SkeptiCowards© CrowdSource http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg/2013/10/a-message-to-a-djt/

——————————————————————
[1]
======================================
Woo Fighter – 10/1/2013 – 8:46 pm

“Guy,”

“He also stated quite frankly during the Google Hangout that nothing will ever change his mind”
——————————————————————
Woo, Bob did NOT provide enough evidence that would cause me to “change my mind”
——————————————————————
“So what’s the point of any further discourse?”
——————————————————————
Woo, the point is, it gives you the opportunity to explain why you lied to The Guardian [2]
——————————————————————
“His idea of “debate” is having critics post comments on his blog; whether that is to drive up page views or merely to seek attention we’ll never know”
——————————————————————
Woo, who suggested leaving comments on my blog ?

Bob ? [3]

9/28/2013 Google+ Hangout
——————————————————————
1:13:00
——————————————————————
“Okay, I’ll look at that, and I will respond to it once I’ve taken a look at that, okay ?“

“Um, and I’ll respond on your web-site“

“Um, seems only fair“
——————————————————————
1:14:00
——————————————————————
2:09:00
——————————————————————
“… and don’t worry I will go to your site and I will comment on on on what you’ve run“
——————————————————————
2:10:15
——————————————————————
2:18:00
——————————————————————
“Um, I will look at your web-site, and we will, uh, we, uh, you, oh make sure that I I go to your blog and and I talk there“
——————————————————————
2:19:00
——————————————————————
“What none of us understands is his motivation”

“I have discussed this privately in e-mails with Bob B. and you, Guy”

“When asked about this during the session on Saturday all he said was that he wanted to correct what he perceives as misinformation from Burzynski critics on social media”
——————————————————————
Woo, you’re obviously NOT from Texas

It’s like a whole ‘nother Country

My motivation ?

I am a Texan and an American and I do NOT have any respect for individuals who lie about cancer treatment on social media

Verstehen ?

There’s a saying:

“Don’t mess with Texas”
——————————————————————
“It has to go deeper than that”

“He didn’t wake up one day and out of the blue decide he was going to champion Burzynski”

“He has to have some connection, either personal or commercial”
——————————————————————
Woo, you’re still wrong

Prove it
——————————————————————
“The sheer amount of time and effort he’s pored into writing hundreds, if not thousands of comments on science blogs, his rabid attempts to edit Wikipedia and his own blog posts indicates he something invested”
——————————————————————
Woo, why don’t you count the amount of comments I posted on “Orac’s” Respectful Insolence science blog and let everyone know the results ?
——————————————————————
“He denied he works for Burzynski as he stated he doesn’t even live in Texas anymore, but that is irrelevant”

“I don’t believe Marc Stephens lived in Texas for the duration of time he represented the clinic”
——————————————————————
Woo, who cares what you think about Marc Stephens ?

Prove it
——————————————————————
“I wish he would just be honest and tell us why he has spent devoted so much of his time over the past year (almost) promoting and supporting Burzynski (and Merola, for that matter)”
——————————————————————
Woo, where have I been “promoting and supporting” them ?

Everything on my blog is devoted to showing how “The Skeptics™” lie
——————————————————————
“I was going to say it would be hard to go back to calling him an idiot after hearing him speak on Saturday, as he became humanized”
——————————————————————
Woo, I have no problem calling you an “idiot” after you lied about me [2]
——————————————————————
“His folksy “y’all” and his laughter made him a real person”

“He was no longer just words on a screen, but a living, breathing human being”

“However after seeing the Tweets he posted immediately following the Hangout, where he reverted to his juvenile insults, his name-calling, his inability to write a coherent sentence and his out-and-out lack of respect for people like you and Dr. Gorksi has made me reevaluate my stance”
——————————————————————
Woo, please cite one of these “supposed” Tweets you have a problem with

Surely you did NOT think I was giving Bob carte blanche to continue on Twitter without proving his case ?
——————————————————————
“He simply deserves to be ignored”

“He has a serious personality disorder and doesn’t merit any of our attention ever again”
——————————————————————
Woo, my personality is serious enough NOT to lie about people to The Guardian

Do you have a serious “compulsive liar” personality disorder ?
======================================
Guy Chapman – 10/2/2013 – 12:26 am

“He kind of admitted it when he said that he’d be persuaded by the FDA not having granted phase 3 approval; defining your rejection criteria according to some test whose outcome is already know is one of the techniques used by homeopaths”
——————————————————————
Guy, which homeopathic “remedy” has received Orphan Drug Designation (ODD) and FDA Phase 3 approval ?
——————————————————————
“You do not interpret this thing as I would like, therefore you are denying this thing happened, therefore you lie, is another,”
——————————————————————
Guy, what massive cognitive dissonance dreamworld are you living in ?
======================================
Guy Chapman – 10/2/2013 – 12:28 am

“Actually, we know what he is”

“A troll”

“Why did we let ourselves get sucked in?”
——————————————————————
“Troll” is an excuse cowards use to try and label someone in order to claim that they should NOT be put in a position to do something they agreed to
======================================
IamBreastCancer – 10/2/2013 – 12:27 am

“Excellent summary, Guy”

“I agree with WooFighter that his motivation is suspect, but there are some desperately lonely attention-seeking people out there who will grasp onto any controversial issue just to get “in the game.””

“As a cancer patient myself, I was struck by the fact that he could yammer on for almost 2-1/2 hours without showing a shred of concern or compassion for cancer patients or legitimate cancer treatment questions”

“His behavior before, during and since the debate clearly shows he absolutely has no regard for real facts or evidence”

“I’m thankful that he’s unable to write coherently, as it cripples his capacity for causing harm to cancer patients”

“Unlike so many other charlatans out there, I don’t think he represents much of a threat to patient safety, just a lot of noise and bandwidth waste”

“His 15 minutes of fame needs to end”
——————————————————————
Quidama, I’m sorry you have cancer, but it sounds to me like you seriously need a “reality check”: [4]
——————————————————————
A. Tried to “control the conversation”
1. Bob Blaskiewicz
2.
——————————————————————
B. Interrupted the other individual the most:
1. 30+ – Bob Blaskiewicz interrupted DJT
2. (20+ back at ya) – DJT interrupted BB
——————————————————————
C. Asked the most questions:
1. Bob Blaskiewicz
2.
——————————————————————
D. Most speaking time:
1. Bob Blaskiewicz
2.
——————————————————————
E. Most words:
1. 13,933 – Bob Blaskiewicz
2. 8,847 – DJT
——————————————————————
F. Most characters:
1. 66,123 – Bob Blaskiewicz
2. 43,245 – DJT
——————————————————————
G. Acted as if they were teaching a class, and dictating what your possible responses were, implying that they did NOT consider this to be a “debate” where the participants were free to choose their own responses:
1. Bob Blaskiewicz
2.
——————————————————————
H. Proved they do NOT know how to debate
1. Bob Blaskiewicz
2.
——————————————————————
I. Proved they do NOT have manners
1. Bob Blaskiewicz
2.
——————————————————————
J. Must have thought they were on the Morton Downey Jr. talk show (or do you prefer Jerry Springer ?)
1. Bob Blaskiewicz
2.
——————————————————————
K. Controlled themself best:
1.
2. DJT
——————————————————————
L. Did NOT need help from any pro-position pundits
1.
2. DJT
——————————————————————
“Thanks for all you do!”
——————————————————————
You’re welcome

REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – A message to DJT
——————————————————————
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg/2013/10/a-message-to-a-djt/
======================================
[2] – Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski “Oracolyte” Woo Fighter Poo Biter admits to LYING to “The Guardian”:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/10/dr-david-h-orac-gorski-oracolyte-woo-fighter-poo-biter-admits-to-lying-to-the-guardian/
======================================
[3] – Why “The Skeptics™” Perfessor Robert J. (don’t call me “Bobby”) “Bob” Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) of University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire, “Fame,” is a Coward and a Liar:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/13/why-the-skeptics-perfessor-robert-j-dont-call-me-bobby-bob-blaskiewicz-rjblaskiewicz-of-university-of-wisconsin-eau-claire-fame-is-a-coward-and-a-liar/
====================================
[4] – Fun Facts From September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/07/fun-facts-from-september-28-2013-the-skeptics-burzynski-discussion-by-bob-blaskiewicz-21951/
====================================

Advertisement

Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, quickly realized that David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS is NOT doing something wrong when he LIES about Burzynski

March 14, 2013 David Gorski posted on ScienceBasedMedicine . org [1] and ScienceBlogs . com/Insolence [2]

3.

“Merola bemoans how unfair it is (to him) that the FDA is requiring a phase III clinical trials for Burzynski’s antineoplastons and refusing to grant accelerated approval for them, as it did for Temodar and Avastin”

“It seems like a compelling point on the surface if you don’t know about the drug approval process or Burzynski; indeed, The Skeptics who viewed the movie wondered about this claim”

“Here’s what, as far as I can tell from my reports, Merola leaves out”

“Temodar and Avastin both had proper, completed, and published phase II trials before approval”

Does Gorski provide a reference to support his statement ?

“Temodar and Avastin both had proper, completed, and published phase II trials before approval”

NO !

Does he provide a citation ?

NO !!

Does he provide a link ?

NO !!!

Why not ?

Is it because Science Based Medicine . org proclaims:

“Our only goal is to promote high standards of science in medicine” ? [3]

Is it because “Orac” is god ??

Is it because Gorski has proclaimed:

6/5/2013 “ … I do know cancer science”??? [4]

Is it because “Orac” says:

6/7/2013 “Unlike Mr. Merola, I am indeed very concerned with getting my facts correct” ???? [5]

1/1999 Temodar (Temozolomide): received accelerated approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treatment of anaplastic astrocytoma (brain cancer) patients [6]

Was the United States Food and Drug Administration’s 1/1999 accelerated approval based on the PUBLISHED FINAL RESULTS OF A PHASE II (2) CLINICAL TRIAL?

The answer is: NO

1/1999 – FDA Accelerated Approval [6]

9/1999 – Phase 2 publication [7]

12/2000 – publication [8]

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 [9]

Was the United States Food and Drug Administration’s 5/6/2009 accelerated approval based on the PUBLISHED FINAL RESULTS OF A PHASE II (2) CLINICAL TRIAL?

.2/10/2009 – 1st arm Phase 2 publication [10]

5/6/2009 – FDA Accelerated Approval [9]

1/1/2010 – 2nd arm publication [11]

The answer is: The 1st arm of the phase 2 clinical trial was published .2/10/2009, before the 5/6/2009 FDA approval, and the 2nd arm was published 1/1/2010, after the FDA approval

So, Gorski has been caught in yet another LIE

But no worries !

5/31/2013 Orac posted:

“Burzynski has a contingent of defenders who have targeted skeptics like me for special abuse, up to and including harassing me at work by calling my university to complain about my online verbiage critical of Burzynski and implying that I am somehow doing something wrong”

“(My university quickly realized that I was not.)” [12]

Gorski obviously has carte blanche to LIE

I wonder what

Wayne State University

Wayne State University School of Medicine

Section of Breast Surgery / Graduate Program in Cancer Biology

Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Center / Institute

Alexander J. Walt Comprehensive Breast Center

American College of Surgeons Committee on Cancer

Institute for Science in Medicine

National Geographic

ScienceBlogs . com

and

ScienceBasedMedicine . org

all think of this, knowing that they could become the next

“wretched hive of scum and hackery ?”

David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS,
maybe you should check your FACTS
======================================
[1] Burzynski: Cancer Is A Serious Business, Part 2: Like the first Burzynski movie, only more so?
——————————————————————
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/burzynski-cancer-is-a-serious-business-part-2-like-the-first-burzynski-movie-only-more-so/
======================================
[2] Five things I learned (second hand) from the recent screening of Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part 2
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/03/14/five-things-i-learned-second-hand-from-the-recent-screening-of-burzynski-cancer-is-serious-business-part-2/
======================================
[3] ScienceBasedMedicine Editorial Staff
——————————————————————
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/
======================================
[4] Odds and Ends about Burzynski Clinic
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/05/odds-and-ends-about-burzynski-clinic/
======================================
[5] I want my ANP
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/07/i-want-my-anp/
======================================
[6] 1/1999 Temodar (Temozolomide): received accelerated approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
——————————————————————
http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/11/19/6767.full
======================================
[7] 9/1999 – Multicenter phase II trial of temozolomide in patients with anaplastic astrocytoma or anaplastic oligoastrocytoma at first relapse
Temodal Brain Tumor Group
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10561351/
J Clin Oncol. 1999 Sep;17(9):2762-71.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10561351/
JCO September 1999 vol. 17 no. 9 2762
http://m.jco.ascopubs.org/content/17/9/2762.abstract
ERRATA: Correction for vol. 17, p. 2762 JCO Nov 1, 1999:3693
http://m.jco.ascopubs.org/content/17/9/2762.long
University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA

Click to access 2762.full.pdf

======================================
[8] 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/
======================================
[9] 5/6/2009 U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval of Avastin (bevacizumab)
——————————————————————
http://www.drugs.com/newdrugs/fda-grants-accelerated-approval-avastin-brain-cancer-glioblastoma-has-progressed-following-prior-1342.html
Study AVF3708g
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/druginfo/fda-bevacizumab
Study NCI 06-C-0064E
======================================
[10] .2/10/2009 Phase II Trial of Single-Agent Bevacizumab Followed by Bevacizumab Plus Irinotecan at Tumor Progression in Recurrent Glioblastoma
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19114704/
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Feb 10;27(5):740-5. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.16.3055
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19114704/
Epub 2008 Dec 29
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645088/
JCO February 10, 2009 vol. 27 no. 5 740-745
http://m.jco.ascopubs.org/content/27/5/740
Published online before print December.29, 2008, doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.16.3055
http://m.jco.ascopubs.org/content/27/5/740.long
Neuro-Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
http://m.jco.ascopubs.org/content/27/5/740.full

Click to access 740.full.pdf

======================================
[11] 1/1/2010 Bevacizumab: in previously treated glioblastoma
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20108991/
Drugs. 2010;70(2):181-9. doi: 10.2165/11203890-000000000-00000
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/20108991/
Drugs January 2010, Volume 70, Issue 2, pp 181-189
http://link.springer.com/article/10.2165%2F11203890-000000000-00000
Adis, a Wolters Kluwer Business, Auckland, New Zealand
======================================
[12] On “helping” that is anything but
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/05/31/on-helping-that-is-anything-but/
======================================

Yes! Weekly: Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business Part II

6/20/2013 Mark Burger published a review:
——————————————————————
http://www.yesweekly.com/triad/article-16162-burzynski-cancer-is-.html
——————————————————————
As could be expected, The Skeptics™
showed up
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “I’m afraid you’ve fallen for Dr Burzynski’s PR efforts here”
——————————————————————
LIE: The documentary film is by Eric Merola, NOT “Dr. Burzynski’s Public Relations”
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “In reality, Dr B is a quack and a charlatan of the worst order, and the movie is nothing more than a desperate attempt to try to sell his snake oil to the gullible”
——————————————————————
LIE: After reading through the comments, this sounds like the infamous lying Professor Robert J. (Bob) Blaskiewicz of University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire, “infamy”, who is a charlatan of the first order, and belabors his ignorance by referring to “snake oil”, which as far as I know, has never been approved for phase III clinical trials, unlike Dr. Burzynski’s antineoplastons A10 (Atengenal) and AS2-1 (Astugenal)
——————————————————————
Bob Blaskiewicz (Blatherskitewicz), Faux Skeptic Exposed!:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/bob-blaskiewicz-blatherskitewicz-faux-skeptic-exposed/
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “You have to ask why he’s never published any data showing that his treatment works”
——————————————————————
LIE: What people should ask is why does “Professor” @rjblaskiewicz and his other Skeptic pals continue posting idiotic statements like this on the Internet and social media (Twitter) ?
——————————————————————
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/
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “Well, if you believe everything the movie tells you, then perhaps you think it’s because of a huge global conspiracy that prevents him from publishing in any journal anywhere in the world”
——————————————————————
If you want to talk Jesse Ventura type “conspiracy theory”:

1. Why are The Skeptics™ like you too afraid to debate ?

2. Why did your “pal” David H. “Orac” Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS block me on his blog for questioning his infallibility ?

3. Why did Forbes delete my comments when I questioned The Skeptics™? regarding your “pal” Gorski’s “bud”, Peter A. Lipson, MD’s article ?

4. Why did The Skeptics™ Josephine Jones block me from her blog ?

5. Why did The Skeptics™ Adam Jacobs block me from his blog ?

6. Why did The Skeptics™ Guy Chapman block me from his blog ?

7. Why did The Skeptics™ Keir Liddle block me from his blog ?

8. Why do The Skeptics™ whine to Twitter in order to get Twitter to suspend the accounts of people who question them ?

9. Why did Wikipedia block me, using lame excuses ?

10. Why did reddit act like wiki’s little bitch and delete my posts and block my comments because this reddiot davidreiss666 whined like a little bitch ?
——————————————————————
overview for DidymusJudasThomas (reddit.com)

submitted 4 days ago by davidreiss666 to reportthespammers

1 comment
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “Even if you are sufficiently conspiracy minded to believe that’s true, then it still doesn’t explain why he hasn’t published his results on the clinicaltrials dot gov website, where most of his trials are recorded as either “ongoing”, “withdrawn”, or “unknown status””
——————————————————————
Did you NOT appear on the below blog talk radio show with your “pal” Gorski who said at 29:00 that Burzynski should NOT publish the information himself ?
——————————————————————
Ep09 – Talking Burzynski – David Gorski and Bob Blaskiewicz 05/29/2013
Skeptic Canary Show – BlogTalkRadio
May 29, 2013 … This week, join your hosts as we talk about Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski and the Burzynski Clinic. Well be joined by two special guest, Doctor David Gorski and Bob Blaskiewicz
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/…/ep09–talking-burzynski–david-gorski-and-bob-blaskiewicz
——————————————————————
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/skepticcanary/2013/05/29/ep09–talking-burzynski–david-gorski-and-bob-blaskiewicz
——————————————————————
http://goo.gl/7pWIj
——————————————————————
http://bit.ly/15lv5zG
——————————————————————
Critiquing the #SkepticCanary: “The Skeptics™” (SkeptiCowards©) Bob Blatherskitewicz and the so-called, “self-proclaimed” “CANCER RESEARCHER”:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/critiquing-the-skepticcanary-the-skeptics-skepticowards-bob-blatherskitewicz-and-the-so-called-self-proclaimed-cancer-researcher/
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “Only one of his trials is recorded as being completed, and that one doesn’t reveal it’s results”
——————————————————————
Did you notice that your above 5/29/2013 appearance was BEFORE this article was published 6/20/2013 ?
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “The fact is that Burzynski keeps is actual research data an extremely closely guarded secret”
——————————————————————
Like THIS ?
——————————————————————
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/
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “If is treatment were actually effective, do you seriously think he’d do that?”
——————————————————————
RATS!!!. Like this ?
——————————————————————
Burzynski: Oh, RATS!!!
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/26/the-lancet-oncology-peer-review-team-d-12-01519-fail-2/
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “Burzynski likes to cultivate his conspiracy theories because it helps his business of scamming vulnerable cancer patients”
——————————————————————
Is that like The Skeptics™ like to LIE to people ?
——————————————————————
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/
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “For Burzynski, at least, cancer is indeed serious business”
——————————————————————
And for you, it must be a joke, considering how you are too much of a coward to debate questions like these
——————————————————————
QUESTIONS the Critics and Cynics, “The Skeptics™” do NOT want to ANSWER:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/23/questions-the-critics-and-cynics-the-skeptics-do-not-want-to-answer/
======================================
JEFF: “it has been tested independently in other countries, as the film shows”
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “The Japanese study remains unpublished, Jeff, just like all the over 60 studies Burzynski has started”

“Even if it were published, it would need to be replicated”
——————————————————————
Really ? Why not try pointing out where these studies were replicated before the FDA allowed these drugs to be used ?
——————————————————————
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/
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “Merola manipulated by voice, face and even what I said in his movie and never asked for my comments”

“Sure, he misrepresented me to my new employers, but that doesn’t actually count as consulting me, now does it?”

“The “birthday surprise” in the movie was a fundraiser for a children’s cancer research hospital that raised over $15K, something I’m rather proud of, actually”
——————————————————————
Nice TRY with your LIE
——————————————————————
Critiquing Bob Blaskiewicz (#Burzynski Cancer is Serious Business, Part II):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/critiquing-bob-blaskiewicz-burzynski-cancer-is-serious-business-part-ii/
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “I’d encourage you to look at the other side of the story at The OTHER Burzynski Patient Group”

“These are far more typical outcomes”
——————————————————————
Do you mean this one of a number of your blogs which I just critiqued ?
——————————————————————
Critiquing https://theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/24/critiquing-httpstheotherburzynskipatientgroup-wordpress-com/
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “You might also see what Merola got wrong/faked at the anp4all website”
——————————————————————
Oh, do NOT worry

I will critique this one also, and let people see what YOU got wrong
======================================
ADAM JACOBS: “Jeff, you say it has been “tested independently in other countries”, but how do you know?”

“Because the movie says so?”

“Well, it would, wouldn’t it?”

“Come back and tell me about these so-called “independent tests” when they’ve been published”

“Until then, there is no reliable evidence that they actually happened”
——————————————————————
Adam Jacobs also known as @DianthusMed also known as Dianthus Medical of London, why don’t YOU come back and tell me when YOU learn how to read ?
——————————————————————
Burzynski – The Antineoplaston Randomized Japan Phase II Clinical Trial Study:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/burzynski-the-antineoplaston-randomized-japan-phase-ii-clinical-trial-study/
======================================
TOMMIE TAYLOR: “The worst conspiracy in the world and the most profitable is the mainstream medical procedures of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation”

“Chemo and radiation destroy the immune system to the point that the body cannot heal”

“It is a crime against humanity to allow only these therapies”
======================================
ADAM JACOBS: “You do know that Burzynski uses chemotherapy, don’t you?”

“Antineoplastons themselves are a form of chemotherapy, but actually most of Burzynski’s patients don’t get ANPs anyway: they just get conventional chemotherapy”
——————————————————————
Adam, have you blocked anyone else from your blog since you blocked me because you are a coward ?
——————————————————————
The Burzynski Skeptics:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/the-burzynski-skeptics/
======================================

The Burzynski Skeptics

======================================
The Skeptics who are too SkepticScared too debate Burzynski
======================================
David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D
Orac
@gorskon
@oracknows
@ScienceBasedMed
#sciencebasedmedicine
Wayne State University
Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Center / Institute
Detroit, Michigan
——————————————————————
http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence/
——————————————————————
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/
——————————————————————
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
——————————————————————
http://www.med.wayne.edu/surgery/faculty/DGorski.html
——————————————————————
http://cancerbiologyprogram.med.wayne.edu/faculty/gorski.php
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
David James (@StortSkeptic) tweeted at 7:08pm – 1 Aug 13:

The new Doctor Who will be Stanislaw #Burzynski. He manages to continually avoid getting cornered and he gets away with murder.

The new Doctor Who will be Stanislaw #Burzynski. He manages to continually avoid getting cornered and he gets away with murder.

— David James (@StortSkeptic) August 2, 2013

David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 11:02pm – 1 Aug 13:

@StortSkeptic Yes, but can #Burzynski time travel? https://twitter.com/gorskon/status/363147810620702721
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
Robert J. (Bob) Blaskiewicz, Professor
Bob Blaskiewicz Faux Skeptic Exposed!
@rjblatherskiewicz
Blatherskitewicz
University of Wisconsin
rbutr
r-but-r
Eau Claire, Wisconsin
——————————————————————
http://www.skepticalhumanities.com/
——————————————————————
http://virtualskeptics.com/
——————————————————————
http://rbutr.com/
——————————————————————
http://blog.rbutr.com/
——————————————————————
http://www.uwec.edu/Staff/blaskir/
——————————————————————
http://www.csicop.org/author/rblaskiewicz
——————————————————————
http://necss.org/speakers/bob-blaskiewicz/
——————————————————————
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/speakers/blaskiewicz_bob
——————————————————————
http://lanyrd.com/2013/tam/sckkdy/
======================================
http://thehoustoncancerquack.com/
——————————————————————
http://anp4all.com/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz)
6/3/13, 3:49 PM

@FauxSkeptic @bbc5live I believe he said, “Put up or shut up, you little bitch.” Something like that.
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
David James
@StortSkeptic
#SkepticCanary
@skepticCanary
The Skeptic Canary
Skeptic Canary Show
——————————————————————
http://www.skeptical.gb.net/
——————————————————————
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/skepticcanary/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
David James (@StortSkeptic) tweeted at 7:08pm – 1 Aug 13:

The new Doctor Who will be Stanislaw #Burzynski. He manages to continually avoid getting cornered and he gets away with murder.

The new Doctor Who will be Stanislaw #Burzynski. He manages to continually avoid getting cornered and he gets away with murder.

— David James (@StortSkeptic) August 2, 2013

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
Guy Chapman
guychapman
@SceptiGuy
@vGuyUK
United Kingdom
——————————————————————
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg/
======================================
Adam Jacobs
@DianthusMed
Dianthus Medical
London, United Kingdom
——————————————————————
http://www.dianthus.co.uk/blog/
======================================
Peter Bowditch
@RatbagsDotCom
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Peter Bowditch (@RatbagsDotCom) tweeted at 8:09pm – 19 Feb 13:

Of course it’s always possible that the money launderers are appearing as themselves in the #Burzynski advertisement.

Of course it's always possible that the money launderers are appearing as themselves in the #Burzynski advertisement.

— Peter Bowditch (@RatbagsDotCom) February 20, 2013

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Josephine Jones
@_JosephineJones
——————————————————————
http://josephinejones.wordpress.com/
======================================
Keir Liddle
@Endless_Psych
——————————————————————
http://www.thetwentyfirstfloor.com/
——————————————————————
http://the21stfloor.tumblr.com
——————————————————————
http://twentyfirstfloormirror.wordpress.com
——————————————————————
http://www.thetwentyfirstfloor.com/?p=8146/
======================================
Paul Morgan
@drpaulmorgan
Cardiff, Wales
——————————————————————
http://medicine.cf.ac.uk/person/prof-paul-morgan/
======================================
FW
@frozenwarning
National Health Service (NHS)
Britain
United Kingdom
——————————————————————
Skeptics enjoy commenting on things that they do not know if it’s true or not

FW (@frozenwarning) tweeted at 5:01am – 14 Mar 13:

If it’s true that #burzynski and his adman Merola have insinuated that parents are to blame for Amelia’s death that’s utterly disgusting.

If it's true that #burzynski and his adman Merola have insinuated that parents are to blame for Amelia's death that's utterly disgusting.

— FW (@frozenwarning) March 14, 2013

======================================
Rhys Morgan
Wales
——————————————————————
http://rhysmorgan.co/blog
——————————————————————
http://thewelshboyo.wordpress.com
======================================
Boris Ogon
@BorisOgon
“You are right now having a live “debate” in front of more than 10,000 people, and nothing you have presented suggests that you would be more coherent in person
——————————————————————
The Poxes Blog
https://thepoxesblog.wordpress.com
======================================
MedTek
@medtek
======================================
Quidama
@IAmBreastCancer
======================================
lilady
======================================
Peter A. Lipson, M.D.
@palMD
——————————————————————
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/peter-a-lipson-md/
——————————————————————
onforb.es/11pwse9
——————————————————————
http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW
——————————————————————
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics
——————————————————————
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
PalMD (@palmd) tweeted at 9:12am – 20 Apr 13:

Didnt take long for the Burzynski trolls to show up. http://t.co/EHgW0hnLAc

Didnt take long for the Burzynski trolls to show up. http://t.co/EHgW0hnLAc

— PalMD (@palmd) April 20, 2013

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Dan Buzzard (@DanBuzzard) tweeted at 10:18am – 31 Mar 12:

@BurzynskiSaves I don’t care what you think. My only concern is for the cancer patients. People like #burzynski make me sick.

@BurzynskiSaves I don't care what you think. My only concern is for the cancer patients. People like #burzynski make me sick.

— Dan Buzzard (@DanBuzzard) March 31, 2012

Sheila Herron (@Ac2cSheila) tweeted at 1:54pm – 31 Mar 12:

@DanBuzzard @BurzynskiSaves Dan, I AM a cancer patient of #burzynski. I am no actor,shill. I am an RN of 32 years, chose him=my choice.

— Sheila Herron (@Ac2cSheila) March 31, 2012

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business Part II http://www.seancast.com

6/7/2013 Sean Saulsbury (“Mr. Movie” on The Movie Film Show) posted a review about Burzynski, Part 2
——————————————————————
http://www.seancast.com
——————————————————————
https://m.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=318281183441&story_fbid=10151634324123442
——————————————————————
Not surprisingly, The Skeptics™ showed up in the form of Adam Jacobs (@DianthusMed Dianthus Medical
http://dianthus.co.uk/burzynski-qa)
and
David H. “Orac” Gorski, M.D., Ph.D (@gorskon, @oracknows, @sciencebasedmed, #sciencebasedmedicine,
http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence,
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org)

Note below how Gorski wants to get his 2 cents in, but NOT return the favor

Classic Gorski!!!
——————————————————————
Adam Jacobs
Hi

Just wondering: am I allowed to post a comment here if I disagree with some of the things you say, or would such a comment be deleted?
——————————————————————
David
My review was a little different.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/stanislaw-burzynski-propaganda-versus-news/
——————————————————————
http://www.seancast.com Sean Saulsbury
In fairness, I posted a link to my review from the comments section on this website. Guess what? It was deleted.
——————————————————————
Didymus Judas Thomas
Sean, how hilarious. The 2 commenters are well known on
http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence
which is run by:
Dr David H. “Orac” Gorski, M.D., Ph.D,, who I critique here, which includes link to my critique of his review of Burzynski 2. Thank you
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/04/critiquing-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-m-d-ph-d-liar-stanislaw-burzynski-versus-the-bbc/
——————————————————————
http://www.seancast.com/2013/06/burzynski-the-movie-part-2/

Critiquing: Dr. Burzynski is under attack, again. By Suzanne Somers

8/8/2013, 10:47:00 AM, Suzanne Somers posted an article re Burzynski
======================================
http://www.suzannesomers.com/Blog/post/Dr-Burzynski-is-under-attack-again.aspx
======================================
The Intellectual Cowards, The Skeptics™, SkeptiCowards©, who seem to be too afraid to bring their “debate” to my blog, unleashed their disingenuous Twitter Attack on @SuzanneSomers
======================================
I found it hilarious that MedTek accused Suzanne Somers of pulling a “Gorski”; posting tweets and then deleting them
======================================
[1]
——————————————————————

@gorskon Is @SuzanneSomers writing about same Burzynski I know of? The dangerous quack who takes money and provides unproven treatments?

— Miranda Radik (@radikmiranda) August 8, 2013

——————————————————————
Hmmmm. Looks like Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski (@gorskon @oracknows @sciencebasedmed) could use a little education about #Burzynski
——————————————————————
Critiquing: Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski and The Skeptics™
http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/critiquing-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-and-the-skeptics/
——————————————————————
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/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[2]
——————————————————————

Needs it about LOTS more! RT @gorskon Hmmm. Looks like @SuzanneSomers needs a little education about #Burzynski. http://t.co/FQiWVCQoCJ

— Michael Wosnick, PhD (@MichaelWosnick) August 8, 2013

——————————————————————
[3]
——————————————————————

@gorskon @SuzanneSomers 60% success rate? Where's that published then? Oh.. it's not. More like 0% success rate. #Burzynski

— Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) August 8, 2013

——————————————————————
[4]
——————————————————————

@gorskon @ScienceBasedMed @SuzanneSomers Doesn't Burzynksi use chemo for his patients?

— Heather McCall (@HPMcCall) August 8, 2013

——————————————————————
[5]
——————————————————————

Hello @SuzanneSomers, your blog says #burzynski has a 60% success rate in brain cancers. Where did that statistic come from?

— Adam Jacobs (@statsguyuk) August 8, 2013

——————————————————————
[6]
——————————————————————

@drpaulmorgan That would be my guess too. But will be interesting to see if she replies. Doubt she will, but you never know

— Adam Jacobs (@statsguyuk) August 8, 2013

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Dr. Paul Morgan, why is this unpublished when YOU suggested Burzynski publish in The Lancet Oncology ?
——————————————————————

@drpaulmorgan @dianthusmed Pick a medical journal Paul…

— Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) December 20, 2012

——————————————————————

@BurzynskiMovie @dianthusmed 1. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2. The Lancet Oncology. 3. New England Journal of Medicine. (1/2)

— Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) December 20, 2012

——————————————————————
The Lancet Oncology Peer Review Team D-12-01519: #FAIL
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/25/the-lancet-oncology-peer-review-team-d-12-01519-fail/
——————————————————————
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151766968748442&id=318281183441&set=a.10150245001038442.345336.318281183441&_mn_=5&refid=17
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[7]
——————————————————————

@IamBreastCancer go to http://t.co/rkWQTv4VFT and read my blog about dr. Burzynski. Then click on survivor stories.

— Suzanne Somers (@SuzanneSomers) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
Quidama, Can you use your influence to help convince The Lancet Oncology to publish #Burzynski’s trial data? Cancer patients need complete and factual info.
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[8]
——————————————————————

@drpaulmorgan you are very wrong. Go to the source. Go to hs clinic. Talk to his cured patients.

— Suzanne Somers (@SuzanneSomers) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
Dr. Paul Morgan, why are #Burzynski’s trials results unpublished by The Lancet Oncology?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[9]
——————————————————————

@drpaulmorgan you seem to have a chip on your shoulder .

— Suzanne Somers (@SuzanneSomers) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[10]
——————————————————————

@drpaulmorgan what kind of doctor are you that you have so much time to hang out on twitter and post negatives. Go heal people.

— Suzanne Somers (@SuzanneSomers) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[11]
——————————————————————

@SuzanneSomers @drpaulmorgan You would as well if you understood the science and saw uneducated morons supporting this utter quack.

— David James (@StortSkeptic) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
David James, if anyone is an “uneducated moron”, it is YOU
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[12]
——————————————————————

@StortSkeptic I've done my research. Read Knockout. Dr Morgan is the loser quack

— Suzanne Somers (@SuzanneSomers) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[13]
——————————————————————

.@SuzanneSomers What “cured” patients? You clearly don’t understand science, medicine or evidence. Utterly clueless.

— Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[14]
——————————————————————

.@SuzanneSomers No, I just hate quacks who scam others with false hope, extorting money in the process and those who feed off them.

— Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[15]
——————————————————————

@drpaulmorgan @SuzanneSomers sgu w novella ripped into her a couple of years ago. Scary logic deficit.

— Rudy Hellzapoppin' (@RudyHellzapop) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[16]
——————————————————————

@SuzanneSomers Been doing that for years, including all day today. Plenty of time.

— Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[17]
——————————————————————

@SuzanneSomers Did you read the story of Amelia?

— Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) August 9, 2013

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Bob Blaskiewicz, did you read the story on Amelia ?
——————————————————————
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
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[18]
——————————————————————

@SuzanneSomers You know that's not actually how science works, right? Currently, no evidence for his claims. None.

— David James (@StortSkeptic) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[19]
——————————————————————

@SuzanneSomers LOL! What makes you think I’m a “loser quack”? Or is this another claim of yours made with no evidence? @StortSkeptic

— Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
Dr. Paul Morgan, you are a “loser quack” because you refuse to debate, like Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski, Bob Blaskiewicz, Adam Jacobs, etc.
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[20]
——————————————————————

@SuzanneSomers Do you not wonder why he's failed to publish properly once in 37 years, yet he happily charges the earth for trial entry?

— David James (@StortSkeptic) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
David James Do you not wonder why The Lancet Oncology failed to publish properly Burzynski’s trial results?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[21]
——————————————————————

@drpaulmorgan @SuzanneSomers I think she means that the patients were rolled in salt and slowly smoked to get the cancer out.

— Censorious Bot (@CensoriousBot) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[22]
——————————————————————

@StortSkeptic @SuzanneSomers Now, now David. We all know Biased Poorly Researched Documentaries are the new Peer-Reviewed Clinical Trials.

— Shaun Sellars (@TheWholeT00th) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[23]
——————————————————————

@TheWholeT00th Don't even joke with me. @SuzanneSomers and her fucking awful book and promotion means she probably has blood on her hands.

— David James (@StortSkeptic) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[24]
——————————————————————

Hey @SuzanneSomers, perhaps you missed my question yesterday. Where does your 60% success rate statistic for #burzynski come from?

— Adam Jacobs (@statsguyuk) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[25]
——————————————————————

@dianthusmed @SuzanneSomers Maybe she should have a read of this: http://t.co/szihU3JbD6 It's a real Knockout.

— David James (@StortSkeptic) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[26]
——————————————————————

MT @dianthusmed: Hey @SuzanneSomers, Where does your 60% success rate statistic for #burzynski come from? Mendacity? @_JosephineJones

— Tetenterre (@Tetenterre) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[27]
——————————————————————

@drpaulmorgan you are not a Real Doctor. I googled. you have no authority. You have never interviewed ,or visited the Burzynski clinic

— Suzanne Somers (@SuzanneSomers) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[28]
——————————————————————

Susanne Somers thinks she can erase her idiotic tweets. She's wrong. Typical #burzynski shill. pic.twitter.com/pqm3KcKpGq

— MedTek (@medtek) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[29]
——————————————————————

.@SuzanneSomers Clueless. Where did you look? I'm in the UK, on the GMC register. Don't need to visit #Burzynski to see his publications.

— Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[30]
——————————————————————

I don't think @SuzanneSomers is going to say where she got her "60% success rate for #burzynski" statistic. Funny, that. #madeupstats

— Adam Jacobs (@statsguyuk) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[31]
——————————————————————

@drpaulmorgan @SuzanneSomers #Burzynski A thread to be remembered. Science vs. ??? pic.twitter.com/ws5Cf8DxIA

— Jim Friedman (@JimFriedman) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[32]
——————————————————————

@JimFriedman Must be embarrassing for @SuzanneSomers to fail in such a basic task. But, then again…..

— Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[33]
——————————————————————

@medtek Has she deleted that tweet? Oh dear! Absolutely epic fail.

— Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[34]
——————————————————————

@drpaulmorgan She deleted the entire conversation.

— MedTek (@medtek) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[35]
——————————————————————

@medtek @drpaulmorgan Strange. I can still see the tweet.

— Adam Jacobs (@statsguyuk) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[36]
——————————————————————

@SuzanneSomers @drpaulmorgan as you are expert in qualifications Suzanne, can you find #burzynski oncologist specialist qualification?

— JCmacc (@JCmacc1) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
As you are expert in qualifications JCmacc, can you explain #burzynski’s co-author’s oncologist specialist qualification on his phase II clinical trial preliminary reports publications?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[37]
——————————————————————

@dianthusmed @drpaulmorgan Look at her timeline.

— MedTek (@medtek) August 9, 2013

—————————————————
—————
[38]
——————————————————————

@medtek @drpaulmorgan This is what it looks like to me pic.twitter.com/lcoeQBqGIx

— Adam Jacobs (@statsguyuk) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[39]
——————————————————————

@dianthusmed @drpaulmorgan Ah, indeed. Twitter did a weird tabby thing.

— MedTek (@medtek) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[40]
——————————————————————

Apologies, Ms. Somers did NOT delete her idiotic tweet. #Burzynski

— MedTek (@medtek) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[41]
——————————————————————

@medtek @dianthusmed Maybe that she's blocked you.

— Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[42]
——————————————————————

@drpaulmorgan @dianthusmed No, Twitter defaults to the "no replies" tab, which I didn't even know was there. Tweetdeck is being a bitch too

— MedTek (@medtek) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[43]
——————————————————————

@drpaulmorgan @dianthusmed Being blocked is *never* a deterrent 😉

— MedTek (@medtek) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[44]
——————————————————————

@medtek @dianthusmed @drpaulmorgan weird tabby thing http://t.co/WguijJ9m1J (Sorry. That was irresistable.)

— Alice (@PenguinGalaxy) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[45]
——————————————————————

@medtek @drpaulmorgan @dianthusmed Tweets still all there for me too.

— kayray (@ktibus) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[46]
——————————————————————

@ktibus @drpaulmorgan @dianthusmed It was totally me.

— MedTek (@medtek) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[47]
——————————————————————

@medtek @dianthusmed Oh, of course not!

— Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[48]
——————————————————————

@dianthusmed @SuzanneSomers @_JosephineJones look at her www site – another magic supplement pusher. No wonder she supports quacks

— Angus Sawyer (@ogoffan) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[49]
——————————————————————

@ogoffan @dianthusmed @SuzanneSomers Indeed

— Laura Thomason (@_JosephineJones) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[50]
——————————————————————

@medtek @drpaulmorgan I see @SuzanneSomers’ Google skills are just as poor as her Google Scholar skills. Yes, Dr Morgan is a real doctor.

— Matthew Berryman (@mjberryman) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[51]
——————————————————————

@SuzanneSomers @drpaulmorgan Have you looked at that link? Before you get in an unproductive spat, please do.

— Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[52]
——————————————————————

FAIL RT @SuzanneSomers: @drpaulmorgan you are not a Real Doctor. I googled. you have no authority…

— Milton Mermikides (@miltonline) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[53]
——————————————————————

“@SuzanneSomers: @drpaulmorgan you are not a Real Doctor. I googled. you have no authority. " Says the actress….to the Doctor. LOL!

— Nick Bennett (@peds_id_doc) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[54]
——————————————————————

@SuzanneSomers And this is why your Google research is rubbish. You are wrong about @drpaulmorgan and you are wrong about quack #burzynski

— FW (@frozenwarning) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[55]
——————————————————————

.@SuzanneSomers writes that Dr. #Burzynski is under attack! 4 general rebuttals added to rbutr: http://t.co/ya5H51cgjT @IDoubtIt @gorskon

— rbutr (@rbutrcom) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[56]
——————————————————————

.@SuzanneSomers @drpaulmorgan I'm a real cancer doctor, and I know that #Burzynski's "personalized" therapy is bogus. http://t.co/iwhewg5N4Y

— David Gorski (@gorskon) August 10, 2013

——————————————————————
David H. “Orac” Gorski, M.D., Ph.D, if you are a “cancer doctor” with a Ph.D, why did you NOT know this?
——————————————————————
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/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[57]
——————————————————————

@gorskon When you were watching Three's Company as a kid, did you ever think you'd be tweeting with Chrissy? 🙂

— K Smith (@K_Smith_MI) August 10, 2013

——————————————————————
[58]
——————————————————————

.@HPMcCall @suzannesomers Why yes. Yes, #Burzynski uses lots of chemotherapy on his patients. http://t.co/chz5UDBJhO

— David Gorski (@gorskon) August 10, 2013

——————————————————————
[59]
——————————————————————

@gorskon I'm just wondering why anyone would take medical "advice" from Chrissy.

— Leslie Allen (@Geologygeek) August 10, 2013

——————————————————————
[60]
——————————————————————

@K_Smith_MI Chrissy hasn't responded yet; so technically I am Tweeting at her. My guess is that she'll block me.

— David Gorski (@gorskon) August 10, 2013

——————————————————————
[61]
——————————————————————

Maybe I should point out to @SuzanneSomers that I gave a talk to 1000 people about #Burzynski in July. 🙂 #TAM2013 @stortskeptic

— David Gorski (@gorskon) August 10, 2013

——————————————————————
[62]
——————————————————————

@gorskon @SuzanneSomers You gave a talk to several thousand with @rjblaskiewicz back in May 🙂 http://t.co/1PI9xZBOVm #burzynski

— David James (@StortSkeptic) August 10, 2013

——————————————————————
David James, do you mean THIS garbage?
——————————————————————
Critiquing the #SkepticCanary: “The Skeptics™” (SkeptiCowards©) Bob Blatherskitewicz and the so-called, “self-proclaimed” “CANCER RESEARCHER”:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/critiquing-the-skepticcanary-the-skeptics-skepticowards-bob-blatherskitewicz-and-the-so-called-self-proclaimed-cancer-researcher/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[63]
——————————————————————

True, but it wasn't in person on stage. 🙂 #Burzynski @StortSkeptic @suzannesomers @rjblaskiewicz

— David Gorski (@gorskon) August 10, 2013

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
What was that Gorski ?
——————————————————————

@gorskon @mrhawkes @BurzynskiSaves Ask the Lancet why it is not published, Gorski.

— Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) February 18, 2013

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[64]
——————————————————————

.@gorskon @drpaulmorgan is #burzynski the guy who took homeless people's pee & found something 'magic' in it & now sells it?

— Cigal MD MSc FAAP (@motek42) August 10, 2013

——————————————————————
[65]
——————————————————————

Lord save us from another celebrity who thinks she is a doctor "Looks like @SuzanneSomers needs a little education" http://t.co/Ro86MnI1Jx”

— Deirdre Bonnycastle (@Bonnycastle) August 10, 2013

——————————————————————
[66]
——————————————————————

Watching the side commentary in the argument between @gorkson and @SuzanneSomers is depressing. She's wrong about Burzynski, … BUT …

— arclight (@arclight) August 10, 2013

——————————————————————
[67]
——————————————————————

@arclight The real problem is that people would ever consider taking medical advice from a celebrity. Even a celebrity doctor.

— Leslie Allen (@Geologygeek) August 10, 2013

——————————————————————
[68]
——————————————————————

@drpaulmorgan oh crumbs, not that guy again! #burzynski @SuzanneSomers

— Corinne. (@PricklyEmu) August 10, 2013

——————————————————————
[69]
——————————————————————

@motek42 @gorskon The very same. Much more sophisticated operation these days, but that's roughly how he started.

— Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) August 10, 2013

——————————————————————
[70]
——————————————————————

@PricklyEmu @SuzanneSomers The very same. #Burzynski Can't give ANPs to any new patients, which is great news. Merola's movie has bombed.

— Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) August 10, 2013

——————————————————————
[71]
——————————————————————

Heated argument with a friend last night re: #Burzynski, a #cancer quack profiting from ppl desperate 4 hope http://t.co/RdT9OVNQot

— Miss Calculating (@PlantLeidy) August 10, 2013

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

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
——————————————————————
======================================
[1] willradik (@willradik) tweeted at 2:38pm – 8 Aug 13:

@gorskon Is @SuzanneSomers writing about same Burzynski I know of? The dangerous quack who takes money and provides unproven treatments?
======================================
[2] Dr. Michael Wosnick (@MichaelWosnick) tweeted at 2:55pm – 8 Aug 13:

Needs it about LOTS more! RT @gorskon Hmmm. Looks like @SuzanneSomers needs a little education about #Burzynski. suzannesomers.com/Blog/post/Dr-B…
======================================
[3] Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 3:23pm – 8 Aug 13:

@gorskon @SuzanneSomers 60% success rate? Where’s that published then? Oh.. it’s not. More like 0% success rate. #Burzynski
======================================
[4] Heather McCall (@HPMcCall) tweeted at 3:39pm – 8 Aug 13:

@gorskon @ScienceBasedMed @SuzanneSomers Doesn’t Burzynksi use chemo for his patients?
======================================
[5] Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 3:54pm – 8 Aug 13:

Hello @SuzanneSomers, your blog says #burzynski has a 60% success rate in brain cancers. Where did that statistic come from?
======================================
[6] Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 3:57pm – 8 Aug 13:

@drpaulmorgan That would be my guess too. But will be interesting to see if she replies. Doubt she will, but you never know
======================================
[7] Suzanne Somers (@SuzanneSomers) tweeted at 11:33am – 9 Aug 13:

@IamBreastCancer go to Suzannesomers.com and read my blog about dr. Burzynski. Then click on survivor stories.
======================================
[8] Suzanne Somers (@SuzanneSomers) tweeted at 11:34am – 9 Aug 13:

@drpaulmorgan you are very wrong. Go to the source. Go to hs clinic. Talk to his cured patients.
======================================
[9] Suzanne Somers (@SuzanneSomers) tweeted at 11:44am – 9 Aug 13:

@drpaulmorgan you seem to have a chip on your shoulder .
======================================
[10] Suzanne Somers (@SuzanneSomers) tweeted at 11:45am – 9 Aug 13:

@drpaulmorgan what kind of doctor are you that you have so much time to hang out on twitter and post negatives. Go heal people.
======================================
[11] David James (@StortSkeptic) tweeted at 12:47pm – 9 Aug 13:

@SuzanneSomers @drpaulmorgan You would as well if you understood the science and saw uneducated morons supporting this utter quack.
======================================
[12] Suzanne Somers (@SuzanneSomers) tweeted at 12:48pm – 9 Aug 13:

@StortSkeptic I’ve done my research. Read Knockout. Dr Morgan is the loser quack
======================================
[13] Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 12:49pm – 9 Aug 13:

.@SuzanneSomers What “cured” patients? You clearly don’t understand science, medicine or evidence. Utterly clueless.
======================================
[14] Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 12:51pm – 9 Aug 13:

.@SuzanneSomers No, I just hate quacks who scam others with false hope, extorting money in the process and those who feed off them.
======================================
[15] Rudy Hellzapoppin’ (@RudyHellzapop) tweeted at 12:51pm – 9 Aug 13:

@drpaulmorgan @SuzanneSomers sgu w novella ripped into her a couple of years ago. Scary logic deficit.
======================================
[16] Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 12:52pm – 9 Aug 13:

@SuzanneSomers Been doing that for years, including all day today. Plenty of time.
======================================
[17] Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) tweeted at 12:53pm – 9 Aug 13:

@SuzanneSomers Did you read the story of Amelia?
======================================
[18] David James (@StortSkeptic) tweeted at 12:54pm – 9 Aug 13:

@SuzanneSomers You know that’s not actually how science works, right? Currently, no evidence for his claims. None.
======================================
[19] Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 12:54pm – 9 Aug 13:

@SuzanneSomers LOL! What makes you think I’m a “loser quack”? Or is this another claim of yours made with no evidence? @StortSkeptic
======================================
[20] David James (@StortSkeptic) tweeted at 12:56pm – 9 Aug 13:

@SuzanneSomers Do you not wonder why he’s failed to publish properly once in 37 years, yet he happily charges the earth for trial entry?
======================================
[21] Censorious Bot (@CensoriousBot) tweeted at 12:56pm – 9 Aug 13:

@drpaulmorgan @SuzanneSomers
I think she means that the patients were rolled in salt and slowly smoked to get the cancer out.
======================================
[22] Shaun Sellars (@TheWholeT00th) tweeted at 1:13pm – 9 Aug 13:

@StortSkeptic @SuzanneSomers Now, now David. We all know Biased Poorly Researched Documentaries are the new Peer-Reviewed Clinical Trials.
======================================
[23] David James (@StortSkeptic) tweeted at 1:16pm – 9 Aug 13:

@TheWholeT00th Don’t even joke with me. @SuzanneSomers and her fucking awful book and promotion means she probably has blood on her hands.
======================================
[24] Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 1:25pm – 9 Aug 13:

Hey @SuzanneSomers, perhaps you missed my question yesterday. Where does your 60% success rate statistic for #burzynski come from?
======================================
[25] David James (@StortSkeptic) tweeted at 1:32pm – 9 Aug 13:

@dianthusmed @SuzanneSomers Maybe she should have a read of this: …erburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com It’s a real Knockout.
======================================
[26] Tetenterre (@Tetenterre) tweeted at 2:02pm – 9 Aug 13:

MT @dianthusmed: Hey @SuzanneSomers, Where does your 60% success rate statistic for #burzynski come from?
Mendacity?
@_JosephineJones
======================================
[27] Suzanne Somers (@SuzanneSomers) tweeted at 2:53pm – 9 Aug 13:

@drpaulmorgan you are not a Real
Doctor. I googled. you have no authority. You have never interviewed ,or visited the Burzynski clinic
======================================
[28] MedTek (@medtek) tweeted at 2:56pm – 9 Aug 13:

Susanne Somers thinks she can erase her idiotic tweets. She’s wrong. Typical #burzynski shill. pic.twitter.com/pqm3KcKpGq
======================================
[29] Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 2:57pm – 9 Aug 13:

.@SuzanneSomers Clueless. Where did you look? I’m in the UK, on the GMC register. Don’t need to visit #Burzynski to see his publications.
======================================
[30] Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 3:11pm – 9 Aug 13:

I don’t think @SuzanneSomers is going to say where she got her “60% success rate for #burzynski” statistic. Funny, that. #madeupstats
======================================
[31] Jim Friedman (@JimFriedman) tweeted at 3:12pm – 9 Aug 13:

@drpaulmorgan @SuzanneSomers #Burzynski A thread to be remembered. Science vs. ??? pic.twitter.com/ws5Cf8DxIA
======================================
[32] Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 3:15pm – 9 Aug 13:

@JimFriedman Must be embarrassing for @SuzanneSomers to fail in such a basic task. But, then again…..
======================================
[33] Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 3:32pm – 9 Aug 13:

@medtek Has she deleted that tweet? Oh dear! Absolutely epic fail.
======================================
[34] MedTek (@medtek) tweeted at 3:34pm – 9 Aug 13:

@drpaulmorgan She deleted the entire conversation.
======================================
[35] Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 3:36pm – 9 Aug 13:

@medtek @drpaulmorgan Strange. I can still see the tweet.
======================================
[36] JCmacc (@JCmacc1) tweeted at 3:36pm – 9 Aug 13:

@SuzanneSomers @drpaulmorgan as you are expert in qualifications Suzanne, can you find #burzynski oncologist specialist qualification?
======================================
[37] MedTek (@medtek) tweeted at 3:36pm – 9 Aug 13:

@dianthusmed @drpaulmorgan Look at her timeline.
======================================
[38] Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 3:38pm – 9 Aug 13:

@medtek @drpaulmorgan This is what it looks like to me pic.twitter.com/lcoeQBqGIx
======================================
[39] MedTek (@medtek) tweeted at 3:38pm – 9 Aug 13:

@dianthusmed @drpaulmorgan Ah, indeed. Twitter did a weird tabby thing.
======================================
[40] MedTek (@medtek) tweeted at 3:39pm – 9 Aug 13:

Apologies, Ms. Somers did NOT delete her idiotic tweet. #Burzynski
======================================
[41] Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 3:43pm – 9 Aug 13:

@medtek @dianthusmed Maybe that she’s blocked you.
======================================
[42] MedTek (@medtek) tweeted at 3:43pm – 9 Aug 13:

@drpaulmorgan @dianthusmed No, Twitter defaults to the “no replies” tab, which I didn’t even know was there. Tweetdeck is being a bitch too
======================================
[43] MedTek (@medtek) tweeted at 3:54pm – 9 Aug 13:

@drpaulmorgan @dianthusmed Being blocked is *never* a deterrent 😉
======================================
[44] Alice Sheppard (@PenguinGalaxy) tweeted at 3:54pm – 9 Aug 13:

@medtek @dianthusmed @drpaulmorgan weird tabby thing imgur.com/1pQudGQ (Sorry. That was irresistable.)
======================================
[45] kayray (@ktibus) tweeted at 3:58pm – 9 Aug 13:

@medtek @drpaulmorgan @dianthusmed Tweets still all there for me too.
======================================
[46] MedTek (@medtek) tweeted at 3:59pm – 9 Aug 13:

@ktibus @drpaulmorgan @dianthusmed It was totally me.
======================================
[47] Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 4:10pm – 9 Aug 13:

@medtek @dianthusmed Oh, of course not!
======================================
[48] Angus Sawyer (@ogoffan) tweeted at 4:12pm – 9 Aug 13:

@dianthusmed @SuzanneSomers @_JosephineJones look at her www site – another magic supplement pusher. No wonder she supports quacks
======================================
[49] Josephine Jones (@_JosephineJones) tweeted at 4:22pm – 9 Aug 13:

@ogoffan @dianthusmed @SuzanneSomers Indeed
======================================
[50] Matthew Berryman (@mjberryman) tweeted at 4:44pm – 9 Aug 13:

@medtek @drpaulmorgan I see @SuzanneSomers’ Google skills are just as poor as her Google Scholar skills. Yes, Dr Morgan is a real doctor.
======================================
[51] Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) tweeted at 3:15pm – 9 Aug 13:

@SuzanneSomers @drpaulmorgan Have you looked at that link? Before you get in an unproductive spat, please do.
======================================
[52] Milton Mermikides (@miltonline) tweeted at 3:55pm – 9 Aug 13:

FAIL RT @SuzanneSomers: @drpaulmorgan you are not a Real
Doctor. I googled. you have no authority…
======================================
[53] Nick Bennett (@peds_id_doc) tweeted at 4:59pm – 9 Aug 13:

“@SuzanneSomers: @drpaulmorgan you are not a Real
Doctor. I googled. you have no authority. ”
Says the actress….to the Doctor. LOL!
======================================
[54] FW (@frozenwarning) tweeted at 5:37pm – 9 Aug 13:

@SuzanneSomers And this is why your Google research is rubbish. You are wrong about @drpaulmorgan and you are wrong about quack #burzynski
======================================
[55] rbutr (@rbutrcom) tweeted at 6:00pm – 9 Aug 13:

.@SuzanneSomers writes that Dr. #Burzynski is under attack! 4 general rebuttals added to rbutr: rbutr.com/rbutr/WebsiteS… @IDoubtIt @gorskon
======================================
[56] David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 10:35pm – 9 Aug 13:

.@SuzanneSomers @drpaulmorgan I’m a real cancer doctor, and I know that #Burzynski’s “personalized” therapy is bogus. sciencebasedmedicine.org/suzanne-somers…
======================================
[57] K Smith (@K_Smith_MI) tweeted at 10:38pm – 9 Aug 13:

@gorskon When you were watching Three’s Company as a kid, did you ever think you’d be tweeting with Chrissy? 🙂
======================================
[58] David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 10:38pm – 9 Aug 13:

.@HPMcCall @SuzanneSomers Why yes. Yes, #Burzynski uses lots of chemotherapy on his patients. sciencebasedmedicine.org/stanislaw-burz…
======================================
[59] Leslie Allen (@Geologygeek) tweeted at 10:40pm – 9 Aug 13:

@gorskon I’m just wondering why anyone would take medical “advice” from Chrissy.
======================================
[60] David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 10:41pm – 9 Aug 13:

@K_Smith_MI Chrissy hasn’t responded yet; so technically I am Tweeting at her. My guess is that she’ll block me.
======================================
[61] David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 10:43pm – 9 Aug 13:

Maybe I should point out to @SuzanneSomers that I gave a talk to 1000 people about #Burzynski in July. 🙂 #TAM2013 @StortSkeptic
======================================
[62] David James (@StortSkeptic) tweeted at 10:50pm – 9 Aug 13:

@gorskon @SuzanneSomers You gave a talk to several thousand with @rjblaskiewicz back in May 🙂 blogtalkradio.com/skepticcanary/… #burzynski
======================================
[63] David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 10:54pm – 9 Aug 13:

True, but it wasn’t in person on stage. 🙂 #Burzynski @StortSkeptic @SuzanneSomers @rjblaskiewicz
======================================
[64] Cigal MD MSc FAAP (@motek42) tweeted at 11:18pm – 9 Aug 13:

.@gorskon @drpaulmorgan is #burzynski the guy who took homeless people’s pee & found something ‘magic’ in it & now sells it?
======================================
[65] Deirdre Bonnycastle (@Bonnycastle) tweeted at 11:30pm – 9 Aug 13:

Lord save us from another celebrity who thinks she is a doctor “Looks like @SuzanneSomers needs a little education” suzannesomers.com/Blog/post/Dr-B…”
======================================
[66] arclight (@arclight) tweeted at 12:01am – 10 Aug 13:

Watching the side commentary in the argument between @gorkson and @SuzanneSomers is depressing. She’s wrong about Burzynski, … BUT …
======================================
[67] Leslie Allen (@Geologygeek) tweeted at 12:25am – 10 Aug 13:

@arclight The real problem is that people would ever consider taking medical advice from a celebrity. Even a celebrity doctor.
======================================
[68] Corinne (@PricklyEmu) tweeted at 1:37am – 10 Aug 13:

@drpaulmorgan oh crumbs, not that guy again! #burzynski @SuzanneSomers
======================================
[69] Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 4:42am – 10 Aug 13:

@motek42 @gorskon The very same. Much more sophisticated operation these days, but that’s roughly how he started.
======================================
[70] Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 5:24am – 10 Aug 13:

@PricklyEmu @SuzanneSomers The very same. #Burzynski Can’t give ANPs to any new patients, which is great news. Merola’s movie has bombed.
======================================
[71] Leila Ghaddab (@LeilaGhaddab) tweeted at 5:32am – 10 Aug 13:

Heated argument with a friend last night re: #Burzynski, a #cancer quack profiting from ppl desperate 4 hope sciencebasedmedicine.org/burzynski-succ…
======================================

August 15, 1935, A Day That Will Live In Infirmary

On that day, Oklahoman William Penn Adair “Will” Rogers departed from us, leaving America wondering who would be able to fill the shoes left by a man with the “gift of gab,” and full of such Wit and Wisdom?

Who would take his place ?

George Herbert Walker Bush:

“Read My Lips” “No New Taxes” ?

William (call me “Bill”) Jefferson Clinton:

“It Depends Upon What the Meaning of the Word “IS,” is” ?

George W. Bush:

The “Mission Accomplished” Speech ?

Barack Hussein Obama:

“Yes We Can” ?

And BEHOLD

The Magic 8-Ball appeared before HIM in a curling whisp of smoke, and HE stretched forth HIS hand, and spake to the “Oracolytes,” assembled before HIM thusly as a mighty milling herd of Sheeple

“Orac”

Supreme “Leader” of the “Oracolytes”

“Dr. David H. Gorski”
(@gorskon, @oracknows, @sciencebasedmed, #sciencebasedmedicine
http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence,
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org)
“Unlike Mr. Merola, I am indeed very concerned with getting my facts correct”
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/07/i-want-my-anp/
And the bleating that arose was tremendous in its force and power, deafening –

“the ignorant, the unthinking and the credulous.”‘

Many had to be immediately evacuated to the nearest infirmary to have their stitches removed, having been tied in stitches by laughter, yea, stitched to be tied

And so plods forward the “War on Cancer”

“Unlike Mr.Merola,I am…very concerned with getting my facts correct”
FIE
FeeFIE
FeeFIEFo
FeeFIEFoFUM
Dum,DumDumDUMB
http://redd.it/1dry25

WHAT IS MISDIRECTION? Critiquing “Antineoplastons: Has the FDA kept its promise to the American people ?”

March 29, 1996
�
Then United States Food and Drug Administration Commissioner, David 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 trials … fewer 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 AFTER … approval … 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 access … availability … for American patients for any drug … there’s reason to believe … may work
——————————————————————
BOTTOM LINE:
——————————————————————
Everything else is MISDIRECTION
——————————————————————
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”?
======================================
2003 – 2009 Phase II preliminary
——————————————————————
2003 – Phase II
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12718563
Drugs R D. 2003;4(2):91-101
(Drugs in R and D / Drugs in Research and Development)
�
2003: Protocol – recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma
�
12 – Patients Accrued
10 – Evaluable Patients
�
2 / 20% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
3 / 30% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
3 / 30% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
2 / 20% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
======================================
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/scientific-publications.html
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
1. 10/2003
�
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
�
Burzynski, S.R., Weaver, R.A., Bestak, M., Lewy, R.I., Janicki, T.J., Jurida, G.F., Paszkowiak, J.K., Szymkowski, B.G., Khan, M.I.
�
Phase II study of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in children with recurrent and progressive MULTICENTRIC GLIOMA
�
A preliminary report

Click to access 970.pdf

Neuro-Oncology. 2003; 5: 358
Volume 5 Issue 4 October 2003
�
10/2003 – Protocol – MULTICENTRIC GLIOMA
�
12 – Children Patients Accrued
10 – Evaluable Patients
(9 months-17 years / 9 – median age)
�
4 / 33% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
2 / 25% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
4 / 33% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
0 / 0% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
1 / 9% – # and % of Patients Nonevaluable due to only 4 weeks of treatment / lack of follow-up scans
======================================
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

Click to access 960.pdf

�
Pgs. 91-92 and 95
�
3/1996 – Protocol – recurrent diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (3/1996 – 5/1999 enrolled / Pg. 94)
�
12 – Patients Accrued (6 males / 6 females)
(4-29 years / 10 – median age)
10 – Evaluable Patients
�
2 / 20% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
3 / 30% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
3 / 30% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
2 / 20% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
======================================
2004 – Phase II
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15563234
Drugs R D. 2004;5(6):315-26
(Drugs in R and D / Drugs in Research and Development)
�
2004: Protocol – incurable recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma
�
12 – Patients Accrued
(9 – median age)
11 – Evaluable Patients
�
4 / 33% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
3 / 25% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
4 / 33% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
0 / 0% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
2. 10/2004
�
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
�
BT-20
Patients With GLIOBLASTOMA MULTIFORME (GBM)
�
Weaver, R.A., Burzynski, S.R., Bestak, M., Lewy, R.I., Janicki, T.J., Szymkowski, B., Jurida, G., Khan, M.I., Dolgopolov, V.
�
Phase II study of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in recurrent GLIOBLASTOMA MULTIFORME

Click to access 1218.pdf

Neuro-Oncology. 2004; 6: 384
Volume 6 Issue 4 October 2004
Abstracts from the Society for Neuro-Oncology Ninth Annual Meeting, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, November 18-21, 2004
�
Pg. 385
�
10/2004 – Protocol – glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) which recurred or progressed post surgery, radiation therapy, and / or chemotherapy
�
22 – Evaluable Patients
(6 men / 16 women / 27-63 /47 – median age)
�
1 / 4.5% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
1 / 4.5% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
12 / 54.5% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
8 / 36.5% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
3. 10/2004 (DBSG)
�
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
�
Burzynski, S.R., Weaver, R. Bestak. M., Lewy, R.I., Janicki, T., Jurida, G., Szymkowski, B., Khan, M., Dolgopolov, V.
�
Long-term survivals in phase II studies of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in patients with diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA

Click to access 1219.pdf

Neuro-Oncology. 2004; 6: 386
Volume 6 Issue 4 October 2004
�
60 patients
(31 didn’t meet admission criteria to the study and were treated under Special Exception (SE))
�
10/2004 – Protocol – patients with diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (DBSG)
�
29 – Evaluable Patients
�
7 / 24% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
6 / 21% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
6 / 21% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
10 / 34% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
——————————————————————
31 – Evaluable Patients: Special exception (SE)
�
5 / 16% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
2 / 6% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
16 / 52% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
8 / 26% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
4. 10/2004 (AT/RT of CNS)
�
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
�
BT-14
�
CHILDREN WITH RHABDOID TUMOR OF THE CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM
�
Burzynski, S.R., Weaver, R. Bestak. M., Janicki, T., Jurida, G., Szymkowski, B., Khan, M., Dolgopolov, V.
�
Phase II studies of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in children with atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumors (AT/RT) of the central nervous system
�
A preliminary report

Click to access 1146.pdf

Neuro-Oncology. 2004; 6: 427
Volume 6 Issue 4 October 2004
Abstracts from the Eleventh International Symposium on Pediatric Neuro-Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts, June 13-16, 2004
�
10/2004 – Protocol – children with atypical teratoid / rhabdoid tumors (AT / RT) of the central nervous system
�
11 – Children Patients Accrued
8 – Evaluable Patients
(7 treated under Special Exception (SE))
�
2 / 25% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
1 / 12.5% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
1 / 12.5% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
4 / 50% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
5. 10/2004
�
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
�
BT-12
�
CHILDREN WITH PRIMITIVE NEUROECTODERMAL TUMORS (PNET)
�
Burzynski, S.R., Weaver, R. Bestak. M., Janicki, T., Szymkowski, B., Jurida, G., Khan, M., Dolgopolov, V.
�
Treatment of PRIMITIVE NEUROECTODERMAL TUMORS (PNET) with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP)
�
Preliminary results of phase II studies

Click to access 1147.pdf

Neuro-Oncology. 2004; 6: 428
Volume 6 Issue 4 October 2004
Abstracts from the Eleventh International Symposium on Pediatric Neuro-Oncology
�
10/2004 – Protocol – PRIMITIVE NEUROECTODERMAL TUMORS (PNET)
�
17 – Patients Accrued
15 – Evaluable Patients
(12 months – 23 years / 6 – median age)
�
3 / 20% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
2 / 13.4% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
5 / 33.3% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
5 / 33.3% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
17. 2004
�
DRUGS IN R&D
Drugs in R and D
(Drugs in Research and Development)
�
Burzynski, S.R., Weaver, R., Lewy, R., Janicki, T. Jurida, G., Szymkowski, B., Khan, M., Bestak, M.
�
Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in children with recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma.
�
A Preliminary Report.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15563234
Drugs R&D 2004;5(6):315-326.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15563234
Drugs R D. 2004;5(6):315-26

Click to access 1194.pdf

�
incurable recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma
�
Pg. 320
�
3 – treated under Special Exception (SE) granted by the US FDA
�
Pgs. 317 and 320
�
7/31/1996 – (7/31/1996 – 4/3/2002 as of 3/1/2004) Protocol – children with recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma (MCG)
�
Pg. 317
�
BT-13
�
children with low-grade astrocytoma
�
BT-23
�
children with visual pathway gliomas

�
Pgs. 317 and 320-321
�
12 – Children Patients Accrued (Pgs. 315-316)
(9 months – 17 years / 9- median age)
(6 – male / 6 – females)
10 – Evaluable Patients (Pg. 315)
�
4 / 33% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
3 / 25% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
4 / 33% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
0 / 0% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
1 / 9% – # and % of Patients Non-evaluable
——————————————————————
Pg. 325
�
Compare: Chamberlain and Grafe. [38]
�
1995 – Protocol – solitary recurrent chiasmatic hypothalamic gliomas treated with oral etoposide

�
14 – Patients Accrued
14 – Evaluable Patients
�
1 / 7% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
4 / 29% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
3 / 21% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
6 / 43% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
�
Pg. 326
�
38. Chamberlain MC, Grafe MR. Recurrent chiasmatic-hypothalamic glioma treated with oral etoposide. J Clin Oncol 1995; 13: 2072-6
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7636550/
J Clin Oncol. 1995 Aug;13(8):2072-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7636550/
Department of Neurosciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, USA.
http://m.jco.ascopubs.org/content/13/8/2072.long
Arch Neurol. 1995 May;52(5):509-13.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7733847/
Department of Neurosciences, University of California-San Diego, USA.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7733847/
Arch Neurol. 1995;52(5):509-513. doi:10.1001/archneur.1995.00540290099024.
http://archneur.jamanetwork.com/Mobile/article.aspx?articleid=593460
——————————————————————
Compare: The Pediatric Oncology Group. [39]
�
10/2000 – Protocol – solitary progressive optic pathway tumors with carboplatin
�
50 – Patients Accrued
50 – Evaluable Patients
�
2 / 4% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
37 / 74% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
11 / 22% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
�
39. Mahoney DH, Cohen ME, Friedman HS, et al. Carboplatin is effective therapy for young children with progressive optic pathway tumors: a Pediatric Oncology Group phase II study. Neuro-oncol 2000; 2: 213-20
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11265230/
Neuro Oncol. 2000 Oct;2(4):213-20.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11265230/
Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1920597/
�

Click to access 213.full.pdf

======================================
2005 – Phase II
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15911929
Integr Cancer Ther. 2005 Jun;4(2):168-77
(Integrative Cancer Therapies)
�
2005: Protocol – recurrent disease or high risk
�
13 – Patients Accrued
(1-11 – age / 5 years 11 months – median age)
13 – Evaluable Patients
�
3 / 23% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
1 / 8% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
4 / 31% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
5 / 38% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
——————————————————————
(Updated 2007)
http://www.cancer-therapy.org/CT/v5/B/HTML/42._Burzynski,_379-390.html
2005 – Protocol – incurable recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma
�
13 – Patients Accrued
�
3 / 23% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
1 / 8% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
4 / 31% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
5 / 38% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
======================================
2006 – Phase II
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16484713
Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Mar;5(1):40-7
(Integrative Cancer Therapies)
�
2006: Protocol – high-grade pathology (HBSG)
�
– Patients Accrued
18 – Evaluable Patients
�
2 / 11% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
2 / 11% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
7 / 39% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
7 / 39% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
BT-03
�

�
BT-11
�
BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (BSG)
�
BT-18
�
6. MIXED GLIOMA
�
ADULT PATIENTS WITH MIXED GLIOMA
�
“mixed glioma”, a type of primary malignant brain tumor (PMBT)
�
BT-22
�
8. CHILDREN WITH PRIMARY MALIGNANT BRAIN TUMORS
�
CAN-01 (CAN-1)
�
PATIENTS WITH REFRACTORY MALIGNANCIES
�
19. 3/2006
�
Burzynski, S.R., Janicki, T.J., Weaver, R.A., Burzynski, B. Targeted therapy with Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 of high grade, recurrent, and progressive BRAINSTEM GLIOMA. Integrative Cancer Therapies 2006;5(1):40-47
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16484713
Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Mar;5(1):40-7
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16484713
DOI: 10.1177/1534735405285380

Click to access 5825.pdf

�
http://m.ict.sagepub.com/content/5/1/40.long?view=long&pmid=16484713
Pgs. 40-41
�
4 phase 2 trials
�
BRAINSTEM GLIOMA (BSG)
�
patients with inoperable tumor of high-grade pathology (HBSG)
glioblastoma
�
recurrent diffuse intrinsic glioblastomas and ANAPLASTIC ASTROCYTOMAs of brainstem
�
Pg. 43
�
BT-03 – 1 / female
BT-11 – 13 (8 males/5 females)
BT-18 – 1 / female
BT-22 – 2 / females
CAN-01 – 1 / female
�
Pg. 44
�
High-grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem gliomas
�
Pgs. 40-42 and 44-45
�
7/12/1988 (7/12/1988 – 11/13/2003 as of 6/10/2005) – Protocol – recurrent diffuse intrinsic glioblastomas and anaplastic astrocytomas of the brainstem high-grade pathology (HBSG)
�
18 – Evaluable Patients (Pgs. 40-43)
(8 males / 10 females / 2-42 / 10 – median age / Pgs. 42-43)
�
2 / 11% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
2 / 11% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
7 / 39% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
7 / 39% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
BT-11
�
BRAIN STEM GLIOMA
�
8. 10/2006
�
Burzynski, S.R., Janicki, T.J., Weaver, R.A., Szymkowski, B.G., Khan, M.I., Dolgopolov, V. Treatment of multicentric BRAINSTEM GLIOMAs with antineoplastons (ANP) A10 and AS2-1. Neuro-Oncology. 2006; 8:466.

Click to access 2105.pdf

Volume 8 Issue 4 October 2006
Abstracts for the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO)
�
Brainstem gliomas and multicentric tumors (MBSG)
�
10/2006 – Protocol – Brainstem gliomas and multicentric tumors (MBSG)
�
19 – Evaluable Patients
3.9 – 40.8 years (9.2 – median age)
(90% less than 18 years old)
�
2 / 11% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
1 / 5% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
7 / 37% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
9 / 47% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
======================================
2007

Click to access 1252.pdf

2004 – Protocol – small group of patients with progressive LGA, ANP
60% – % of Patients Showing Complete Response
10% – % of Patients Showing Partial Response
——————————————————————
2004 – Protocol – low-grade astrocytoma in children
Burzynski [39] – Reference
Phase II d – d = Preliminary results – Study type
P – P = progressive tumor – Tumor type
(no. of pts) – pts = patients
ANP (10) – ANP = antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 – Treatment
10 – Evaluable Patients {(78) = most in a study}
OS [%] – OS = overall survival
100% (1 yr) – 90% (3 yr) – Efficacy
93 mo – MST = MST = median survival time – {96 (1 y) next closest}
60% (6) – % and # of Patients Showing Complete Response {24 (11) next closest}
10% (1) – % and # of Patients Showing Partial Response {60% (9) best other study}
30% (3) – % and # of Patients Showing Stable Disease + MR = minor response {70% (14) best other study}
0% (0) – % and # of Patients Showing Progressive Disease {4% (2) next closest}
PFS (%)
90 (1 y) – 90 (3 y) – PFS = progression-free survival {100 (1 y) – 68 (3 y) best other study
——————————————————————
2004 – Protocol – diffuse, intrinsic brainstem glioma in children
Burzynski et al. [88] – Reference
Phase II – Study Type
(no. of pts) – pts = patients
RP (30) – RP = recurrent and progressive tumor – Tumor type
30 – Evaluable Patients
ANP – ANP = antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 – Treatment – ANP
OS (%) – OS = overall survival
[2y; 5y]
46.7; 30 – Efficacy
MST (mo)
19.9 – MST = median survival time
27% (8) – % and # of Patients Showing Complete Response
20% (6) – % and # of Patients Showing Partial Response
23% (7) – % and # of Patients Showing Stable Disease
30% (9) – % and # of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
——————————————————————
Burzynski et al. [89] – Reference
Phase II – Study Type
(no. of pts) – pts = patients
RPS (10) – RPS = recurrent and progressive tumors in children aged <4y – Tumor type {(66) = most in a study}
ANP – ANP = antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 – Treatment – ANP
OS (%) – OS = overall survival
[2y; 5y] – Efficacy
60; 20 {46.7 (30) = next best study}
MST (mo)
26.3 – MST = median survival time – {19.9 = next best study}
[% (no. )]
30% (3) – CR = complete response – {27% (8) = next best study}
[% (no. )]
0% (0) – PR = partial response – {56% (1) = next best}
[% (no. )]
40% (4) – SD = stable disease – {44% (25) = best}
[% (no. )]
30% (3) – PD = progressive disease – {23% (13) = best}
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
BT-11
�
BRAIN STEM GLIOMA
�
9. 4/2007 (NDBSG)
�
Burzynski, S.R., Weaver, R.A., Janicki, T.J., Jurida, G.F., Szymkowski, B.G., Kubove, E. Phase II studies of Antineoplastons A10 and AS 2-1 (ANP) in children with newly diagnosed diffuse, intrinsic BRAINSTEM GLIOMAs. Neuro-Oncology 2007; 9:206.

Click to access 4021.pdf

Volume 9 Issue 2 April 2007
Abstracts from the Twelfth International Symposium on Pediatric Neuro-Oncology
�
4/2007 – Protocol – newly diagnosed diffuse, intrinsic BRAINSTEM GLIOMAs (NDBSG)
�
20 – Evaluable assessable children Patients
(3 months-20 years – age)
�
6 / 30% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
2 / 10% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
4 / 20% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
8 / 40% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
BT-11
�
BRAIN STEM GLIOMA
�
Special exception (SE)
�
13. 12/2009 (DBSG)
�
Burzynski, S.R., Janicki, T.J., Weaver, R.A., Szymkowski, B., Burzynski, G.S. Phase II study of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 in patients with BRAINSTEM GLIOMA. Protocol BC-BT-11. Neuro-Oncology 2009, 11:951.

Click to access 8639.pdf

Volume 11 Issue 6 December 2009
Abstracts from the Third Quadrennial Meeting of the World Federation of Neuro-Oncology (WFNO) and the Sixth Meeting of the Asian Society for Neuro-Oncology (ASNO)
May 11-14, 2009
Yokohama, Japan
�
12/2009 – Protocol – BRAINSTEM GLIOMAs
�
40 – Patients Accrued
28 – Evaluable Patients
(23 children / 5 young adults)
�
5 / 18% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
4 / 14% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
12 / 43% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
7 / 25% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
——————————————————————
Special exception (SE)
�
12/2009 – Protocol – BRAINSTEM GLIOMAs
�
52 – Evaluable Patients
(40 children / 12 young adults)
�
5 / 10% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
2 / 4% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
28 / 54% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
17 / 32% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
——————————————————————
BT-11 and special exception (SE)
92% – diffuse intrinsic brainstem gliomas (DBSG)
�
Overall survival (OS) – 2 years:
42% – special exception (SE)
36% – BT-11
�
Overall survival (OS) – 5 years:
19% – special exception (SE)
25% – BT-11
======================================
Compare: standard radiation therapy in combination with chemotherapy (RAT) (Mandell et al. 1999)
�
2% – % of Patients Showing Complete Response
31% – % of Patients Showing Partial Response
�
Mandell LR, Kadota R, Freeman C, et al. There is no role for hyperfractionated radiotherapy in the management of children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic brain stem tumors: results of pediatric oncology group phase III trial comparing conventional vs. hyperfractionated radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;43:959-964.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10192340/
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999 Mar 15;43(5):959-64.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10192340/
International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
Volume 43, Issue 5, 15 March 1999, Pages 959–964
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036030169800501X
Department of Radiation Oncology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
6/1992 – 10/1997
�
Overall survival (OS):
7% – 2 years
0% – 5 years
=====================================
COMBINED:
——————————————————————
Overall survival (OS) – 2 years:
——————————————————————
42% – antineoplastons: special exception (SE)
�
36% – antineoplastons: BT-11
�
7% – standard radiation therapy in combination with chemotherapy (RAT)
——————————————————————
Overall survival (OS) – 5 years:
——————————————————————
25% – antineoplastons: BT-11
�
19% – antineoplastons: special exception (SE)
�
0% – standard radiation therapy in combination with chemotherapy (RAT)
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Break The Walls Down:

——————————————————————
And “THAT’s The BOTTOM LINE”
Because Stone Cold Said So

——————————————————————
IT’s GO TIME
Time To Play The Game:

——————————————————————
Break The Walls Down:

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

The #Burzynski (B.S.) Bump Rap

Yo …

Let me tell you how it’s DONE

We don’t get paid to do IT

We just do it for FUN

We fact-check your SH*T

Until the morning SUN

We know we have you on the RUN

‘Cause you hide behind your keypad SON

We know your “C”-RAP

Because it came out from between your BUNS

And we “Smell What You’re COOKIN’”

And out it COMES

The same ol’ cr*p that rolls right off the tip of your TONGUE

Do you really believe your own HYPERBULL?

Or are you really that DUMB?

I KNOW, who I AM

I AM, Number ONE

I KNOW, who I AM

I don’t fit into your “Master Plan”

(Piss-Off)

I KNOW, who I AM

I AM Number ONE

I KNOW, who I AM

I AM, Number ONE

wiki-wiki-wiki

That’s right WIKIPEDIA

You’re NOT Number ONE

(I got HIS Number)

You threw your MUD

Then hid behind a Black-Hole SUN

You dished out your MUD-BATH

Did you think you had WON?

A Yellow-Journalism AWARD?

(THAT’s just Piss-Poor)

WikipedBiaS!

Did you say WikipediAin’t your SON?

Holy “C”-RAP!!

Did You See THAT!!!

All dressed up wearing your best CummerBUND

Did you think you could get away with thumbin’ your Nose at your own THUMB?

Dum, Dum Dum DUMB

Well here I COME

Like a little TRICKER-TREATER

Get outta here with your SCHTICK!!!

Oh NO, Here comes PETER

Yo, What’s THAT in his HAND?

I don’t think it’s a water METER

Maybe he caught another BOTTOM FEEDER!!!

Yo Yo Ma, I heard it was just another TWITTER TWEETER

Yo, Yo, Yo, YOU want “NEW” INSOLENCE?

I don’t need your “Cult” of “MUD”

“M”isinformation

“U”ndereducated

“D”isinformation

MIS-DIS-INFORMATION

Doctor DISSIMULATION

You’re the Metastasis of Misinformation

The scourge of a NATION

I heard you liked “HUSTLER”

Which explains your problem with Mental Master-Debation

Mel Brooks just called and said “HELLO BALLS”

But I heard your head was on VACATION

“You can’t handle the TRUTH”

If we got you on #MizTV

It’d be like: “really?, Really??, REALLY???”

YO

“You Can’t “C” Me”

You couldn’t handle an Epic Rap Battle of HIS-STORY

You’ve got delusions of “C”-Rappin’ with #Eminem on #MTV

Your #TedNugents #Nugents would be on display for the Whole World Wide Web to SEE

Maybe you should hurry up and run back home to your M-O-M-M-IEEE!!!

I KNOW, who I AM

I AM, Number ONE

I don’t fit into your “Master Plan”

I AM, Number ONE

(It’s better to be Pissed-OFF than Pissed-ON “little man”)

I KNOW, who I AM

I AM, Number ONE

Hey Ho “SkeptiCowards©”

Is THAT all you’ve GOT?

You remind me of Ike TURNER

Was THAT your best SHOT?

Maybe ya betta stay at HOME

Sittin’ on the POT

Until you solve that PROBLEM

That requires too much THOUGHT

Like how to answer a QUESTION

Or “Where are your FACTS?”

Because you’ve been runnin’, hidin’, and DODGIN”

After you had another Faux Tu-Quoque ATTACK

All I hear from some of youse MOUTHS

Is Quack-ack-ack-ack-ACK

I thought Billy Joel warned YOU

Bout having a Heart Attack-ack-ack-ack-ACK

This is the “Home of the BRAVE”

(Maybe you should “Learn to SWIM”)

Before you start to Hack-ack-ack-ack-ACK

George Washington cut down a Cherry TREE

(Was THAT your Cherry-Pickin’ Tree? Whoa is ME!)

They say Lizzie Borden gave her mother 40 Whack-ack-ack-ack-ACKS

• I KNOW, who I AM

I AM, Number ONE

I don’t fit into your “Master Plan” ?

I AM, who I AM

I KNOW, who I AM

I AM, Number ONE

I KNOW who I AM

I AM Number ONE

Oh NO! Here comes Peter AGAIN – FLEA!!

Did he really rob himself to pay PAUL?

I heard him mumble something ’bout CaliCultication

And another Brick in the WALL

Mary told me he denied himself THRICE

As he was trying to Break Down The WALLS

If we don’t hurry up we’ll be LATE

For the World Premiere of the New MONSTER’s BALLS

Lil’ Johnny’s got a DATE

With the New Kids Down the HALL

And we’re going to the “Stones'” CONCERT

We’re gonna throw some BACK

So ya betta’ duck YA’LL

Here’s comes some more Roberta FLACK

Now that wall doesn’t seem so TALL

They’re comin’ to America’s CALL

Now, why is #CMPunk a #Heyman Guy PAUL?

• I KNOW, who I AM

I AM, Number ONE

Your “Master Plan” is like a yellowed Bed Pan

I AM, who I AM

I KNOW, who I AM

I AM, Number ONE

I KNOW who I AM

I AM Number ONE

Oh NO !

Anyone heard ’bout what happens when Birds ATTACK?

Look Out BELOW!

The sky changes from 50 shades of Grey

To #Metallica #FadeToBLACK

Rockapocalypse !!!

@TheRock said #ItDoesntMatter

What BBC Spam-o-rama

the “Riddler” wannabe

or Blatherskitewicz SAID

Your #DavidBowie 15 seconds of #Fame

has you #BurningDownTheHouse with your #TalkingHEADS

#Jabroni

Critics and Cynics

“The Skeptics™”

I thought you had Grapefruits

like @VinceMcMahon

But all you’ve got is #FruityPebbles

like @JohnCena

I feel so ROBbed Van DAMN !!!

what ! What !! WHAT !!!

is your GOAL?

You wouldn’t touch”IT”with a #ZZTop #TenFootPOLE

Your #Garbage smells #Special

#NineInchNails #HeadLikeAHole ?

Your Salem Witch Trial

#HistoryOfTheWorld PartI

was FROZEN

BORING

#PinkFloyd #ComfortablyNUMB

Like a #SuperTramp

You #HideInYourShell

You Blatherskite without a CLUE

Who the … are YOU ?

#WhoAreYou ?

#TheWHO ?

#WeKnowThatTheHypnotizedNeverLie
http://youtu.be/zYMD_W_r3Fg #BloodyWellRight you SEE ?
http://t.co/IY53fEpnBu
You talk about “deconstruction”

#AWESOME

@TripleH #TimeToPlayTheGame ?

#MMA ?

#UFC ?

#WWE ?

Like #KidRock sings

“And this is for the Questions that don’t have any Answers”

U can’t out “C”-Rap ME

Yo #Eminem

May I Have Your Attention PLEASE ?

This ain’t about ME

It’s about the F-D-A
redd.it/1h2slh
and Dr. Stanislaw Rajmund #BURZYNSKI

• I KNOW, who I AM

I AM, Number ONE

I KNOW, who I AM

I AM, who I AM

I KNOW, who I AM

I AM, Number ONE

I KNOW who I AM

I AM Number ONE

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) just called and said they do NOT care what YOUR definition of a “CURE” is

http://po.st/wM8YEk