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

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

Due & undue weight: [3]

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

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

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

Jimmy Donal Wales

Who ?

No, “The Who” is actually really British !

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

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

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

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

(joking me ? Quit jokin’ me !)

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

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

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

I think a refund’s in order

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

Happy eat in’

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

Seriously ??

SERIOUSLY ???

Welcome to MizFitTV

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

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

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

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

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

Whazzamatta Jiminy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doing The Right Thing takes many forms, but perhaps most central is the preservation of our shared vision for the neutral point of view policy and for a culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty
——————————————————————
The problem with this Wacky Tobacky “We are the (Wiki) World” WikiWhOReD Wonderland Jimbroni’s living in, is that “HE” has NOT been Doing The Right Thing since “HE” abdicated “his” “neutral point of view policy” and “culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty,” to “The Skeptics”

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

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

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

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

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

That statement is pure, unadulterated Alabama B.S.

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

“Both are objectively valuable moral principles”

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

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

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

20131212-173725.jpg

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

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

20131212-173821.jpg

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

Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset [WP:SR]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The common purpose of building an encyclopedia trumps both”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20131213-072956.jpg

20131213-073014.jpg

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

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

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

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

FACTS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JzG|Guy User:JzG/help|Help!

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

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

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

And if Wikipedia is correct, how did this happen ?

Burzynski referenced by other Cancer researchers:

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

Children’s Hospital Boston, Massachusetts

St Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee

Seattle Children’s Hospital, Seattle, Washington

Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Children’s National Medical Center, Washington, DC

Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Ohio

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

5.723 Impact Factor

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

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

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

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

20131213-085153.jpg

20131213-085209.jpg

20131213-085227.jpg

20131213-085242.jpg

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

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

Due & undue weight: [3]

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

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

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

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

But that was not what the study concluded

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much.”

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

That’s right !

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

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

There are a lot of “chips” falling at Wikipedia

“BULL CHIPS”

JIMBRONI, you’re no Maggie Thatcher

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

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

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

20131213-082217.jpg

20131213-082233.jpg

20131213-082247.jpg

20131213-082302.jpg

20131213-082316.jpg

20131213-082331.jpg

20131213-082346.jpg

20131213-082404.jpg

20131213-082422.jpg

20131213-082437.jpg

20131213-082452.jpg

20131213-082508.jpg

20131213-083448.jpg

20131213-083506.jpg

20131213-083521.jpg

20131213-083539.jpg

20131213-083554.jpg

20131213-083611.jpg

20131213-083626.jpg

20131213-083646.jpg

20131213-083701.jpg

20131213-083720.jpg

20131213-083758.jpg

20131213-083822.jpg

20131213-083839.jpg

20131213-083859.jpg

20131213-083914.jpg

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

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

That’s right Wikipediantic

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

Advertisements

A Message to Guy “Can’t Git-R-Done” Chapman

Guy “Crapman” Chapman is a SkeptiCoward©

20131004-021044.jpg
I’m NOT “Astroturfwatch” you twit
——————————————————————
“Guy” blogged another one of “The Skeptics™” #Fails [1]

He has a blog full of essentially misinformation, disinformation, misdirection, and lies regarding Burzynski, but the gist of it is that so far he has demonstrated to the entire world that he is that “Guy”, that “Yellow-Back” Chap, man, who has NOT demonstrated that he has the “Grapefruits”, to answer for his actions [2-4]

He claims my blog is “full of essentially incoherent commentary,” yet he offers NO explanation as to why it is that since its inception 2/14/2013, the Didymus Judas Thomas’ Hipocritical Oath Blog has had 9,626 visitors

20131003-223812.jpg
Where’s your stats, Guy ?

Lets “review” his latest piece of propaganda and Dezinformatsiya, shall we ?
——————————————————————
“The FDA approved a phase 3 trial, therefore Burzynski’s antineoplastons definitely work”
——————————————————————
#fail [5]

“[T]he emphasis in Phase 2 is on EFFECTIVENESS

“Phase 3 studies begin if EVIDENCE of EFFECTIVENESS is shown in Phase 2″
——————————————————————
“The Lancet rejected publication of the sole paper known to have been sumbitted from the one completed phase 2 trial, therefore there is a global conspiracy to suppress Burzynski”
——————————————————————
#Fail [6]

Bob Blaskiewicz postulated during the Google+ Hangout on Saturday, that this is a generic, usual, normal course-of-business rejection letter

NO such example is on Al Gore’s Internet

Whose got one ?

20130930-164002.jpg
Even in a Tweet, everybody must include all caveats and the full body of knowledge with footnotes, or stand convicted of lying
——————————————————————
#FaiL

Do NOT post deceptive Twits:

20130928-192050.jpg

20130930-101722.jpg
#faIL

@SceptiGuy, on 5/25/2013, what did you NOT understand about her 5/23/2013 Cease and Desist Tweet ?

20131003-094026.jpg
A trial at a reputable cancer center once took several years to complete and publish, therefore failure to complete and publish a single trial in 40 years means nothing
——————————————————————
#FaiL

So, does this mean you wanted Burzynski to publish the phase 2 clinical trial final results before the trials were finished ?
——————————————————————
“Failure to participate on a partisan blog means you refuse to debate”
——————————————————————
#FAil [7]

Is this just another one of “The Skeptics™” Red Herring’s you like to use ?

The About page on my blog is crystal clear:

“The decision is that he is neither guilty nor innocent doesn’t mean he doesn’t need to do work within his practice, and the FDA obviously needs to pursue things as well

As I said on the Saturday Google+ Hangout, I consider myself to be a Skeptic Skeptic [8]

In other words, if you are going to be a true Skeptic, at least police yourself and “fact-check” before you insert foot-in-mouth and spread misinformation, disinformation, misdirection, and / or lies all over social media

Making lame excuses for NOT debating on my blog is like an atheist stating that they would NOT debate on Earth because creationists claim it was created by God
——————————————————————
“Failure to complete and publish trials is the single biggest reputational issue Burzynski has and it cannot be waved away or covered with a fig leaf of a single rejected paper”

“If you can’t understand why this is a problem, then we’re all wasting our time even talking to you”
——————————————————————
#FaIL [9]

YOUR failure to provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) from the Declaration of Helsinki, United States Food and Drug Administration, National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), or any other source to support your claim as to when you think Burzynski is required to publish, says it all
——————————————————————
“The average time from commencement of a trial to completion is 3-5 years”

“If a trial is going to be completed and published, very few take longer than 8 years to final publication”
——————————————————————
3/29/1996, then United States Food and Drug Administration Commissioner, David Kessler told the American people [10]:

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

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

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

Burzynski’s 2006 publication lists 1652 adults and 335 children (1,799 Total) [11]

20131003-184941.jpg
“A quick sample says that the first 60 of Burzynski’s phase 2 trials were all registered on the same day”

“1 November 1999, presumably following the consent decree which forbade him from administering antineoplastons outside of a registered clinical trial”
——————————————————————
fAil [11]

If you’re correct; which is rare, 3/29/1996, why did then US FDA Commissioner, David Kessler tell the American people [10]:

6. The uhh agency hasMANY … trials … has has approved trialsfor patientswith antineoplastons ?

Why does Burzynski’s 11/25/1997 SEC Form 10-SB filing list 72 phase 2 clinical trials ? [12]

Could it be because you are wrong ?
——————————————————————
“The trial that completed, was finished in February 2005”
——————————————————————
Are you certain ? [13]

20131003-182641.jpg

20131003-182705.jpg
“The single phase 3 trial is withdrawn”
——————————————————————
Guy, did you contact the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) like I did, where they advised me: “Not every cancer clinical trial taking place in the United States is listed on our NCI Clinical Trials Database” ? [14]
——————————————————————
“I do not choose to debate on DJT’s blog”
——————————————————————
Guy, can you see the yellow stripe down your back ?

(I won’t say “spine,” because you haven’t shown that you have one)
——————————————————————
“He has a long history of misrepresenting differences of opinion as evidence of deceit (e.g. his claim that 0/61 is evidence that I can’t count, rather than what tit is, brevity during a rapid exchange of suggested questions during a Google hangout, where the person to whom the suggestion is made, is fully aware of the full context of 0/1/61 published/complete/registered”
——————————————————————
Guy, why don’t you just PROVE IT ?

20131003-201924.jpg

20131003-202235.jpg
#fAiL

Guy, hasn’t ONE been completed ?

20131003-202310.jpg
You wanted him to publish before the clinical trials were finished ?
——————————————————————
“So that kind of stuff is not the actions of an honest broker”
——————————————————————
Guy, what do you call all of your above FAILS?
——————————————————————
“I wouldn’t expect DJT to debate here, nor would I be interested in giving him a platform; am happy to debate in an open forum where there are comprehensible questions and some sort of moderation to prevent tactics such as the Gish gallop”
——————————————————————
Talk about “Gish galloping”

First you post: I wouldn’t expect DJT to debate here … “

and then you posted: ” … nor would I be interested in giving him a platform …”

which just shows that you were NOT sincere when you posted your 1st comment

What you are basically saying when you posted: ” … I am happy to debate in an open forum where there are comprehensible questions and some sort of moderation to prevent tactics such as the Gish gallop, is that you are NOT competent enough to call “Gish gallop” and prove it during any debate

You want “Mommy” to protect you from someone who is more intelligent than you are ?

That’s what I hear you saying
——————————————————————
“Sorry, your blog is not an “open forum” and the majority of what’s written there is gibberish”
——————————————————————
I understand you

My blog is meant for intelligent people who can grasp ideas, dry wit, and other concepts humans use to communicate with each other

Unfortunately, I take it you are NOT like the other 9,600* people who have visited my blog
——————————————————————
“I recommend you stop trying to satirise someone else’s style and instead write in your own words”
——————————————————————
Why would I take any advice from you ?

You’re one FAIL after another

I’ll satirize (and spell it correctly) that Ph.D. FAIL “Orac” all I want
——————————————————————
“And read them back, if necessary to a friend, so that you get the general air of “what the hell does that even mean?””

“knocked out of it”
——————————————————————
It’s readily apparent who needs to check them self

Because you act as if you’ve been “knocked out of it” for quite some time

Maybe you should wear a helmet
——————————————————————
“Twitter is about rapid-fire debate”
——————————————————————
What the problem is ?

“The Skeptics™” think Twitter is a “debate forum”, but you do NOT have the cranial capacity to “debate”

What “The Skeptics™” do is called “mental bastardization”
——————————————————————
“Don’t pretend that any statement is ever intended to be a nuanced and scientifically rigorous statement of the prevailing consensus view, because it isn’t, and it’s not pretending to be”
——————————————————————
As far as I’m concerned, the vast majority of your twits are “pretending”
——————————————————————
“It’s fair to ask for a source or a clarification, it’s grossly misleading to cherry-pick individual tweets and misrepresent a lack of detail as deliberate malfeasance”
——————————————————————
The FACT is, a plethora of your twittering has as its source, your posterior
——————————————————————
“That’s the kind of tactic that gets you ignored and dismissed as a mendacious time-sink; if that’s the image you’re striving for then fine but I don’t think it is”
——————————————————————
Everyone already knows what you are

Guy “Crapman”
——————————————————————
“There you go”
——————————————————————
I could NOT have said it better myself
——————————————————————
“And now, if you don’t mind, I will get on with other things”
—————————————————————
LIKE THIS ?

EXPLAIN THIS [15]

20131003-225353.jpg

20131003-232222.jpg

20131002-101725.jpg
Prove I spammed 🙂

Are you a man ?

Or are you a

SkeptiCoward© ?

20131004-013014.jpg

20131004-013041.jpg

20131004-013113.jpg

20131004-013506.jpg
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – 10/2013 – A Message to DJT
——————————————————————
http://t.co/Rd9CVSaKcq
——————————————————————
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg/2013/10/a-message-to-a-djt/
======================================
[2] – 3/24/2013 – Critiquing “Burzynski: Another fact-blind troll, who predicted that?”:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/critiquing-burzynski-another-fact-blind-troll-who-predicted-that/
======================================
[3] – 4/12/2013 – The dishonesty of Guy Chapman, “The Skeptics” shill:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/12/the-dishonesty-of-guy-chapman-the-skeptics-shill/
======================================
[4] – 5/5/2013 – guychapman (Guy Chapman) Critiquing “The Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics (page 9):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/05/guychapman-guy-chapman-critiquing-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics-page-9/
======================================
[5] – 4/25/2013 – Burzynski: The FDA’s Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-the-fdas-drug-review-process-ensuring-drugs-are-safe-and-effective/
======================================
[6] – 9/30/2013 – Bob Burzynski Skeptic Sez Multiforme Manuscript Meme Message Memorable:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/30/bob-burzynski-skeptic-sez-multiforme-manuscript-meme-message-memorable/
======================================
[7] – About | Didymus Judas Thomas’ Hipocritical Oath Blog
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/about/
======================================
[8] – 10/3/2013 – “The Skeptics™” Definition of “Debate”:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/03/the-skeptics-definition-of-debate/
======================================
[9] – 4/25/2013 – Burzynski: Declaration of Helsinki:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-declaration-of-helsinki/
======================================
[10] – 6/8/2013 – WHAT IS MISDIRECTION? Critiquing “Antineoplastons: Has the FDA kept its promise to the American people ?”:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/what-is-misdirection-critiquing-antineoplastons-has-the-fda-kept-its-promise-to-the-american-people/
======================================
[11] – Treatments for Astrocytic Tumors in Children: Current and Emerging Strategies. Pediatric Drugs 2006;8:167-178. (Pediatr Drugs 2006; 8 (3)), 2.3. Targeted Therapy, pg. 174
——————————————————————
8/21/2013 – Critiquing David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/critiquing-david-h-gorski-md-phd-facs-www-sciencebasedmedicine-orgeditorial-staffdavid-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
======================================
[12] – 7/9/2013 – Burzynski: The Original 72 Phase II Clinical Trials:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/09/burzynski-the-original-72-phase-ii-clinical-trials/
======================================
[13] – 6/26/2013 – Burzynski: The Clinical Trials:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/26/burzynski-the-clinical-trials/
——————————————————————
http://clinicaltrials.gov/archive/NCT00003509/2009_05_26/changes
======================================
[14] – 4/26/2013 – Burzynski: Not Every Cancer Clinical Trial Taking Place In The United States Is Listed On Our NCI Clinical Trials Database:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/burzynski-not-every-cancer-clinical-trial-taking-place-in-the-united-states-is-listed-on-our-nci-clinical-trials-database/
======================================
[15]
——————————————————————
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23408699/
======================================

Critiquing: Six stubborn myths about cancer

Friday 8/30/2013 11.42 EDT (Science), David Robert Grimes published:

“Six stubborn myths about cancer”

“While these people may be well-meaning but misinformed, there are more dubious outfits such as the Burzynski clinic, which claims to have pioneered a new form of cancer treatment known as antineoplastons”

“Yet since its foundation in 1976, the clinic has produced no peer-reviewed evidence that its wares actually work, and charges patients colossal amounts of money to undergo clinical trials, which is an ethically questionable practice”

“Critics of the clinic have been subjected to threats of litigation”

“Stanislaw Burzynski, its founder, has been sued by former patients for defrauding them”

“Despite this, he is often framed as a hero being suppressed by “big pharma”, tying neatly into the conspiracy fallacy and ignoring the fact that such organisations make substantial profit from very ill people without offering any verified treatment”

Mr. Grimes has NOT impressed me with his knowledge on the subject-matter, but than again, he is only a physicist and researcher
http://www.theguardian.com/p/3td56/tw
David Robert Grimes is a physicist and researcher at Oxford University who writes for The Irish Times
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/aug/30/six-stubborn-myths-cancer
He tweets as @drg1985 and blogs at Three men make a tiger
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/aug/30/six-stubborn-myths-cancer?view=desktop#start-of-comments
A challenge has been issued
======================================
DidymusJudasThomas

31 August 2013 1:30am

I have yet to have anyone prove me wrong about Burzynski on my blog, including “The Skeptics”

However. I have also caught a lot of the Burzynski Skeptics providing misinformation, disinformation, and misdirection; including an M.D., Ph.D

The Skeptics have been pretty much afraid to engage me on the subject
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/06/the-burzynski-b-s-app-2/
What do you think of this 2013 homoeopathic cancer study?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23408699/
======================================
P.S.: I see some of “The Skeptics™” showed up in The Guardian comments section, and tweeted about it
======================================
How funny!

They deleted my above comment but keep that of others who use similar language

I’m calling B.S.
——————————————————————
DidymusJudasThomas

31 August 2013 1:30am

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
——————————————————————
Thank you for showing your bias and censorship for the entire world to see

Critiquing: Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski, M.D., Ph.D, LIAR: Stanislaw Burzynski versus the BBC

Believe in Facts ???

Get out the popcorn !!!
——————————————————————
Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski is a liar

Let me put that in bold for emphasis

Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski is a liar

Open wide and say ahhhhhhh …

DR. DAVID H. “ORAC” GORSKI IS A LIAR
——————————————————————
Much better !!!

Some things just look much better when they come in 3’s

And that must be what “Orac” is god thinks, since he seems to live by the the edict of the 3 wise monkeys:
——————————————————————
See No Evil

Hear No Evil

Speak No Evil
——————————————————————
Of course, to Gorski, Evil is any truth which he disagrees with, which he acts like does NOT exist, and obviously can NOT find on the Internet with his Commodore 64, or whatever piece of garbage he’s using, which he must have set to block any websites he wishes to NOT see
——————————————————————
Gorski, the Hypocrite, calls me a “CRANK”, which is especially hilarious, considering how much better my research is than his, without the bias

LIES

Misdirection

Disinformation

Misinformation

MisDisInformation
——————————————————————
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 3:24am – 14 Jul 13:

@Funkmon @HoracioHornblow Ha ha. It’s the rather pathetic crank Didymus Judas Thomas. That guy couldn’t buy a clue. #Burzynski
https://twitter.com/gorskon/status/356328275922006017
——————————————————————
If I wanted to lower myself to Gorski’s level, I could delete comments from my blog
——————————————————————
6/4/2013, Gorski must have evacuated this from deep within his bowels:
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Stanislaw Burzynski versus the BBC
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/04/stanislaw-burzynski-versus-the-bbc/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
I was busy at the time reviewing the British Broadcasting Corporation’s Panorama bit on Burzynski:
======================================
6/4/2013

The British are Coming, The British are Coming: Critiquing “Curing cancer or ‘selling hope’ to the vulnerable?”:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/04/the-british-are-coming-the-british-are-coming-critiquing-curing-cancer-or-selling-hope-to-the-vulnerable/
======================================
6/7/2013

IT MAY NOT BE SCIENCE: Critiquing “Curing cancer or ‘selling hope’ to the vulnerable?”:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/it-may-not-be-science-critiquing-curing-cancer-or-selling-hope-to-the-vulnerable/
======================================
But now that I have some time, lets all enjoy Gorski’s LIES

Misdirection

Disinformation

Misinformation

MisDisInformation

While I DISS his MisDisInformation

Since the dates involved are important in exposing Gorski’s LIES, Gorski states:
——————————————————————
“After yesterday’s epic deconstruction of the latest propaganda-fest from … Eric Merola, on his most admired subject, “brave maverick doctor” Stanislaw Burzynski”
——————————————————————
(6/3/2013) in relation to Gorski’s cherry-picked “review” which I critiqued:
======================================
7/18/2013

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/
======================================
Gorski posits:
——————————————————————
“I needed something science-based to cleanse the rancid taste of intelligence-insulting nonsense from my mind”
——————————————————————
My understanding of Gorski’s definition of #ScienceBasedMedicine is:

1. Visualize a Victim

2. Create biased blogposts utilizing:

a. LIES

b. Misdirection

c. Disinformation

d. Misinformation

e. MisDisInformation

Gorski advises:
——————————————————————
“I was interviewed over the phone by a producer of the show and exchanged e-mails to answer questions”
——————————————————————
I am NOT certain what qualifications BBC Panorama thought that Gorski has in order for him to be interviewed about Burzynski, unless they wanted the perspective of a LIAR

Gorski mentions “False balance”, which readers of his and / or my blog are all too familiar with when it comes to “Orac”

He whines that there is:
——————————————————————
” … zero mention of how Burzynski recently managed to beat an effort by the Texas Medical Board to strip him of his medical license by throwing his employed doctors under the bus …”
——————————————————————
This seems to be:

Misdirection

Disinformation

Misinformation

by Gorski, as anyone can read the case documents:
======================================
Burzynski: Texas Medical Board (TMB) and State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/burzynski-texas-medical-board-tmb-and-state-office-of-administrative-hearings-soah/
======================================
and note that, as Richard A. Jaffe points out, Burzynski was:

1. NOT even in the USA during one of the patients care

2. there was no evidence that Burzynski met either patient

3. Burzynski was NOT the Doctor of Record for either patient

4. If the SOAH had an actual case, they could have gone after the actual Doctors of Record

What Gorski blogs is NOT worth the paper it is NOT written on

EVERYTHING Gorski blogs should be “Fact-Checked” for accuracy

He also ejects:
——————————————————————
” … only the most superficial treatment of how in general it is considered unethical to demand payment from patients to participate in clinical trials”
——————————————————————
though he provides NO basis in FACT for this statement

He also laments:
——————————————————————
“No, and there isn’t any mention of how the Burzynski Clinic waged a campaign of harassment against bloggers who criticized Burzynski back in 2011”
——————————————————————
What Gorski does NOT mention is that:

there isn’t any mention of how the bloggers waged a campaign of harassment against Burzynski

with their:

LIES

Misdirection

Disinformation

Misinformation
======================================
I find Rhys Morgan abnormally prehensile:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/i-find-rhys-morgan-abnormally-prehensile/
======================================
Gorski cries:
——————————————————————
“Indeed, one of the victims of that harassment, Rhys Morgan, was interviewed by the Panorama crew, but he was informed that his interview was cut from the final version because it didn’t fit the narrative”
——————————————————————
I thought it humorous when The Skeptics™ whined on Twitter that Rhys Morgan wasn’t going to make the cut

What was he going to say ?

How he copied all of his Burzynski blogsplats from other people’s blogs?

Gorski mentions:
——————————————————————
“All you have to do is to read Saul Green’s reports on Quackwatch and in The Cancer Letter from the 1990s”
——————————————————————
Of course, Gorski conveniently forgets to mention Green’s Confict-of-Interest, since Green was associated with a lawsuit against Burzynski

But then again, Gorski seems to have conveniently forgotten his own possible COI, which someone posted a link to on Twitter:
——————————————————————
David Gorski’s Financial PHARMA Ties What He Didn’t Tell You:
http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/06/david-gorskis-financial-pharma-ties-what-he-didnt-tell-you.html
——————————————————————
Gorski fumes:
——————————————————————
“One of them reminded me very much of the conversation with her NHS oncologist that Laura Hymas recorded and allowed Eric Merola to include in his propaganda piece, except that in video it is so much more intense”

“In this scene, the oncologist tries to point out to Ms. Petagine that he doesn’t know what Burzynski is doing or how to take care of her daughter when she returns”
——————————————————————
I guess the National Heath Service oncologist is possibly like Gorski, and he doesn’t know what Burzynski is doing because he has NOT read Burzynski’s publications:
=====================================
7/22/2013

Critiquing: In which Orac does Stanislaw Burzynski propagandist Eric Merola a favor… :
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/critiquing-in-which-orac-does-stanislaw-burzynski-propagandist-eric-merola-a-favor/
======================================
Gorski flabbergasts:
——————————————————————
“The report includes interviews with experts like Professor Richard Grundy of Nottingham Children’s Hospital”

“Grundy points out that Burzynski has not published the complete results of any of his phase II clinical trials”
——————————————————————
What Gorski does NOT point out, is that for being a supposed “expert”, he sure does NOT give the impression that he’s taken the time to read Burzynski’s 2003-2010 phase II (2) clinical trials preliminary reports, in order to qualify as an “expert” on anything related to Burzynski

Gorski continues on as is his custom of being long-winded without much in the way of results:
——————————————————————
” … how Burzynski has abused the clinical trial process to keep treating patients with antineoplastons without actually having to do the science that any other doctor would be required to do to validate a new treatment”
——————————————————————
However, Gorski FAILS to address these issues:
======================================
WHAT IS MISDIRECTION? Critiquing “Antineoplastons: Has the FDA kept its promise to the American people ?”:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/what-is-misdirection-critiquing-antineoplastons-has-the-fda-kept-its-promise-to-the-american-people/
======================================
Gorski marches onward, jackbooted:
——————————————————————
“Dr. Elloise Garside, a research scientists, echoes a lot of the questions I have, such as how Burzynski never explains which genes are targeted by antineoplastons, what the preclinical evidence supporting their efficacy are, or what the scientific rationale is to expect that they might have antitumor activity”

“(Yes, we’re talking prior plausibility, baby!)”
——————————————————————
So, Gorski is saying that Dr. Elloise Garside has something in common with the “expert”, Professor Richard Grundy

Gorski rants on:
——————————————————————
“The preponderance of evidence supports the contention that they dont’ work, but there is uncertainty, which Burzynski exploits to the max”
——————————————————————
Amazing !!!

The United States Food and Drug Administration has authorized phase III (3) clinical trials, which means:
======================================
“[T]he emphasis in Phase 2 is on EFFECTIVENESS”

“Phase 3 studies begin if EVIDENCE of EFFECTIVENESS is shown in Phase 2″
======================================
Burzynski: The FDA’s Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-the-fdas-drug-review-process-ensuring-drugs-are-safe-and-effective/
======================================
Gorski then blesses us with:
——————————————————————
” … the claims in some of the Q&A’s after screenings of Eric Merola’s most recent movie that Burzynski’s papers have been rejected without being sent out for peer review”

“Studies submitted to journals won’t be published without going out for peer-review”

“Maybe he’s referring to some of the papers we’ve heard about from Mr. Cohen and others that were editorially rejected and not even sent out for peer review because the editor either didn’t think them appropriate or didn’t want to waste the reviewers’ time”
——————————————————————
Gorski, who did a “review” of Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II (2), 6/3/2013, somehow magically “forgets” the very next day, that the documentary indicates that Burzynski submitted a phase II (2) clinical trial for publication, and was refused in 2 hours 8 minutes and 51 seconds, and Gorski is as silent as the dead about the lame reason given for NOT publishing it
======================================
See #12:
======================================
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/
======================================
How disingenuous, Gorski

Your opinion should mean

Nada

Zip

Zero

“Orac,” the false god continues on his rampage:
——————————————————————
“In science, all that matters is what you publish, and Burzynski hasn’t published anything other than case reports, tiny case series, and unconvincing studies, mostly (at least over the last decade or so) in crappy journals not even indexed on PubMed”
——————————————————————
Gorski gives NO reason for NOT doing what I have done on my blog, or any relevance of a publication NOT being listed on PubMed:
======================================
The #Burzynski B.S. App:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/06/the-burzynski-b-s-app-2/
======================================
Gorski comes to what he must think is his penultimate moment:
——————————————————————
“Without a doubt, the most effective part of the story is the segment in which Dr. Jeanine Graf of the Texas Children’s Hospital is introduced”

“Dr. Graf is the director of the pediatric intensive care unit there and has taken care of lots of Burzynski patients, as her hospital is “just down the road” from the Burzynski Clinic and these unfortunate children are brought to her hospital when they decompensate”

“Particularly damning is how Ms. Petagine said that the Texas Children’s Hospital Staff “were always cleaning up Burzynski’s messes.””

“If there’s one thing Panorama did right in this report, it’s showing how seeing so many already dying children show up in our ICU because of hypernatremia due to antineoplaston therapy will do that”
——————————————————————
Again, Gorski FAILS to discuss:
======================================
Burzynski: HYPERNATREMIA:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/burzynski-hypernatremia/
======================================
And:
——————————————————————
“Perhaps the most devastating part of this segment was seeing Dr. Graf stating, point blank, that she’s never seen a Burzynski patient survive”
——————————————————————
What is REALLY “devastating” is that Gorski is NOT able to indicate exactly how MANY patients this allegedly applies to, because, whereas Gorski’s fave reporter, Richard Bilton, wants to know how many Burzynski patients were treated in the phase II (2) clinical trials, he acts like Gorski’s “bud”, Dr. Peter A. Lipson, who also has had “issues” with consistency
======================================
Dr. Peter A. Lipson (and / or his Censor(s)) is a Coward: Critiquing “A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics”:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/dr-peter-a-lipson-and-or-his-censors-is-a-coward-critiquing-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/
======================================
Gorski then rattles off:
——————————————————————
“Burzynski smirks when asked how many patients he’s treated and how many have survived, dodging the question by saying that the FDA won’t let him until he’s published his results”

“Bilton tells him that’s not true; the FDA has told him that Burzynski can tell him as long as he doesn’t promote antineoplastons”

“Burzynski asks Bilton why he doesn’t have a letter from the FDA”
——————————————————————
If Gorski had bothered to read all the comments I posted on his blog re my Burzynski research, he would know that Burzynski has every right to be wary

But Gorski’s arrogance, dismissiveness, and condescension make him his own worst enemy

He then faceplants:
——————————————————————
“Burzynski then promises that antineoplastons will be approved “soon””

“(they almost certainly won’t)”
——————————————————————
I guess Gorski can now see the future, and is all-knowing and omnipotent

But then again, “Orac” is god

“god” goes on to say:
——————————————————————
“Ultimately, the Burzynski Clinic did release some results, stating that 776 patients with brain tumors were treated in trials and that 15.5% have survived five years”

“Of course, this is an utterly meaningless factoid”

“because we don’t know what kinds of tumors, what gradess, how they were treated beforehand, or any other confounding factors”
——————————————————————
But this is because Gorski prefers NOT to pay attention; welcome to “Short Attention Span Theatre”, or seeming to NOT read Burzynski’s publications:
======================================
Colorado Public Television – PBS:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/09/colorado-public-television-pbs/
======================================
My Critique of Bob Blaskiewicz (Colorado Public Television – PBS CPT12):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/my-critique-of-bob-blaskiewicz-colorado-public-television-pbs-cpt12/
======================================
Gorski posted comments on the Colorado Public Television (PBS) (CPT12) Facebook page where this was posted:
======================================
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/733814_10200654992917886_1628846684_n.jpg
======================================
6/5/2013 Gorski continued his blatherskite:
——————————————————————
Odds and ends left over after the Panorama Burzynski Clinic report: Burzynski versus his own SEC filing
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/05/odds-and-ends-about-burzynski-clinic/
——————————————————————
This is where I start leading to heapin’ helpings of not-so-Respectful Insolence

Gorski posts:
——————————————————————
“(stay classy, Stash, stay classy)”
——————————————————————
I am NOT positive as to why a LIAR would advise Burzynski to “stay classy” when he has absolutely NO moral or ethical standing to do so

The proverbial “pot calling the kettle, black”

Gorski blathers:
——————————————————————
” … in January the Burzynski Clinic removed all references to antineoplaston therapy on its website … “
——————————————————————
As I stated up top, Gorski must have his computer set so that it will NOT access Burzynski’s website, since I posted this:
======================================
3/12/2013

Burzynski updates Scientific Publications page:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/burzynski-updates-scientific-publications-page/
======================================
This includes the link to Burzynski’s ANTINEOPLASTON publications, which Gorski claims do NOT exist on Burzynski’s website

Perhaps this helps explain Gorski’s lack of knowledge re antineoplastons

Gorski admits:
——————————————————————
“Now I’m not a businessman, and I don’t understand anything but the very basics of business”
——————————————————————
But then goes on to claim:
——————————————————————
“but I do know cancer science”
——————————————————————
Gorski goes on to comment on material which I posted on his blog

Comment #128 Didymus Judas Thomas

At the Tu-Quack Center Correcting Orac’s EPIC & Legendary Research

February 2, 2013
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/21/quoth-joe-mercola-i-love-me-some-burzynski-antineoplastons/
“Yet in the report, we read:”
——————————————————————
On February 23, 2010, the Company entered into an agreement with Cycle Solutions, Inc., dba ResearchPoint (“Research Point”) to initiate and manage a pivotal Phase III clinical trial of combination Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 plus radiation therapy (RT) in patients with newly-diagnosed, diffuse, intrinsic brainstem glioma”
——————————————————————
It’s good to see that in JUNE, Gorski is finally catching up to what I posted on his blog in FEBRUARY

Gorski goes on to comment:
——————————————————————
“Of course, given that after three years the clinical trial hasn’t been opened, more than likely no reputable institution wants to partner with the Burzynski Research Institute, and ResearchPoint collected its checks”
——————————————————————
This is the same Gorski who allegedly blogged about the documentary which covered this issue, which he “supposedly” did a“review” on

Gorski, who above claimed that he does NOT understand “business”, suddenly puts on his “lawyer” hat
——————————————————————
“There’s a lot of legalese and FDA bureau-speak, but the meaning should be fairly clear to a layperson”:

“Indeed, even the report seems to concede that antineoplastons will likely never be approved, even going so far to point out that “the Company cannot predict if and/or when it will submit an NDA [New Drug Application] to the FDA, nor can the Company estimate the number or type of additional trials the FDA may require.””

“Burzynski also warns that “there can be no assurance that an NDA for Antineoplastons, as a treatment for cancer, will ever be approved by the FDA.””

“That hardly sounds as though antineoplastons will be approved “soon.””
——————————————————————
I find it remarkable that Gorski, while admitting above that he does NOT understand
“business”, seemingly expects the reader to believe that he understands “legalese”

Gorski bounds on in his new found knowledge as a “legal mastermind”:
——————————————————————
“Another interesting tidbit in the SEC filing is Burzynski’s report of the results of several of his clinical trials”

“They aren’t really “results’ per se, in that the information presented really isn’t provided in a form that really allows other investigators to evaluate it and potentially replicate it”

“Basically it’s a big table listing Burzynski Research Institute clinical trials and response rates reported”

“One thing that I noticed right away is that in most trials, the number of evaluable patients is smaller, sometimes much smaller, than the number of patients accrued”

“This is a huge red flag”

“For instance, in trial BT-20, there were 40 patients accrued by only 22 were evaluable”

“This sort of dropoout rate is a huge red flag”

“We don’t know the reasons for this dropout rate”

“It could certainly skew the results, but even that’s impossible to tell from just a table of response rates and no further information”
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
The ONLY “HUGE RED FLAG” is how inept Gorski is
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Gorski, you’re no Craig Masilow, but you are a LIAR
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
I’ve done the 1st one for you
======================================
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/960.pdf

Pg. 96

2 patients unable to be evaluated

patient 2 didn’t have follow-up MRI to determine response

patient 11 died of intratumoral hemorrhage and duration of treatment too short for evaluation of response
======================================
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/970.pdf


======================================
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/994.pdf


======================================
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1145.pdf


======================================
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1146.pdf


======================================
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1147.pdf


======================================
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1194.pdf


======================================
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1220.pdf


======================================
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1252.pdf


======================================
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/2105.pdf


======================================
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/5825.pdf


======================================
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/7287.pdf


======================================
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/7853.pdf


=====================================
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/7898.pdf


======================================
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/8397.pdf


======================================
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/8637.pdf


======================================
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/8638.pdf


======================================
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/8639.pdf


======================================
And THIS is the Gorski who has claimed to have reviewed almost all of Burzynski’s antineoplaston publications
======================================
11/2/2012

“Personally, having pored over Burzynski’s publications … “
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/11/02/stanislaw-burzynski-fails-to-save-another-patient/
======================================
5/8/2013

“I’ve searched Burzynski’s publications … “
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/05/08/eric-merola-and-stanislaw-burzynskis-secret-weapon-against-the-skeptics-fabio-lanzoni-part-2/
======================================

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 trialsfewer patients … if there is evidence … of partial response in clinical trials

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

3. We will accept … less informationup front

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

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

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

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

7. We are committed to providing expanded 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
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/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
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/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
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/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
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/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
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/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
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/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
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/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/

http://neuro-oncology.oxfordjournals.org/content/2/4/213.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
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/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.
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/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
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/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.
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/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.
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/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:
http://youtu.be/aAoJ1FY9kM8
——————————————————————
And “THAT’s The BOTTOM LINE”
Because Stone Cold Said So
http://youtu.be/v2KLaaykD5g
——————————————————————
IT’s GO TIME
Time To Play The Game:
http://youtu.be/xskJaEF-cuE
——————————————————————
Break The Walls Down:
http://youtu.be/JAG55VxlQeI
=====================================

“The Skeptics™” Doctor David H. Gorski is one of the “SkeptiCowards©” (I kid you not): Houston, We Have a Problem

The loquacious Dr. David H. Gorski is one of a number of bona fide card-carrying “SkeptiCowards©” (I kid you not)

One has to wonder, when does he (“Orac” @gorskon @oracknows @sciencebasedmed #sciencebasedmedicine) find time to be the so-called ‘self-proclaimed’ “CANCER RESEARCHER” when he’s devoting so much time to his precious blogs?
(http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence)

(http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org)
And, is his devotion to his “Oracolytes” having a deleterious effect on his ability to do the proper “fact-checking” required of his:

Misinformation

Disinformation

MisDisInformation

Misdirection

Dissimulation

Non-Citation(s)

Non-Reference(s)

Non-Link(s)

blatherskitewicz

Dr. Gorski is:

“The Metastasise of MisDisInformation”

“The Doctor of Dissimulation”

He ejaculated this:

Burzynski The Movie: Is Stanislaw Burzynski a pioneering cancer researcher or a quack?

Posted by Orac on November 29, 2011
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/11/29/burzynski-the-movie-subtle-its-not/
Stanislaw Burzynski: A pioneering cancer researcher or a quack?

Posted by Orac on December 12, 2012
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/12/12/stanislaw-burzynski-a-pioneering-cancer-researcher-or-a-quack/
“…it’s basically one big conspiracy theory…”

Dr. Gorski raises the issue of “conspiracy theory,, but then is too much of a SkeptiCoward©” (I kid you not), to address that as an issue

As I’ve said before of the “good” Dr. Gorski:

1. Lead

2. Follow, or

3. Get Out of the Way
http://youtu.be/2T5WZugCrfQ
and he is content to choose “3.”
http://youtu.be/XG8aNxSaUrk
When men were men:
http://redd.it/1fiok2
When Men Were Men:
http://www.reddit.com/tb/1fiok2
“The Skeptics” Theme Song:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/25/the-skeptics-theme-song/
Orac and the Cult of “Misinformation” (Part III):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/orac-and-the-cult-of-misinformation-part-iii/
IMPORTANT: The live “debate”-A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/important-the-live-debate-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/
IMPORTANT: The live “debate” that wasn’t-A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/important-the-live-debate-that-wasnt-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/
Thawing out “The Skeptics” @FrozenWarning (FrozenBoring):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/01/thawing-out-the-skeptics-frozenwarning-frozenboring/

“Orac” and the “Oracolytes” Cult of Misinformation

David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 12:44pm – 30 Mar 13:
https://twitter.com/gorskon/status/318056135645073408

Orac,” NO … You have NOT:
http://burzynskimovie.com/images/stories/transcript/Documents/BurzynskiTriesToExposeNCI.pdf
Misinformation

Disinformation

MisDisInformation

Misdirection

4/26/2013-“Orac:”-“cowardice
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/04/26/all-truth-comes-from-public-debate-a-corollary-to-crank-magnetism/
The Skeptics” critics thrive in certainty, while those whose views we criticize crave attention; as proven by their actions on Twitter, where they twit and retwit their

“misinformation”

“disinformation”

“MisDisInformation”

and

“misdirection”

I’ve said this all along, and nothing has happened to change that

In the meantime, “The Skeptics” do not deserve debate, and Dr. David H. Gorski, at least, is definitely a coward

As Richard Hinton eruditely commented:

“I will not waste my time with a CHAT on line where

you people alway’s (attempt to) control the conversation”

Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech,” unless you’re Dr. David H. Gorski (“Orac”)

Critiquing Bob Blaskiewicz ( #Burzynski Cancer is Serious Business, Part II)

Critiquing Bob Blaskiewicz (#Burzynski Cancer is Serious Business, Part II) @rjblaskiewicz

rjblaskiewicz:
https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/310589187797700608

Except YOU do NOT actually believe in

“interesting and civil discussions,”

do you, Bobby ?

rjblaskiewicz:
https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/310856694525730817

Bobby, please point out where the Declaration of Helsinki supports your tweet
http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3

Please point out where the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) supports your tweet
http://m.cancer.gov/topics/factsheets/clinical-trials

rjblaskiewicz
https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/310923414175105024
rjblaskiewicz:
https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/311317995861442560

Do you mean THIS present ?

“Let’s make Houston cancer quack Burzynski pay!”

PZ Myers

“there is a plan to remind him of the grief he has caused”

“his snake oil”

“bilk people out of buckets of money”

“Crime does pay”

“This fraud”

“The Burzynski clinic is a place you go to die”

“The lies”

“his quackery”

Do you mean THIS St. Jude ?
St. Jude:

http://www.stjude.org/stjude/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=403c6f9523e70110VgnVCM1000001e0215acRCRD

2/15/2012 – the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has awarded St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital $4,314,800 for a childhood cancer survivor study

The new federal funds will be distributed by the National Cancer Institute (NCI)
http://cohen.house.gov/press-release/cohen-st-jude-receive-43-million-childhood-cancer-survivor-study

Tax-Exempt
Receives Federal Grants / Funds

http://www.stjude.org/stjude/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=b7e79bb8a0cf5110VgnVCM1000001e0215acRCRD&cpsextcurrchannel=1

Donations to St. Jude are tax deductible as allowed by law
http://www.stjude.org/stjude/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=6f8afa3186e70110VgnVCM1000001e0215acRCRD&vgnextchannel=2f62940504f9a210VgnVCM1000001e0215acRCRD

FORBES: St. Jude CEO – $742,718
http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml

Burzynski does NOT receive Federal Funds

Burzynski does NOT receive Federal Grants

Burzynski is NOT Tax-Exempt

Burzynski donations can NOT be deducted from a U.S. Tax Return

rjblaskiewicz:
https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/310964881253867521

THIS Phenylbutyrate (PB) ?

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

SODIUM PHENYLBUTYRATE was given an orphan drug designation by the FDA for use as an adjunct to

surgery,

radiation therapy, and

chemotherapy

for treatment of individuals with

primary or recurrent malignant glioma

Cumulative List of all Products that have received Orphan Designation: Total active designations: 2002 Effective: 5/5/2009
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/forindustry/developingproductsforrarediseasesconditions/howtoapplyfororphanproductdesignation/ucm162066.xls
PHENYLBUTYRATE and SODIUM PHENYLBUTYRATE are listed alphabetically in the lower 1/4th of this document

Pubmed 110 entries
Sodium Phenylbutyrate
“Sodium Phenylbutrate (aka PB) …”

Sodium Phenylbutyrate (PB)
Year – Pubmed (110 entries)
1958 1st entry
1995 1st clinical trial
2001 Phase 1
2009 Phase 2
2012 Phase 3

rjblaskiewicz:
https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/310979838372626432

THESE trials ?

2003 – 2006 Phase II preliminary reports

2003 – Phase II

Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma:

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

recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma

antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1

6 months median duration of treatment

of all 12 patients

2 years / 33.3% – Survival

2 / 17% – alive and tumour free for over 5 years since initial diagnosis

from the start of treatment

5 years – 1 alive for more than
4 years – 1 alive for more than

Only mild and moderate toxicities were observed, which included

3 cases of skin allergy

2 cases of:
anaemia
fever
hypernatraemuia

single cases of:
agranulocytosis
hypoglycaemia
numbness
tiredness
myalgia
vomiting

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

2004 – Phase II

Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in children with recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma :

a preliminary report
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15563234
Drugs R D. 2004;5(6):315-26

incurable recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma

antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 (ANP)

9 – patients’ median age

6 patients were diagnosed with pilocytic astrocytoma

4 with low-grade astrocytoma
1 with astrocytoma grade 2

1 case of visual pathway glioma, a biopsy was not performed due to a dangerous location

16 months – The average duration of intravenous ANP therapy

19 months – The average duration of oral ANP

1 patient was non-evaluable due to only 4 weeks of ANP and lack of follow-up scans

1 patient who had stable disease discontinued ANP against medical advice and died 4.5 years later

10 patients are alive and well from 2 to >14 years post-diagnosis

Only 1 case of serious toxicity of reversible tinnitus, of 1 day’s duration, was described

2004 – Protocol – incurable recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma
12 – Patients Accrued
33% – % of Patients Showing Complete Response
25% – % of Patients Showing Partial Response
33% – % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
0 / 0% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease

2005 – Phase II

Long-term survival of high-risk pediatric patients with primitive neuroectodermal tumors treated with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15911929
Integr Cancer Ther. 2005 Jun;4(2):168-77

13 children with recurrent disease or high risk

6 (46%) survived more than 5 years

2005 – Protocol – recurrent disease or high risk
23% – % of Patients Showing Complete Response
8% – % of Patients Showing Partial Response
31% – % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
38% – % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease

2006 – Phase II

Targeted therapy with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 of high-grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem glioma
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16484713
Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Mar;5(1):40-7

Brainstem glioma carries the worst prognosis of all malignancies of the brain

Most patients with brainstem glioma fail standard radiation therapy and chemotherapy and do not survive longer than 2 years

Treatment is even more challenging when an inoperable tumor is of high-grade pathology (HBSG)

patients with inoperable tumor of high-grade pathology (HBSG) treated with antineoplastons in 4 phase 2 trials

39% – overall survival at 2 years
22% – overall survival at 5 years

17+ years maximum survival for a patient with anaplastic astrocytoma

5+ years for a patient with glioblastoma

39% – Progression-free survival at 6 months

5+ year survival in recurrent diffuse intrinsic glioblastomas and anaplastic astrocytomas of the brainstem in a small group of patients

18 – evaluable
4 – glioblastomas
14 – anaplastic HBSG

14 – diffuse intrinsic tumors
12 – recurrence
6 – did not have radiation therapy or chemotherapy

Antineoplastons, A10 (A10I) and AS2-1 injections

5 months median duration

Responses were assessed by gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography

Antineoplastons tolerated very well
1 case of grade 4 toxicity (reversible anemia)

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

2/24/2013
http://www.skeptical.gb.net/blog/?p=1442
2/27/2013
http://www.skeptical.gb.net/blog/?p=1798
3/9/2013
http://www.thetwentyfirstfloor.com/?p=8001

rjblaskiewicz:
https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/311091486349475840

Bobby, oh REALLY ?

“The Skeptics” (Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business, Part II)

The “group” “The Sketics” claims is NOT a “group” and which allegedly does NOT spread “misinformation”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/the-skeptics

rjblaskiewicz:
https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/311524673819144192

No Bobby, you did NOT

rjblaskiewicz:
https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/311543395556409344

“VAMPIRE” ?

rjblaskiewicz:
https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/311594720373645312

Bobby, like THIS ?

Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D and “Freedom of Speech”

“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting ‘fire’ in a theater and causing a panic.”
United States Supreme Court ruled 3/3/1919
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)

https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/stanislaw-rajmund-burzynski-m-d-ph-d-and-freedom-of-speech

rjblaskiewicz:
https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/311681213934997505

Bobby, like THIS ?

David H. Gorski and the Cult of “MISINFORMATION”

Colorado Public Television 12 – PBS: Part II
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/david-h-gorski-and-the-cult-of-misinformation

Orac and the Cult of “Misinformation” (Part III)

David H. Gorski
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/orac-and-the-cult-of-misinformation-part-iii

Josephine Jones and the Cult of Misinformation

JJ recently blogged:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/josephine-jones-and-the-cult-of-misinformation

Keir Liddle and the Cult of MISINFORMATION
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/09/keir-liddle-and-the-cult-of-misinformation

The Cult of “Misinformation”

Review of “disinformation,” “misinformation,” and “misdirection” posted by #Burzynski critics
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/the-cult-of-misinformation

The cult of “Misinformation” continued

Adam Jacobs
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/the-cult-of-misinformation-continued

rjblaskiewicz:
https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/311854061550960642

Bobby, where’s your

Citation(s),

Reference(s), and / or

Link(s) ?

rjblaskiewicz:
https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/311859126965788672

Bobby, Adam Jacobs does NOT care about “FREE SPEECH,” he censors it:
http://dianthus.co.uk/burzynski-qa

rjblaskiewicz:
https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/311931318629986305

Well, Bobby

We know a lot of the skeptics seem to “hate” the truth

rjblaskiewicz:
https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/312013682408292354

Bobby, maybe you should have actually watched THIS:

Burzynski Infomercial on Colorado PBS 12
http://www.skeptical.gb.net/blog/?p=2401

rjblaskiewicz:
https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/312052091407433728

Bobby, maybe you should ACTUALLY listen to it

rjblaskiewicz:
https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/312121530995855360

Yeah, riiiiiiiiight, Bobby

rjblaskiewicz:

“Response to the release of Burzynski 2, Havanna Nights”
http://t.co/t9WMpNRN9L

Skeptical Humanities
Learning is Cool

Response to the release of Burzynski 2, Havanna Nights

Posted by Bob

On this week’s episode of the Virtual Skeptics, I replied to what was learned at the premiere of the new Burzynski movie

The text of my segment follows the episode

This week, the new Burzynski movie premiered in San Luis Obispo, California

We largely knew what was going to be in the movie since a couple of trailers had been released, the patients who appeared had talked about the filming, and there was a sort of credulous review had appeared a few days ahead of time and I believe the director may have mentioned it on a PBS fundraising specual a few days earlier

So we had a pretty good idea of what our proxies should be looking for

We really wanted to see if certain people who had been filmed, like Amelia Saunders or Hannah Bradley appeared and especially what was said about them

We wanted lists of people who appeared, to see if we might be able to put together who said what

Most of these people’s stories are well known, and we doubted there would be anything new

Also our people took down key quotes that struck them as important, like

(those notes did NOT seem very “key” considering Orac’s (David H. Gorski @gorskon #sciencebasedmedicine @ScienceBasedMed @oracknows) “Second-Hand” “review” of Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business, Part II)

“skeptics are hiding behind their BS free speech.”

(Yep, TRUE)

This is my takeaway, after talking to the people who I know were there

We are wiggly little scumbags who are hateful and slimy

(some skeptics seem to be “hateful” of the truth)

We ridicule the desperate and dying

Some of us are paid by big pharma

Others are deluded and think that we are doing good but are being misled

(that is a fair description of “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “misdirection”)

But make no mistake–and this was hammered home to me by everyone I talked to–we are to them pure evil

One of my big concerns going into the movie was how I was going to be portrayed and whether or not I was going to receive death threats

That my family was going to receive death threats or that I was going to be harassed at work

I feared this because of a letter that, as you know, was sent to my employer promising that I would be featuring prominently in the Burzynski movie

Nobody asked me for my opinion or to give a statement or to respond or clarify; they went straight to my boss

Fine

I’ve had wacky people contact my employers in the past

I fully expect it to happen in the future

Clips of this show, episode 13, were included in the movie

This is the episode that was quoted in the letter on my university chancellor

As it turned out, our faces were blurred, our names obscured, and our voices were altered

No real identifying information

Which, you know, I’m OK with

However, there are some problems here

1) What was served by contacting my employer other than to scare me

How dare the filmmakers say that we’re terrorizing people when they are doing just that

2) Someone asked me about a quote,

“we’re coming for you, you little polish sausage you.”

The thing is, the quote is patently absurd if my name is shown, something that everyone here jumped on, like I hoped you would during the original episode

That joking was not conveyed to the skeptics in the theater audience

This might be due to the fact that not only were we given scary voices but also that apparently every time we appeared scary music played in the background

It’s clear that the reason I’m in the movie in the capacity I am, as chief bad guy, is because I’m on video talking about the Burzynski Clinic

And this leads me to another thing that Brian mentioned

That when we kind of appeared on the screen, they put up a title card type thing that said,

“skeptical teleconference”

or something like that, and that a woman at the end of the show, wanted to know,

“How did you get this footage of these scheming skeptics?”

Um….we publicize our show constantly?

If you can’t have real clandestine drama, you might as well make it up

My favorite bit was a tweet that I got around this time where a new account who followed like 10 people I do said,

“It’s really interesting when you talk about Burzynski on the show

Could you do that more?”

Really, Eric?

(Do you know it was Eric ? After all, you thought I was Eric)

Bob Blaskiewicz

Yeah, I have a feeling it’s Merola

That’s just me though

He’s way too invested in the hashtag in his movie to just let it drop
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg/2013/03/burzynski-another-fact-blind-troll-who-predicted-that/#comments

Do you think I’m two years old?

(Your “fact-checking” ability makes me wonder)

I am interested in ultimately seeing it

I’m asking that the producer send a review copy to the James Randi Educational Foundation so a proper review can be done

(As if jref is a “reliable source”)

Or you could screen it in Minneapolis

Next week works for me, Eric, if you’re free

Another thing

News broke on the 7th of January in skeptical circles that the FDA was conducting an audit of the clinic

A patient in the movie apparently said that she had been receiving a brain scan when she heard that the Clinic was being investigated again

This means that material was added to the movie after the 7th of January

The Burzynski Birthday Fundraiser was announced by PZ Myers on the 6th

So there was more than enough time for the filmmaker to clarify exactly what was meant in that episode when I said that there was going to be a little present on his birthday

(That “present” PZ Myers was offering up ?)

Skeptics evilly, and with malice aforethought, raised $14.5K dollars for St. Jude’s

We then challenged the Clinic to match us, and it didn’t

That the director did not mention this fact seems to me inexcusable, making us look like we are big meanos who hate babies and morality

(He could have mentioned your “Fave,” PZ Myers)

This demonization is unfair and at the expense of the truth–if you ever read theotherburzynskipatientgroup blog you know whose side I’m on

If he used the video clip of us that he cited in his letter to my employer, about us bringing a “present” to Burzynski and knowing what it actually was without clarifying it, well, that just speaks to his regard for completeness and accuracy

No messiah should need such fudging

It suggests to me that he’s forcing evidence into a pre-existing narrative of persecution

(And what do you call what YOU are doing ?)

References:

PZ Myer’s announcement of the Houston Cancer Quack
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/01/06/lets-make-houston-cancer-quack-burzynski-pay/

The Virtual Skeptics episode that appears in the movie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IK-yF8w6nLo

RJB

rjblaskiewicz:
http://t.co/F79zndTjuZ

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/312234423288487936

Bob Blaskiewicz retweeted
https://twitter.com/jref/status/312255856928509953

Bobby, did you know that I tried to post a comment on the James Randi Educational Funding (jref) article Written by Brian Thompson , about this, but they did NOT post my response ?

Did you post something about “FREE SPEECH” ?

“Burzynski II” Fails to Convince
Swift”

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/2050-qburzynski-iiq-is-more-of-the-same.html

My 1st-hand Review of Orac’s 2nd-Hand Review – Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business, Part II

Burzynski critic Orac blogged about “Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business, Part II”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/my-1st-hand-review-of-oracs-2nd-hand-review-burzynski-cancer-is-serious-business-part-ii

rjblaskiewicz:
https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/312998393259622402

Bobby, does this mean it will be punctuated correctly, but NOT “Fact-Checked” ?

rjblaskiewicz:
https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/313465677614817280

Bobby, it did NOT help

rjblaskiewicz:
https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/313496736708583424

rjblaskiewicz:

Not really. 🙂

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/313508346399428608

That’s what I thought, Bobby

rjblaskiewicz:
https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/313725494170361856

rjblaskiewicz:
https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/313741293576667137

rjblaskiewicz:
https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/310589187797700608

Bobby, what was that about

“many interesting and civil discussions” ?

Bobby, you can’t always get what you want

But if you try sometime, you just might find

you get what you need

rjblaskiewicz:
https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/314115938960154624

Bobby, let me guess

You are so busy tweeting about penises that you do NOT have enough time to “Fact-Check” ?

You do know FDA required ?

” … in 1997, his medical practice was expanded to include traditional cancer treatment options such as

chemotherapy,

gene targeted therapy,

immunotherapy and

hormonal therapy

in response to FDA requirements that cancer patients utilize more traditional cancer treatment options in order to be eligible to participate in the Company’s

Antineoplaston CLINICAL TRIALS
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/724445/000091205702038660/a2091272z10qsb.txt

rjblaskiewicz:

Comes with the territory! 🙂

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/315972148684529664

Yes it does, Bobby

You’ve just been Insolently pwned