Burzynski is not an oncologist,” but he won’t, say Hey, look at the publications, are any of the guys on the publications oncologists ?
We know that Gorski, we know that Burzynski works with oncologists in his practice
So, just because Burzynski himself is not an an oncologist, does not necessarily mean anything
Do we need to go out, onto PubMed, and, and review every particular person that’s published something about cancer and see if they’re all oncologists ?
Seriously
—————————————————————— 2:04:11
—————————————————————— DJT – I mean, Gorski will just
—————————————————————— BB – “Yeah, but they”
—————————————————————— DJT – post a lot of stuff without backing it up
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— 2:16:09
—————————————————————— DJT – What I defend, is that, y’all post stuff, a lot of Skeptics post stuff, including Gorski, and they do not back it up, with references, citations, or links
Gorski will just post stuff, like he did about saying, you know, the FDA would not approve, uh, accelerated approval, without a final phase 2 clinical trial being published, which was an incorrect statement, he did not provide any link
—————————————————————— BB – “Even if it’s true or false you, honestly though”
—————————————————————— DJT – We know it’s false
—————————————————————— BB – “Even if it’s true or false, in in that particular instance, you know, eh let’s just say that you’re right”
Gorski gets that point completely wrong”
It has no bearing on whether or not, ANP works”
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— 2:18:00
—————————————————————— DJT – You know, I don’t see why Gorski is afraid of debating issues
—————————————————————— BB – “I don’t think he is””
—————————————————————— DJT – on the Internet, on his blog
—————————————————————— BB – “I don’t think he’s afraid”
“I just think he’s got a lot going on”
“He is act, a full-time surgical oncologist and researcher”
“He does have insane am, he has to pick and choose his battles”
“And if, if if he saw that we were going to ultimately be circling around our same arguments again and again; kind of like we’ve done here, um, he uh, you, he doesn’t have time for that, I don’t think”
—————————————————————— 2:19:00
—————————————————————— BB – “I mean”
—————————————————————— DJT – Hey, he has time to post about, “Hey, uh, Burzynski got a Catholic award from somebody,” which, has nothing to do with antineoplastons, whatsoever
So, you know, he’s not focusing just in on,
“Do antineoplastons work, yes or no?,”
“When will Burzynski publish ?,” yes or no ?
You know, he’s putting all this ridiculous side junk, you know
“[I]f I had screwed up, I would have admitted it”
====================================== The LIE
====================================== [2] – 6/4/2013 – Gorski LIED:
” … Burzynski never explains which genes are targeted by antineoplastons … “
—————————————————————— [3] – 8/7/2013 – I pointed out to Gorski the majority of Burzynski’s publications which explain “which genes are targeted by antineoplastons … “, although there are even more
—————————————————————— [4] – DISCLAIMER: “Because he is still a working academic surgeon and researcher (and hopes to remain so until he retires, which means—hopefully–for another 20 years or possibly even more), Dr. Gorski must emphasize that the opinions expressed in his posts on SBM are his and his alone … “
Gorski might incorrectly assume that his DISCLAIMER is going to allow him to hide like a snake in the grass, but it’s NOT
I have yet to see his admission that he “screwed up”, even though he has claimed:
—————————————————————— [5] – “Our only goal is to promote high standards of science in medicine”
—————————————————————— [6] – 11/.2/2012 – “Personally, having pored over Burzynski’s publications … “
—————————————————————— [7] – 5/8/2013 – “I’ve searched Burzynski’s publications … “
—————————————————————— [8] – 5/31/2013 – “Burzynski has a contingent of defenders who have targeted skeptics like me for special abuse, up to and including harassing me at work by calling my university to complain about my online verbiage critical of Burzynski and implying that I am somehow doing something wrong”
“(My university quickly realized that I was not.)”
—————————————————————— [9] – 6/5/2013 – “ … I do know cancer science”
—————————————————————— [10] – 6/7/2013 – “Unlike Mr. Merola, I am indeed very concerned with getting my facts correct”
====================================== An Ethical Conundrum
======================================
To me, the message the institutions that Gorski is affiliated with are sending a message that it’s okay to LIE
and, we hire LIARS
And that’s the position I’m taking until Gorski puts on some Big Boy pants and takes accountability for his actions
[1] – Wikipedia, which is behind on updating the “propaganda” on their Burzynski article, posted:
Legal issues
2010 film, Burzynski – Cancer is Serious Business
[2] – “A showing of Burzynski by CPT12 only generated a handful of complaints to the PBS Ombudsman“
“These mostly concurred with earlier reviewers of the film that the movie displays a serious lack of objectivity”
[3] – “Some CPT staffers were also criticized for failing to ask Eric Merola any of the hard questions”[65]
[4] – What Wikipedia fails to advise the reader is how many times “The Skeptics™” lied, misinformed, disinformed, and / or did NOT provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support their claims, did NOT respond to questions, used adolescent excuses and / or instead of addressing one issue per comment, posted numerous multiple issues in each comment which required research to address each issue, and thus #FAILED on the CPT12 Facebook page
[5] – [6] – Here is a list of “The Skeptics™” who participated in this questionable behavior
Darren Woodward (Sebastian Armstrong @spikesandspokes on Twitter)
Val Perry Rendel
Amber Sherwood K
Amy Hochberg Beaton
Robert Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz)
Adam Jacobs @DianthusMed)
Paul Morgan (@DrPaulMorgan)
William M. London
Scott Myers
David James (@StortSkeptic)
Guy Chapman (@SkepticGuy)
Karl Mamer
David H. Gorski (@gorskon @oracknows @ScienceBasedMed)
Adam Levenstein
Rene F. Najera
Tsu Dho Nimh
Jen Keane
Vicky Forster
Scott Hurst
Susan Scotvold Goodstein
Catherina Becker
Footy Stuff
For years, Gorski has been able to comment on Burzynski’s “personalized gene targeted therapy” with impunity
It’s about time he received some personal attention, leading to heapin’ helpings of not-so-Respectful Insolence
All of the below articles by Gorski were tagged as having to do with:
personalized gene targeted cancer therapy, or mention it
—————————————————————— http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/tag/personalized-gene-targeted-cancer-therapy/
—————————————————————— I AM ADDING TO THIS AS I GO ALONG
====================================== [1] – 6/5/2013 – ” … in January the Burzynski Clinic removed all references to antineoplaston therapy on its website … “
—————————————————————— [2] – 8/4/2013 – I proved Gorski wrong since Burzynski’s scientific publications regarding antineoplaston therapy are on the Burzynski website
====================================== [1] – 6/5/2013 – “Three years should be plenty of time to line up clinical sites for a phase III trial”
“Of course, given that after three years the clinical trial hasn’t been opened, more than likely no reputable institution wants to partner with the Burzynski Research Institute, and ResearchPoint collected its checks”
—————————————————————— [3] – 7/18/2013 – This statement by Gorski is disingenuous since 6/3/2013 he reviewed Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II where this issue was addressed, and he made NO COMMENT about it in his review
Gorski can distort, exaggerate, and even lie to the public
====================================== [1] – 6/5/2013 – “Another interesting tidbit in the SEC filing is Burzynski’s report of the results of several of his clinical trials”
“They aren’t really “results’ per se, in that the information presented really isn’t provided in a form that really allows other investigators to evaluate it and potentially replicate it”
“Basically it’s a big table listing Burzynski Research Institute clinical trials”
“Of course, I realize that this is an SEC filing, not a scientific paper in the peer-reviewed literature, but if Burzynski has all this data to produce this table it boggles the mind that, given at least a decade and a half since these trials began, he hasn’t been able to publish any meaningful data thus far”
“That he hasn’t been able to do so is also a big red flag”
—————————————————————— [5] – 8/21/2013 – That Gorski has NOT been able to prove that the 4 Burzynski publications I refer to are NOT “meaningful data” is a big red flag
====================================== [6] – 6/4/2013 – “It’s a theme that is repeated throughout the report but that ignores the astounding level of sheer deception that goes on at the Burzynski Clinic, the allegations of overfilling, and how Burzynski has abused the clinical trial process to keep treating patients with antineoplastons without actually having to do the science that any other doctor would be required to do to validate a new treatment”
—————————————————————— [7] – 6/23/2013 – This is the 1st time I’ve seen Gorski allege “overfilling,” and I sure have NOT seen him provide any proof of that or that Burzynski is NOT doing “the science that any other doctor would be required to do to validate a new treatment”
If anyone is being “deceptive,” it seems to be Gorski
====================================== [6] – 6/4/2013 – Dr. Elloise Garside, a research scientists, echoes a lot of the questions I have, such as how Burzynski never explains which genes are targeted by antineoplastons, … “
—————————————————————— [8] – 8/7/2013 – Gorski has NO response for where I list where Burzynski “explains which genes are targeted by antineoplastons”
====================================== [6] – 6/4/2013 – ” … what the preclinical evidence supporting their efficacy are … “
—————————————————————— [9] – 3/16/2013 – Gorski does NOT mention where he’s reviewed “the preclinical evidence supporting their efficacy”
====================================== [6] – 6/4/2013 – ” … or what the scientific rationale is to expect that they might have antitumor activity”
—————————————————————— [10] – 8/8/2013 – Gorski reviewed “Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business” (Part I), but acts as if Dvorit D. Samid was NOT mentioned, and that he is NOT aware that the BurzynskiMovie website contains supporting documentation
I can’t let such statements go unchallenged
It means NadaZeroZip
====================================== [6] – 6/4/2013 – “In science, all that matters is what you publish, and Burzynski hasn’t published anything other than case reports, tiny case series, and unconvincing studies, mostly (at least over the last decade or so) in crappy journals not even indexed on PubMed”
—————————————————————— [5] – 8/21/2013 – I remain unimpressed that Gorski has NOT written a review of Burzynski’s 2003-2010 phase II clinical trial preliminary reports
====================================== [6] – 6/4/2013 – “Without a doubt, the most effective part of the story is the segment in which Dr. Jeanine Graf of the Texas Children’s Hospital is introduced”
“Dr. Graf is the director of the pediatric intensive care unit there and has taken care of lots of Burzynski patients, as her hospital is “just down the road” from the Burzynski Clinic and these unfortunate children are brought to her hospital when they decompensate”
“Indeed, coupled with this segment is an interlude where Luna Petagine’s mother complains that the staff there know and recognize Burzynski patients (and, she notes, hate the Burzynski Clinic)”
“Particularly damning is how Ms. Petagine said that the Texas Children’s Hospital Staff “were always cleaning up Burzynski’s messes.””
“Luna was brought to the Texas Children’s Hospital during her time in Houston, and the staff there recognized right away that she was a Burzynski patient because they had seen so many similar patients suffering the same complications before”
“It was also clear how much contempt the staff there had for the Burzynski Clinic”
“If there’s one thing Panorama did right in this report, it’s showing how seeing so many already dying children show up in our ICU because of hypernatremia due to antineoplaston therapy will do that”
“Perhaps the most devastating part of this segment was seeing Dr. Graf stating, point blank, that she’s never seen a Burzynski patient survive”
“True, she does point out that patients don’t come to her until they are in extremis, but the fact remains that she’s never seen any of them live”
—————————————————————— [11] – 4/24/2013 – What is so ridiculous about this is that Richard Bilton wanted numbers from Burzynski, but then when it came to this part of the documentary, he somehow forgets how to ask how many patients this applies to, and Gorski compounds this by trying to blame hypernatremia on antineoplaston therapy, but he refuses to explain how it is that in this Division of Internal Medicine / Department of General Internal Medicine, University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA, cancer study, over a 3 month period in 2006 re 3,446 patients, most of the HYPERNATREMIA (90 %) was acquired during hospital stay, and these patients were NOT on antineoplaston therapy
Arrogance, dismissiveness, and condescension make him his own worst enemy
====================================== [6] – 6/4/2013 – “Burzynski also pulls out the old trope that, if the FDA has been letting him use antineoplastons for 20 years in clinical trials if they weren’t safe and potentially effective, that the FDA wouldn’t let him “sell hope without evidence.””
“(Those of us following Burzynski for a while know, unfortunately, that that isn’t necessarily true.)”
—————————————————————— [12] – 4/25/2013 – “The FDA’s Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective” advises:
“[T]he emphasis in Phase 2 is on EFFECTIVENESS”
“Phase 3 studies begin if EVIDENCE of EFFECTIVENESS is shown in Phase 2″
The FDA has approved Burzynski’s phase 3 clinical trials, which means that antineoplastons have shown evidence of effectiveness, whether Gorski likes it or NOT
====================================== [6] – 6/4/2013 – ” … he goes on to repeat the same refrain he’s been repeating for the last decade or so about how he’s on the verge of publishing all the results that will convince everyone”
“One notes that we’re still waiting”
—————————————————————— [13] – 7/25/2013 – Gorski provides NO citation to support his statement, and, he did a review of “Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II,” but conveniently does NOT comment in his review about the refusal e-mail shown in the film, and its suspect content
====================================== [6] – 6/4/2013 – “Burzynski needs to publish, but I highly doubt that he will, at least not in a form that is informative to real oncologists”
—————————————————————— [5] – 8/21/2013 – I’m waiting for Gorski to prove that the 4 Burzynski publications I refer to are “NOT in a form that is informative to real oncologists”
Why don’t YOU cite a phase 2 clinical trial final publication that has substantially more data fields than the 4 publications I mention ?
====================================== [4] – 6/3/2013 – “I refer you to the link for my discussion of many of the problems with the movie”
“Here I will concentrate mainly on issues that I haven’t discussed before, because actually seeing Burzynski II was a revelation”
“(Yes, I put that sentence there on purpose, Eric Merola; quote mine it if you have the cojones)”
—————————————————————— [3] – 7/18/2013 – Gorski, don’t wait for Eric Merola to quote you
I’ve quoted you
Now let’s see if YOU have the cajones
MY review of your “review” should be a revelation to YOU
====================================== [4] – 6/3/2013 – “I’m referring to Chris Onuekwusi, a man who was diagnosed with stage I colon cancer”
“Instead of undergoing straightforward surgery that we know to have a high probability of success (which, I’ll also point out, can be done these days through minimally invasive laparoscopic techniques), Onuekwusi balked, as described in more detail than in the movie in this article on the Burzynski Patient Group website”
“He had even gone for a second opinion at one of the leading cancer centers in the world, the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, where the surgeon told him the same thing”
“He needed surgery first”
—————————————————————— [3] – 7/18/2013 – Mr. Onuekwusi did NOT want surgery
====================================== [4] – 6/3/2013 – “So what did Burzynski recommend instead of surgery?”
“He recommended a cocktail of three drugs given off-label:”
“Zolinza, Xeloda, and Avastin”
“Zolinza is vorinostat, a histone deacetylase inhibitor; Xeloda is capecitabine, which is a prodrug for 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), a pyrimidine analog that inhibits the enzyme thymidylate synthetase and thereby inhibits DNA synthesis to toxic effect in rapidly dividing cells; and Avastin is bevacizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody directed against vascular endothelial growth factor-A (VEGF-A)”
“As I described in a previous post about Burzynski’s “personalized, gene-targeted cancer therapy,” apparently Burzynski sent Onuekwusi’s tumor to Caris for testing”
====================================== [14] – 3/2010 – Burzynski advised that a blood or pathology specimen can be used for testing, and that results from a blood test can be obtained within 2 days, and used and refined by a pathology specimen within 2 to 3 weeks
====================================== [4] – 6/3/2013 – “Caris generated a report, as it always does, and Burzynski came up with a witches’ brew of new expensive targeted agents, all said to be “off-label.””
====================================== [15] – 5/17/2011 – Well, not exactly
Burzynski made it clear in part 2 of this interview that there is constant searches of medical literature (phase 2 and phase 3 publications) to research the medications to be used based on the cancer genes involved, and that they have worked on software so oncologists can use it to choose the best medications instead of reinventing the wheel and having to review the medical literature again
So, he does NOT come up with a “witches’ brew”
====================================== [4] – 6/3/2013 – “One of these drugs is just an old chemotherapy drug in a new form”
“Xeloda is, in essence, 5-FU, a chemotherapeutic drug that has been used to treat colorectal cancer, both as adjuvant chemotherapy and first-line therapy for metastatic disease, for over 40 years”
“There’s nothing really “targeted” about the drug except that it inhibits an enzyme, the way that many drugs do and have been known to do for decades”
“The advantage of Xeloda is that it can be administered orally, which is a good thing”
====================================== [16] – What Gorski fails to mention is that Xeloda (Capecitabine) is approved to be used alone or with other drugs to treat:
Stage III colon cancer in patients who have had surgery to remove cancer
May also apply to unapproved uses being studied
—————————————————————— [17] – fluoropyrimidine carbamate belonging to class of antineoplastic agents called antimetabolites
As prodrug, capecitabine is selectively activated by tumor cells to cytotoxic moiety, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU); subsequently, 5-FU is metabolized to 2 active metabolites, 5-fluoro-2-deoxyuridine monophosphate (FdUMP) and 5-fluorouridine triphosphate (FUTP) by tumor cells and normal cells
FdUMP inhibits DNA synthesis and cell division by reducing normal thymidine production, while FUTP inhibits RNA and protein synthesis by competing with uridine triphosphate for incorporation into RNA strand
====================================== [4] – 6/3/2013 – “Similarly, Avastin, although relatively new, is also commonly used for colorectal cancer, albeit usually for metastatic disease and not as adjuvant chemotherapy”
====================================== [18] – What Gorski fails to mention is that Avastin (Bevacizumab) is approved to be used alone or with other drugs to treat:
Colorectal cancer that has metastasized (spread to other parts of body)
May also apply to unapproved uses being studied
—————————————————————— [19] – A recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody directed against the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), a pro-angiogenic cytokine
Bevacizumab binds to VEGF and inhibits VEGF receptor binding, thereby preventing the growth and maintenance of tumor blood vessels
====================================== [4] – 6/3/2013 – “That leaves Zolinza, which is an HDAC inhibitor used to treat cutaneous T cell lymphoma”
====================================== [20] – What Gorski fails to mention is that Zolinza (Vorinostat) is a histone deacetylase inhibitor, approved for treatment of cutaneous manifestations of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) in patients with progressive, persistent, or recurrent disease
May also apply to unapproved uses being studied
—————————————————————— [21] – A synthetic hydroxamic acid derivative with antineoplastic activity
Vorinostat, a 2nd generation polar-planar compound, binds to catalytic domain of histone deacetylases (HDACs)
Allows hydroxamic moiety to chelate zinc ion located in catalytic pockets of HDAC, thereby inhibiting deacetylation and leading to accumulation of both hyperacetylated histones and transcription factors
Hyperacetylation of histone proteins results in upregulation of cyclin-dependant kinase p21, followed by G1 arrest
Hyperacetylation of non-histone proteins such as tumor suppressor p53, alpha tubulin, and heat-shock protein 90 produces additional anti-proliferative effects
Agent induces apoptosis and sensitizes tumor cells to cell death processes
Vorinostat crosses blood-brain barrier
====================================== [4] – 6/3/2013 – “One wonders if Burzynski included a second HDAC inhibitor, his second favorite drug after antineoplastons, sodium phenylbutyrate”
====================================== [22] – 11/19/2012 – Gorski, if you had done “exhaustive research” on Burzynski and “Gene-Targeted Cancer Therapy,” you would have viewed this @youtube video:
Texas Med. Bd. v. Dr. Burzynski – Gene-Targeted Cancer Therapy – Case Dismissed 11/19/2012
BurzynskiMovie
and you would have heard Mr. Onuekwusi say at 3:45, that he took phenylbutyrate (PB)
====================================== [4] – 6/3/2013 – “So, by Merola’s own description, what Burzynski did was to administer a toxic form of treatment that was probably not needed (chemotherapy) using drugs that were not approved for that indication, and apparently didn’t insist that the patient needed surgery”
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – Gorski publishes so much garbage that he may have forgotten his article where he posted:
“Then, there is also this video, produced by the Burzynski clinic itself:”
“At around the three minute mark, the announcer states:”
“We combine gene-targeting drugs and low dose chemo, if needed”
====================================== [4] – 6/3/2013 – “Now, it’s possible that the combination of drugs did eliminate the tumor”
====================================== Gorski, do you think that’s because as mentioned in [15], above, Burzynski would review publications like this ?
[24] – 8/23/2011 – A randomized, phase III trial of capecitabine [Xeloda] plus bevacizumab [Avastin] (Cape-Bev) versus capecitabine plus irinotecan plus bevacizumab (CAPIRI-Bev) in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: the AIO KRK 0110 trial/ML22011 trial [1st-line treatment of patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)]
—————————————————————— [25] – 11/2/2010 – Vorinostat [Zolinza] synergises with capecitabine [Xeloda] through upregulation of thymidine phosphorylase
—————————————————————— [26] – 4/2012 – Phase I–II study of vorinostat [Zolinza] plus paclitaxel and bevacizumab [Avastin] in metastatic breast cancer: evidence for vorinostat-induced tubulin acetylation and Hsp90 inhibition in vivo
—————————————————————— [4] – 6/3/2013 – “In my opinion, Burzynski deserves to have his medical license taken away on the basis of how he treated Chris Onuekwusi alone, not even considering all the other dubious things he’s done”
====================================== [27] – 8/27/2013 – In my opinion, Gorski deserves to have his medical license taken away on the basis of how he has misinformed, disinformed, and lied about Burzynski, not even considering all the other dubious things he’s done
====================================== [4] – 6/3/2013 – “All I can say is that Merola and Burzynski must not have searched very hard, because I quickly found a few … “
“Truly, Merola’s “exhaustive” research skills need some upgrading”
“It took me two minutes to find those articles”
====================================== [22] – 11/19/2012 – All I can say is that Gorski must NOT have searched very hard, because I quickly found this @youtube video about Dr. Burzynski – Gene-Targeted Cancer Therapy, which includes a segment on Burzynski’s cancer gene testing at 2:45
Truly, Gorski’s “exhaustive” research skills need some upgrading, since nowhere does it indicate that Burzynski was involved with doing Merola’s research
It took me 2 minutes to find this out
Seeing is believing?
To me seeing is knowing just how intellectually dishonest David Gorski is
====================================== [4] – 6/3/2013 – Seeing The Skeptics
“Particularly seemingly damning are a series of Tweets flashed on the screen saying things like the Hope for Laura fund (the fund set up by Laura Hymas to pay for her treatment at the Burzynski Clinic) “appears to be just a money laundry for a lying quack fraud” and “when Laura dies #Burzynski will just move on to his next mark if she doesn’t run out of money first.””
“I think I know whose Tweets these were”
“In fact, I’m sure I know whose Tweets these were, and all I can say to that person is this:”
“Zip it”
“Stop it”
“Put a sock in it”
“In fact, if I’m correct about whose Tweets these are I think I have already done so on Twitter when I’ve seen this person getting too close to attacking cancer patients”
“Still, as utterly insensitive and “dickish” as those Tweets were, they do not represent the majority of skeptics, but rather a few jerks”
“However, we as skeptics need to remember that a few jerks perceived (or painted) as attacking cancer patients can do immeasurable damage to the cause of science-based medicine”
“So if you’re one of those skeptics making comments like that, knock it off”
“If I see you doing it again, next time I will call you out publicly”
====================================== [28] – 2/19/2013 – Like this ?
——————————————————————
Of course it's always possible that the money launderers are appearing as themselves in the #Burzynski advertisement.
——————————————————————
And this ?
——————————————————————
BurzynskiSaves (@BurzynskiSaves) tweeted at 7:42pm – 25 Dec 11:
“@RatbagsDotCom:They will be even more vulnerable when Laura dies and #Burzynski forgets her and moves on to the next mark” #unconscionable https://twitter.com/BurzynskiSaves/status/151115741888909312
—————————————————————— [29] – 8/1/2013 – And like you called this guy out ?
——————————————————————
David James (@StortSkeptic) tweeted at 7:08pm – 1 Aug 13:
The new Doctor Who will be Stanislaw #Burzynski. He manages to continually avoid getting cornered and he gets away with murder.
The new Doctor Who will be Stanislaw #Burzynski. He manages to continually avoid getting cornered and he gets away with murder.
====================================== [4] – 6/3/2013 – “Then, there was the kicker”
“Eric Merola and Laura Hymas’ fiancé Ben Hymas called me a liar”
“Ben Hymas is quite mistaken in saying about me,”
““He’s lying to them.””
“Moreover, if I had screwed up, I would have admitted it”
“Indeed, part of the reason I looked into this so closely was because I wondered if somehow Merola had actually found a mistake I had made”
“You know the saying about the proverbial blind squirrel occasionally managing to find a nut?”
“It’s possible, albeit unlikely, and in fact there was no mistake”
“There is nothing in deceptive to change my assessment of what happened in the case of or my opinion of Eric Merola”
====================================== [3] – 7/18/2013 – As I said before, Gorski’s research skills leave much to be desired
Gorski is a hack and is only funny by accident because he has no filters
If anything, having seen his “review” of Burzynski II, my opinion of Gorski has plummeted even further, something I had thought possible
Gorski, so you got lucky like a blind squirrel and found an error
However, this does NOT change the fact that you’ve been proven to be a liar
Do you want me to subtract one of your lies from the tally ?
====================================== [30] – 5/9/2013 – “On what basis is he “targeting” his therapy?”
“As I’ve recounted before, Burzynski usually sends off blood and tissue samples to Caris for testing”
“The Caris Target Now™ test, which since my discussion of Burzynski’s “personalized therapy” appears to have been renamed Caris Molecular Intelligence and is now available at more levels of service (although its reports look much the same to me), is nothing unique to the Burzynski Clinic”
“Anyone who is willing to pay for it can have it, and the report will be the same”
“In any event, there is as yet no convincing evidence that the Caris tests (or any of the other competing tests) result in better outcomes”
====================================== [31] – 5/28/2013 – A key pillar of Gorski’s position on Burzynski’s “personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy” is that he alleges that he is “someone relatively knowledgeable about the state of personalized cancer therapy”
I can’t help but wonder why it is that he did NOT know the above information
Maybe he isn’t as knowledgeable about personalized cancer therapy and targeted therapies as he claims
(Oh, wait. He isn’t!)
That’s why when he wrote his “review” on Sheila Herron, he did NOT even refer to Burzynski’s publication:
—————————————————————— [32] – 8/2011 – Successful Treatment of Recurrent Triple-Negative Breast Cancer with Combination of Targeted Therapies
When it comes to Gorski’s “story writing” pal Robert J. “Bob” Blaskiewicz, I might allow for some leeway since he’s only a “Perfessor,” but with Gorski on the other hand, I’m not nearly so benevolent
In my ever-Insolent opinion, he and his propagandist are cynically using patients like human shields to deflect criticism
Activities I cannot countenance
====================================== [33] – 4/19/2013 – “I now think I probably know with around 95% certainty) and Didymus Judas Thomas (whose identity I’m probably about 75% sure of … also obsessively read anything posted about Eric Merola or Stanislaw Burzynski on any social media”
====================================== [34] – 4/19/2013 – Gorski has had over 4 months to say who he thinks I supposedly am, and so far he’s been a failure
But then again, as could be expected, he was wrong about his 2nd theory as well
Finally, I believe that people like Gorski are hypocrites, feeling free to paint Burzynski to their heart’s content (from what I’ve read about Burzynski on blogs, Twitterarticles, and elsewhere, posted by biased, disingenuous, “holier than thou” Skeptics, in them Burzynski is all but portrayed as Satan Incarnate) but running like whipped puppies to the Coward section when either they or Gorski are criticized, no matter how civil, reasonable, or science-based that criticism is (and my blog is all of the above)
The reason is, of course, clear
Having no convincing science, no convincing medicine, and no convincing evidence to support their hero’s antineoplastons hackery or “personalized MUD-targeted therapy for dummies,” they resort to Twitter thuggery
Same as it ever was
One more thing:
If Gorski and his crew of sycophants, toadies, and lackeys are offended by my opinion, my characterization of them that I have based on analyses of claims and observation of the behavior of them and their propagandist, they should try something different to shut me up
I have just the thing, too
Publishing the results of some of the responses to my blog for the scientific community comes to mind first
If Gorski really has the goods, as he and “The Skeptics” claim, then he can best shut me up by bringing the science—solid, convincing science, that is
I’ve said it before many times, and I’ll say it again:
I can be convinced by strong truthful and factual evidence
I have yet to see anything resembling strong evidence from Gorski
At least, if he has such evidence he hasn’t published it yet, preferring to publish a mixture of whiny blog articles where he takes a swipe at Burzynski, tiny-mind series, unimpressive basic science, and the like in bottom-feeding blog articles, some of which aren’t even indexed in PubMed
Nor is a conspiracy of cowardice—excuse me, “The Skeptics”—the reason why trying to ignore criticism will boomerang on “The Skeptics”
It’s all because of their own behavior and willingness to distort, misinform, and slime Burzynski
====================================== [35] – 1/14/2013 – “As you might recall, antineoplastons are chemicals that Burzynski found in the urine of cancer patients and that (or so he claims)”
====================================== [36] – 2/19/2013 – Seriously, Gorski ?
Where did you come up with that ?
After comparing the blood of healthy people to the blood of people with cancer, Dr. Burzynski found that people with cancer have lower amounts of a certain group of chemicals
====================================== [35] – 1/14/2013 – “None of this would have been too bad if only he had actually bothered to do the proper science and clinical trials to demonstrate that antineoplastons (1) have significant anti-cancer activity and (2) have acceptable levels of toxicity”
====================================== [10] – 8/8/2013 – Here’s (1)
—————————————————————— [37] – 2/19/2013 – And (2)
====================================== [35] – 1/14/2013 – “Oh, sure, he has a bunch of clinical trials listed on ClinicalTrials.gov, but virtually all of them are listed as having “unknown” status, and it’s unclear whether most, if any, of them are actually accruing”
====================================== [38] – 5/21/2011 – Cancer Breakthrough: 50-60% Success Rate, Cures the Incurable
May 21, 2011
12 phase 2 clinical trials have been successfully completed under supervision of FDA, and now conducting 3 phase 3 clinical trials
Or I can cite from Burzynski’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings re his phase 2 clinical trials like you did [1] – 6/5/2013
====================================== [35] – 1/14/2013 – “In any case, Merola named the sequel what he named it … along with a website full of a “sourced transcript” to be used by Burzynski minions and shills everywhere to attack any skeptic who dares to speak out”
====================================== [39] – Gorski, you should have used the “sourced transcript” so you didn’t end up embarrassing yourself as much as you have
Actually, no one who is an apologist for Dr. Gorski, a.k.a. “Orac,” who over years ago unleashed MUD-targeted therapy on unsuspecting cancer patients, much likes Burzynski
It’s not surprising
Basically, Gorski’s a hack
—————————————————————— [40] – Or, you can use this – Burzynski: The Movie — Illustrated Screenplay and Screencap Gallery (Nader Library):
====================================== [35] – 1/14/2013 – “Part of the reason that Eric Merola doesn’t like me, aside from the fact that I am willing to help publicize Bob Blaskiewicz’s present to Dr. Burzynski for his 70th birthday on January 23, is that I think that every so often I happen to run into stories about the bad science and unethical nature of Burzynski’s work, and I blog about it”
====================================== [41] – 3/26/2013 – Maybe Eric does NOT like you because part of that “present” was your “pal” saying:
“The Burzynski clinic is a place you go to die”
—————————————————————— [42] – 8/24/2013 – Gorski, where were you when these 374 children died of brain cancer in #ScienceBasedMedicine clinical trials ?
====================================== [35] – 1/14/2013 – “I also run into patient stories”
“Although I don’t cover them as systematically as Bob does, I like to think that what I lack in comprehensiveness of coverage I make up for with my in-depth knowledge of cancer science and treatment”
====================================== [43] – 8/31/2013 – Your “in-depth knowledge of cancer science and treatment” ?
You sure have NOT presented a very strong case for that
Is your “man-crush”, Robert J. “Bob” Blaskiewicz still adding false statements to his “stories” ?
====================================== [35] – 1/14/2013 – “There are a number of things about this documentary that one can learn if one is involved in caner care and knowledgeable about Stanislaw Burzynski”
“Indeed, he’s even taken credit for pioneering the concept of personalized cancer therapy based on genes and the concept that cancer is a genetic disease, claiming to have published a journal article about it 20 years ago, allegedly long before conventional scientists and oncologists even thought of it”
“The problem, of course, is that, as far as I can tell, he published no such paper and personalized therapy is a concept older than 20 years”
====================================== [44] – 7/26/2013 – Indeed, from my perspective Gorski’s an egomaniac, full of the arrogance of ignorance about things like Burzynski’s “personalized cancer therapy”, prone to contemptuously dismissing anyone who has the temerity to question the Great and Powerful “Orac” is god
Because I was able to find the publication with NO problem
“Orac’s” Oracolytes remind me of the “believer” who said:
“god said it, and I believe it, so that settles it”
Of course, “Orac” is Oz tends to clam up when questioned by people who are NOT likely to be sycophants, toadies, and lackeys
====================================== [35] – 1/14/2013 – “Given that these are all phase II studies, it’s hard to believe that the FDA would allow Burzynski to keep them open over 13 years, but apparently it has”
====================================== [45] – 7/26/2013 – Gorski, why don’t you ask the FDA?
3/29/1996 Then United States Food and Drug Administration Commissioner, David Kessler told the American people:
“The … FDA’s initiatives … will allow …the agency … to rely on smaller trials … fewer patients … if there is evidence … of partial response in clinical trials”
—————————————————————— [46] – 6/7/2013 – Then you could be like Blatherskitewicz and do this:
Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz)
6/3/13, 3:49 PM
@FauxSkeptic @bbc5live I believe he said, “Put up or shut up, you little bitch.” Something like that.
rjblaskiewicz: @bbc5live “I believe he said
“Put up or shut up
you little bitch”
BB: why not check with the @US_FDA
#Burzynski
BBC Panorama
====================================== [35] – 1/14/2013 – “Finally, why doesn’t Burzynski offer Seán his “personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy.””
“It probably wouldn’t be that big a deal to get the blocks of tissue from Seán’s biopsy and have them analyzed”
“Yes, inquiring minds do want to know”
====================================== [35] – 1/14/2013 – Gorski, why don’t you cite the applicable phase 2 and / or phase 3 clinical trial publications of FDA approved drugs for “inoperable brainstem glioma” ?
And while your at it, is the “girl from England” referred to in your article, the same one that is referred to in Burzynski 2 ?
====================================== [47] – 1/7/2013 – “That’s why I’m joining P.Z. Myers in asking you to help make Stanislaw Burzynski pay cold hard cash to a worthy cause
====================================== [41] – 3/26/2013 – Yes Gorski, your “pal” E.Z. P.Z. who wrote:
“The Burzynski clinic is a place you go to die”
He has no shame
But at least ya’ll raised money for a worthy cause while at the same time bringing attention to yourself and what I consider to be your incredibly unethical behavior
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – “In fact, from my perspective, it appears to me as though over the last few years Dr. Burzynski has pivoted”
“No longer are antineoplastons the center of attention at his clinic”
“Rather, these days, he appears to be selling something that he calls “personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy.””
====================================== [48] – 4/26/2013 – Gorski it’s great to see you’ve been paying attention
” … in 1997, his medical practice was expanded to include traditional cancer treatment options such as
chemotherapy,
gene targeted therapy,
immunotherapy and
hormonal therapy
in response to FDA requirements that cancer patients utilize more traditional cancer treatment options in order to be eligible to participate in the Company’s antineoplaston clinical trials”
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – “Finally, around the 4:30 mark, we see Dr. Gregory Burzynski, Dr. Burzynski’s son, talking about genomic profiling of cancers and biomarkers in the blood and in circulating tumor cells. … plus a claim that surgery will no longer be necessary for surgery, what’s left over doesn’t sound too different from what quite a few “conventional” cancer researchers say about “personalized medicine.””
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – Gorski, “surgery will no longer be necessary for surgery” ?
Is this “attention to detail”” related to:
“because of the positions I hold at an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center” ?
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – “Clearly, the producer went to great lengths to make Burzynski’s lab look like any other molecular and cell biology lab–even like my lab”
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – Gorski, are you trying to suggest that the producer rented or bought equipment to produce this look ?
Do you know how ridiculous that sounds ?
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – “When we do this we have a very good chance to have positive results in most patients”
“SS: How many respond?”
“SB: About 85 per cent for whom we have the proper gene signature; about 15 percent do not respond”
“In our responders many of them have tumors which disappear completely and in others the tumors remain small”
“The problem is finding the genetic signature because for many of these different genetic signatures we don’t have blood tests…yet”
“Note that at the time this book was published, Dr. Burzynski was claiming that he could identify who would benefit from specific targeted therapies simply from blood tests”
“If he could do this for real, Burzynski could easily publish in high impact journals like Clinical Cancer Research, the Journal of Clinical Oncology, or another high impact clinical cancer journal”
“Heck, a result like that could probably make it into general medical journals, such as the New England Journal of Medicine or The Lancet, which have an even higher impact factor”
“If he were able to demonstrate that his method of testing tumors and picking targeted therapy could result in a complete response rate anywhere near 85% for breast cancer, even more so”
“If, as he claims later in the chapter, Dr. Burzynski has patients with pancreatic cancer and advanced liver cancer whose tumors have disappeared within two months after he began treatment, the same would be true”
“If, as Burzynski claims, he achieves a 50% complete response rate in advanced brain tumors, again, the same would be true”
“He doesn’t submit his results to these journals”
“Why not?”
====================================== [3] – 7/18/2013 – Gorski, why would Burzynski want to publish in The Lancet when you saw the lame excuse they gave in Burzynski 2 for NOT publishing Burzynski’s results; which YOU have refused to address ?
Maybe you could find out if you visited the Burzynski Clinic
Oh, wait
You’ve said that people do NOT need to go to the Clinic to learn things
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – “Gene-targeted cancer therapy is currently in its infancy and, except in rare situations outside of the existing currently validated biomarkers (such as HER2, ER, c-kit, and other genes for which targeted therapies exist) for the response of specific cancers, is not to be undertaken outside of the context of a clinical trial“
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – Gorski, that’s all well and good for you to write, but you provide NO citation, reference, or link in support of your statement, and you’ve proven that what you post can NOT be trusted
Try again
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – “Before discussing how the Burzynski Clinic does personalized cancer therapy, I think it’s worth looking at how real scientists do it right now”
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – Gorski, what are you implying ?
That Burzynski is NOT a “real scientist” ?
Because you stated:
“From the description above, it sounded very much to me as though Dr. Burzynski is combining various targeted agents with metronomic chemotherapy“
“I know a thing or two about metronomic chemotherapy, because I was involved in a project whose end result was to be the testing of metronomic chemotherapy against cancer and because the concept is a spinoff of the work of one of my scientific heros, the late Judah Folkman”
“Whether this is what Dr. Burzynski is doing or not with the chemotherapy part of his approach, I don’t know for sure, but it sure sounds like it“
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – “Now let’s take a look at how the Burzynski Clinic does it, at least as far as I can figure out from my various sources and from Ms. Trimble”
“In response to my query about personalized gene-targeted therapy offered by the Burzynski Clinic, Ms. Trimble stated that a gene expression analysis is performed, as well as mutational analysis, FISH, immunohistochemistry for selected genes and that a blood test is also performed to measure the “concentration of proteins which are products of most important oncogenes.””
“In addition, drugs are supposedly selected based on the patient’s clinical information, standard of care, FDA indication, data from phase II and III clinical trials“
====================================== [4] – 6/3/2013 – Gee Gorski
In your 6/3/2013 article you act as if you did NOT know this
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – “To support this claim, Ms. Trimble also sent me two papers from the Burzynski Clinic, both of which appeared in a journal I had never heard of before, the Journal of Cancer Therapy, which is clearly not indexed on PubMed because these papers never showed up when I searched PubMed for Burzynski”
“One described Burzynski’s approach for triple negative breast cancer (TNBC)”
====================================== [32] – 8/2011 – Gorski, why am I NOT surprised that you’re able to refer to this TNBC publication 12/13/2012, but when reviewing Sheila Herron’s TNBC case 5/28/2013, you completely ignored this publication, even though it specifically states:
“Here we report the successful treatment of metastatic TNBC with combination targeted therapy, and we discuss MDT for a group of 16 women including this patient, whose treatment was based on the same principle” (Pgs. 372-373)
How do you NOT provide a link to a previous article you wrote on the same subject, like you normally do ?
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – “It turns out that perhaps the best description of what “personalized” treatment means in Dr. Burzynski’s hands comes from the Texas Medical Board’s complaint against him, which can be found in over at the Ministry of Truth or at Casewatch”
“This complaint is based on the cases of two patients”
“First, here’s Patient A, who is described in the complaint thusly:”
“1. Patient A:”
“a. In approximately May of 2008, Patient A presented to Respondent with breast cancer that had metastasized to her brain, lung, and liver”
“b. Respondent prescribed a combination of five immunotherapy agents – phenylbutyrate, erlotinib, dasatinib, vorinostat, and sorafenib-which are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) for the treatment of breast cancer, and which do not meet the FDA’s regulations for the use of off-label drugs in breast cancer therapy”
“c. In combination with the five immunotherapy agents, Patient A was prescribed capecitabine, a chemotherapy agent”
“This is what’s known as “throwing everything but the kitchen sink” at the tumor without any thought of interactions, as most of these agents have no proven role in the treatment of breast cancer”
“For example, erlotinib (brand name: Tarceva) is used to treat pancreatic cancer and non-small cell lung cancer”
“It works by inhibiting the tyrosine kinase of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and is not FDA-approved for breast cancer”
“However, it’s not unreasonable to think that it could work in breast cancer, as EGFR is believed to be important in some breast cancers, which is why this is an area of active research”
“Dasatinib (trade name: Sprycel) is also a kinase inhibitor”
“It inhibits the Src family tyrosine kinase”
“Vorinostat is a histone deacetylase inhibitor approved for use against cutaneous T-cell lymphoma”
“Finally, Sorafenib is another tyrosine kinase inhibitor that inhibits the tyrosine kinases of different receptors, as well as raf kinases”
“The big problem with this sort of approach is that the more drugs you add, no matter how “targeted” they are, the more chance for interactions that increase toxicity, and throwing all these kinase inhibitors together in a cocktail with chemotherapy is a recipe for disaster, particularly because such cocktails haven’t been tested in proper phase I clinical trials to evaluate toxicity”
====================================== Gorski, you make it sound like you reviewed the medical literature and found NO phase I clinical trials were conducted, or NO combinations of some of these drugs were tested
But you do NOT reveal your research
I’m guessing you reviewed these pre 5/2008 publications, right ?
—————————————————————— [49] – 4/20/2007 – Phase III study:erlotinib in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer
—————————————————————— [50] – 5/2007 – randomized phase II study: sorafenib/erlotinib – advanced non-small-cell lung cancer
—————————————————————— [51] – 4/20/2006 – Phase II study: capecitabine and erlotinib
—————————————————————— [52] – 1/2008 – Phase II Clinical Trial: Sorafenib
—————————————————————— [53] – 4/2007 – Antitumor Activity: Sorafenib – 4 Phase I Trials: Advanced Refractory Solid Tumors
—————————————————————— [54] – 6/20/2007 – phase I study: vorinostat (VOR) in combination with capecitabine (CAP) – advanced solid tumors
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – “In any case, as we have seen, Dr. Burzynski does give chemotherapy”
“Lots of chemotherapy”
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – Gorski, what was the date of the video you quoted above, about low-dose chemotherapy ?
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – “Instead, skirting the line between science and pseudoscience, Dr. Burzynski gives every appearance of recklessly throwing together untested combinations of targeted agents willy-nilly to see if any of them stick but without having a systematic plan to determine when or if he has successfully matched therapy to genetic abnormality”
====================================== [15] – 5/17/2011 – That sure explains away the review of the medical literature (phase 2 and 3 clinical trials)
NOT
====================================== [55] – 12/12/2012 – “Note: Orac is away In the meantime, he is rerunning some of his favorite posts”
“Given that the blog seems to have been infiltrated with Burzynski trolls again now seems a perfect time to rerun a post of Orac’s from about a year ago”
====================================== [55] – 12/12/2012 – “Orac”, who’s the idiot who posted that “trolls” had taken over the blog, and who were these “alleged”“trolls” ?
Inquiring minds want to know
====================================== [55] – 12/12/2012 – “No one would ever confuse my reviews with those of Roger Ebert (mine tend to be a lot longer, for one thing, and concentrate on science much more than moviemaking), but I do sometimes subject myself to these movies when I can find a way to watch them online that doesn’t cost me any money”
====================================== [55] – 12/12/2012 – Gorski
“Concentrate on science” ?
really ?
Really ??
REALLY ???
Did you actually count how many characters and / or words you devoted to criticism instead of “science” ?
====================================== [55] – 12/12/2012 – “In the process, I might even look into a couple of Burzynski’s studies that I’ve read and found to be–well–lacking, to put it kindly”
====================================== [2] – 8/4/2013 – Gorski, why don’t you “look into” Burzynski’s 2003-2010 preliminary phase 2 clinical trial reports, and write a “review” ?
====================================== [55] – 12/12/2012 – “One part of the movie that truly insults the intelligence of anyone with a modicum of knowledge about drug therapy occurs near the beginning of the movie”
“It’s a part that, as a cancer surgeon who is interested in targeted therapies for breast cancer, I found particularly idiotic”
“First, there is a screen with this caption:”
“Antineoplastons target the specific genes that allow cancer to grow and flourish”
“A little later we see:”
“There are currently over 25 FDA-approved gene-targeted cancer drugs on the market today”
“Many of them can only target single genes”
“All of which is true but irrelevant if Burzynski is trying to sell antineoplastons as targeted therapy”
“Now here’s the kicker:”
“Antineoplastons work on close to one hundred different genes”
“You know what you call a drug that works on “close to 100 genes”?”
“I don’t know either, but you don’t call it a “targeted” therapy unless all those genes are genes affected by the single target being inhibited; i.e., are downstream targets of the gene targeted by antineoplastons”
====================================== [5] – 8/21/2013 – Gorski, how do you NOT know “the single target being inhibited … are downstream targets of the gene targeted by antineoplastons”, when you did NOT even know which of Burzynski’s publications discussed which genes are “targeted by antineoplastons” ?
====================================== [56] – 12/5/2012 – “In reality, oncologists shun Burzynski—and rightly so, given that he has yet to publish anything resembling a convincing result suggesting the efficacy of his antineoplastons against cancer”
“It’s painfully obvious from this paragraph that Burzynski doesn’t know academic oncologists”
“The reason oncologists don’t respect Burzynski is because of how he hasn’t show that his treatments work better than conventional treatments—or even that they work at all—and because of the way he abuses patients by charging them huge sums of money to participate in a clinical trial”
“Those are the reasons legitimate oncologists, at least those familiar with Burzynski, look askance at him”
“How could they do otherwise?”
“The ones who don’t take him seriously are the ones who know him best”
====================================== [57] – 4/24/2013 – Gorski, that certainly explains why this 2011 cancer study that references Burzynski:
Phase II trial of tipifarnib and radiation in children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas
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
======================================
British Journal of Cancer (2010) 103, 1680–1691. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6605969
Published online 2 November 2010 http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v103/n11/full/6605969a.html
Experimental Pharmacology Unit, Department of Research, Istituto Nazionale Tumori, National Cancer Institute Fondazione G, Via.M Semmola, Pascale, Napoli, Italy
====================================== [26] – 4/2012
Phase I–II study of vorinostat plus paclitaxel and bevacizumab in metastatic breast cancer: evidence for vorinostat-induced tubulin acetylation and Hsp90 inhibition in vivo http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22200869/
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012 Apr;132(3):1063-72. doi: 10.1007/s10549-011-1928-x. Epub 2011 Dec 27 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22200869/
Breast Cancer Res Treat. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 April.1 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3486521/
Published in final edited form as:
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012 April; 132(3): 1063–1072
Didymus Judas Thomas' Hipocritical Oath Blog 