Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski, Stanislaw R. Burzynski, Stanislaw Burzynski, Stan R. Burzynski, Stan Burzynski, S. R. BURZYNSKI, S. Burzynski, Arthur Burzynski, Hippocrates Hypocrite Hypocrites Critic Critics Critical HipoCritical
—————————————————————— Gumbygiveth, and Gumbysayeth away
——————————————————————
The Spinning Bowel Movement(SBM)masticulation which emanates from the breadth and width of the National Geographic(#NatGeo)Geeosphere of Respectful IsNoSense, is such, it requires that “words be combined” and “new words be created” in order to elucidate the effluencerunning through the collective soul of the Vulcan MindMeldLess masses
====================================== #31 – Narad – 11/16/2013 [1]
—————————————————————— “Best accidental tipoff I’ve noticed from the Scamway PR machine, courtesy Josephine Jones (PDF):”
—————————————————————— “Once your treatment plan has been fulfilled, you will be discharged from the clinic and will return home to continue treatment with the assistance of your local physician(s)”
“This rather clearly does not mean “by us.”
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— Nary a rational answer deducible
Narad, the Hero of the Zeroes, acks as if some great mystery has just been unmasked before the unmindfulcrevmasses
A hole in the head, A hole in the head, When he’s reincarnated, He wants his name to be Zeb
We, the sheeple
What ?
Wyatt ?
We are familsheep
====================================== #29 – The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge – 11/18/2013 [2]
—————————————————————— “Has anybody been monitoring DJT?”
“Has he gotten Medieval on USA Today’s ass yet?”
—————————————————————— SeriouExcuseMe, but if you chose “The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge” as your pseudonym, and this was the bestion you could acks, you must not be the “sharpest”Toolhacking at the “tree of stupendity
You’re no Right Rev’rend Leviticus Fall, well
—————————————————————— #30 – Lawrence – 11/18/2013
—————————————————————— “@TVRBA – oh, I guess I’ve made him angry…..lol….”
——————————————————————
Hardly, NoBardly[3]
If USA TODAY needed a Troll to take up a 3rd of the Facebook comments on Liz Szabo’sfabled fish tale, you were the perfect “Mark McAndrew is Trollolo”[4] to Trollolo all over there, as none of “The Skeptics™” probably would have come within a 10-foot pole of touching your nonSeance, when you intimated that you “talked to the dead”, and they chose you, of all sheeple, to
Look at the church, See the steeple? Open the doors, See all “The Skeptics™” sheeple ?
—————————————————————— #33 – Narad – 11/18/2013
—————————————————————— “oh, I guess I’ve made him angry…..lol….”
—————————————————————— “I seem to be missing the part where he demonstrates the 18 CENSORED COMMENTS bit, but at least there’s the consolation of the deranged meltdown itself”
““I’ll show them!!!”
“I’ll POST DOZENS OF PICTURES OF MY PHONE FOR NO APPARENT REASON!!!”
“AAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!””
——————————————————————
The biggest gap in genius on GorskiGeek’sblogs, is that there is no “I” in genus, ever since GorskGeekgaffed by going Gabroni gambit
Why NearDoWell seems “to be missing the part where he demonstrates the 18 CENSORED COMMENTS bit”, is because grasping the concept of selecting (clicking on) a link, is something nonnative to Narad’sknowledge
[5]
Not a really astute display
of Science-Based Medicine
I did NOT“post dozens of pictures OF MY PHONE“
However, I DID post dozens of pictures of your dunderheaded display of dummkopfedness
—————————————————————— #35 – Lawrence – 11/18/2013
—————————————————————— “@Narad – I didn’t realize I quoted quite so well…..double the pleasure, double the fun!”
——————————————————————
In your defense, I daresay the difference is definitely:
Double the Dumb
—————————————————————— #12 – AntipodeanChic – 11/22/2013
—————————————————————— “I have to wonder now whether my liver is missing a peptide or two…”
“Slightly OT for this thread, but the other day I was finally able to make myself watch “Hannah’s Anecdote”“
“I presume I’m not the only one who shuddered at the cavalier back-room insertion of her Hickman catheter”
“I’m afraid I couldn’t really discern any adequate sterile field & I have NEVER heard of these kinds of lines being inserted while the patient is only mildly sedated“
“I’m surprised sepsis doesn’t take out more of Dr. B’s patients than the toxicity does”
——————————————————————
It’s not your liver you should be concerned about
I’m surprisedstupendity doesn’t take out more of Dr. G’spundits than the errors do [6]
One would have hoped that AntiPoorSceneCheck would have been be able to get away from the popcorn and Science-Biased Mudicine, but instead, if she ever saw a “fact”, she did NOT do the double-checkChic
—————————————————————— Day Three(7:44)
—————————————————————— “Yeah
Inject sugar and then you’re also having a, this Hickman line fitted”
“Yeah”
“Yeah”
—————————————————————— Day Three(9:28)
—————————————————————— “Right”
“So uh were just getting ready now for Hannah to go in and have her PET scan and uh catheter Hickman line fitted and she’s just filling in the form”
—————————————————————— Day Three(9:48)
—————————————————————— (?)
(laughing)“You’ve just taken some , some Valium as well, have you ?”
(as much local anesthetic as could give her w/o knocking her out)
catheter – Hickman line
(painful / really painful)
—————————————————————— Day Three(10:04)
—————————————————————— “What I’m doing is I’m creating a little tunnel under the skin
So I have to use just a little bit of pressure
So if I hurt you, you tell me
Ok”?
“How are you feeling”?
“Shhh”
(laugh)
—————————————————————— Day Three(10:30)
—————————————————————— “Did, did, did you feel that when it was going in and stuff” ?
“Not really”
“Little bit
It’s a little bit painful now”?
“Yeah
It’s quite really painful now
Yeah”
—————————————————————— Day Four(10:52)
—————————————————————— “I’m feeling wrecked, absolutely wrecked”
(laugh) “Well you had, bit of Valium yesterday”
“Yeah”
“And you had as much um local anesthetic”
“Yep”
“as he could give you he said, without knocking you out”
“Yeah”
—————————————————————— Day Four(11:23)
—————————————————————— #31 – Stupendous Stupendity Stupifies Scienceblogs . com/Insolence | Didymus Judas Thomas’ Hipocritical Oath Blog November25, 2013
[…] http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/11/22/is-anyone-attending-the-4th-quadrennial-meeting-of-the-… […]
—————————————————————— #32 – eNOS – holed up in the lab for Thanksgiving – 11/25/2013
—————————————————————— “OT..sort of, but I was feeling particularly self-flagellating this afternoon so I clicked the DJT linkout (or whatever its called) at #31″
“Wow”
“Either I can’t find whatever point it’s making, or that’s just timecube-level crazy”
“Carry on”
—————————————————————–
This should NOT come as any surprise, as eNOS is NOVal Venus
eNOS probably can NOT even figure out where Robert J. (don’t call me “Bobby”) Bob (I’m NOT a doctor, I just play like I’m one on The Other Burzynski Patient Group(TOBPG))BlaskiewiczBlatherskitewicz, is, and I’ve known for quite some time now that Bob has his head so far up Dr. David H. Gorski a/k/a “Orac” a/k/a GorskGeek’sASStroturf campaign, that he should be the spokesmodel for “The Chocolate Thunder from Down Under”
—————————————————————— #33 –Lawrence – 11/25/2013
—————————————————————— “@eNOS – I don’t believe there is a rational bone in that guy’s body…he posts up a link here, just to try to drive “curiosity-seekers” to his blog…..incoherent doesn’t even begin to describe him”
—————————————————————— Lawrench threw a monkey when GorskiGeek had to edumacate him that I do NOT post “up a link” to “Orac’slHACK attack QUACKcheck-my-facts it’s just WHACK
—————————————————————— #34– palindrom – 11/25/2013
—————————————————————— “Lawrence @33 — Crank.net uses the wonderful category “illucid” for some of its crankier entries”
“This adjective is all too useful these days”
—————————————————————— #35 – Lawrence – 11/25/2013
—————————————————————— “@Palindrom – yes, a very good term….hey, at least I got an honorable mention over at insano’s site…kind of funny, actually”
—————————————————————— #36 – eNOS – 11/25/2013
—————————————————————— “I was unaware of the existence of crank.net”
“This is just wonderful and along the lines of tvtropes for a good afternoon of time wasting or entertainment between western blot transfers”
“Thank you!”
——————————————————————
What the 3 Amigob-smackers should do is grow a pair and stop bowing down to the Hitler of Histrionics, the Lenin of Lip-service, the Mussolini of MisDisInformation, the Pol Pot of Pusillanimousness, the Stalin of Stupendity
—————————————————————— #37 – Eric Lund – 11/25/2013
—————————————————————— “eNOS@32:”
“I infer from the domain name that this dude is pro-Burzynski (or at least thinks he is), but have never followed his trackback links to find out”
“(Presumably Rajmund is Dr. B’s middle name–that would be the Polish equivalent of Raymond.)”
“He went for alliteration in this post title, but I have no idea what “stupendous stupendity” (sic, from our Department of Redundancy Department) is supposed to mean”
“I’ll take your word for it that the post would not enlighten me on this point”
——————————————————————
I infer from your duh-same, that you’re insane in the membrane with an L.A. in S.B.M.
You can’t fix stoopid
—————————————————————— #39 – Krebiozen – 11/25/2013
—————————————————————— “DJT stomped about the scepticsphere for several months, including a sojourn here, insulting anyone who criticized Burzynski”
“He had multiple accounts banned on Twitter and has mostly retreated back to the almost comment-free blog he created”
“He did apparently debate Bob Blaskiewicz about Burzynski somewhere, but I haven’t expended much energy finding the transcript, as DJT is just too far gone for it to be interesting”
“I’m a bit concerned for his mental health, sincerely”
“Does anyone have any idea what the photo at the top of his blog represents”?
“It looks like a gloved hand wiping away a drop of urine, but I could be mistaken”
——————————————————————
Your S.B.M.“ranks” right up there
“It looks like a gloved hand wiping away a drop of urine, but I could be mistaken”
“It appears to be a cropped image of Gumby“
“Don’t ask me”
——————————————————————
Unfortunately, you’ve NEVER exhibited the “stones”based mastery necessary to sod off on “Orac,” piss-boy
Sha-mone
You know it
—————————————————————— #41 – eNOS – 11/26/2013
—————————————————————— “@Eric”
“There isn’t much of a post to speak of, as it goes”
“It’s mostly a smattering of links to other blog posts, miscellaneous things in brackets and bolded , and my god would you look at the tags”
“Those alone had to take up half the afternoon”
“The exchange with Bob would be entertaining, although I don’t know if I could parse DJT’s comments, given his “interesting” online vernacular”
“The photo on top is indeed gumby, turned on his side it looks like”
“The full picture appears as the thumbnail on a tab if you have the blog opened in firefox (probably chrome as well)”
——————————————————————
I just bet that down at the ol’ precinct house, they call you “no-shit Sherlock”!
—————————————————————— #42 – Orac – 11/26/2013
—————————————————————— “DJT amuses me”
“It’s the only reason I let his Trackbacks through”
——————————————————————
Poor Sad“OrSac” amuses me
I envision him in a “Hearing” with “Hey” Joe
Communist, yes?
“I’m not a communist, Senator”
“You look like a communist”
“I am not one of them, Senator McCarthy”
“You even smell like a commie”
Senator, the court even stated, and I quote:GorskGeek is “not ordinary communist”
I don’t care what your flamin” court called you, by gawd”
“You’re a commie, so why don’t you just grab your commie pinko blahg, Guy Chapman, and go ‘talk to the hand,’ up there by Lake Superior, while you commimune with nature, commie”!!
“Damn communists”!!!
“Next thing ya know, they’ll be wanting to ‘tie one on’“
—————————————————————— #43 – Lawrence – 11/26/2013
—————————————————————— “@Orac – I glance at his page from time to time…still incoherent….though getting a mention from him (well, pissing him off, actually) did give me quite the thrill….lol”
—————————————————————— Lawrry, the only thing you’ve been “pissing off” is the floor, again, because your scatterillogically bound missive, missed again
—————————————————————— #44 – Narad – 11/26/2013
—————————————————————— “The photo on top is indeed gumby, turned on his side it looks like”
“When I was looking at this last night, it seemed as though, based on where the drops of moisture appear on the thunbnail (which does not appear anywhere when I view the page in Firefox), it was probably Gumby’s right hand, cropped with the image upside-down”
“Then again, I’m little inclined to check again”
“I’m mildly amused by all the dot-anchored links at the top that are password-protected”
“Because, you know, if I want to organize files, I always put the cabinet out on the sidewalk with a sign on it saying “IMPROTNT FLIES” and then safeguard the key”
—————————————————————— “The Skeptics™” “conspiracy theorists” like Red Herring so much
Who am I to deny them ?
—————————————————————— #45 – Krebiozen – 11/26/2013
—————————————————————— “Does anyone have any idea who DJT is”?
“I don’t mean a name, I don’t want to out him, but I wonder whether he is associated with Burzynski in any way, if he has had a relative ‘cured’ by Burzynski, or if is he is just a concerned citizen, as it were”
“Whoever he is, he seems to have put a gargantuan effort into producing an enormous amount of evidence that he has a somewhat tenuous grip on reality”
“Gumby indeed”
“Truly bizarre”
—————————————————————— Kreblogizen, everyone knows what you have a “grip on”, and it’s assuredly NOT “reality”
—————————————————————— #46 – AdamG – 11/26/2013
—————————————————————— “Does anyone have any idea who DJT is”?
“Orac knows…I’m pretty sure I remember him saying he had a pretty good idea, at least”
——————————————————————
But then again, “Orac’s” been trying to convince his wife for years; without any luck, that he’s “about 75% sure” he “knows” where the “pisser” is
—————————————————————— #47 – AntipodeanChic – Apparently, the Land of “Asinine & Stupendous Stupidity (Pop. 1)” – 11/26/2013
—————————————————————— “Oh dear!”
“There I was, on tenterhooks overnight, fearing that I may have brought Respectful Insolence into some kind of dreadful disrepute”.*
“Granted, I had tried to make a weak joke about Suzanne Somers’ handing out medical advice – but I cannot fathom why pointing out an instance of dodgy clinical protocol should earn one an entire blog post, particularly as nobody else on the thread even responded to it”
“Clearly, my stupidity & lack of experience in that particular field must be to blame”.**
“Now, I had intended to avoid providing more fodder for my new friend but I agree with Krebiozen – I have to wonder at his motivation(s)”?
hee-hAW, population “one”
—————————————————————— #48 – eNOS – 11/27/2013
—————————————————————— “This may come through twice, as the first was given a “you’re posting comments to quickly” error”
“I didn’t even realize those dots on the top were links”
“Odd”
“I do wonder what he thinks he’s accomplishing with his rhetoric”
“The only thing I can really make out is that he is a Burzynski supporter, as Kreb mentioned above, but surely he can’t believe anyone on the same side considers him a legitimate ally when he posts all that mess”
“I will note that the about section is a bit more readable”
“I wonder if all this talk will open the gates for him here”
“Are he and his various iterations banned”?
“I forget”
“Oh, and Narad, this is the tiny Gumby thumbnail I referenced that appears in Firefox:”
——————————————————————
But then again, you can reference no other “Burzynski supporter,” who cites a case that went against him
Traditionally, Thanksgiving is best known as the Holiday that the Detroit Lions get the “stuffing” knocked out of them
However, this year, it’s time to tender the tainted twisted trophy of ThanksgivingTurkey-Lurkey to Detroit’s toasted triumvirate treat of two-faced twerk-salad troll turpitude, and I have the temerity to tinker and tamper until I pay tribute with therapeutic levels of Thoreauness in response to GorskGeek’smisinformation, disinformation, and MisDisInformation (Missed ‘Dis Information)
Wednesday, 12/21/2005, Indianapolis, Indiana-based Eli Lilly and Company was treated to truthification, in connection with their illegal promotion (misbranding) of pharmaceutical drug EVISTA; (FDA approved for prevention and treatment of osteoporosis in post-menopausal women), in the:
a. prevention in risk of breast cancer
b. reduction in risk of breast cancer
Alleged in information, promoted drug as effective for reducing risk of breast cancerEVEN AFTER PROPOSED LABELING FOR THIS USE SPECIFICALLY REJECTED by FDA [1]
GorskGeek, being the breast cancer oncology specialist he claims to be, and so concerned about breast cancer patients that he is that “guy” who speaks out passionately about issues like the 10-yearAmerican Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures, “Estimated Breast Cancer Deaths for Women”, which reflect that in 2002, 39,600 (15%) women were estimated to die from breast cancer, and this year, 2013, the estimate is 39,620 (14%), which is 20 women MORE than 10-years ago, and who rails tirelessly about the ACS’s“Estimated New Breast Cancer cases in Women”, which 10-years ago was 203,500 (31%) in 2002, and now, in 2013 is 232,340 (29%), which is ONLY
28,840 MORE than 10-years ago [2]
Now THAT’s progress !
GorskGeek, of course, must accomplish all this under his breath
But I’m sure you’re wondering, dear reader, what was GorskGeek’soutraged blog about this American pharmaceutical manufacturer coughing up $36 MILLION ?
Well, let me tell you … just as soon as I find it
Wait for it
Wait for it
Wait for it
GorskGeek was unable to bring himself to blog about Evista until exactly one year later, on 12/21/2006, and even then, he was “mum’s the word” about the breast cancer claims [3]
Perhaps GorskGeek just “knew” that eventually Evista would finally be approved by the FDA for Eli Lilly’spreventing or reducing risk of breast cancer claims on 9/13/2007, and who were those paper-pushing FDA apparatchiks to prevent Lilly from implementing their “Internal business plan” ? [4-9]
GorskGeek wouldn’t want to damage his slim and non-existent chance of getting some Eli Lilly money for research, by blogging anything that might in any way be possibly construed as him saying anything negatory about the BIG Pharma teat he longs to suck off of
After all, Bob ‘n’ Weave Blaskiewicz (who sees every molehill as a mountain), did say about GorskGeek, 9/28/2013 [10]:
—————————————————————— 1:58:04
—————————————————————— “But he is a, the thing is, the thing is, you thing you have to understand is Gorski, Gorski is a genuine expert, in matters re re regarding on oncology studies“
“I mean, he has a”
“He, He’s able to convince people, he’s able to convince people, on the strength of his record, to give him money to carry out research”
“People who know what they’re talking about”
“To give him money to carry out his research”
“Right ?”
—————————————————————— 1:59:00
——————————————————————
Yeah, right
Bobby 🙂
GorskGeek is hoping for a Happy Thanksgiving Golden Parachute; which is where he helps whistleblow about illegal BIG Pharma activity regarding some drug(s), which leaves him as the beneficiary of some funds like Mr. H. Dean Steinke, former Merck employee and his $68,190,000 MILLION from the federal government and states share of settlement amounts:
—————————————————————— $44,690,000 MILLION – Mr. H. Dean Steinke, former Merck employee from federal share of settlement amount(1997 – 2001)
—————————————————————— $23.5 MILLION – Mr. H. Dean Steinke, former Merck employee from the states share of settlement amount(1997 – 2001) ——————————————————————
Next, GorskGeek goes off on his fave autism prescription antipsychotic drug Risperdal, and the 11/4/2013, Monday, allegations concerning Global health care giantJohnson & Johnson (J&J) and its subsidiaries, $2.2 BILLION + fine regarding J&J Subsidiary Janssen(1999 – 2005) actions [11]
====================================== REFERENCES:
====================================== [1] – 12/21/2005
—————————————————————— EVISTA (FDA approved for prevention and treatment of osteoporosis in post-menopausal women)
—————————————————————— Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana-based company
—————————————————————— 12/21/2005, Wednesday
—————————————————————— $36 MILLION
——————————————————————
In connection with illegal promotion of pharmaceutical drug
——————————————————————
Pleading guilty to criminal count of violating Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by misbranding drug
——————————————————————
In addition to criminal plea
agreed to settle civil Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act liabilities by entering into consent decree of permanent injunction
——————————————————————
Charged in criminal information filed with violation of Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, following investigation by Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Office of Criminal Investigations
——————————————————————
Plea agreement signed by Lilly and United States
Complaint for permanent injunction
Consent decree of permanent injunction signed by company and United States
——————————————————————
Information alleges 1st year’s sales of drug in U.S. were disappointing compared to original forecast
——————————————————————
According to information 10/1998 – company reduced forecast of drug’s 1st year’s sales in U.S. from $401 million to $120 million
——————————————————————
Internal business plan noted:
“Disappointing year versus original forecast.”
——————————————————————
Information alleges in order to expand sales of drug, Lilly sought to broaden market for drug by promoting it for unapproved uses
——————————————————————
Information alleges strategic marketing plans and promotion touted drug as effective in preventing and reducing risk of diseases for which drug’s labeling lacked adequate directions for use
——————————————————————
According to information: Evista
1. brand team
2. sales representatives
promoted drug for: a.prevention in risk of breast cancer b.reduction in risk of breast cancer
c. reduction in risk of cardiovascular disease
——————————————————————
Under provisions of Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, drug misbranded when labeling didn’t bear adequate directions for each of intended uses
——————————————————————
Alleged in information, promoted drug as effective for reducing risk of breast cancer even after proposed labeling for this use specifically rejected by FDA
——————————————————————
Information alleges executed illegal conduct using number of tactics, including:
1. One-on-one sales pitches by sales representatives promoting drug to physicians about off-label uses of drug
2. Sales representatives trained to prompt or bait questions by doctors in order to promote drug for unapproved uses
3. Encouraging sales representatives promoting drug to send unsolicited medical letters to promote drug for unapproved use to doctors on their sales routes
4. Organizing “market research summit’ during which drug was discussed with physicians for unapproved uses, including reducing risk of breast cancer
5.
a. Creating
b. distributing
to sales representatives “Evista Best Practices” videotape, in which sales representative states “Evista truly is the best drug for the prevention of all these diseases” referring to:
1). osteoporosis 2). breast cancer
3). cardiovascular disease
——————————————————————
Complaint for permanent injunction alleges executed illegal conduct using number of tactics, including:
1. Training sales representatives to promote drug for prevention and reduction in risk of breast cancer by use of medical reprint in way that highlighted key results of drug and thereby promoted drug to doctors for unapproved use
2. Some sales representatives were instructed to hide disclosure page of reprint which noted:
a. “All of the authors were either employees or paid consultants of Eli Lilly at the time this article was written,”
b. “The prescribing information provides that “The effectiveness of [Evista] in reducing the risk of breast cancer has not yet been established.””
3. Organizing “consultant meetings” for physicians who prescribed drug during which unapproved uses of drug discussed
4. Calculating incremental new prescriptions for doctors who attended Evista advisory board meetings in 1998
5. advisory board meetings included discussion of unapproved uses for drug
6. By measuring and analyzing incremental new prescriptions for doctors who attended advisory board meetings, Lilly was using this intervention as tool to promote and sell drug
——————————————————————
In addition to agreeing to plead guilty to criminal information and plea agreement signed by Lilly, settlement with United States includes following components:
(a) agreed to settle civil Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act liabilities by entering into consent decree of permanent injunction
(1). As part of consent decree, agreed to comply with terms of permanent injunction, which will require company to implement effective training and supervision of marketing and sales staff for drug, and ensure any future off-label marketing conduct is detected and corrected
(2). agreed to be permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly promoting drug for use in:
a.preventing or reducing risk of breast cancer
b. reducing risk of cardiovascular disease
c. or for any other unapproved use in manner that violates Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act unless and until FDA approves drug for additional use or uses
——————————————————————
(b) as part of consent decree, agreed to hire and utilize independent organization to conduct reviews to assist Lilly in assessing and evaluating Lilly’s
1. systems
2. processes
3. policies
4. procedures
relating to promotion of drug and company’s compliance with consent decree
—————————————————————— FDA made following announcement to postmenopausal women who have taken drug for prevention or treatment of osteoporosis:
—————————————————————— “No postmenopausal woman who has taken Evista for the prevention or treatment of osteoporosis is affected by this action, as this matter today relates only to unapproved uses of Evista.”
——————————————————————
Defendant agreed to plead guilty to charge in information
——————————————————————
Defendant agreed to resolve complaint for permanent injunction by agreeing to consent decree of permanent injunction
—————————————————————— http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2005/December/05_civ_685.html
====================================== [2] – 11/13/2013 – The War on Cancer (I don’t think it means, what you think it says it means) #Winning?:
—————————————————————— https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/httpcancer-orgacsgroupscontentepidemiologysurveilancedocumentsdocumentacspc-036845-pdf/
====================================== [3] – 12/21/2006 – On the messiness of evidence-based medicine
—————————————————————— http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/12/21/the-messiness-of-evidencebased-medicine/
====================================== [4] – 9/13/2007 – FDA Approval for Raloxifene Hydrochloride (Brand name(s): Evista®): Approved for breast cancer risk reduction:
—————————————————————— http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/druginfo/fda-raloxifene-hydrochloride
====================================== [5] – 9/14/2007 – FDA Approves New Uses for Evista: Drug Reduces Risk of Invasive Breast Cancer in Postmenopausal Women:
—————————————————————— http://www.fda.gov/newsevents/newsroom/pressannouncements/2007/ucm108981.htm
====================================== [6] – 9/17/2007 – EvistaApproved for Reducing Breast Cancer Risk:
—————————————————————— http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm048474.htm
====================================== [7] – 2007
——————————————————————
Gorski wants to play in the kitchen, but he can’t take the heat
2/18/2013, Gorski posted his 1st book report on Hannah Bradley
Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski’s cancer “success” stories [1]
The year 2012 was rung out and the year 2013 was rung in by news that “Orac” Check-My-Facts-Hack, propagandist for “brave maverick doctor” Dr. David H. Gorski, who claims that sugar doesn’t feed cancer [2], is releasing a sequel to his wildly successful hackumentary (in “The Skeptics™” underground, that is) “How Stanislaw Burzynski became Burzynski the Brave Maverick Doctor, part 1” [3] 😃
In fact, the sequel is coming out on BFD (Blogs For Dummies) on …, well …, just any day now ! 😳
I somehow doubt that GorsKon will send me a screenerBFD to review, but I did review the 4blogettes he posted on Science Based Medicine; home of: “Our only goal is to promote high standards of science in medicine” [4], and National Geographic’s(#NatGeo)Science blogs, because it easily falls into a genre that I like to refer to as medical propaganda posts, which are almost always made in support of dubious blogs re medical treatments 😊
Gorhac’s mostly lame jokes about proposed titles aside (e.g., Burzynski II:”“Pathetic Googleloo, Burzynski II:”This Time It’s Pee-Reviewed, or even Burzynski II: FAQ Harder), it’s very clear that in the wake of his decision to drop his “[I]f I had screwed up, I would have admitted it” [5]claim re Burzynski on a technicality, and his very own spin doctor named “BOrac, are planning on a huge publicity blitz, in which @gorskon will be portrayed as, yes, a “brave maverick doctor” whom “They” (as in the BPG (Burzynski Patient Group), 3’s company, and the Don’t Mess with Texas Board of Education, a.k.a “DJT”) tried to keep down but failed because he has The Natural Cure For Rancor“Two Turntables and a Mr. Microphone” 😝
I come back to this again because Gorac’s strategy for Burzynski II, as I pointed out, is going to involve “conversion stories” of “The Skeptics™” who didn’t believe in @oracknows magic “[I]f I had screwed up, I would have admitted it”, but do now, after Bob ‘n Weave Blaskiewicz proclaimed during the 9/28/2013 “Burzynski Discussion” Google+ Hangout:“I think that professionally he would make, he he he would follow-up on these things” (2:01:00)[6], claims that he’s 75% sure of the identity of someone who has been critical of his work (like me) [7], and, of course, sucky stories 😜
“DOHrac’s” 4 posts consists of four elements:
Bias, MisDisInformation, (anecdotes), including “EOrac’s” “sucky stories”, contrasted with a rehash of “conspiracy theories” from his “review” of the first movie about the “cancer destablishment” trying to suppress common sense with pseudononsense 😄
Never mind that, even if he were FDA-approved, he would be in the same class as “The Skeptics™” that are disdained on social media as being more for hyper-“bull” than anything else because they have been giving B.S. for a long time ☺
He states: “One notes that Burzynski’s protocol requires at least 18 months of near-continuous infusion of high doses of his antineoplastons“
Does Gorski provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support his claim ?
no
“mOResmACk” reminds me of Pink
That would be the Pink in Pink Floyd, singing: “We don’t need no edumacation”, because he’s like the churlish schoolboy so intent on getting on to make his 2nd mud pie, that he pulls a wanker on the 1st one
Maybe he should learn how to do real “cancer research” like I posted 8/21/2013 [8]
——————————————————————
10/2004 (Pg. 384) 4.3 months – median duration of administration
——————————————————————
11/2010 (Pg. iv72) 4.4 months – median duration of treatment
——————————————————————
10/2006 (Pg. 466) 4 1/2 months – median duration of i.v. ANP
——————————————————————
3/2006 (Pg. 40) 5 months – median duration of antineoplaston administration
——————————————————————
10/2004 (Pg. 428) 5.2 months – administered median
——————————————————————
12/2009 (Pg. 951) 5.4 months – median duration of treatment (ST)
——————————————————————
12/2009 (Pg. 951) 5.6 months – median duration of treatment (SE)
——————————————————————
10/2004 (Pg. 427) 5.7 months – average duration of ANP
——————————————————————
10/2008 (Pg. 821) 5.7 months – median duration of treatment
—————————————————————— 2003 (Pgs. 91 + 96) 6 months – median duration of treatment
——————————————————————
12/2008 (Pg. 1067) 6.5 months – median duration of treatment
——————————————————————
10/2003 (Pg. 358) 9.5 months – median duration of IV ANP
——————————————————————
7/2005 (Pg. 300) 9 1/2 months – median duration of administration
—————————————————————— 2004 (Pgs. 315 + 320) 16 months (1 year 4 months) average duration of intravenous ANP
——————————————————————
6/2008 (Pg. 450) 16.5 months (1 year 4.5 months) – median
——————————————————————
2004 (Pg. 320)
19 months – average duration of oral ANP
——————————————————————
6/2005 (Pgs. 168 + 170)
20 months (1 year 8 months) administered average duration
——————————————————————
10/2003 (Pg. 358)
28.6 months (2 years 4.6 months) – median duration of po ANP
After obtaining at least minor response (SD), the treatment continued with po ANP
——————————————————————
9/2004 (Pg. 257)
655 consecutive days – administration of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 with the exception of a few short interruptions
—————————————————————— Gorski continues:
“Attacks on skeptics and critics of Burzynski“
“If you don’t believe me, just read question #12 in Merola’s FAQ, in which he states,
“You will notice the ‘anti-Burzynski’ bloggers refuse to do that or adhere to reputable sources”
—————————————————————— Gorski, you did NOT even provide any “source” for your “claim” that:
” … Burzynski’s protocol requires at least 18 months of near-continuous infusion of high doses of his antineoplastons“
—————————————————————— Gorski adds:
“You might say, they are preying on desperate cancer patients and families of cancer patients by carelessly misleading their readers about Burzynski and his invention.””
—————————————————————— Gorski, let’s check and see where else YOU are “carelessly misleading” your “readers”
One marvels at your amazing level of protestation ッ
However, every movie needs a villain, and it doesn’t take “sidekick” abilities to guess why “The Skeptics™” are portrayed as villains
—————————————————————— Gorski gratuitously gabs on:
“Merola also direly accuses and threatens,
“In the worst case scenarios, some bloggers intentionally publish fabricated information to their readers in an attempt to curb new patients from going to the Burzynski Clinic“
“I can hardly wait”
—————————————————————— Gorski, did you mean to “intentionally publish fabricated information” ? 😮
—————————————————————— “Neither can, I bet, a fair number of lawyers“
—————————————————————— Gorski, who’s your lawyer ?
—————————————————————— Gorski plods onward:
“An attempt to reframe Burzynski’s enormous bills for his antineoplaston therapy and criticism that he’s making clinical trial subjects pay to be in his clinical trials”
—————————————————————— Gorski, BITE ME 🙂
Does Gorski provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support his claim ?
——————————————————————
CHEMOTHERAPY: 9/24/2012 – hospitals routinely marking up prices on cancer drugs 2 to 10 times over cost
Some markups far higher
nearly $4,500 for 240-milligram dose of irinotecan to treat colon or rectal cancer average sales price: less than $60
about $19,000 1-gram dose of rituximab to treat lymphoma and leukemia roughly 3 times average sales price
about $680 50 milligrams of cisplatin markup: more than 50 times average sales price
Avastin, about $90,000 a year http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/09/24/3549634/prices-soar-as-hospitals-dominate.html
——————————————————————
5/14/2012 – Oral anti-cancer medications generally considered pharmacy benefit
Instead of co-payment plan members often pay % of cost — up to 50% in some cases — with no annual out-of-pocket limit
drugs expensive often costing 10s of 1,000s of $s a year http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-05-14/national/35457286_1_lung-cancer-drug-drugs-work-multiple-myeloma-patients
——————————————————————
RADIATION: 1/4/2013 – new study most comprehensive cost analysis ever, compared costs and outcomes associated with various types of treatment for all forms of disease, ranged from $19,901 for robot-assisted prostatectomy to treat low-risk disease, $50,276 for combined radiation therapy for high-risk disease http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2013/01/13370/how-prostate-cancer-therapies-compare-cost-and-effectiveness
——————————————————————
3/15/2012 – Using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data, 26,163 women with localized breast cancer had undergone surgery and radiation 2001 to 2005
found Medicare billing for IMRT increased 0.9% diagnosed 2001 to 11.2% diagnosed 2005
average cost radiation treatment during 1st year $7,179 for non-IMRT $15,230 with IMRT
billing for IMRT more than 5 times higher in regions across nation where local Medicare coverage determinations favorable to IMRT compared to regions where unfavorable
“The new claim is that Burzynski isn’t making patients pay for his antineoplastons (see question #13 in Merola’s FAQ), just for “clinical management” (as if that weren’t incredibly transparent) Vindication”
—————————————————————— Gorski, “NEW CLAIM” ?
2/4/2013 my post #180 on YOUR blog addressed this “new claim” by referencing a 3/12/1996 note before you posted your article 2/18/2013 [9]
—————————————————————— 3/12/1996: 2nd – 4th paragraphs (2/4/2013 post #180)
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— Gorski, makes an excuse:
“The last time I discussed Merola’s forthcoming movie, I mentioned that he had contacted me in December and asked me to appear as a Burzynski critic“
“After consultation with skeptics with more media savvy than I, not to mention the PR department at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute (whom I thought it wise to give fair warning that one of their faculty might be featured as evil incarnate in a new documentary and to give the background on what it’s all about, in case there were press inquiries), I politely declined“
—————————————————————— Gorski is like fetid HOT AIR, all words and NO action
—————————————————————— Gorski fumes:
“While going on and on about how he thinks most of us have “good motives” and how we want to be the white knight riding in to save patients from quackery (a desire he somehow manages to convey with clear dismissiveness and contempt), Merola turns immediately around to claim that we don’t know what we’re talking about and we don’t read the literature“
—————————————————————— Gorski, YOU really “don’t know what” you’re “talking about” and I’m just getting warmed up 🙂
—————————————————————— Gorski has smoke coming out his ears:
“This, of course, is complete nonsense, as I’ve read many of Burzynski’s papers (such as they are), delved into ClinicalTrials.gov to look at his clinical trials, examined the plausibility of his claims from a scientific standpoint, and examined the literature from others, both on antineoplastons and related topics”
“I’ve dissected Burzynski’s claims for antineoplastons based on science, assessed his “personalized, gene-targeted cancer therapy” claims and found them wanting, and pointed out how what he is peddling isn’t really anything new at all (more on that later), all based on my knowledge, skills, and understanding of cancer as a breast cancer surgeon and researcher”
“No doubt that’s why Merola needs to discredit me“
—————————————————————— Gorski, Eric Merola does NOT need “to discredit” you
YOU have already done a yeoman’s job of discrediting yourself [10] 🙂
—————————————————————— Gorski posits:
“Other bloggers who have been critical of Burzynski might or might not have my scientific background, but they’ve delved just as deeply into his claims and the evidence for them, and, as I have, they’ve found them highly overinflated and largely not based in science”
—————————————————————— Gorski, unfortunately, is NOT able to name these “[o]ther bloggers”
—————————————————————— Gorski deposits:
“They’ve also taken on aspects of the Burzynski phenomenon, such what I consider to be his questionable ethics and finding out what happened to a lot of patients who trusted Burzynski, far better than I have”
“Merola’s dismissal of Burzynski’s critics is, quite frankly, insulting to them and to me.”
—————————————————————— Gorski fails to mention the very “questionable ethics” of his intrepid research bud Bob [11]
—————————————————————— Gorski rants:
“I don’t know what sort of attacks on the UK bloggers who produce the bulk of the skeptical blog posts about Burzynski are coming in Burzynski II, but when it comes to me no doubt Merola is referring to this bit of yellow journalism in 2010 from an antivaccine propagandist named Jake Crosby, entitled David Gorski’s Financial Pharma Ties:”
“What He Didn’t Tell You”
——————————————————————
Does Gorski provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support his claim that it’s:
“UK bloggers who produce the bulk of the skeptical blog posts about Burzynski” ?
“What He Didn’t Tell You” ?
NO
—————————————————————— Gorski blots:
“Predictable and tiresome attacks aside, Pete and Hannah’s video made me curious about the specific success stories that Merola will focus on as “proof” that Burzynski is on to something; so I decided I should look into their stories”
“On the surface to those not familiar with cancer they do look like success stories”
“If one digs deeper, the true story is a lot murkier”
—————————————————————— Doctor “G” omits, that once “one digs deeper”, HIS“story is a lot murkier”
—————————————————————— Gorski A.D.D.s:
“More importantly, as I will show, even if they really are success stories—which is not at all clear—they do not constitute convincing evidence of the general efficacy of Burzynski’s antineoplastons, nor do they justify what I consider to be Burzynski’s highly unethical behavior.”
—————————————————————— More importantly, as I will show, is what I consider to be Gorski’s highly unethical behavior
—————————————————————— Gorski flails away:
“I will start with Hannah Bradley’s story because I’ve watched the entire 40 minute video Hannah’s Anecdote (whose title is even more appropriate than perhaps Pete Cohen imagined when he made it)”
“The documentary ends triumphantly several months after the events portrayed during the bulk of the film with Hannah apparently having had a complete response to Burzynski’s antineoplaston therapy:”
——————————————————————
Let me just first say something before I begin my usual analysis
I love these reviews 😘
I really do
Yes, it’s true that GorsGeek can be a bit annoying with his seeming desire to validate everything he flogs about some perceived “offender,”as being applicable to him, but I want GorskGeek and “HOrac” to be able to live a long and full life together, growing old in each other’s company
I really do
In fact, I’d love to hang with these two and maybe buy them a pint or two at their local pub (except that it’s pointed out multiple times that GOrackGeek should no longer drink alcohol)
“Such is not my intent, but what are skeptics supposed to do?”
“Shy away from undertaking a dispassionate analysis of patient anecdotes used to promote dubious cancer therapies for fear of what patients will say?”
—————————————————————— Gorski, it might actually help IF you knew how to do a proper “dispassionate analysis” 😐
—————————————————————— Gorski cites from the Team Hannah blog
“Hannah’s treatment options are very limited and her life expectancy is for this type of tumour is normally around 18 months and this is why I started a mission to find people who had the same condition and are still alive today”
“I managed to track down a number of these people to speak to them.”
“In his movie, Pete points out that these people all led back to Burzynski“
Gorski interjects:
“Of course, as I’ve said before, dead patients don’t produce testimonials for alternative cancer cures“
——————————————————————
One wonders why Gorski even makes this comment as the number of patients Pete contacted re Burzynski’s “alternative cancer” cure, were obviously NOT dead 😮
—————————————————————— Gorski segues on to:
“Not long after they appear at the Burzynski Clinic, they meet with doctors there who tell them that Hannah’s most recent MRI scan showed progression of her tumor (around 8:30 in the movie)”
“Now, I’m not a radiologist, much less a neuroradiologist, but I wondered at all the enhancement on the superficial area of the brain, just under where her neurosurgeon must have raised the bone flap to remove what he could of the tumor“
“One wonders if much of the remaining enhancement could be still post-surgical and post-radiation change“
“Certainly, the tumor is cystic-appearing, and after surgery such cysts would likely shrink and be reabsorbed even if the tumor were to keep growing”
—————————————————————— Gorski, if you were NOT in a such a rush to post your blog article “ad homineming” Josh Duhamel, you could have taken the time to do proper “cancer research” and maybe listen to the 9/24/2012 @YouTube video of Pete Cohen talking with Neurosurgeon (Consultant) Juan F. Martinez-Canca (20:31)
After all, HE is an actual NEUROSURGEON
——————————————————————
——————————————————————
Or you could read the transcript I made of the video [12]
——————————————————————
Or you could have contacted him and asked questions http://www.neurokonsilia.com/About-Us.html
—————————————————————— Gorski tangents:
“Be that as it may, there were a number of things I found very interesting in this video”
“First, I notice that nowhere was there anything mentioned about enrolling Hannah on a clinical trial“
—————————————————————— Gorski, if you had let Hannah know you were going to do your article about her, she might have churned her 4/4/2013 article out faster just for you, where she advises:
“Luckily I was able to take part in a phase 2 clinical trial in Texas, USA”[13]
—————————————————————— Gorski stupefies:
“Given what a thorough videographer Pete obviously is, I find this omission very curious”
“Certainly, given how much detail he’s used in this video and in his vlogs I’d expect that if the subject of clinical trials was mentioned he would have included it”
—————————————————————— Gorski, if you were NOT so busy “getting the popcorn” as you “watched the entire 40 minute video Hannah’s Anecdote”, you might have actually noticed at (7:14):
—————————————————————— 12/12/2011 – Day 2 – Monday
Meeting with Dr. Yi and Dr. Greg Burzynski at Burzynski Clinic
—————————————————————— Dr. Greg Burzynski – “We have permission to start you on the antineoplastons”
“Mhmm”
Dr. Greg Burzynski – “which as you know are in the final stages of drug approval”
“Yeah”
Dr. Greg Burzynski – “Dr. Yi is the oncologist on this case”
—————————————————————— Gorski, did you SEE THAT ?
An ONCOLOGIST at the Burzynski Clinic, working with Burzynski
(No wonder you left that out !)
—————————————————————— Gorski ejects:
“The other thing that struck me was just how much Burzynski is full of it when he advertises antineoplastons as not being chemotherapy and, more importantly, as being nontoxic“
“At least a third of the video consisted of the difficulties that Hannah had with her treatment, including high fevers, a trip to the emergency room, and multiple times when the antineoplaston treatment was stopped“
“She routinely developed fevers to 102° F, and in one scene her fever reached 103.9° F“
“She felt miserable, nauseated and weak“
“I’ve seen chemotherapy patients suffer less”
—————————————————————— Gorski whines:
“I’ve seen chemotherapy patients suffer less”, but this is purely “anecdotal”
“At least a third of the video consisted of the difficulties that Hannah had with her treatment”
Let’s do the math, shall we ?
——————————————————————
In America (48 days)
12/11/2011 (Sunday) – 1/27/2012 (Friday)
[4:52 – 35:43]
—————————————————————— Burzynski Clinic 47 days – (7 weeks)
12/12/2011 (Monday) – 1/26/2012 (Thursday)
[5:37 – 35:43]
—————————————————————— 12/13/2011 (Tuesday) Day 3
after catheter – Hickman line surgery
(painful / really painful) [10:30]
—————————————————————— 12/14/2011 (Wednesday) Day 4
(feeling wrecked / absolutely wrecked) [10:52]
—————————————————————— 12/24/2011 (Saturday) Day 14
fever
bad breathing
uncontrollable chills couldn’t stop shivering all Saturday night [18:10]
—————————————————————— 12/25/2011 (Sunday) Day 15
fever
flu symptoms
bad breathing
headache
in bed
absolutely exhausted
little bit of swelling back of head [18:10]
—————————————————————— 12/27/2011 (Tuesday) Day 17
temp 102
temp down / up [19:04]
—————————————————————— 12/28/2011 (Wednesday) Day 18
exhausted
close to breaking / cracking [19:04]
—————————————————————— 12/29/2011 (Thursday) Day 19
hospital – E.R.
“I’m at my wits end”
“I don’t feel I can take anymore” [20:07]
—————————————————————— 12/30/2011 (Friday) Day 20
last week up & down
fever
chills
shaking
viral infection
bacterial infection
had to go to E.R. [20:22]
—————————————————————— 12/31/2011 (Saturday) Day 21
fever in middle of night
flu-like symptoms
temp 102 [21:53]
—————————————————————— 1/1/2012 (Sunday) Day 22
feel drunky
felt like completely drunk
double vision
Nurse said anti-seizure drug she hadn’t taken before
bit shaky [22:34]
—————————————————————— 1/15/2012 (Sunday) Day 36
antibiotics 1st day [24:33]
—————————————————————— 1/16/2012 (Monday) Day 37
over 102 Monday night
antibiotics 2nd day [25:24]
—————————————————————— 1/17/2012 (Tuesday) Day 38
fever
temp 101.8
throat infection
antibiotics been on 3 days [25:24]
—————————————————————— 1/20/2012 (Friday) Day 41
fever 104 (103.9) Friday night [26:54]
—————————————————————— 1/21/2012 (Saturday) Day 42
temp up to 104 (103.9)
Dr. on-call – Ibuprofen
102.5
yesterday afternoon (blood) rash ? [27:50]
—————————————————————— 1/23/2012 (Monday) Day 44
some itch [28:35] ======================================
47 days – Burzynski Clinic 31 days – treatmentNOTmentioned 16 days – treatment mentioned ====================================== 12/25/2011 (Sunday) Day 15 off ANP [18:10]
—————————————————————— 12/27/2011 (Tuesday) Day 17 back on ANP off ANP – temp 102
temp down / up [19:04]
—————————————————————— 12/28/2011 (Wednesday) Day 18 on ANP much smaller dose [19:04]
—————————————————————— 12/29/2011 (Thursday) Day 19
hospital – E.R. [20:07]
—————————————————————— 12/30/2011 (Friday) Day 20
last week up & down off on off on off ANP [20:22]
—————————————————————— 12/31/2011 (Saturday) Day 21
temp 102 [21:53]
—————————————————————— 1/15/2012 (Sunday) Day 36
antibiotics 1st day [24:33]
—————————————————————— 1/16/2012 (Monday) Day 37
over 102 Monday night
antibiotics 2nd day [25:24]
—————————————————————— 1/17/2012 (Tuesday) Day 38
temp 101.8 off ANP (If 102 take off ANP)
antibiotics been on 3 days [25:24]
—————————————————————— 1/20/2012 (Friday) Day 41
fever 104 (103.9) Friday night [26:54]
—————————————————————— 1/21/2012 (Saturday) Day 42 off ANP – temp up to 104 (103.9)
102.5 [27:50] ====================================== 5 – off ANP
May have beenoff ANP5 to 6 days out of 47? ====================================== 12/27/2011 (Tuesday) Day 17
temp 102
temp down / up [19:04]
—————————————————————— 12/29/2011 (Thursday) Day 19
hospital – E.R. [20:07]
—————————————————————— 12/31/2011 (Saturday) Day 21
temp 102 – in middle of night [21:53]
—————————————————————— 1/16/2012 (Monday) Day 37
temp over 102 Monday night
antibiotics 2nd day [25:24]
—————————————————————— 1/17/2012 (Tuesday) Day 38
temp 101.8
antibiotics been on 3 days [25:24]
—————————————————————— 1/20/2012 (Friday) Day 41
temp 104 (103.9) Friday night [26:54]
—————————————————————— 1/21/2012 (Saturday) Day 42
102.5 [27:50] ====================================== 6 days – temperature mentioned
temp 102 – temp down / up – 12/27/2011 102 in middle of night – 12/31/2011 102+ Monday night – 1/16/2012 temp 101.8 – 1/17/2012 104 (103.9) Friday night – 1/20/2012 102.5 – 1/21/2012 ====================================== Gorski scatterbrains on:
“I was also very puzzled at how the Burzynski Clinic could allow a cancer patient to linger with a fever of 102° F and sometimes higher, accompanied by shaking chills, in a temporary lodging without admitting her to the hospital“
——————————————————————
Does Gorski provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support his claim ?
“It’s not clear what sort of workup was done to evaluate Hannah either, what her white blood cell count was, or what her other labs were“
“Did they draw blood cultures?”
“Did they get urinalyses and cultures?”
“Did they do chest X-rays to rule out pneumonia?”
—————————————————————— Gorski, maybe you should have asked Wayne Dolcefino
Or maybe you should have gone to the Burzynski Clinic
Oh, wait
You think you know everything and could NOT learn anything by going there 😅
—————————————————————— Gorski at least gets one thing correct:
“It’s all very unclear, other than that she apparently was given some antibiotics at some point”
—————————————————————— 1/15/2012 Monday Day 36 antibiotics 1st day
—————————————————————— 1/16/2012 Tuesday Day 37 antibiotics 2nd day
—————————————————————— 1/17/2012 (Tuesday) Day 38 antibiotics been on 3 days
—————————————————————— Gorski wonders:
“Did she have the flu, given her flu-like symptoms, or was this due to her antineoplaston therapy?“
—————————————————————— Gorski, why not “speculate” like “The Skeptics™” usually do ?
—————————————————————— 12/24/2011 (Saturday) Day 14 fever
bad breathing
shivering all night
—————————————————————— 12/25/2011 (Sunday) Day 15 flu symptoms
breathing
headache
uncontrollable chills couldn’t stop off ANP absolutely exhausted
in bed
little bit of swelling back of head
—————————————————————— 12/27/2011 (Tuesday) Day 17 back on ANP temp 102 – off ANP temp down / up
—————————————————————— 12/28/2011 (Wednesday) Day 18 on ANP much smaller dose exhausted – close to breaking / cracking
—————————————————————— 12/29/2011 (Thursday) Day 19 hospital – E.R.
—————————————————————— 12/30/2011 (Friday) Day 20 last week up & down off on off on off fever
chills
shaking
viral infection
bacterial infection
—————————————————————— 12/31/2011 (Saturday) Day 21 temp 102 – fever in middle of night
Dr. SRB thinks flu-like symptoms or tumor actually breaking down
—————————————————————— 1/16/2012 (Monday) Day 37 temp 102+ Monday night
—————————————————————— 1/17/2012 (Tuesday) Day 38 throat infection temp 101.8 – fever – off ANP antibiotics been on 3 days
—————————————————————— 1/20/2012 (Friday) Day 41 104 (103.9) – fever – Friday night
—————————————————————— 1/21/2012 (Saturday) Day 42 temp up to 104
Dr. on-call – Ibuprofen 102.5 – off ANP yesterday afternoon rash
—————————————————————— Gorski ponders:
“The reaction of the clinic staff (i.e., rather blasé, even though at one point Hannah clearly demonstrates a change in mental status, appearing “drunk” and complaining of double-vision) made me wonder if this sort of problem was a common occurrence”
—————————————————————— Gorski, what’s the matter ?
Did you grab another handful of popcorn ?
—————————————————————— 1/1/2012 (Sunday) Day 22Burzynski Clinic feel drunky
felt like completely drunk
double vision
bit shaky Nurse said anti-seizure drug she hadn’t taken before [22:34]
—————————————————————— Gorski, what are some of the side-effects of “anti-seizure” medications ?
dizziness
double-vision
drowsiness
imbalance
loss of coordination
Problems with motor skills
Problems with tasks requiring sustained performance
nausea
slurred speech
staggering
mental disturbances
serious mood changes
—————————————————————— http://umm.edu/health/medical/reports/articles/epilepsy
—————————————————————— Gorski continues his assault on the popcorn:
“At another point, Pete and Hannah come to believe that the fevers might have been due to the tumor breaking down, which strikes me as implausible”
—————————————————————— Gorski, if it “strikes” you “as implausible”, then why did you ask, above ?
“Did she have the flu, given her flu-like symptoms, or was this due to her antineoplaston therapy?“
—————————————————————— 12/31/2011 (Saturday) Day 21 temp 102 – fever in middle of night Dr. SRB thinks flu-like symptoms OR tumor actually breaking down [21:53]
—————————————————————— Gorski blunders along:
“Later, she develops an extensive rash“
—————————————————————— 1/23/2012 (Monday) Day 44 Pete sent pic to Dr. SRB who gave name from pic and Pete verified [28:35]
—————————————————————— Gorski bumbles onward:
“It’s difficult to tell for sure what it is at the resolution of the video, but it looks like erythema multiforme, which is generally an allergic rash”
“What’s the most likely cause of such a rash?”
“Guess”
“Erythema multiforme is usually a drug reaction”
—————————————————————— Gorski, what can cause “Erythema multiforme” ?
“Does this mean that Burzynski’s antineoplaston treatment worked for Hannah?“
“Sadly, the answer is:”
“Not necessarily”
“It might have”
“It might not have”
“Why do I say this?”
“First, she didn’t have much residual disease after surgery and radiotherapy, and in fact it’s hard to tell how much is tumor and how much is postop and radiation effect“
—————————————————————— Gorski, I think it’s safe to say that neurosurgeon Dr. Martinez knows much better than you and your speculation
—————————————————————— Gorski
“Second, the median survival for anaplastic astrocytoma (which is a form of glioma) is around 2 to 3 years, and with different types of radiation therapy five year survival is around 15% or even higher”
—————————————————————— Gorski provides a link to a site which advises [14]:
High-grade tumors grow rapidly and can easily spread through the brain“
High-grade tumors are much more aggressive and require very intensive therapy
All patients with high-grade astrocytomas receive both radiation therapy and chemotherapy regardless of age
Prognosis is poor in this group of patients
—————————————————————— Gorski’s 2nd linked source advises [15]:
These highly aggressive tumors often occur in young adults and typically recur or progress to a grade 4 glioblastoma within several years of diagnosis, despite treatment with surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy
Tumor more resistant to therapy and patients have shorter median survival of only 2 to 3 years
—————————————————————— Gorski’s 3rd link [16] showcases his lame research as one has to read through almost the entire article to find the reference, which directs the reader to yet another publication [17]:
Gorski FAILS to advise the reader that the 2002 study is titled:
“Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) for previously untreated malignant gliomas“
Hannah Bradley’s WAS previously treated
Gorski also FAILS to advise the reader if this study included patients with grade 3 or 4 tumors
—————————————————————— Gorski claims:
“Thus, long term survival for patients with astrocytomas is not so rare that Hannah’s survival is so unlikely that the most reasonable assumption has to be that it was Burzynski’s treatment that saved her”
—————————————————————— Gorski, nice claim, but you did NOT really prove it
—————————————————————— Gorski suspects:
“More likely, Hannah is a fortunate outlier, although it’s hard for me to say even that because, at only two years out from her initial diagnosis, she’s only just reached the lower end of the range of reported median survival times for her disease”
—————————————————————— Gorski, the operative word is “outLIER”
Gorski then goes all “conspiracy theory” about a supposed “cryptic Facebook post”, a “vlog entry no longer exists”, “Hannah and Pete supposedly being “evasive”, “using vague terms”, a “little blip”, and “lack of new scans”
Next, little green “popcorn munchin'” men 👽
—————————————————————— 3/4/2013 Gorski drops “conspiracy theory, part II” on an unsuspecting audience [19]:
Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski’s cancer “success” stories update: Why is the release of the Burzynski sequel being delayed?
It’s no secret that I happen to NOT be on several mailing lists of “The Skeptics™”whose dedication to science is—shall we say?—questionable
As I delved deeper, I learned that Gorski’s evidence for the “questioning” of the anticancer efficacy of “antineoplaston therapy” doesn’t hold up; that his “questioning” of “personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy” is anything but; and that he’s an orphan now in what appears to me to be a strategy to bypass restrictions on his use of proper “cancer research “
The CliffsNotes version for those who don’t want to read Gorsack’s previous lengthy post is that he claims Hannah’s tumor, an astrocytoma (which is a form of glioma) did indeed appear to regress, but that regression can likely be explained by the surgery and radiation therapy that she had
Even then, however, he claims it would not be evidence that the antineoplastons saved her because there are occasional complete remissions in this tumor type, and long term survivors, although uncommon, are not so uncommon that Hannah must be evidence that antineoplastons are so miraculously effective that they saved her when conventional medicine could not
Gorski’s claims are anecdotal, as he failed miserably to provide the necessary citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support his claims
Gorski claims:
“I try very hard not to cross that line, and I think I’ve been successful, for instance, here”
But I proved again, above, how he fails and fails again with his “amateurish” attempts at proper “cancer research”
Similarly, Gorski realizes that it is very effective to appeal to emotions and cast Burzynski’s as heartless
Gorski inserts other Burzynski patients into his posts about Pete and Hannah
—————————————————————— GORSKI FAIL #1 – “One notes that Burzynski’s protocol requires at least 18 months of near-continuous infusion of high doses of his antineoplastons“
—————————————————————— GORSKI FAIL #2 – “The new claim is that Burzynski isn’t making patients pay for his antineoplastons (see question #13 in Merola’s FAQ), just for “clinical management” (as if that weren’t incredibly transparent) Vindication”
—————————————————————— GORSKI FAIL #3 – “First, I notice that nowhere was there anything mentioned about enrolling Hannah on a clinical trial“
—————————————————————— GORSKI FAIL #4 – “Certainly, given how much detail he’s used in this video and in his vlogs I’d expect that if the subject of clinical trials was mentioned he would have included it“
—————————————————————— GORSKI FAIL #5 – “The reaction of the clinic staff (i.e., rather blasé, even though at one point Hannah clearly demonstrates a change in mental status, appearing “drunk”and complaining of double-vision) made me wonder if this sort of problem was a common occurrence”
—————————————————————— GORSKI FAIL #6 – Well, I could add more … 🙂
——————————————————————
My apologies to the following co-authors if you ever had to check the “cancer research” of one: Gorski D., Gorski DH, D H Gorski,
[3]
—————————————————————— https://twitter.com/oracknows/status/366866619508596737
—————————————————————— Josephine Jones proves that she does NOT have a clue, and probably has NOT watched Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II (2), OR she was trying to pull a Gorski, and saw the film, but chooses to act like she did NOT see what she chooses NOT to comment on
—————————————————————— [4]
It’s strange that #Burzynski skeptics were asked to name journals and that’s where the study was submitted. http://t.co/VkCsUIENcC
——————————————————————
As you can see below, @BurzynskiMovie posed the question to Doctor B. Paul Morgan 12/20/2012 at 5:12 PM, and he responded at 5:28 PM
@drpaulmorgan @dianthusmed Pick a medical journal Paul…
Eric Merola revealed in Burzynski, Part 2 (1:29:53), that The Lancet Oncology Peer Review Team D-12-01519, in 2 hours 8 minutes and 51 seconds, refused to publish Burzynski’s 11/26/2012 phase 2 clinical trial Progression-Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS) re patients 8 – 16 years after diagnosis, results
—————————————————————— 11/26/2012 came before 12/20/2012 last time I checked
—————————————————————— The Lancet Oncology Peer Review Team D-12-01519: #FAIL:
—————————————————————— https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/25/the-lancet-oncology-peer-review-team-d-12-01519-fail/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � [5]
As far as I know, we only have Merola’s word that the ANPs study was submitted to Lancet Oncology. http://t.co/VkCsUIENcC#Burzynski
A study of antineoplastons fails to be published. Stanislaw Burzynski’s propagandist Eric Merola whines about it. News at 11.
Gorski makes me laugh at his antics
He supposedly has a Ph.D, and supposedly is a “cancer researcher”, yet his “research” is horrendous when it comes to actual cancer science
Dr. Gorski, as you recall, prefers to misdirect his Oracolytes away from Science, and instead focus on the mundane
An excellent example of this is where he states:
“(Burzynski) hasn’t bothered to actually demonstrate in a sufficiently rigorous fashion that they (antineoplastons) do what he claims they do or that they have significant anticancer activity in actual human beings”
notwithstanding the claims of his lackeys, toadies, and sycophants
So, when further on in his article where Gorski posts his usual garbage:
“However, even though Burzynski has dozens of clinical trials of antineoplastons against cancer registered at ClinicalTrials.gov but has not managed to publish even a single completed trial …”
you know he is being disingenuous, so that it fits his narrative
Gorski then continues the whining that never ends:
“… there is another investigator who has been doing a randomized clinical trial”
“His name is Dr. Hidaeki Tsuda of the Kurume University Hospital in Japan”
“He’s an anesthesiologist, not a surgeon or oncologist; so I’m not sure why he’s doing clinical trials of a chemotherapy agent”
As usual, Gorski is unable to state what difference it makes that Burzynski and Tsuda are NOT oncologists
Nor does he state whether he reviewed any of their clinical study publications in order to determine if any of the co-authors just happen to be oncologists
Why is this ?
Because Gorski is disingenuous and exhibiting his poor research
In reference to the Tsuda study, Gorski deposits:
“Nor did I have any idea whether any progress had been made in getting the study published”
Yet this is the same Gorski who supposedly blogged a “review” of Burzynski, Part 2, but when it came to the part of the film (1:29:53) where it showed the 11/26/2012 The Lancet Oncology Peer Review Team D-12-01519 lame excuse for NOT publishing Burzynski’s phase 2 clinical trial Progression-Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS) re patients 8 – 16 years after diagnosis, results, in 2 hours 8 minutes and 51 seconds, Gorski was Mr. NO COMMENT #FAIL
====================================== See point #13
—————————————————————— 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/
======================================
Now, all of a sudden, Gorski acts like he thinks we should accept that he’s NOT just continuing his disingenuous behavior
Gorski, Gorski, Gorski, Gorski, you are such a funny man
I really did laugh out loud when I read how you did NOT compare the lame excuse given by The Lancet Oncology Peer Review Team, with the reply they supplied regarding the Tsuda study
Gorski whines about the experience he suffered when he had difficulty getting something published, and comments;
“If the topic is not interesting or the data are crap, its being well-written and rigorously adherent to the journal’s format won’t save it”
I guess this means that Gorski’s journal submission fit his criteria:
“the topic is not interesting or the data are crap”
Gorski continues with his foaming of the mouth and gnashing of teeth:
“The Tweet linked to in the Tweet above was this one:”
@BurzynskiMovie @dianthusmed 1. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2. The Lancet Oncology. 3. New England Journal of Medicine. (1/2)
— Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) December 20, 2012
“So basically, it appears that Mr. Merola likely transmitted suggestions for journals listed on Twitter to Dr. Burzynski and/or Dr. Tsuda, and the advice was taken”
“It’s almost as though this particular Burzynski apologist thought that Dr. Paul Morgan meant that Dr. Tsuda’s manuscript would definitely be accepted”
Such naiveté is almost cute
Gorski exhibits that he did NOT make any effort whatsoever to click on the provided link and read the material associated with the tweet
Actually, it’s painful to behold such basic ignorance about how Twitter links work
Of course, there is a way for Dr. Gorski to demonstrate my educated guess about what really happened to be wrong
All he has to do is to answer a question and provide one bit of information
The question is, “Did you watch Burzynski, Part 2?” If the answer is yes, then all we need to see to determine if you are NOT being disingenuous is true, is one simple thing
Explain WHY you did NOT mention The Lancet Oncology Peer Review Team lame excuse for NOT publishing Burzynski’s results
It’s really that simple, Dr. Gorski
Put up or shut up
In the meantime it is obvious what “plan B” is
You will continue with your usual deception, misdirection, misinformation, disinformation, MisDisInformation, and lies
The reason is easy
Gorski and the Oracolytes are disingenuous
Gorski supporters really need a new schtick
This one’s getting really old
So is the schtick of The Skeptics
Surely they could come up with something better than this?
Apparently not
They are Cowards who refuse to debate the issues on-line or in person
======================================
[1] Josephine Jones (@_JosephineJones) tweeted at 3:31am – 12 Aug 13:
——————————————————————
Antineoplastons study rejected by Lancet Oncology. It’s a conspiracy! scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013… #Burzynski
======================================
[2] Orac (@oracknows) tweeted at 3:47am – 12 Aug 13:
——————————————————————
Yo! New insolence! A study of antineoplastons fails to be published. Stanislaw Burzynski’s propagandist Eric M… bit.ly/1csAfRB
======================================
[3] Orac (@oracknows) tweeted at 5:19am – 12 Aug 13:
——————————————————————
Oh, @BurzynskMovie, here’s what I think of whining that Dr. Tsuda’s paper was rejected by Lancet Oncology. scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013… #Burzynski
======================================
[4] Josephine Jones (@_JosephineJones) tweeted at 3:33am – 12 Aug 13:
——————————————————————
It’s strange that #Burzynski skeptics were asked to name journals and that’s where the study was submitted. scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013…
======================================
[5] Josephine Jones (@_JosephineJones) tweeted at 3:37am – 12 Aug 13:
——————————————————————
As far as I know, we only have Merola’s word that the ANPs study was submitted to Lancet Oncology. scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013… #Burzynski
======================================
[6] David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 5:21am – 12 Aug 13:
——————————————————————
.@_JosephineJones I think Tsuda’s aiming too high. Lancet Oncology is a top tier cancer journal. He should aim much lower. #Burzynski
======================================
[7] FW (@frozenwarning) tweeted at 5:08am – 12 Aug 13:
——————————————————————
@_JosephineJones Look forward to it being published in some shit altmed journal then! *twiddles thumbs*
======================================
[8] Primum Non Nocere (@DrNescio) tweeted at 7:20am – 12 Aug 13:
——————————————————————
A study of antineoplastons fails to be published. Stanislaw Burzynski’s propagandist Eric Merola whines about it…. pulse.me/s/p1zrK
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
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
——————————————————————
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
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
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:
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
“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:
======================================
====================================== 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
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
======================================
======================================
And THIS is the Gorski who has claimed to have reviewed almost all of Burzynski’s antineoplaston publications
====================================== 11/2/2012
March 29, 1996
�
Then United States Food and Drug Administration Commissioner, David Kessler told the American people:
�
1. We will eliminate unnecessary paperwork … that used to delay or discourage … cancer research … by non-commercial clinical investigators
�
2. The … FDA’s initiatives … will allow …the agency … to rely on smaller trials … fewer patients … if there is evidence … of partial response in clinical trials
�
I don’t want to get into any particular … agent … except let me point out … that … the information needs to be part … of clinical trials
�
3. We will accept … less information … up front –
�
4. we’re going to require further study AFTER … approval … because the science … has matured
�
5. The important – point … is that information needs to be gathered … through scientific means … through clinical – trials … and I think – that’s … that’s very important uhh very … important point
�
You can’t … just … use an agent here – or there … you have to use it … as part of a clinical trial … so we can get information … on whether the drug works
�
6. The uhh agency has … many … trials … has has approved trials … for patients … with antineoplastons
�
7. We are committed to providing expanded access … availability … for American patients for any drug … there’s reason to believe … may work
—————————————————————— BOTTOM LINE:
—————————————————————— Everything else is MISDIRECTION
—————————————————————— https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/antineoplastons-has-the-fda-kept-its-promise-to-the-american-people
——————————————————————
A. What is the FDA’s definition of “unnecessary paperwork”?
�
B. What is the FDA’s definition of “smaller trials”?
�
C. What is the FDA’s definition of “fewer patients”?
�
D. What is the FDA’s definition of “evidence … of partial response“?
�
E. What is the FDA’s definition of “less information … up front”?
�
F. What is the FDA’s definition of “we’re going to require further study AFTER … approval”?
�
G. What is the FDA’s definition of “We are committed to providing expanded access … availability … for American patients for any drug … there’s reason to believe … may work”?
======================================
2003 – 2009 Phase II preliminary
——————————————————————
2003 – Phase II http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12718563
Drugs R D. 2003;4(2):91-101
(Drugs in R and D / Drugs in Research and Development)
�
2003: Protocol – recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma
�
12 – Patients Accrued
10 – Evaluable Patients
�
2 / 20% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response 3 / 30% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
3 / 30% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
2 / 20% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
====================================== http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/scientific-publications.html
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
1. 10/2003
�
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
�
Burzynski, S.R., Weaver, R.A., Bestak, M., Lewy, R.I., Janicki, T.J., Jurida, G.F., Paszkowiak, J.K., Szymkowski, B.G., Khan, M.I.
�
Phase II study of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in children with recurrent and progressive MULTICENTRIC GLIOMA
�
A preliminary report
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
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
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
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
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
�
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/
�
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
Volume 11 Issue 6 December 2009
Abstracts from the Third Quadrennial Meeting of the World Federation of Neuro-Oncology (WFNO) and the Sixth Meeting of the Asian Society for Neuro-Oncology (ASNO)
May 11-14, 2009
Yokohama, Japan
�
12/2009 – Protocol – BRAINSTEM GLIOMAs
�
40 – Patients Accrued
28 – Evaluable Patients
(23 children / 5 young adults)
�
5 / 18% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response 4 / 14% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
12 / 43% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
7 / 25% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
—————————————————————— Special exception (SE)
�
12/2009 – Protocol – BRAINSTEM GLIOMAs
�
52 – Evaluable Patients
(40 children / 12 young adults)
�
5 / 10% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response 2 / 4% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
28 / 54% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
17 / 32% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
——————————————————————
BT-11 and special exception (SE)
92% – diffuse intrinsic brainstem gliomas (DBSG)
�
Overall survival (OS) – 2 years:
42% – special exception (SE)
36% – BT-11
�
Overall survival (OS) – 5 years:
19% – special exception (SE)
25% – BT-11
======================================
Compare: standard radiation therapy in combination with chemotherapy (RAT) (Mandell et al. 1999)
�
2% – % of Patients Showing Complete Response 31% – % of Patients Showing Partial Response
�
Mandell LR, Kadota R, Freeman C, et al. There is no role for hyperfractionated radiotherapy in the management of children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic brain stem tumors: results of pediatric oncology group phase III trial comparing conventional vs. hyperfractionated radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;43:959-964. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10192340/
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999 Mar 15;43(5):959-64. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10192340/
International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
Volume 43, Issue 5, 15 March 1999, Pages 959–964 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036030169800501X
Department of Radiation Oncology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
6/1992 – 10/1997
�
Overall survival (OS):
7% – 2 years
0% – 5 years
=====================================
COMBINED:
——————————————————————
Overall survival (OS) – 2 years:
——————————————————————
42% – antineoplastons: special exception (SE)
�
36% – antineoplastons: BT-11
�
7% – standard radiation therapy in combination with chemotherapy (RAT)
——————————————————————
Overall survival (OS) – 5 years:
——————————————————————
25% – antineoplastons: BT-11
�
19% – antineoplastons: special exception (SE)
�
0% – standard radiation therapy in combination with chemotherapy (RAT)
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Break The Walls Down:
——————————————————————
And “THAT’s The BOTTOM LINE”
Because Stone Cold Said So
——————————————————————
IT’s GO TIME
Time To Play The Game:
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?
Didymus Judas Thomas' Hipocritical Oath Blog 