Critiquing: Doctor accused of selling false hope to families (USA TODAY NEWS, NATION, Liz Szabo, USA TODAY)

20131116-002847.jpg
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 article claims:
——————————————————————
Burzynski, 70, calls his drugs “antineoplastons” and says he has given them to more than 8,000 patients since 1977.”
——————————————————————

20131116-004037.jpg
——————————————————————
However, if you select the “8,000 patients” link, the referenced page does NOT indicate that at all [2]
——————————————————————

20131116-064344.jpg
——————————————————————
It advises:
——————————————————————
“That same year, Dr. Burzynski founded his clinic in Houston where he’s since treated over 8,000 patients.” [3]
——————————————————————

20131116-064326.jpg
——————————————————————
Nowhere does it indicate that he “treated 8,000 patients” with antineoplastons
——————————————————————

20131116-064409.jpg
——————————————————————
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 article rants and raves on and on about FDA inspection reports from as far back as 1998, but at least they did quote Richard A. Jaffe:

“In Burzynski’s defense, Jaffe notes that inspection reports represent preliminary findings

“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)”
——————————————————————

20131116-164617.jpg

20131021-200529.jpg

20131021-200553.jpg
——————————————————————
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 trialnow 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
——————————————————————

20131116-084820.jpg

20131116-085357.jpg

20131116-084833.jpg

20131116-084847.jpg

20131116-084909.jpg

20131116-084924.jpg

20131116-084937.jpg

20131116-085152.jpg

20131116-085218.jpg

20131116-085311.jpg

20131116-085436.jpg

20131116-085528.jpg

20131116-085550.jpg

20131116-085608.jpg

20131116-085629.jpg

20131116-084804.jpg

20131116-084745.jpg
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – 11/15/2013 – USA TODAY NEWS, NATION
Doctor accused of selling false hope to families
Liz Szabo, USA TODAY
——————————————————————
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/15/stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-controversy/2994561/
======================================
[2] – Mayo Clinic – 1999 – report: Lisa Merritt
——————————————————————
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/816819-mayo-clinic-1999-report.html
======================================
[3] – 2012 – former Burzynski web-site screenshots, Pg 3 of 62;
——————————————————————
http://www.circare.org/info/bri/burzynski_fdauntitled_promo_2012.pdf
======================================
[4] – 4/26/2013 – Burzynski: 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:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/burzynski-fda-requirements-that-cancer-patients-utilize-more-traditional-cancer-treatment-options-in-order-to-be-eligible-to-participate-in-the-companys-antineoplaston-clinical-trials/
======================================
[5] – 11/14/2013 – Critiquing: Why we fight for patients (Why we fight your patience) TAM 2013, TAM2013, “The Amazing Meeting” 2013 #TAM2013 http://www.theamazingmeeting.com
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/14/tam-2013-tam2013-tam2013-the-amazing-meeting-2013-the-amazing-meeting-httptheamazingmeeting-com-httpwww-theamazingmeeting-com/
======================================
[6] – Phenomenon – Brain Tumour Foundation of Canada
——————————————————————
http://www.braintumour.ca/1649/ask-the-expert-psuedo-progression-gbm
======================================
[7] – Pseudoprogression following chemoradiotherapy for glioblastoma multiforme
Can J Neurol Sci. 2010 Jan;37(1):36-42
——————————————————————
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20169771/
======================================
[8] – 9/19/2013 – Critiquing: National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) CancerNet “fact sheet” :
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/critiquing-national-cancer-institute-nci-at-the-national-institutes-of-health-nih-cancernet/
======================================
[9] – FDA Orphan Drug Designation
——————————————————————
http://www.burzynskiresearch.com/assets/PressRelease_12022008_BZYR(2).pdf
======================================
[10] – 11/7/2013Pete Cohen chats with Sonali Patil, Ph.D., Research Scientist at The Burzynski Clinic:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/07/pete-cohen-chats-with-sonali-patil-ph-d-research-scientist-at-the-burzynski-clinic/
======================================
[11] – 7/9/2013 – Burzynski: The Original 72 Phase II Clinical Trials:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/09/burzynski-the-original-72-phase-ii-clinical-trials/
======================================
[12] – 8/21/2013 – Critiquing David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/critiquing-david-h-gorski-md-phd-facs-www-sciencebasedmedicine-orgeditorial-staffdavid-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
======================================
[13] – 2003 – pg. 94
——————————————————————
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/960.pdf
======================================
[14] – 3/1982 – Biometrics 1982; 38: 143-51
——————————————————————
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7082756/
======================================
[15] – 11/9/2013Pete Cohen chats with Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski – Interview #2:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/09/pete-cohen-chats-with-dr-stanislaw-burzynski-interwiew-2/
======================================
[16] – AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY: More Interested In Accumulating Wealth Than Saving Lives
——————————————————————
http://www.wnho.net/acs.pdf
======================================
[17] – 9/11/2013 – National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society: Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/national-cancer-institute-and-american-cancer-society-criminal-indifference-to-cancer-prevention-and-conflicts-of-interest/
—————————————————————
[18] – 11/13/2013 – The War on Cancer (I don’t think it means, what you think it says it means) #Winning?
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/httpcancer-orgacsgroupscontentepidemiologysurveilancedocumentsdocumentacspc-036845-pdf/
======================================
[19] – 4/24/2013 – Burzynski: HYPERNATREMIA:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/burzynski-hypernatremia/
======================================
[20] – 9/1999 – Pediatrics. 1999 Sep;104(3 Pt 1):435-9
——————————————————————
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10469766/
======================================

20131116-002912.jpg

Pete Cohen chats with Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski – Interview #2

======================================
Dr. B interview #2
2/7/2013 (10:31)
======================================
Why do you continue to do this ?
Why haven’t you just, given up ?

Because I am right
Why should I stop when I have 100’s of people who are cured

Mhmm

from incurable brain tumors
Ok
We have over 100 people, who are surviving over 5 years, just in the supervised clinical trials with brain tumors
So obviously this works (laughing)
It works in great way
So why should I stop because, some evil people like me to stop ?
It doesn’t make any sense
Evil will lose
So we are right, and we’re going to win
Not, uh, no matter how soon this will be established, but we are going to win

Well, for what it’s worth, and this is something, this is why I wanted to put myself, uh, in front of the camera with you
Obviously I spent 8 months, um, and I’ll try and not get too emotional about it, because that’s unprofessional (laughs)

Yes

but I spent, I spent a long time, looking into this, speaking to people,

Yes

You have very kindly given me access to everything here

Sure

Speak to anyone
Speak to patients
To see medical records, and I have, uh, been amazed by what I, what I’ve seen
I know the statistics are now showing, in the world, that one in two men, will have cancer
One in 3 women, will have cancer

Yes

It’s a, it’s a massive problem

That’s right

And I can see that you’ve genuinely found, uh, a cure for cancer

(?)

You know, it might not work for everyone, but if you’re given the su

Yeah

given the support

Yes

If you’re given, uh, the, uh, I don’t know, just the support basically, and the funds maybe, you could really, do some work, that could change, the whole (nature ?)

Absolutely, and then we can get better, and better
Of course, what you have now is not yet the finished products
We understand that
That’s something we can substantially improve
The response rate can be improved
So, certainly, all of this can be done, but, obviously, we need the resources
We need time to do it, and most of my time is spent with such silly thing like, uh, uh, protecting ourselves against attacks from, the people who are hired to destroy us
Ok
Obviously, there are some companies who are working on the payroll of pharmaceutical business, who are trying to smear us
To spread bad publicity about us
To generate lies about us
These people are criminals, and they are still flourishing
The end for them will come soon, but they are still hurting the other people
because the other people will not take treatment
They will not come, and they will die
Ok
There is no cure for, uh, uh, malignant brain tumors which are inoperable, ok, and we can cure at least, good percent of these people
We presented, our results, at many, many, 1st class
scientific congresses, like nuero-oncology congresses, cancer congresses, and it’s important for U.K.
I showed you yesterday, eh, presentation on brainstem glioma in children

Yeah, I have it here

and at the same, uh, Congress, in Edinburgh, we presented also another, eh, eh, paper, on the treatment of glioblastoma multiforme, and the survival on, about 88 patients, in glioblastoma multiforme
So obviously, I make, I make this available to everybody , they would like to listen, come to my presentation
They, they, they know about it, but they don’t want to know about it

Why not ?

(laughs) Because they are working
They are slaves of the big pharmaceutical cartels, ok, and on the payroll of big companies
They hate to see somebody else outside, the slavery, who can do it
I’m free man
I can, ah, do the research because, I am spending my own money for it
I don’t need to beg pharmaceutical companies or government to give me the money
I can do it on my own
They hate it
These people
They hate it because they have slave mentality

Mmm

They arch their back for scraps of money from the table, of some powerful companies, from the government, and they, how can you deal with s, slaves
They don’t want to see something new because this would disrupt, slavery system
Ok
So, current medical education s, system is manufacturing robots
They don’t think on their own, they use only what, the government, or the lawyers of the government, or what the administrators will tell them to do, ok, and if they don’t then they get punished, ok (laughs), and that’s a great system for a ph, pharmaceutical companies, because obviously they can make a lot of money, but it’s not a great system for people who have cancer because they don’t have good results

So you’ve presented at these conferences, and people don’t come up to you afterwards and say:

Mhmm

“I want to come and see what you’re doing
I’ve got to see this for myself”

Ah, well, uh, at each of these Congresses I meet a few doctors who are top specialists in their area who will come to me and say: “Ok, this looks very interesting
We’d like to know more about it
Please send me some, eh, results and a few cases that I can review,”
and that’s what you do

Yeah

You send them these cases, and that’s the end of it
I don’t hear from them anymore because they’re afraid to move any

Mmm

further, ok, because they know if they move further, they get punished
They don’t receive grants
They’d be scrutinized by their peers
They’re afraid
Ok (laughs)

Yeah

They work for us

Yeah

they work for us undercover
We have over 100 telephone callers who used to work with us, but they don’t want anybody to know about it because they’d be immediately attacked by the other guys

And the pharmaceutical world as well

Ah, well, the other guys are obviously working for cartels
Uh, they’re on the payroll, a, oh, of big business, which is cancer business, and they don’t want to lose it
Uh, in average, uh, city you might have say about 20 oncologists
One of them may work for us, but he does not no, want to tell anybody that he’s doing this because he would be destroyed by the other guys
These 20 guys will jump on him and he will, won’t have practice anymore
Ok

Yeah

So that’s, uh, the travesty, but, uh, uh, I believe that this is coming to the end
Ultimately, su, more and more doctors will learn what we do

Yeah

and more and more patients will benefit, and the breakthrough will come, but before the breakthrough will come, you have the toughest time

Mmm

because, the opposition is mounting the attacks
Whenever we came up with an announcement that was in the 20th century, we have such and such success, you are furiously attacked by the other guys, who are on payroll, uh, of cartels
Ok (laughs), for no apparent reason
You should be congratulated but we are attacked, because they see we are going to win, and they hate to see this because this means they won’t see money anymore for them, ok, or at least they think they won’t, they won’t have their payroll anymore
—————————————————————
Dr. Burzynski on publishing (6:18)
—————————————————————
So why does, why does, ev, everyone hide behind this thing of saying about publishing, because that’s the thing you hear all the time

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
Eh, many of my publications were rejected by known publi, by known journals like

Why ?

like Lancet, like JAMA,
like New England Journal of Medicine
Why ?
Because they say: “Sorry, but you didn’t receive enough priority to be published, and if you look in these journals and 1/2 of the, these journals, they are advertising for pharmaceutical companies
Obviously if this would come from a pharmaceutical company, this would be published on the 1st page

Mhmm

Ok
Because this, you don’t have objectivity with these guys
They are on the payrolls of the big cartels, ok, and again and if you try again to send, oh, oh, my manuscript to good journals, if they reject it, we go on Internet and you describe what are these guys
So then everybody will know, because I have very good evidence
that we tried many times to publish in 1st class journals, and we are always rejected

It’s just, persistent

And not, and not because of lack of scientific knowledge
No, because of lack of priority
And who has priority ?
The guys who are paying money for advertising
Ok
So that’s, unfortunately what I think will end sometime
—————————————————————
And we are now preparing publication, on some of these results
We have already published the results on the technique of very difficult variety of breast cancer, which is triple-negative breast cancer
Now we are preparing another article on the technique of
gynecological cancer, which is best series of over 100 patients treated with incurable ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, (?)
So this, has now been prepared for press
Eh, of course, I would like to, give everybody intravenous antineoplastonssee, if they qualified, but, this is limited by the government, because the government limits us to only the patients who are
have
brain tumors, but the other patients, they can be treated through this combination of medication which work on the genes
Antineoplastonswork on over 100 different genes
That’s why they give us, very good advantage
There are medications that also work on a number of different genes, and we can combine them together, and use them in the right way
So
that’s what we’ll continue to perfect, and that’s, uh, most of our patients
been treated with just combination of targeted medications
—————————————————————
The Future (9:00)
—————————————————————
Why do you continue to do this ?
Because you know the truth, and you want to get the truth out there ?

Absolutely, because we understand we on the right track
Somebody has to do it
I was lucky enough to, find out about it
We have evidence that we are right, and, uh, I don’t think, why should I stop if, people that don’t have sufficient knowledge, who are working, on behalf of some big business, would like to stop us
We are right, and we would like to continue to help people, and, uh, that is what is going to happen
Of course, probably the best reason to make a discovery, and let it stay as it is and ask the other people to publish after I die

Yeah

That’s what happened with the discovery of Nicolaus Copernicus, who was my countryman
Eh, his book was published, sss, when he died, and, uh, for good reason, because of such fears for execution of the people who followed him
like

Hmmm

Galileo, Giordano Bruno, that it took the church, uh, only until recently to agree that, uh, they made the error, in the case
Ok
So if you come up with some breakthrough, you have a choice
Keep it quite until the other guys who understand what you do
or try to use it
In my case, I decided to use it, because I would like to, help people, and now that we can save people, so why should I keep quiet, ok, but certainly if, my work won’t get published because it keeps getting rejected by some of the journals, then we wait until I die, and then we let the other guys publish it
So, ok
======================================

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

Critiquing David H. “Orac” Gorski, MD PhD and his Personalized MUD-Targeted Skeptic Therapy

I’ve made no secret of my opinion of a certain cancer “research” doctor named David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, of Wayne State University School of Medicine and Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Center / Institute, Detroit, Michigan fame

Gorski, as you may recall was responsible for this 6/3/2013 “Orac” posting:
======================================
In which the latest movie about Stanislaw Burzynski’s “cancer cure” is reviewed…with Insolence
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/03/in-which-the-latest-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynskis-cancer-cure-is-reviewed-with-insolence/
——————————————————————
Critiquing: In which the latest movie about Stanislaw Burzynski “cancer cure” is reviewed…with Insolence:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/critiquing-in-which-the-latest-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-cure-is-reviewed-with-insolence-2/
======================================
When last we left Gorski, his propaganda, which I characterize as pure propaganda so incompetently made that it would make blush blush

After a couple of winks I changed my characterization to say that it would have made Penn and Teller vomit in revulsion at its sheer incompetence

Be that as it may, I view Gorski as highly unethical and pseudononsense, an incompetent purveyor of “personalized MUD-targeted medicine for dummies,” and someone who might at one time have been on to something but, like all hacks, just couldn’t let go when it became clear that his personalized MUD-targeted Skeptic therapy was far more toxic than advertised and way less efficacious, if it’s even efficacious at all, which is highly doubtful.

Gorski claimed:

“[I]f I had screwed up, I would have admitted it”

Data talks

BS walks

And there’s no doubt that Gorski, too, is pure BS

In fact, I think I’m being too kind

I have yet to see his admission that he lied when he posted:

“how Burzynski never explains which genes are targeted by antineoplastons … “
======================================
Critiquing: Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski, M.D., Ph.D, L.I.A.R.:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/07/critiquing-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-m-d-ph-d-l-i-a-r/
======================================
8/12/2013 Gorski blogged:
======================================
A study of antineoplastons fails to be published. Stanislaw Burzynski’s propagandist Eric Merola whines about it. News at 11.
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/08/12/antineoplaston-fails-publication/ ======================================
In regards to antineoplastons, Gorski states:

“antineoplastons are chemotherapy”

“They even have significant toxicity!”

What science based medicine publication(s) does Gorski cite in support of his “theory”?

NONE !!!

What do the science based medicine publications indicate?
======================================
[1] 4/1/1992 PHENYLACETATE-novel NONTOXIC inducer of tumor cell differentiation
——————————————————————
Sodium PHENYLACETATE found to affect growth and differentiation of tumor cells in vitro at concentrations achieved in humans WITH NO SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECTS
——————————————————————
PHENYLACETATE is effective in inducing tumor cell maturation and FREE OF CYTOTOXIC AND CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS, a combination that warrants attention to potential use in cancer intervention
——————————————————————
Sodium PHENYLACETATE is investigational new drug approved for human use by U.S. Food and Drug Administration
——————————————————————
DRUG ALREADY ESTABLISHED AS SAFE AND EFFECTIVE … we propose use may be extended to cancer preventation and therapy
======================================
[2] 8/20/1992 Difficulties may be overcome through exploitation of recent discovery of sodium PHENYLACETATE as NONTOXIC inducer of differentiation …
——————————————————————
(pro-drug) Sodium 4-PHENYLBUTYRATE can be given in oral doses of 0.3 to 0.6 g per kilogram of body weight per day with NO ADVERSE REACTIONS
——————————————————————
Drug rapidly metabolized to PHENYLACETATE and PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINE
——————————————————————
PHENYLACETATE (but not PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINE) … CAN POTENTIATE EFFICACY OF OTHER DIFFERENTIATING AGENTS, such as cytotoxic drugs …
======================================
[3] 9/15/1992 we explored efficacy of PHENYLACETATE, an amino acid derivative with LOW TOXICITY INDEX WHEN ADMINISTERED TO HUMANS
——————————————————————
PHENYLACETATE, used alone or in combination with other drugs, might offer safe and effective new approach to treatment
======================================
[4] 5/1993 NONTOXIC differentiation inducer, sodium PHENYLACETATE (NaPA)
——————————————————————
In vitro antineoplastic activity was observed with drug concentrations that have been achieved in humans with NO SIGNIFICANT TOXICITIES, suggesting PA, used alone or in combination with other antitumor agents, warrants evaluation in treatment of advanced prostatic cancer
======================================
[5] 10/1/1993 Sodium PHENYLACETATE (NaPA) and its precursor, sodium 4-PHENYLBUTYRATE (NaPB), can enhance HbF production in cultured erythroid progenitor derived from normal donors and patients with SS anemia or beta-thal, when used at pharmacologic concentrations
——————————————————————
NaPA and NaPB, BOTH ALREADY PROVEN SAFE AND EFFECTIVE IN TREATMENT OF CHILDREN
======================================
[6] 2/15/1994 sodium PHENYLACETATE can induce cytostasis and reversal of malignant properties of cultured human glioblastoma cells, when used at pharmacological concentrations that are WELL TOLERATED BY CHILDREN AND ADULTS
——————————————————————
Systemic treatment of rats bearing intracranial gliomas resulted in significant tumor suppression with NO APPARENT TOXICITY to host
======================================
[7] 4/1/1994 Pg. 1690
——————————————————————
protocol underwent several modifications over 6-month period
——————————————————————
Interest in PHENYLACETATE as anticancer agent generated by reports that ANTINEOPLASTON AS2-1, a preparation which by weight is 80% PHENYLACETATE, displayed clinical antitumor activity (13)
——————————————————————
17 patients (16 men / 1 woman) (36-75) median age 57
——————————————————————
Pg. 1693
——————————————————————
Clinical Toxicities. NO TOXICITY associated with bolus administration of drug
——————————————————————
Drug-related TOXICITY clearly related to serum
PHENYLACETATE
concentration
——————————————————————
3 episodes of Central Nervous System (CNS)
TOXICITY
, limited to CONFUSION
and LETHARGY and often preceded by emesis, occurred in patients treated at dose levels 3 and 4
——————————————————————
Symptoms resolved within 18 h of terminating drug infusion in all instances
——————————————————————
Pg. 1694
——————————————————————
PHENYLACETATE serum concentrations … were typically associated with CNS toxicity
——————————————————————
While ability to cross blood-brain barrier may underlie clinical improvement seen in patient with glioblastoma, could also explain dose-limiting side-effects of drug, i.e., nausea, vomiting, sedation, and confusion
——————————————————————
Limited experience with 150-mg/kg i.v. boluses suggests serum PHENYLACETATE concentrations occurring transiently
above 500 ug/ml are well tolerated
——————————————————————
Intermittent drug infusion should permit some drug washout to occur, thereby minimizing drug accumulation
——————————————————————
Predicts wide range of peak drug concentrations will be observed
——————————————————————
Possible these would be sufficiently transient so as not to produce CNS toxicity and troughs not prolonged as to abrogate antitumor activity of drug
——————————————————————
Dosing alternatives should be explored, our study indicates PHENYLACETATE can be safely administered by CIVI and result in clinical improvement in some patients with hormone-refractory
prostatic carcinoma and glioblastoma multiforme who failed conventional therapies
======================================
[8] 6/1/1994 PHENYLACETATE is naturally occurring plasma component that suppresses growth of tumor cells and induces differentiation in vitro
——————————————————————
Treatment with PHENYLACETATE extended survival … WITHOUT ASSOCIATED ADVERSE EFFECTS
======================================
[9] 9/1994 PHENYLACETATE, NONTOXIC differentiation inducer, can suppress growth of other neuroectodermal tumors, i.e., gliomas, in laboratory models and humans
======================================
[10] 4/1995 PHENYLACETATE, an inducer of tumor cytostasis and differentiation, shows promise as RELATIVELY NONTOXIC antineoplastic agent in models and humans
======================================
[11] 6/15/1995 Growth-inhibiting and differentiating effects of sodium PHENYLACETATE against hematopoietic and solid tumor cell lines has aroused clinical interest in use as anticancer drug
——————————————————————
In Phase I trial of PHENYLACETATE … commonly resulted in drug accumulation and REVERSIBLE DOSE-LIMITING NEUROLOGIC TOXICITY
——————————————————————
18 patients
——————————————————————
DOSE-LIMITING TOXICITY, consisting of REVERSIBLE CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM DEPRESSION, observed for 3 patients at 2nd dose level
======================================
[12] 10/12/1995 aromatic fatty acid PHENYLACETATE, a common metabolite of phenylalanine, shows promise as a RELATIVELY NON-TOXIC drug for cancer treatment
======================================
[13] 10/1995 investigated effects of a NONTOXIC differentiation inducer, PHENYLACETATE (PA), on neuroectodermal tumor-derived cell lines
======================================
[14] 1995 Antineoplastons, firstly described by Burzynski, are naturally occurring peptides and amino acid derivatives which control neoplastic growth
——————————————————————
toxicological study of Antineoplastons A-10 and AS2-1 in combination with other anticancer agents or radiation in 42 patients
46 tumors with terminal stage cancer
——————————————————————
Antineoplaston A-10 oral formulation
14 – patients
A-10 injectable formulation
25 – patients

——————————————————————
Antineoplaston AS2-1 oral formulation
33 – patients
AS2-1 injectable formulation
10 – patients

——————————————————————
Major adverse effects that may have been related to agents used in combination with other conventional chemotherapeutic agents or radiation:
liver dysfunction
myelosuppression
general weakness
THESE EFFECTS WEREN’T SEEN WHEN EITHER ANTINEOPLASTON WAS ADMINISTERED ALONE

——————————————————————
MINOR ADVERSE EFFECTS OBSERVED IN SINGLE USE OF EITHER ANTINEOPLASTON A-10 OR AS2-1:
reduced albumin
increased alkaline phosphatase
increased amylase
reduced cholesterol
peripheral edema
eosinophilia
fingers rigidity
excess gas
headache
hypertension
maculopapullar rash
palpitation
adverse effects didn’t limit to continuation of either agent

——————————————————————
Antineoplaston A-10 and AS2-1 LESS TOXIC THAN CONVENTIONAL CHEMOTHERAPIES and useful in maintenance therapy for cancer patients
======================================
[15] 1996 Antineoplastons, first described by Burzynski, are naturally occurring peptides and amino acid derivatives which control neoplastic growth
——————————————————————
reported cytostatic inhibitory effect of A10 on human hepatocellular carcinoma cells and differentiation inducing effect of AS2-1 on various tumor cells suggest potential benefit for treatment of human hepatocellular carcinoma since tumor recurs frequently despite initial successful treatment
——————————————————————
Clinical experience of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patient whose tumor, after incomplete trancathere arterial embolization (TAE) for a 7cm 7cm HCC, has been stable for more than 15 months during which time he has been taking Antineoplaston AS2-1 continuously WITHOUT ANY SERIOUS ADVERSE EFFECTS
======================================
[16] 5/1996
——————————————————————
In pursuit of alternative treatments for chemoresistant tumor cells, tested response of multidrug-resistant (MDR) tumor cell lines to aromatic fatty acids phenylacetate (PA) and phenylbutyrate (PB), 2 differentiation inducers currently in clinical trials
——————————————————————
Both compounds induced cytostasis and maturation of multidrug-resistant breast, ovarian, and colon carcinoma cells with no significant effect on cell viability
——————————————————————
MDR cells generally more sensitive to growth arrest by PA and PB than their parental counterparts
——————————————————————
PA and PB potentiated cytotoxic activity of doxorubicin against MDR cells
——————————————————————
Taken together, in vitro data indicate PA and PB, differentiation inducers of aromatic fatty acid class, may provide alternative approach to treatment of MDR tumors
======================================
[17] 12/1996 PHENYLACETATE (PA) and related aromatic fatty acids constitute novel class of RELATIVELY NONTOXIC antineoplastic agents
======================================
[18] 8/1997 aromatic fatty acids PHENYLACETATE (PA) and PHENYLBUTYRATE (PB) are novel antitumor agents currently under clinical evaluation
————————————————————
ability to induce tumor differentiation in laboratory models and LOW CLINICAL TOXICITY PROFILE makes them promising candidates for COMBINATION WITH CONVENTIONAL THERAPIES
======================================
[19] 1997 PHENYLACETATE and analogs represent new class of pleiotropic growth regulators that alter tumor cell biology by affecting gene expression at both transcriptional and post transcriptional levels
————————————————————
Based on findings, NaPA and NaPB entered clinical trials at National Cancer Institute
————————————————————
Ongoing phase I studies with NaPA, involving adults with prostate and brain cancer, confirmed therapeutic levels can be achieved WITH NO SIGNIFICANT TOXICITIES, and provide preliminary evidence for benefit to patients with advanced disease (Thibault et al., submitted)
======================================
[20] 10/1997 Sodium PHENYLACETATE (PA) and sodium PHENYLBUTYRATE (PB) are aromatic fatty acids that can effect differentiation in a variety of cell lines at doses that may be clinically attainable
——————————————————————
Pg. 1760
——————————————————————
PB has been successfully administered to patients with urea acid cycle disorders and sickle cell anemia for extended periods of time, and NO HEMATOLOGICAL TOXICITY has been reported
——————————————————————
Significant HEMATOLOGICAL TOXICITY was not reported in a Phase I trial of PA in patients with malignancy
——————————————————————
Pg. 1761
——————————————————————
Because of its ATTRACTIVE CLINICAL TOXICITY PROFILE, PB represents an excellent candidate for clinical trials in this group of disorders
======================================
[21] 11..12/1997 Antineoplaston AS2-1 exhibits cytostatic growth inhibition of human hepatocellular carcinoma cells in vitro and SHOWED MINIMUM ADVERSE EFFECTS in phase I clinical trial
======================================
[22] 6/1999 Burkitt’s lymphoma (BL) is readily treated malignancy, recurrences, as well as disease arising in immunosuppressed patients, are notoriously resistant to conventional therapeutic approaches
——————————————————————
Using in vitro models of EBV-transformed lymphoblastoid as well as BL cell lines, we demonstrate increased expression of genes coding for HLA class I and EBV latent proteins by differentiation inducer PHENYLBUTYRATE (PB)
——————————————————————
Aromatic fatty acid also caused cytostasis associated with sustained declines in c-myc expression, a direct antitumor effect that was independent of EBV status
——————————————————————
Findings may have clinical relevance because in vitro activity has been observed with PB concentrations that are
WELL TOLERATED
and nonimmunosuppressive in humans, a desirable feature for different patient populations afflicted with this disease
======================================
[23] 8/2001 PHENYLBUTYRATE (PB) is aromatic fatty acid with multiple mechanisms of action including histone deacetylase inhibition
——————————————————————
Overall DRUG WELL TOLERATED with most common TOXICITIES being grade 1-2 DYSPEPSIA and FATIGUE
——————————————————————
Nonoverlapping dose-limiting TOXICITIES of NAUSEA/VOMITING and HYPOCALCEMIA were seen at 36 g/day
——————————————————————
PB (p.o.) IS WELL TOLERATED and achieves concentration in vivo shown to have biological activity in vitro
======================================
[24] 10/2001 Sodium PHENYLBUTYRATE (PB) demonstrates potent differentiating capacity in multiple hematopoietic and solid tumor cell lines
——————————————————————
Pharmacokinetics performed during and after first infusion period using validated high-performance liquid chromatographic assay and single compartmental pharmacokinetic model for PB and principal metabolite, PHENYLACETATE
——————————————————————
24 patients with hormone refractory prostate cancer being predominant tumor type
——————————————————————
All evaluable for TOXICITY and response
——————————————————————
Dose escalated 150 to 515 mg/kg/day
——————————————————————
One patient at 515 mg/kg/day and one at 345 mg/kg/day experienced this DLT
——————————————————————
Maximum tolerated dose 410 mg/kg/day for 5 days
——————————————————————
Recommended Phase II dose 410 mg/kg/day for 120 h
——————————————————————
Dose-limiting TOXICITY (DLT) was neuro-cortical, exemplified by EXCESSIVE SOMNOLENCE and CONFUSION and accompanied by clinically significant HYPOKALEMIA, HYPONATREMIA, and HYPERURICEMIA
——————————————————————
Other TOXICITIES mild, including FATIGUE and NAUSEA
——————————————————————
DLT in Phase I study for infusional PB
given for 5 days every 21 days is neuro-cortical in nature
——————————————————————
TOXICITY resolved < or =12 h of discontinuing infusion
======================================
[25] 2003 Case of survival for nearly 8 years after treatment of unresectable multiple liver metastases from colon cancer, using microwave ablation and NONTOXIC ANTITUMOR AGENT, ANTINEOPLASTONS
——————————————————————
72-year-old man diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of ascending colon and 14 bilateral liver metastases underwent right hemicolectomy combined with microwave ablation of 6 metastatic liver tumors
——————————————————————
Antineoplaston A10 given intravenously, followed by oral antineoplaston AS2-1
——————————————————————
Patient underwent 2nd and 3rd microwave ablation of recurrent tumors, and has survived for nearly 8 years WITHOUT SUFFERING ANY SERIOUS ADVERSE EFFECTS
——————————————————————
Currently FREE FROM CANCER
——————————————————————
Demonstrates potential effectiveness of NONTOXIC ANTITUMOR AGENT, ANTINEOPLASTONS, for controlling liver metastases from colon cancer
======================================
[26] 4/2005 Determined maximum tolerated dose (MTD), TOXICITY profile of … oral sodium PHENYLBUTYRATE (PB) in patients with recurrent malignant gliomas
——————————————————————
All PB doses of 9, 18, and 27 g/day WELL TOLERATED
——————————————————————
At 36 g/day, 2 of 4 patients developed dose-limiting grade 3 FATIGUE and SOMNOLENCE
——————————————————————
At MTD of 27 g/day, one of 7 patients developed reversible grade 3 SOMNOLENCE
======================================
[27] 4/2007 PHENYLBUTYRATE (PBA), and its metabolite PHENYLACETATE (PAA), induce growth inhibition and cellular differentiation in multiple tumor models
——————————————————————
Conversion of PBA to PAA and PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINE (PAG) documented without catabolic saturation
——————————————————————
THERAPY WELL TOLERATED OVERALL
——————————————————————
Common ADVERSE EFFECTS included grade 1 NAUSEA/VOMITING, FATIGUE, and LIGHTHEADEDNESS
——————————————————————
Dose limiting TOXICITIES were SHORT-TERM MEMORY LOSS, SEDATION, CONFUSION, NAUSEA, and VOMITING
——————————————————————
Administration of PBA twice-daily infusion schedule is SAFE
======================================
None of the above publications indicate that antineoplastons are toxic as Gorski would have people believe

12/12/2011 Gorski published his attempt at trying to explain why antineoplastons are supposedly toxic
======================================
What Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski doesn’t want you to know about antineoplastons
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/12/12/what-dr-stanislaw-burzynski-doesnt-want/
======================================
Gorski posited:

“He’s also prescribing huge doses of antineoplastons (up to 25 g/kg/d for A10 and 80 mg/kg/d for AS-2.1, as we have seen). both of these are so far above the maximal tolerated dose of 300 mg/kg/d determined in the phase I trial I cited above as to be terrifying”

In support of his “theory”, Gorski provided a link to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH):
——————————————————————
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/healthprofessional/Table1
——————————————————————
However, as is the case with a lot of Gorski’s lame research, he makes you search for what he is referring to:

[14]Ba Primitive neuroectodermal tumor (13)

A10/AS2-1

Max dose: A10: 25 g/kg/d; AS2-1: 0.6 g/kg/d

Does this support Gorski’s “toxic theory”?
======================================
[28] 2005
——————————————————————
5 years 7 months (1-11) median age
——————————————————————
13 / 100% – children with recurrent disease or high risk
——————————————————————
5 / 38% – weren’t treated earlier with radiation therapy or chemotherapy
——————————————————————
3 / 23% – Complete Response
1 / 8% – Partial Response
4 / 31% – Stable Disease
5 / 38% – Progressive Disease

——————————————————————
6 / 46% – Survived 5+ years from initiation of ANP
——————————————————————
Serious side effects:
1 – anemia
1 – fever
1 – granulocytopenia

——————————————————————
average dosage of A10 was 10.3 g/kg/d and of AS2-1 was 0.38 g/kg/d
——————————————————————
REDUCED TOXICITY MAKES ANP PROMISING for very young children, patients at high risk of complication of standard therapy, and patients with recurrent tumors
======================================
The above sure does NOT support Gorski’s “toxic theory”

When science based medicine keeps saying the following:
======================================
[9] 9/1994 increasing incidence of melanoma and POOR RESPONSIVENESS OF DISSEMINATED DISEASE TO CONVENTIONAL TREATMENT CALL FOR DEVELOPMENT OF NEW THERAPEUTIC APPROACHES
======================================
[29] 9/27/1995 (7/17/2006) Alterations in expression of ras oncogenes are characteristic of wide variety of human neoplasms
——————————————————————
Accumulating evidence has linked elevated ras expression with disease progression and FAILURE OF TUMORS TO RESPOND TO CONVENTIONAL THERAPIES, INCLUDING RADIOTHERAPY AND CERTAIN CHEMOTHERAPIES
——————————————————————
observations led us to investigate response of ras-transformed cells to differentiation-inducer PHENYLACETATE (PA)
——————————————————————
Interestingly, IN CONTRAST TO THEIR RELATIVE RESISTANCE TO RADIATION and doxorubicin, ras-transformed cells were significantly more sensitive to PA than their parental cells
======================================
[30] 5/1996 CYOTOXIC CHEMOTHERAPIES OFTEN GIVE RISE TO MULTIDRUG RESISTANCE, WHICH REMAINS MAJOR PROBLEM IN CANCER MANAGEMENT
————————————————————
IN PURSUIT OF ALTERNATIVE TREATMENTS FOR CHEMORESISTANT TUMOR CELLS, we tested response of multidrug-resistant (MDR) tumor cell lines to aromatic fatty acids PHENYLACETATE (PA) and PHENYLBUTYRATE (PB), 2 differentiation inducers currently in clinical trials
======================================
[15] 1996 Antineoplastons, first described by Burzynski, are naturally occurring peptides and amino acid derivatives which control neoplastic growth
——————————————————————
reported cytostatic inhibitory effect of A10 on human hepatocellular carcinoma cells and differentiation inducing effect of AS2-1 on various tumor cells suggest potential benefit for treatment of human hepatocellular carcinoma since TUMOR RECURS FREQUENTLY DESPITE INITIAL SUCCESSFUL TREATMENT
======================================
[31] 7/1997 Children with malignant GLIOMAS THAT PROGRESSED AFTER CONVENTIONAL THERAPY
——————————————————————
0 / 0% – EXHIBITED CLEAR-CUT TUMOR regression
======================================
[32] 2000 treatment combination PRODUCED NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE in overall POOR prognosis of patients
——————————————————————
Most tumors responded initially to treatment but RECCURED as study progressed
——————————————————————
Based on POOR RESULTS, recommend ALTERNATIVE TREATMENTS be tested in patients with this type of tumor
======================================
[33] At time of approval, NO RESULTS were available from randomized controlled trials in refractory ANAPLASTIC ASTROCYTOMA that show clinical benefit such as improvement in disease-related symptoms or prolonged survival
======================================
[34] 12/2000 NO CLEAR PROOF OF EFFICACY
——————————————————————
NO BETTER THAN SURVIVAL BEFORE THE INTRODUCTION OF temozolomide
======================================
[35] 2002 p53 tumor suppressor gene plays important role in protecting cells from developing undesirable proliferation
——————————————————————
Mutant p53 gene or malfunctioning p53 protein found in more than 50% of cancer cells impedes DNA repair or apoptosis induction
——————————————————————
MAY BE WHY SOME CANCERS GAIN RESISTANCE TO CHEMOTHERAPY AND RADIATION AND BECOME MORE RESISTANT AFTER FREQUENT CANCER TREATMENTS
======================================
[36] 2004 outcome for patients with either type of tumor is POOR when STANDARD multimodality THERAPY IS USED
——————————————————————
children are ideal candidates for INNOVATIVE TREATMENT approaches
——————————————————————
33 / 100% – DIED OF DISEASE PROGRESSION
——————————————————————
administration of temozolomide after RT DIDN’T ALTER POOR PROGNOSIS associated with newly diagnosed diffuse BRAINSTEM GLIOMA in children
======================================
[37] 2/2008 addition of vincristine and oral VP-16 to standard external beam radiation causes moderate toxicity and DOESN’T IMPROVE SURVIVAL OF CHILDREN WITH DIFFUSE INTRINSIC BRAIN STEM GLIOMA
======================================
[38] 5/6/2009 Currently, NO DATA available from randomized controlled trials demonstrating improvement in disease-related symptoms or increased survival with Avastin in GLIOBLASTOMA
======================================
[39] 10/12/2011 Afinitor (ubependymal giant cell ASTROCYTOMA (SEGA) brain tumor)
——————————————————————
none of their tumors went away completely
======================================
[18] 8/1997 aromatic fatty acids PHENYLACETATE (PA) and PHENYLBUTYRATE (PB) are novel antitumor agents currently under clinical evaluation
————————————————————
ability to induce tumor differentiation in laboratory models and LOW CLINICALTOXICITY PROFILE makes them promising candidates for COMBINATION WITH CONVENTIONAL THERAPIES
======================================
So what does Gorski think is going to fill the void?

His clinical trial drug ?

The potentially profitable drug Gorski is in the process of conducting a clinical trial for is the ALS drug Riluzole, made by Sanofi-Aventis and marketed as Rilutek

Apparently, David Gorski has had his eye on that drug for a long time, but as a possible treatment for breast cancer

As suggested by a 2008-2009 webpage of a breast cancer website:

“Three years ago in another cancer (melanoma), Dr. Gorski’s collaborators found that glutamate might have a role in promoting the transformation of the pigmented cells in the skin (melanocytes) into the deadly skin cancer melanoma”

“More importantly for therapy, it was found that this protein can be blocked with drugs, and, specifically, in melanoma cell lines and tumor models of melanoma using a drug originally designed to treat ALS and already FDA-approved for that indication (Riluzole) can inhibit the growth of melanoma.”
————————————————————
http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/06/david-gorskis-financial-pharma-ties-what-he-didnt-tell-you.html
————————————————————
Better luck next time with your personal MUD-targeted Skeptic therapy Gorski

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
References:
————————————————————
Dvorit D. Samid learned about antineoplastons from Burzynski
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[1] 4/1/1992
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
SAMID, D., Shack, S., and Sherman, l.. T.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1372534/
Cancer Res., 52: 1988-1992, 1992
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1372534/
Cancer Res 1992;52:1988-1992
http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/52/7/1988.abstract
Cancer Res April 1, 1992 52; 1988v I
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/52/7/1988
Cancer Res. 1992 Apr 1;52(7):1988-92
http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/52/7/1988.full.pdf
Cancer Res 52:1988,1992
http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/52/7/1988.full.pdf#page=1
SAMID D, Shack S, Ti-Sherman L
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland
PHENYLACETATE-A novel nontoxic inducer of TUMOR CELL differentiation
↵1 Supported by Elan Pharmaceutical Corporation Grant G174ED
Reference: 12 (SAMID, D.)
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[2] .8/20/1992
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Dover GJ, Brusilow S, SAMID D. Increased fetal hemoglobin in patients receiving sodium 4-PHENYLBUTYRATE. N Engl J Med. 1992 Aug 20;327(8):569–570
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1378939/
N Engl J Med. 1992 Aug 20;327(8):569-70
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1378939/
August 20, 1992
N Engl J Med 1992; 327:569-570
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199208203270818
N Engl J Med 327569, 1992
Dvorit Samid, Ph.D
National Cancer Institute
, Bethesda, MD
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[3] 9/15/1992
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
SAMID D, Yeh A, Prasanna P. Induction of erythroid differentiation and fetal hemoglobin production in human leukemic cells treated with phenylacetate. Blood. 1992 Sep 15;80(6):1576–1581
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1381630/
Blood. 1992 Sep 15;80(6):1576-81
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1381630/
Blood September 15, 1992 vol. 80 no. 6 1576-1581
http://m.bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/content/80/6/1576.full.pd
Blood 80:1576, 1992
http://m.bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/content/80/6/1576.abstract
Blood 80(6):1576–1581
http://m.bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/content/80/6/1576.full.pdf
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD
SAMID D References: 15, 20-21 and 34
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[4] 5/1993
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
SAMID D, Shack S , Myers CE . Selective growth arrest and phenotypic reversion of prostate cancer cells in vitro by NONTOXIC pharmacological concentrations of PHENYLACETATE . J. Clin. Invest . 1993;91:2288
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8486788/
J Clin Invest. 1993 May;91(5):2288-95
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8486788/
J Clin Invest. 1993 May; 91(5): 2288–2295
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC288233/
Published in Volume 91, Issue 5 (May 1993)
http://m.jci.org/articles/view/116457
J Clin Invest. 1993;91(5):2288–2295
1993, The American Society for Clinical Investigation
http://m.jci.org/articles/view/116457/pdf.mobile
J Clin Invest 91:2288, 1993
PMCID: PMC288233
doi:10.1172/JCI116457
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland
SAMID D References: 9, 13-14, 17 and 33
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[5] .10/1/1993
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Enhanced fetal
hemoglobin production by PHENYLACETATE and 4-PHENYLBUTYRATE in erythroid precursors derived from normal blood donors and patients with sickle cell anemia and P-thalassemia
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7691251/
Blood. 1993 Oct 1;82(7):2203-9
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7691251/
Blood 822203, 1993
http://m.bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/content/82/7/2203.full.pd
Blood October 1, 1993 vol. 82 no. 7 2203-2209
http://m.bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/content/82/7/2203.abstract
1993 82: 2203-2209
http://m.bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/content/82/7/2203.full.pdf
Blood 82(7):2203–2209
Department of Hematology, Hadassah University Hospital, Jerusalem, Israel
Fibach E, Prasanna P, Rodgers GP, SAMID D
SAMID D References: 15, 19-21 and 32
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[6] 2/15/1994
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
SAMID, D., Ram, Z., Hudgins, W. R., Shack, S., Liu, L., Waibridge, S., Oldfield, E. H., and Myers, C. E. Selective activity of PHENYLACETATE against malignant gliomas: resemblance to fetal brain damage in phenylketonuria. Cancer Res., 54: 891-895, 1993
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8313377/
Cancer Res. 1994 Feb 15;54(4):891-5
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8313377/
Cancer Res February 15, 1994 54; 891
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/4/891/
Cancer Res 1994;54:891-895
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
Work supported by funds from Elan Pharmaceutical Research Corporation through Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CACR-0139)
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[7] 4/1/1994
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
A phase I and pharmacokinetic study of intravenous PHENYLACETATE in patients with cancer
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8137283
Cancer Res. 1994 Apr 1;54(7):1690-4
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8137283
Cancer Res 54(7):1690-4 (1994), PMID.8137283
http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/7/1690.abstract
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland
http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/7/1690.full.pdf
Thibault A, Cooper MR, Figg WD, Venzon DJ, Sartor AO, Tompkins AC, Weinberger MS, Headlee DJ, McCall NA, SAMID D, et al.
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/7/1690
Study supported in part by grant from Elan Pharmaceutical Research Co
SAMID D
References: 8-12
BURZYNSKI
Reference: 13
13. BURZYNSKI, S. R., Kubove E., Burzynski, B. Treatment of hormonally refractory cancer of the prostate with antineoplaston AS2-1. Drugs Exp. Clin. Res., 16: 361-369, 1990
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2152694/
Drugs Exp Clin Res. 1990;16(7):361-9
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/2152694/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[8] 6/1/1994
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Growth inhibition, tumor maturation, and extended survival in experimental brain tumors in rats treated with PHENYLACETATE.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8187079/
Cancer Res 54:2934-2927, 1994
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8187079/
Cancer Res. 1994 Jun 1;54(11):2923-7
http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/11/2934.abstract?ijkey=03bc67e581ef77536842806b949046916458d548&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
Cancer Res 54(11):2923–2927
http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/11/2923.abstract
Surgical Neurology Branch, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland
http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/11/2923.full.pdf
Ram Z, SAMID D, Walbridge S, et al:
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/11/2923
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[9] 1994
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Liu L , Shack S , Stetler-Stevenson WG , Hudgins WR , SAMID D . Differentiation of cultured human melanoma cells induced by the aromatic fatty acids PHENYLACETATE and PHENYLBUTYRATE . J. Invest. Dermatol . 1994;103:335
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8077698/
J Invest Dermatol. 1994 Sep;103(3):335-40
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8077698/
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[10] 4/1995
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Disposition of PHENYLBUTYRATE and its metabolites, PHENYLACETATE and PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINE.
J Clin Pharmacol 35:368-373, 1995 Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7650225/
J Clin Pharmacol 35:368-373, 1995 Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7650225/
The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
Volume 35, Issue 4, pages 368–373, April 1995
http://m.jcp.sagepub.com/content/35/4/368.abstract?ijkey=74bff0d86ce76b404728762fe2a1bfde1641fa41&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
J Clin Pharmacol. 1995 Apr;35(4):368-73
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.1552-4604.1995.tb04075.x/abstract;jsessionid=DFDEF1599D764E2845EC2897269C198B.d01t01
Article first published online: 8 MAR 2013
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.1552-4604.1995.tb04075.x/abstract;jsessionid=43600D49608A093971D675F3DB5FF13D.d01t03
Piscitelli SC, Thibault A, Figg WD, et al: (SAMID D)
http://jcp.sagepub.com/content/35/4/368
Pharmacy Department, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
DOI: 10.1002/j.1552-4604.1995.tb04075.x
http://m.jcp.sagepub.com/content/35/4/368.abstract?ijkey=74bff0d86ce76b404728762fe2a1bfde1641fa41&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[11] 6/15/1995
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Phase I study of PHENYLACETATE administered twice daily to patients with cancer
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7773944/
Cancer. 1995 Jun 15;75(12):2932-8
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7773944/
Cancer 75(12):2932–2938
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
Thibault A, SAMID D, Cooper MR, Figg WD, Tompkins AC, Patronas N, et al
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[12] 10/12/1995
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Cytostatic activity of PHENYLACETATE and derivatives against tumor cells:
Correlation with lipophilicity and inhibition of protein prenylation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7488244/
Biochem Pharmacol. 1995 Oct 12;50(8):1273-9
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7488244/
Biochem Pharmacol 50:1273-1279, 1995
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0006295295020133
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[13] 10/1995
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Stockhammer G, Manley GT, Johnson R, et al: (SAMID D) Inhibition of proliferation and induction of differentiation in medulloblastoma and astrocytoma-derived cell lines with PHENYLACETATE. J Neurosurg 83:672-681, 1995
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7674018/
J Neurosurg. 1995 Oct;83(4):672-81
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7674018/
Cotzias Laboratory of Neuro-Oncology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
http://thejns.org/doi/abs/10.3171/jns.1995.83.4.0672?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3dpubmed&#038;
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[14] 1995
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Toxicological study on antineoplastons A-10 and AS2-1 in cancer patients
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8667595
Kurume Med J. 1995;42(4):241-9
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8667595
The Kurume Medical Journal
Vol. 42 (1995) No. 4 P 241-249
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/kurumemedj1954/42/4/42_4_241/_article
JST.Journalarchive/kurumemedj1954/42.241
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/kurumemedj1954/42/4/42_4_241/_pdf
Department of Anesthesiology, Kurume University School of Medicine, Japan
http://dx.doi.org/10.2739/kurumemedj.42.241
Tsuda H, Hara H, Eriguchi N, Nishida H, Yoshida H, Kumabe T, Sugita Y
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/kurumemedj1954/42/4/42_4_241/_article/references
Burzynski References: 1 – 3 and 5
Nishida et al. (Japan) A-10 Reference: 4 and 7
Muldoon et al. A-10 Reference: 6
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[15] 1996
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Inhibitory effect of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 on human hepatocellular carcinoma
Tsuda H (Japan)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8755117
Kurume Med J. 1996;43(2):137-47
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8755117
Department of Anesthesiology, Kurume University School of Medicine, Japan
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/kurumemedj1954/43/2/43_2_137/_article
Burzynski References: 1 – 3, 5 and 7
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/kurumemedj1954/43/2/43_2_137/_article/references
SAMID Reference: 13 (who learned from Burzynski re PHENYLACETATE)
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/kurumemedj1954/43/2/43_2_137/_pdf
Nishida et al. (Japan) A10 Reference: 4 and 10
Muldoon et al. A10 Reference: 8
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[16] 5/1996
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Vulnerability of multidrug-resistant tumor cells to the aromatic fatty acids phenylacetate and PHENYLBUTYRATE
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9816242/
Clin Cancer Res. 1996 May;2(5):865-72
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9816242/
Clin Cancer Res 2(5):865–872
http://m.clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/2/5/865.abstract
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
http://m.clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/2/5/865.full.pdf
Shack S, Miller A, Liu L, Prasanna P, Thibault A, SAMID D
http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/2/5/865
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[17] 12/1996
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Gorospe M, Shack S, Guyton KZ, et al: (SAMID D)
Up-regulation and functional role of p21Waf1/Cip1 during growth arrest of human breast carcinoma MCF-7 cells by PHENYLACETATE. Cell Growth Differ 7:1609-1615, 1996
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8959328/
Cell Growth Differ. 1996 Dec;7(12):1609-15
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8959328/
Cell Growth Differ 7(12):1609–1615
http://cgd.aacrjournals.org/cgi/reprint/7/12/1609.pdf
Laboratory of Cellular and Molecular Biology, Gerontology Research Center, National Institute on Aging, NIH, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[18] 8/1997
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Miller AC, Whittaker T, Thibault A, et al: (SAMID D)
Modulation of radiation response of human tumor cells by the differentiation inducers, PHENYLACETATE and PHENYLBUTYRATE. Int J Radiat Biol 72:211-218, 1997
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9269314/
Int J Radiat Biol. 1997 Aug;72(2):211-8
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9269314/
Armed Forces Radiobiology, Research Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[19] 1997
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
PHENYLACETATE and PHENYLBUTYRATE as novel, NONTOXIC differentiation inducers
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9547596
Adv Exp Med Biol (1997), PMID.9547596
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9547596
Adv Exp Med Biol. 1997;400A:501-5
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4615-5325-0_67
DOI
10.1007/978-1-4615-5325-0_67
http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-1-4615-5325-0_67.pdf
Eicosanoids and Other Bioactive Lipids in Cancer, Inflammation, and Radiation Injury 2
Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology Volume 400, 1997, pp 501-505
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD USA
D D SAMID, W R WR Hudgins, … C E CE Myers
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[20] 10/1997
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Impact of the putative differentiating agents sodium PHENYLBUTYRATE and sodium PHENYLACETATE on proliferation, differentiation, and apoptosis of primary neoplastic myeloid cells
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9815560/
Clin Cancer Res. 1997 Oct;3(10):1755-62
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9815560/
Clin Cancer Res October 1997 3; 1755
http://m.clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/3/10/1755.full.pd
Clin Cancer Res. 1997a;3:1755–1762
http://m.clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/3/10/1755.abstract
The Johns Hopkins Oncology Center, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
http://m.clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/3/10/1755.full.pdf
Gore SD, SAMID D, Weng LJ
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[21] 11..12/1997
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Antineoplaston AS2-1 for maintenance therapy in liver cancer
H Tsuda phase I clinical trial
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21590224
Oncol Rep. 1997; 4:1213- 1216
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21590224
Oncol Rep. 1997 Nov-Dec;4(6):1213-6
http://www.spandidos-publications.com/or/4/6/1213
Oncol Rep 4 (6):1213-6 (1997)
Oncology Reports
4 (6):1213-6
KURUME UNIV,SCH MED,DEPT SURG,KURUME,FUKUOKA,JAPAN. KURUME UNIV,SCH MED,DEPT INTERNAL MED,KURUME,FUKUOKA,JAPAN. KURUME UNIV,SCH MED,DEPT RADIOL,KURUME,FUKUOKA,JAPAN
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[22] 6/1999
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
PHENYLBUTYRATE induces cell differentiation and modulates Epstein-Barr virus gene expression in Burkitt’s lymphoma cells
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10389940/
Clin Cancer Res. 1999 Jun;5(6):1509-16
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10389940/
Clin Cancer Res 5(6):1509–1516
http://m.clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/5/6/1509.abstract
Clin Cancer Res June 1999 5; 1509
http://m.clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/5/6/1509.long
Pediatric Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/5/6/1509
Bar-Ner M, Thibault A, Tsokos M, Magrath IT, SAMID D
Supported in part by funds from Elan Pharmaceutical Research Corporation
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[23] 8/2001
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
A phase Idose escalation and bioavailability study of oral sodium PHENYLBUTYRATE in patients with refractory solid tumor malignancies
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11489804
Clin Cancer Res. 2001 Aug;7(8):2292-.300
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11489804
Clin Cancer Res 7(8):2292-.300 (2001), PMID.11489804
http://m.clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/7/8/2292.long
Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Oncology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA
J Gilbert, S D Baker, … M A Carducci
SAMID D References: 2-3, 5-6, 15 and 20
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[24] 10/2001
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
A Phase I clinical and pharmacological evaluation of sodium PHENYLBUTYRATE on an 120-h infusion schedule
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11595694
Clin Cancer Res. 2001 Oct;7(10):3047-55
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11595694
Clin Cancer Res 7(10):3047-55 (2001), PMID.11595694
http://m.clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/7/10/3047.long
Division of Medical Oncology, The Johns Hopkins Oncology Center, Bunting-Blaustein Cancer Research Building, Baltimore, MD, USA
M A Carducci, J Gilbert, … R C Donehower
SAMID D References: 10-11, 13-14, 17-18, 23-24, 27, 33, 40-41 and 47
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[25] 2003
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Long-term survival following treatment with antineoplastons for colon cancer with unresectable multiple liver metastases: report of a case
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12768372
Long-Term Survival Following Treatment with Antineoplastonsfor Colon Cancer with Unresectable Multiple Liver Metastases:
Report of a Case
A10 and AS2-1 – Phase II Clinical Trial
Hideaki Tsuda
http://www.springerlink.com/content/b48ch3ha165nbrqp
Surg Today. 2003;33(6):448-53
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10595-002-2503-2
Surg Today 2003; 33:448–53
http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10595-002-2503-2
Surg Today. 2003; 33:448-453
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10595-002-2503-2?LI=true
33 (6):448-53
http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10595-002-2503-2
Surgery Today, Springer
http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200313/000020031303A0389449.php
Surg Today 2003
http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200313/000020031303A0389449.php
DOI: 10.1007/s10595-002-2503-2
http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/10015483373
Department of Surgery, Kurume University School of Medicine, Kurume, Fukuoka, Japan
http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/10015483373
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[26] 4/2005
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Oral sodium PHENYLBUTYRATE in patients with recurrent malignant gliomas:

A dose escalation and pharmacologic study
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15831235/
Neuro Oncol. 2005 Apr;7(2):177-82
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15831235/
Neuro-oncol. 2005 April; 7(2): 177–182 PMCID: PMC1871887
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1871887/pdf/neu0702p177.pdf
The New Approaches to Brain Tumor Therapy CNS Consortium, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
Buckner Reference: 3
SAMID D References: 12, 17 and 19-21
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[27] 4/2007
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Phase I dose escalation clinical trial of PHENYLBUTYRATE sodium administered twice daily to patients with advanced solid tumors
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17053987
Invest New Drugs. 2007 Apr;25(2):131-8. Epub 2006 Oct 20
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/17053987
Investigational New Drugs
April 2007, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 131-138
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10637-006-9017-4
Invest New Drugs 25(2):131-8 (2007), PMID.17053987
Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Joan and Sanford I. Weill Medical College of Cornell Medical Center, New York, New York, USA
Luis H LH Camacho, Jon J Olson, … Mark G MG Malkin
SAMID D References: 4-5, 7, 20, 24, 30 and 32-38
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[28] 2005
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
14. Burzynski SR, Weaver RA, Janicki T, et al.: Long-term survival of high-risk pediatric patients with primitive neuroectodermal tumors treated with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1. Integr Cancer Ther 4 (2): 168-77, 2005
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15911929/
Integr Cancer Ther. 2005 Jun;4(2):168-77
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15911929/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[29] 9/27/1995
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Increased susceptibility of ras-transformed cells to PHENYLACETATE is associated with inhibition of p21ras isoprenylation and phenotypic reversion. Int J Cancer 63:124-129, 1995
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7558439/
Int J Cancer. 1995 Sep 27;63(1):124-9
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7558439/
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.2910630122/abstract
Int J Cancer 63:124-129, 1995
Int J Cancer. 1995 Sep 27;63(1):124-9.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.2910630122/references
International Journal of Cancer
Volume 63, Issue 1, Article first published online: 17 JUL 2006
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.2910630122
Shack S, Chen L-C, Miller AC, et al: (SAMID D)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.2910630122/abstract
Shack, S., Chen, L-C., Miller, A. C., Danesi, A., and SAMID, D. Int. J. Cancer, 63: 124-129, 1995
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[30] 5/1996
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Shack, S., Miller, A., Liu, L., Prasanna, P., Thibault, A., and SAMID, D.. Vulnerability of MULTIDRUG-RESISTANT TUMOR CELLS to the aromatic fatty acids PHENYLACETATE and PHENYLBUTYRATE. Clin. Cancer Res., 2: 865-872, 1996
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9816242/
Clin Cancer Res. 1996 May;2(5):865-72
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9816242/
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USA
http://m.clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/2/5/865.abstract

http://m.clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/2/5/865.full.pdf
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[31] 7/1997
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
A phase I study of high-dose tamoxifen for the treatment of refractory malignant gliomas of childhood
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9815790/
Clin Cancer Res. 1997 Jul;3(7):1109-15
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9815790/
Clin Cancer Res July 1997 3; 1109
http://m.clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/3/7/1109.full.pd
Department of Neurosurgery, Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/3/7/1109
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[32] 2000
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Radiation therapy and high-dose tamoxifen in the treatment of patients with diffuse BRAINSTEM GLIOMAS:

results of a Brazilian cooperative study
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10715294/
Brainstem Glioma Cooperative Group
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10715294/
J Clin Oncol 18, 1246-1253
http://m.jco.ascopubs.org/content/18/6/1246.long
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[33]
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/11/19/6767.full
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[34] 12/2000
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Temozolomide and ANAPLASTIC ASTROCYTOMA:

new indication
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11475493/
Prescrire Int. 2000 Dec;9(50):170-1.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11475493/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[35] 2002
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
A novel strategy for remission induction and maintenance in cancer therapy
A10 and AS2-1
H Tsuda
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11748457
Oncol Rep 2002;9:65–8
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11748457
Oncol. Rep. 2002;9:65-68
http://www.spandidos-publications.com/or/9/1/65
Oncol Rep 9(1):65-8 (2002)
Oncology Reports, Spandidos Publications
Department of Anesthesiology, Kurume University, School of Medicine, Fukuoka-ken, Japan
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[36] 2004
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Supratentorial high-grade ASTROCYTOMA and DIFFUSE BRAINSTEM GLIOMA:

two challenges for the pediatric oncologist
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15047924/
Oncologist. 2004;9(2):197-206.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15047924/
Oncologist 9, 197-206
http://m.theoncologist.alphamedpress.org/content/9/2/197.long
Division of Neuro-Oncology, Department of Hematology-Oncology, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA
1/1/2005 (11/24/2004) – Role of temozolomide after radiotherapy for newly diagnosed diffuse BRAINSTEM GLIOMA in children:

results of a multiinstitutional study (SJHG-98)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15565574
Cancer. 2005 Jan 1;103(1):133-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15565574
Cancer 103, 133-139
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.20741/abstract;jsessionid=6717837591CCC8FCBD8E46163808E221.d03t01
Cancer
Volume 103, Issue 1, pages 133–139, 1 January 2005
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.20741/full
Article first published online: 24 NOV 2004
References:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.20741/references
Cited By:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.20741/citedby
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.20741
Department of Hematology-Oncology, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA
——————————————————————
Cancer 103, 133-139
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[37] 2/2008 (Article first published online: 2/2/2007)
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Treatment of children with diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA with radiotherapy, vincristine and oral VP-16:

a Children’s Oncology Group phase II study
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17278121
Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2008 Feb;50(2):227-30
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/17278121
University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, USA
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pbc.21154/abstract;jsessionid=DE7A67EFBAC1A184F6805F11CFC4F30B.d02t02
Article first published online: 2 FEB 2007
DOI: 10.1002/pbc.21154
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[38] 5/6/2009
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval of Avastin (bevacizumab) for people with GLIOBLASTOMA (brain cancer) with progressive disease following prior therapy
——————————————————————
effectiveness of Avastin in AGGRESSIVE form of BRAIN CANCER based on improvement in objective response rate
——————————————————————
http://www.drugs.com/newdrugs/fda-grants-accelerated-approval-avastin-combination-paclitaxel-chemotherapy-first-line-advanced-852.html
According to FDA analysis of study
——————————————————————
Study AVF3708g
——————————————————————
Study NCI 06-C-0064E
——————————————————————
Efficacy of Avastin in GLIOBLASTOMA that progressed following prior therapy supported by another study that used same response assessment criteria as AVF3708g
——————————————————————
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/druginfo/fda-bevacizumab
——————————————————————
http://www.drugs.com/newdrugs/fda-grants-accelerated-approval-avastin-brain-cancer-glioblastoma-has-progressed-following-prior-1342.html
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[39] 10/12/2011 (Published online: 8/1/2011)
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Everolimus tablets for patients with subependymal giant cell ASTROCYTOMA
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3389821/
Expert Opin Pharmacother. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 July 5.
Published in final edited form as:
Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2011 October; 12(14): 2265–2269.
Published online 2011 August 1. doi: 10.1517/14656566.2011.601742
PMCID: PMC3389821
NIHMSID: NIHMS385824
——————————————————————
http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CDER/ucm231967.htm
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

QUESTIONS the Critics and Cynics, “The Skeptics™” do NOT want to ANSWER

1. One “Orac” (Dr. David H. Gorski @oracknows @sciencebasedmed @gorskon #sciencebasedmedicine
http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org)
claimed:


“Burzynski naturally has lots of excuses for why the trial failed and tried to blame the investigators, but his complaints are not convincing.”

When I requested that he respond to Burzynski’s comments re the study, he would NOT touch it with the proverbial ZZ Top

“Ten-Foot Pole”

What Critic, Cynic, or one of “The Skeptics™” is going to show more Bravery and Courage than “Orac”?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
2. If antineoplastons do NOT work, why, after Dvorit D. SAMID learned of them from Burzynski, did all the research, clinical studies, and phase I, phase II, and phase III clinical trials really start to get underway on
PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINATE (PAG or PG)
PHENYLACETATE (PN)

and
PHENYLBUTYRATE (PB)?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
3. This individual claims to be a “cancer researcher”

If this individual’s “research” is so poor as a “cancer researcher,” what does that say about “research” re the “War on Cancer”?

My review of C0nc0rdance:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/23/my-review-of-c0nc0rdance/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
4. This individual claims to be a “Doctor,” “oncologist,” “breast cancer specialist,” and “cancer researcher”

If this individual’s “research” is so poor as a “cancer researcher,” what does that say about “research” re the “War on Cancer”?

Paging Doctor David H. Gorski, Paging Doctor David H. Gorski: There’s Mud in your Ears … Doktor Gorski?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/28/paging-doctor-david-h-gorski-paging-doctor-david-h-gorski-theres-mud-in-your-ears-doktor-gorski/
He did NOT even refer to the below publication by Burzynski regarding “Treatment of Recurrent Triple-Negative Breast Cancer:”

8/2011 – Successful Treatment of Recurrent Triple-Negative Breast Cancer with Combination of Targeted Therapies
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownload.aspx?DOI=10.4236/jct.2011.23050
Journal of Cancer Therapy, 2011, 2, 372-376
doi:10.4236/jct.2011.23050 Published Online August 2011
(http://www.SciRP.org/journal/jct)
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
5. Critics, Cynics, “The Skeptics™” state that Burzynski is NOT an oncologist, but can offer no explanation as to why this is supposedly “relevant,” they cannot explain if oncologists are somehow “better” than biochemists, nor do they want to answer the question:

“Does Burzynski work with any oncologists, and are any of them listed on his phase II clinical trial publications”?

http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/scientific-publications.html
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:

16. 2003

DRUGS IN R&D
Drugs in R and D
(Drugs in Research and Development)

BT-11

BRAIN STEM GLIOMA

Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA:

a preliminary report.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12718563
Burzynski, S.R.
Lewy, R.I.
Weaver, R.A.
Axler, M.L.
Janicki, T.J.
Jurida, G.F.
Paszkowiak, J.K.
Szymkowski, B.G.
Khan, M.I.
Bestak, M.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12718563
Drugs R D. 2003;4(2):91-101
Drugs in R&D 2003;4:91-101
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/960.pdf
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
6. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) Panorama program indicated that 776 Burzynski patients with brain tumours were treated in trials before 2008
http://t.co/nFpwlQg275
15.5% (120) survived more than 5 years

Critics, Cynics, “The Skeptics™”, what’s your survival rate?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
7. March 29, 1996

Then United States Food and Drug Administration Commissioner, David A. Kessler told the American people:

1. We will eliminate unnecessary paperwork … that used to delay or discourage … cancer research … by non-commercial clinical investigators

2. The … FDA’s initiatives … will allow …the agency … to rely on smaller trialsfewer patients … if there is evidence … of partial response in clinical trials

I don’t want to get into any particular … agent … except let me point out … that … the information needs to be part … of clinical trials

3. We will accept … less information … up front –

4. we’re going to require further study AFTERapproval … because the science … has matured

5. The important – point … is that information needs to be gathered … through scientific means … through clinical – trials … and I think – that’s … that’s very important uhh very … important point

You can’t … just … use an agent here – or there … you have to use it … as part of a clinical trial … so we can get information … on whether the drug works

6. The uhh agency has … many … trials … has has approved trials … for patients … with antineoplastons

7. We are committed to providing expanded accessavailabilityfor American patients for any drugthere’s reason to believemay work
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/antineoplastons-has-the-fda-kept-its-promise-to-the-american-people
——————————————————————
A. What is the FDA’s definition of “unnecessary paperwork”?

B. What is the FDA’s definition of “smaller trials”?

C. What is the FDA’s definition of “fewer patients”?

D. What is the FDA’s definition of “evidence … of partial response“?

E. What is the FDA’s definition of “less information … up front”?

F. What is the FDA’s definition of “we’re going to require further study AFTER … approval”?

G. What is the FDA’s definition of “We are committed to providing expanded access … availability … for American patients for any drug … there’s reason to believe … may work”?

https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/what-is-misdirection-critiquing-antineoplastons-has-the-fda-kept-its-promise-to-the-american-people/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
8. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) Panorama program indicated that 776 Burzynski patients with brain tumours were treated in trials before 2008
http://t.co/nFpwlQg275
Is that what the FDA means by:

rely on … fewer patients?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
9. 4/27/2013 (37:20) Fabio stated that
Burzynski had provided the FDA with 2.5 million pages of clinical trial documents

Is that what the FDA means by:

“unnecessary paperwork”?

and

“less information … up front”?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
10. Is this what the FDA means by:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/what-is-misdirection-critiquing-antineoplastons-has-the-fda-kept-its-promise-to-the-american-people/
if there is evidence … of partial response in clinical trials?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
11. Why was the United States Food and Drug Administration requiring that radiation be used in the Phase 3 Clinical Trial when Burzynski has shown better results with antineoplastons when radiation is NOT used?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
12. Who wants to defend the excuse that The Lancet gave for NOT Publishing the documentation which Burzynski sent to them, which is referred to in Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business, Part II?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
13. Review Articles on Clinical Trials: 2. 2006 – Treatments for Astrocytic Tumors in Children: Current and Emerging Strategies. Pediatric Drugs 2006;8:167-178.
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1252.pdf
2006 Adis – Pediatr Drugs 2006; 8 (3)

pg 174

2.3. Targeted Therapy

1652 adults
335 children
[147]


indicates 1,799 Burzynski patients

Is that what the FDA means by:

rely on … fewer patients?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
13. The FDA approved phase III (3) clinical trials for Antineoplastons A10 (Atengenal) and AS2-1 (Astugenal); which means that they have shown evidence of effectiveness, yet they have NOT granted Accelerated Approval for them, even though they have done so for other treatments which had NOT yet published the final results of phase II (2) clinical trials, and which did NOT have as good Complete Response, Partial Response, Stable Disease, Minor Response, Progressive Disease, Objective Response, Progression-Free Survival, etc., rates:

Burzynski: Why has the FDA NOT granted Accelerated Approval for Antineoplastons A10 (Atengenal) and AS2-1 (Astugenal) ?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/burzynski-why-has-the-fda-not-granted-accelerated-approval-for-antineoplastons-a10-astengenal-and-as2-1-astugenal/

(Additional QUESTIONS being added)

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
References:

1.

Post #73 – Didymus Judas Thomas

At the Tu-Quack Center Oracles of Deny to Respond tree

1/30/2013

Post #52 – Orac

“You do realize that that means that the Mayo trial failed to find evidence of efficacy, just as I said, don’t you?”

“The default of a finding like that is that there is no evidence of efficacy, not that failure to have adequate numbers to show an effect means that there’s an effect there”

“If SRB wants to convince skeptics that his treatments work better than conventional therapy, let him publish the evidence in a peer-reviewed journal in a manner that it can be independently verified”

“Thus far, he has failed to do so.”

Orac, I thoroughly enjoyed; with a dismissive limp wrist, you posted:

“Burzynski naturally has lots of excuses for why the trial failed and tried to blame the investigators, but his complaints are not convincing.”
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/21/quoth-joe-mercola-i-love-me-some-burzynski-antineoplastons
Now, why don’t you tackle those ?’s?

1. “[T]he study tested a dosing regimen known to be ineffective.”

2. “[D]osages used in the study “were meant for the treatment of a single small lesion…”

3. “5 of the 6 evaluable patients had either multiple nodules or tumors larger than” said single small lesion.

4. “As the provider,” SRB “strongly suggested to the NCI that these patients receive a much higher dose, consistent with their greater tumor load.”

5. “[T]he study was closed when” SRB “insisted that the NCI either increase the dosage or inform the patients that the drug manufacturer believed that the treatment was unlikely to be effective at the dosages being used (letter to Dr M. Sznol, NCI, on 4/20/1995).”

6. “A review of the clinical data in the article … proves the validity of” SRB’s “position” per SRB

7. “Their study patients had extremely low plasma antineoplaston levels.”

8. SRB’s “phase 2 study dosage regimen produced plasma phenylacetylglutamine levels that are 35 times greater, phenylacetylisoglutamine levels 53 times greater, and phenylacetate levels 2 times greater than those reported…’”

9. “The clinical outcomes reported … based on their inadequate dosage schedule, differ dramatically from” SRB’s “phase 2 studies in which a higher dosage regimen was used.”

10. “They reported no tumor regression. In contrast, in 1 of” SRB’s “ongoing studies on protocol BT-9, 4 of 8 evaluable patients with astrocytoma had objective responses.’”

11. “The difference in outcomes is primarily due to the difference in dosage schedules,” per SRB

12. “Another factor that may have caused a lack of response in the study by … is that the duration of treatment was too brief.”

13. “Almost all the patients in their study received treatment for less than 30 days.”

14. “1 patient received only 9 days of treatment.”

15. “The current studies indicate that objective tumor responses are usually observed after 3 months of therapy.”

16. “An additional 8 months of treatment is usually needed to obtain a maximal therapeutic effect.”

17. “[A]mbiguities in the response evaluation and analysis in the article…”

a) “In 2 patients, tumor necrosis was attributed to “radionecrosis.””

b) “However, such an interpretation is clouded by the fact that antineoplaston-induced necrosis can be indistinguishable from radionecrosis.”

c) “Moreover, the analysis … could have highlighted the 2 patients with recurrent glioblastoma who survived for more than I year.”

d) “This is of interest because these patients typically have a life expectancy of 3 to 6 months.”

18. “It is regrettable that, at the time of the study … the sponsor, NCI, decided against the higher dosing regimen that I proposed and closed the study.”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/stanislaw-rajmund-burzynski-m-d-ph-d-and-freedom-of-speech/
IMPORTANT: The live “debate” that wasn’t-A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/important-the-live-debate-that-wasnt-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/
Post #85 – Orac – April 28, 2013

“Well, DJT tried to comment last night and got caught in the moderation trap.”

“I’m not letting DJT through.”

“He’s been banned for very good reason, and I will not rescind the ban.”
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/04/26/all-truth-comes-from-public-debate-a-corollary-to-crank-magnetism/
My below blog contained a copy of the comment I submitted to his blog:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/important-the-live-debate-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/
All Mr. Hinton would have to do is ask “Orac” to respond to my post 73 on his blog, and it would be all over, since “Orac” has adopted his “Hold the Mayo” attitude, and shows no indication that he would ever be brave enough to touch it with the proverbial ZZ Top

“Ten Foot Pole”

because he’s probably aware of what would happen if he did

One of “Orac’s” “Oracolytes” posted on Forbes (#Forbes):
onforb.es/11pwse9

http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW
“I already offered you a forum on a science blog to debate with a real respected surgical oncologist, with a guarantee that he never moderates the “debate”.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics
IMPORTANT: The live “debate”-A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/important-the-live-debate-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/
This is Dr. David H. Gorski’s blog

Dr. Gorski censored (blocked) my comments

We are supposed to believe that he’s now NOT going to block someone’s comments???
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/04/26/all-truth-comes-from-public-debate-a-corollary-to-crank-magnetism/
#66 – Didymus Judas Thomas

IMPORTANT: The live “debate”-A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics | Didymus Judas Thomas’ Hipocritical Oath Blog

April 27, 2013

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Seriously ? Gorski ? Let’s remember that it is YOU who would NOT answer my questions, and instead inacted your “Hold the Mayo” posture re post 73

Let’s review your

“deconstructed his “evidence” in depth before” claim

1/21/2013 Orac posted THIS blog:

“Quoth Joe Mercola:

I love me some Burzynski antineoplastons

Posted by Orac on January 21, 2013″

” … In particular, a multicenter phase II trial carried out by investigators at the Mayo Clinic was a big failure, with a median survival of 5.2 months in patients with anaplastic oligoastrocytoma, anaplastic astrocytoma, or glioblastoma multiforme that had recurred after radiation therapy”

“Burzynski naturally has lots of excuses for why the trial failed and tried to blame the investigators, but his complaints are not convincing”
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/21/quoth-joe-mercola-i-love-me-some-burzynski-antineoplastons
I challenged “Orac” about this and this reply was posted which included my point at the beginning of the reply:

1/29/2013

“An excellent explanation of how dubious Stanislaw Burzynski’s activities are”

Posted by Orac on January 28, 2013
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/28/an-excellent-explanation-of-how-dubious-stanislaw-burzynskis-activities-are
Post #52 – Orac

January 29, 2013

“CONCLUSION: Although we could not confirm any tumor regression in patients in this study, THE SMALL SAMPLE SIZE PRECLUDES DEFINITIVE CONCLUSIONS ABOUT TREATMENT EFFICACY.”

“You do realize that that means that the Mayo trial failed to find evidence of efficacy, just as I said, don’t you?”

“The default of a finding like that is that there is no evidence of efficacy, not that failure to have adequate numbers to show an effect means that there’s an effect there”

“If SRB wants to convince skeptics that his treatments work better than conventional therapy, let him publish the evidence in a peer-reviewed journal in a manner that it can be independently verified”

“Thus far, he has failed to do so”

I responded to Orac, quoting his reply at the beginning of my reply:

Post #73 – Didymus Judas Thomas

At the Tu-Quack Center Oracles of Deny to Respond tree

January 30, 2013

Post #52 – Orac

“You do realize that that means that the Mayo trial failed to find evidence of efficacy, just as I said, don’t you?”

“The default of a finding like that is that there is no evidence of efficacy, not that failure to have adequate numbers to show an effect means that there’s an effect there”

“If SRB wants to convince skeptics that his treatments work better than conventional therapy, let him publish the evidence in a peer-reviewed journal in a manner that it can be independently verified”

“Thus far, he has failed to do so”

Orac, I thoroughly enjoyed; with a dismissive limp wrist, you posted:

“Burzynski naturally has lots of excuses for why the trial failed and tried to blame the investigators, but his complaints are not convincing.”
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/21/quoth-joe-mercola-i-love-me-some-burzynski-antineoplastons
Now, why don’t you tackle those ?’s?

[SOURCE: Feb. 1999 Mayo Clinic Publication pg 2, 3 PDF]
http://burzynskimovie.com/images/stories/transcript/Documents/Feb99MayoClinicPubANP.pdf
2/1999 – A10 and AS2-1 – Phase II – Mayo Clinic Proceedings http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10069350
Phase II Study of Antineoplastons A10 (NSC 648539) and AS2-1 (NSC 620261) in Patients With Recurrent Glioma Objective:
http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)63835-4/fulltext
To assess the pharmacokinetics, toxicity, and efficacy of antineoplastons A10 (NSC 648539) and AS2-1 (NSC 620261)
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0025-6196(11)63835-4
Design:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025619611638354
We initiated a phase II trial in order to determine whether evidence of antitumor activity of A10 and AS2-1 could be documented
http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0025-6196/PIIS0025619611638354.pdf
Comment in Jun; 74 (6): 641-2
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2796.2003.01098.x/full
Mayo Clin Proc 74(2):9 (1999)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2796.2003.01098.x/references
1999 Elsevier Ltd.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1046/j.1365-2796.2003.01098.x/asset/j.1365-2796.2003.01098.x.pdf?v=1&t=hbs6xce2&s=3423e3cd1955667e8e8cdf33323faf0bd85b6a29
DOI: 10.4065/74.2.137
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1046/j.1365-2796.2003.01098.x/asset/j.1365-2796.2003.01098.x.pdf?v=1&t=hbrndkdf&s=e0af2d3bfb13841852d92a839d3a4932a5f4bb48
Mayo Clin Proc 1999; 74: 137–45

Burzynski responded by pointing out:

6/1999 – A10 and AS2-1 – SRB http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10377942
Efficacy of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1
S R Burzynski
Mayo Clin Proc 74 (6): 641-2 (1999),
Mayo Clin Proc. 1999 Jun; 74 (6): 641-2 Comment on Mayo Clin Proc. 1999 Feb; 74 (2): 137-45 PMID .10377942 Elsevier Science
http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)64143-8/fulltext
Mayo Clinic Proc. 1999; 74: 641–642 (letter) 74 (6): 641-2
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0025-6196(11)64143-8
Mayo Clin Proc 74 (6): 1 (1999), 1999 Elsevier Ltd.
http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0025-6196/PIIS0025619611641438.pdf
DOI: 10.4065/74.6.641

This was responded to:

6/1999 – Mayo Clin Proc 74(6):2 (1999), DOI: 10.4065/74.6.641-a
http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)64144-X/fulltext
Mayo Clinic Proceedings
Volume 74, Issue 6 , Pages 641-642, June 1999
http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0025-6196/PIIS002561961164144X.pdf
References:

1. SAMID D , Shack S, Sherman LT. Phenylacetate: a novel nontoxic inducer of tumor cell differentiation. Cancer Res . 1992; 52:1988–1992
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1372534/

http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/52/7/1988.abstract

http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/52/7/1988.full.pdf

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/52/7/1988
2. Danesi R, Nardini D, Basolo F, Del Tacca M, SAMID D . Myers CEo Phenylacetate inhibits protein isoprenylation and growth of the androgen-independent LNCaP prostate cancer cells transfected with the T24 Ha-ras oncogene. Mol Pharmacal. 1996; 49:972–979
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8649357/

http://m.molpharm.aspetjournals.org/content/49/6/972.long
3. Chang SM, Kuhn LG, Robins HI, et al. Phase II study of phenylacetate in patients with recurrent malignant glioma: a North American Brain Tumor Consortium report. J Clin Oneal. 1999; 17:984–990
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10071293/

http://m.jco.ascopubs.org/content/17/3/984.long
4. Thibault A, Cooper MR, Figg WD, et al. (SAMID D). A phase I and pharmacokinetic study of intravenous phenylacetate in patients with cancer. Cancer Res. 1994; 54:1690–1694
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8137283/

http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/7/1690.abstract

http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/7/1690.full.pdf

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/7/1690
PII: S0025-6196(11)64144-X

doi: 10.1016/S0025-6196(11)64144-X

1999 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research.
Elsevier Inc.

The above four (4) references in the response to Burzynski might be relevant if all that antineoplastons consisted of was phenylacetate

Phenylacetylglutaminate (PAG or PG) and Phenylacetate (PN) are metabolites of Phenylbutyrate (PB) and are constituents of antineoplaston AS2-1

Antineoplastons AS2-1 and AS2-5 are DERIVED FROM A10

AS2-1=4:1 mixture of PHENYLACETIC ACID (PA) and Phenylacetylglutamine (PAG or PG)

National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Antineoplastons
General Information:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/healthprofessional/page2
This is “what would happen” if “Orac” did have the “Bravery,” “Courage,” “Gumption,” “Intestinal Fortitude,” “Testicular Fortitude,” to address this issue:
http://burzynskimovie.com/images/stories/transcript/Documents/BurzynskiTriesToExposeNCI.pdf
Burzynski: Managing social conflict in complementary and alternative medicine research: the case of antineoplastons:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/burzynski-managing-social-conflict-in-complementary-and-alternative-medicine-research-the-case-of-antineoplastons/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
2.
Antineoplastons: Phenylacetylglutaminate (PG or PAG), Phenylacetate (PN), and Phenylbutyrate (PB):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/17/phenylacetylglutaminate-pg-or-pag-phenylacetate-pn-and-phenylbutyrate-pb/
Phenylacetylglutamine (PG or PAG):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/18/phenylacetylglutamine-pg-or-pag/
Phenylacetate (PN):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/18/phenylacetate-pn/
Phenylbutyrate (PB):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/18/phenylbutyrate-pb/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �