Turkey Lurkey Thanksgiving Title

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 Thanksgiving Turkey-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’s misinformation, 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 cancer EVEN 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-year American 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’s outraged 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’s preventing 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 giant Johnson & 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 – Evista Approved for Reducing Breast Cancer Risk:
——————————————————————
http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm048474.htm
======================================
[7] – 2007
——————————————————————

Click to access 020815s018lbl.pdf

======================================
[8]
——————————————————————

Click to access ucm088593.pdf

======================================
[9] – 2007
——————————————————————

Click to access 022042lbl.pdf

======================================
[10] – 10/18/2013 – Deconstructing Dr. David H. (Orac) Gorski – September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/deconstructing-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-september-28-2013-the-skeptics-burzynski-discussion-by-bob-blaskiewicz-21951/
======================================
[11] – 11/4/2013
——————————————————————
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/November/13-ag-1170.html
======================================

Advertisement

Critiquing: Eric Merola and Stanislaw Burzynski respond to the FDA findings and the USA TODAY story. Hilarity ensues

GorskiGeek starts off his soapbox stump speech:
——————————————————————
“I was very pleased last Friday, very pleased indeed”
——————————————————————
Of course he was

After all, it was as if USA TODAY was quoting directly from “The Skeptics™” fave Fahrvergnügen pharyngula and GorskGeeks’s jacked July jabberwocky at “The Amazing Meeting” 2013 (TAM 2013 #TAM2013) Twitter Twaddle-fest

Given the normal subject matter of this blog, in which I face a seemingly unrelenting infiltration of pseudononsense pseudononscience and hackery into even the most hallowed halls of hacademic medicine, against which I seem to be fighting a mostly uphill battle, having an opportunity to see such an excellent non-deconstruction of science and medicine in a large bad mainstream news outlet like USA TODAY, GONE TOMORROW is rare and ungratifying

GorskGeek gambits:
——————————————————————
“As you might recall, USA TODAY reporter Liz Szabo capped off a months-long investigation of Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski and his Burzynski Clinic with an excellent (and surprisingly long and detailed) report, complete with sidebars explaining why cancer experts don’t think that Burzysnki’s anecdotes are compelling evidence that his treatment, antineoplastons, has significant anticancer activity and a human interest story about patients whom Burzynski took to the cleaners”
——————————————————————
My question ?

GorskGeek, how do you know it was a:

“months-long investigation” ?

The article does NOT indicate HOW LONG the USA TODAY “investigation” took

From this, I can only conclude, as I did after 1st reading the article, that based on the comments of Dr. David H. Gorski “Orac”, that there must have been collusion between “The Skeptics™” and USA TODAY

Most of this, of course, is no news to my readers, as I’ve been writing about Dr. Burzynski on a fairly regular basis for over 8 months now
——————————————————————
GorskGeek goofs:
——————————————————————
“It’s just amazing to see it all boiled down into three articles and ten short videos in the way that Szabo and USA TODAY did, to be read by millions, instead of the thousands who read this blog“
——————————————————————
Thousands read his blog ?

Does he mean over the 2 year period he’s been writing about Burzynski ?

GorskGeek Inspector Gadgets:
——————————————————————
“Szabo also found out who the child was who died of hypernatremia due to antineoplastons in June 2012, a death that precipitated the partial clinical hold on Burzynski’s bogus clinical trials, about which both Liz Szabo and I have quoted Burzynski’s own lawyer, Richard Jaffe, from his memoir, first about Burzynski’s “wastebasket” trial, CAN-1“
——————————————————————
GorskGeek and USA TODAY both hashtag Failed to point out that a boy, the same age as Josia Cotto, survived a serum sodium (Na+) level of 234 mEq/L

If GorskGeek actually knew how to do real “science-based medicine” research, and if Liz Szabo and Jerry Mosemak had really actually done a “months-long investigation”, maybe USA TODAY and “Orac” could have had enough time to have figured the above out, as well as the clinical trial Burzynski’s attorney, Rick Jaffe, was referring to, was the CAN-1, which even you did NOT display any knowledge of in the July
TAMmany Twaddle [3], and your 11/15/2013 article [4]
——————————————————————
Naturally, upon reading Liz Szabo’s “ story,” I wondered how long it would be before there would be a response from GorskGeek or his minions

Both responses contain the same sorts of tropes, misinformation, and pseudononscience that I’ve come to expect from GorskGeek [1-2+4]

USA TODAY is biased and in the pocket of “The Skeptics™”

It was a “Shite Muslim Militia” piece
——————————————————————
GorskGeek dreamsicles:
——————————————————————
“I’ve deconstructed these, and many more, of Merola’s nonsense over the last two years”

“Odd how @BurzynskiMovie pretends I haven’t deconstructed his “evidence” in depth before”?

Really ?

GorskGeek is so much a monumental myopic Mythomaniac

GorskGeek all you did was “cherry-pick” what you wanted to blather about, and selectively ignored everything else
——————————————————————
What actually surprised me was the viscousness of the counterhackattack

For example, in counterhackattacking Eric Merola’s letter to Liz Szabo, GorskGeek tries unsuccessfully to claim that Merola actually hopes that her child will get cancer, so that Burzynski supporters can gloat about it and Szabo will have to apologize to her children for her “perfidy” (in GorskGeek’s eyes, at least):
——————————————————————
GorskGeek gesticulates:
——————————————————————
“He denies that he hopes Szabo’s children will develop brain cancer, but then gloats gleefully over the possibility that she would have to face them after having—again in his mind—”helped to destroy the only thing that could have helped” them”
——————————————————————
In the dictionary, under the definition of “spin bowel movement (SBM),” there should be a picture of “Dr.” (and I use that term very “loosely”) David Gorski

GorskGeek would have fit in holistically as the propagandist for Hitler, Lenin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc.

Then, just when I thought GorskGeek couldn’t go any lower, he does, this time in his longer response on his blog
——————————————————————
“Eric Merola and Stanislaw Burzynski respond to the FDA findings and the USA TODAY story. Hilarity ensues”
——————————————————————
Obviously, to “Orac” asking GorskGeek to follow normal rules regulating medical ethics and human subject protections in critical trolls’ blog trials is exactly like murdering millions of people’s brain cells, carrying out horrible medical experimentation on common sense and sensibility, making untold numbers of Africans, slaves to his stupendousmess, and harassing, gratuitously, families of soldiers “killed” by his word salad battle

Didn’t anyone ever teach GorskGeek that you need to build up to that sort of climax ?

Of course, the big difference between Hitler’s propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels, unfortunately, is that compared to “Orac,” he had talent, and David GorskGeek does NOT

GorskGeek is a hack and is only funny by accident because he has no filters that tell him when he’s going way under the top

To him, Burzynski is an infidel

I do not share his belief, but, even worse, I have the temerity to criticize his god “Orac,” or, to mix metaphors shamelessly, to point out that GorskGeek has no clothes

Since I’ve dealt with so many of the tropes included in GorskGeek’s not-so-little rant, I hardly see the need to repeat myself

However, as a breast cancer surgeon’s skeptic, I find one of GorskGeek’s lies to be as despicable, or perhaps more so, than his ad hominem comparisons
——————————————————————
GorskGeek, the Hitler of hipocracy, came up with this hit parade of paranoia and “conspiracy theory”:
——————————————————————
“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” [5]
——————————————————————
GorskGeek then ad hocs ad nauseum about ad hominem fallacy

“In this fallacy, rather than addressing the actual evidence and science that demonstrate their favorite brand of woo to be nothing more than fairy dust, the idea is to preemptively attack and discredit the person“

“The ad hominem is not just insults or concluding that someone is ignorant because, well, they say ignorant things and make stupid arguments (in which case calling someone stupid or ignorant might just be drawing a valid, albeit impolitic, conclusion from observations of that person’s behavior), but rather arguing or insinuating that you shouldn’t accept someone’s arguments not because their arguments are weak but because they have this personal characteristic or that or belong to this group or that“ [6]
——————————————————————
GorskGeek, the huckster of hackery laments that “The Skeptics™” are subject to character assassination, NOT because of their “science-based medicine”, but, alas, for being biased, lying, cowards

So, he must justify that as to why he then ad hominems those who he harangues:
——————————————————————
“In Burzynski The Movie, Dr. Whitaker has his nose embedded so far up Dr. Burzynski’s rectum that Dr. Burzynski wouldn’t need a colonoscopy if Merola just strapped a light to Dr. Whitaker’s face“ [7]
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
“In the meantime, I realized that seeing Josh Duhamel stick his proboscis firmly up Burzynski’s posterior was not enough to explain the disturbance that I was feeling“ [8]
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
GorskiGeek seems to have an unhealthy infatuation with ASS

My suppositorsition is that GorskiGeek, the highfalutin’ He-Man of hypocrisy, does wax on, wax off, waxes phonetic about ASS, because he is the apex of ASSmuchness
——————————————————————
In essence, he denies the toxicity of water in terms I’ve never seen anyone try to downplay before:

Water… is toxic?

This was perhaps the most stunningly malicious use of emotion to manipulate the reader in any of the propaganda pieces against H2O in history
——————————————————————
GorskGeek claims:
——————————————————————
“Josia, as readers of Liz Szabo’s report will know, was the six year old boy with an inoperable brain tumor who died of hypernatremia (elevated sodium levels in the blood) as a result of Burzynski’s therapy“
——————————————————————
GorskGeek gassticulates:
——————————————————————
“As I pointed out last Friday and Szabo reported in her story, before his death Josia’s serum sodium was measured at 205 mEq/L, way above the normal range of 136-145 mEq/L and well into the lethal range”

“As I pointed out then, I’ve never seen a sodium level anywhere near that high“

“During my residency, the highest I recall ever seeing was maybe around 180 mEq/L”
——————————————————————
As I already pointed out previously in this article:

GorskGeek and USA TODAY both hashtag Failed to point out that a boy, the same age as Josia Cotto, survived a serum sodium (Na+) level of 234 mEq/L

GorskGeek claims that Josia died of hypernatremia (elevated sodium levels in the blood) as a result of Burzynski’s therapy

GorskGeek does NOT provide ANY citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) in support of his claim, and does NOT provide a copy of the autopsy

GorskGeek’s brain cells must be “sleeping in excess”, hence the symptoms of lethargy progressing ignorance of adverse events which approach critical black hole levels

Of course, none of this is new information
——————————————————————
GorskGeek hacks:
——————————————————————
“I also note that one of Burzynski’s most famous patients, Hannah Bradley, who with her partner Pete Cohen proclaims herself cured of her brain cancer, thanks to Burzynski, suffered some pretty serious toxicities from antineoplastons herself, including high fevers to 103.9° F, shaking chills, and severe rashes“

“Pete even documented how badly Hannah reacted to antineoplastons in his YouTube documentary Hannah’s Anecdote”
——————————————————————
GorskGeek flummoxes in that he erred to elucidate that the “rash” which Hannah
experienced, even entailed epilepsy anti-seizure medication [4]

GorskGeek gambols the gabroni gambit by giving nothing but glib reasons for his genetically challenged gestation of Hannah’s vlogs after gears up for Great Britain

Yes, GorskGeek is gabless about Hannah’s progress in the G.B. as a germinating gerbil, as far as flu or fever, perhaps fearing his failure to feature any fact-checking facilitation a fanboy of Fanectdotes should fittingly fictionalize
——————————————————————
The rest of GorskGeek’s rant reads like a greatest hits compilation from cancer hacks

You get the picture

That’s the whack-n-hack counterhackfensive trying to shore up Liz Szabo’s sorry article
——————————————————————
GorskGeek blowshard and long about the FDA Form 483′s findings, but does NOT heed his massive failure to be persuaded that:

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

“The FDA has not yet issued final conclusions”
——————————————————————
Who would doubt that if GorskGeek were to blog about Burzynski’s 1997 criminal trial, that he would NOT list each and every one of the 34 counts of mail fraud, 40 counts of violating Food and Drug Administration regulations, and the 1 contempt-of-court charge; all “allegations”, which netted the U.S. Gubment absolutely NOTHING ? [9]
——————————————————————
GorskGeek idolizes the Burzynski Research Institute (BRI) IRB, because of Burzynski’s scientific publications, which indicate:
——————————————————————
2003 – Membership of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) was in agreement with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [10]
——————————————————————
3/2004 – Membership of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) was in agreement with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [10]
——————————————————————
9/2004 – Membership of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) was in agreement with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [10]
——————————————————————
2004 – Membership of Institutional Review Board (IRB) was in compliance with FDA guidelines [10]
——————————————————————
6/2005 – Membership of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) was in agreement with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [10]
——————————————————————
GorskGeek then does a piss-poor “slight of hand job”, jerking the reader off about Pseudoprogression, pseudoresponse, so-called pseudoprogression, and “One phenomena, termed Pseudo-Progression (psPD)”

GorskGeek falls flat face first for failing to show this phenomenon has factually happened [11]

GorskiGeek, looks like back to the drawerin’ board for you !
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – 11/18/2013 – Eric Merola and Stanislaw Burzynski respond to the FDA findings and the USA TODAY story. Hilarity ensues:
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/11/18/eric-merola-and-stanislaw-burzynski-respond-to-the-fda-findings-and-the-usa-today-story-hilarity-ensues/
======================================
[2] – 11/18/2013 – The Burzynski Empire strikes
——————————————————————
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-burzynski-empire-strikes-back/
======================================
[3] – 11/11/2013 – “The Amazing Meeting” (I don’t think it means, what you think it says it means): 2 Intellectually and Ethically Challenged Individuals, Twaddle at TAM 2013:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/www-amazingmeeting-com-www-randi-org-lanyrd-com2013tam-forums-randi-orgforumdisplay-php/
======================================
[4] – 11/19/2013 – Critiquing: Stanislaw Burzynski in USA Today: Abuse of clinical trials and patients versus the ineffectiveness of the FDA and Texas Medical Board (Hyperactivity versus Hypernatremia, and Hannah Bradley):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/19/httpscienceblogs-cominsolence20131115stanislaw-burzynski-in-usa-today-abuse-of-clinical-trials-and-patients-versus-the-ineffectiveness-of-the-fda-and-texas-medical-board-2/
======================================
[5] – 2/18/2013 – Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski’s cancer “success” stories:
——————————————————————
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/stanislaw-burzynskis-cancer-success-stories/
======================================
[6] – 6/14/2010 – In which Dr. Gorski once again finds himself a target of the “pharma shill” gambit
——————————————————————
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/in-which-i-am-once-again-in-the-crosshairs-of-age-of-autisms-pharma-shill-machine-gun/
======================================
[7] – 11/29/2011 – Burzynski The Movie: Is Stanislaw Burzynski a pioneering cancer researcher or a quack?:
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/11/29/burzynski-the-movie-subtle-its-not/
======================================
[8] – 2/18/2013 – As Josh Duhamel shills for the Burzynski Clinic, Eric Merola prepares to carpet bomb the blogosphere with nonsense:
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/02/18/as-josh-duhamel-shills-for-the-burzynski-clinic-eric-merola-prepares-to-carpet-bomb-the-blogosphere-with-nonsense/
======================================
[9] – 9/25/2013 – Critiquing: National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc. – NCAHF News: JURY NULLIFICATION THWARTS BURZYNSKI CONVICTION:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/25/critiquing-national-council-against-health-fraud-inc-ncahf-news-jury-nullification-thwarts-burzynski-conviction/
======================================
[10] – 7/2/2013 – Burzynski: Institutional Review Board (IRB):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/burzynski-institutional-review-board-irb/
======================================
[11] – 11/20/2013 – Critiquing: Stanislaw Burzynski in USA Today: Abuse of clinical trials and patients versus the ineffectiveness of the FDA and Texas Medical Board (swell inflammation phenomenon):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/20/httpscienceblogs-cominsolence20131115stanislaw-burzynski-in-usa-today-abuse-of-clinical-trials-and-patients-versus-the-ineffectiveness-of-the-fda-and-texas-medical-board-3/
======================================

Critiquing: Stanislaw Burzynski in USA Today: Abuse of clinical trials and patients versus the ineffectiveness of the FDA and Texas Medical Board (Hyperactivity versus Hypernatremia, and Hannah Bradley)

I’ve made no secret of how much I dispute David H. Gorski, a la “Orac”, the “self-proclaimed” brain cancer doctor and brain cancer researcher who has been treating readers with an unproven, unapproved, NOT ordinary chemotherapeutic agent since Jesus just left Chicago, bound for Nawlins, seemingly Elaphe longissima slithering around, under, over, and past all attempts to intestate him and shut him up

Along the way, GorskGeek has become a hero to the cancer hackery industry, touted as the man who can cure incurable insomnia that science-based medicine can’t, even though his treatment, insolence, allegedly pop tarts isolated from bloopers and Uranus that normally keep insomnia in check in healthy people, are by any reasonable definition NOT ordinary chemotherapy

Indeed, they are toxic, with a number of side effects reported, the most common and dangerous of which being life-threatening hyperactivity (elevated sugar levels in the blood)

All you have to do is to type GorsGeek’s name into the search box of this blog, and you’ll find copious documentation of the abuses of patience, science, and critical trials perpetrated by “Orac” and the cult of impersonality that has evolved around him

He’s even acquired his very own film perpougendist, a credulous fellow named Bob Blaskiewicz, who has made 2 astoundingly bad hackumentaries that are nothing more than unabashed hagiographies of the brave maverick doctor curing insolence where no one else can

They’re chock full of misinformation, pseudononsense, spin, and obvious emotional manipulation, and the 2nd one, at least, was very popular

For the longest time, I’ve been hoping that major mainstream news organizations would take this story on
——————————————————————
GorskGeek claims:

“Now, thanks to Liz Szabo at USA Today, we know from her article Doctor accused of selling false hope to families [1]:

“Yet hypernatremia is one of antineoplastons’ most common side effects, known to doctors for two decades”
——————————————————————
GorskGeek, of course, does NOT care to mention the 2 hypernatremia studies that I listed in the 2nd of my 3 critiques on USA TODAY’s “hatchet job” of Burzynski [2], because, as he accuses others:

THEY DO NOT FIT HIS NARRATIVE
——————————————————————
GorskGeek continues:
——————————————————————
“showed a blood sodium level of 205 millimoles per liter, a level that is typically fatal“

“I was astounded to see that number“

“I’ve never, ever seen a sodium level that high“

“Typically, normal is typically between 135 and 145 mEq/L, with slight variations of that range depending on the lab”

“Burzynski’s excuse, which I’ve heard at various times as being due to an “improper blood draw” or as described above, is purest nonsense”

“Unless the technician spiked Josia’s sample with 3% saline or something like that, there’s no way to get the leve that high”

“Josia almost certainly died because of hypernatremia from antineoplaston therapy“

“To me, this is the biggest revelation of the story:”

“The story and identity of the child who was killed by Burzynski’s treatments“
——————————————————————
I did NOT know that GorskGeek was the
Medical Examiner for the United States Food and Drug Administration
——————————————————————
GorskGeek is mistaken, as the “purest nonsense” is his nonsensical claim:

“I’ve never, ever seen a sodium level that high“

The reason GorskGeek has:

“never, ever seen a sodium level that high”

is because he’s a “hack”, who’s more interested in churning out as many blogsplats as he can, rather than doing real “science-based medicine” research

As evidence of MY claim, I submit:
——————————————————————
9/2004 – A Non-Fatal Case of Sodium Toxicity (Hypernatremia)
——————————————————————
“6 year old boy who was taken to the hospital following a seizure attack, and lab analyses revealed a serum sodium (Na+) levels of 234 mEq/L”

“A search of the boy’s house led to the discovery of rock salt in the cabinet and a container of table salt”

“Extrapolating from the serum sodium (Na+) level, it was estimated that the child had ingested approximately 4 tablespoons of rock salt, leading to the acute toxicity“

“A literature search revealed that the serum sodium (Na+) concentration in the present report was the highest documented level of sodium in a living person“

Non-Fatal 193-209 mEq/L have been reported previously [3]
——————————————————————
We also learn that—surprise! surprise!—GorskGeek is an enormous tool

(as opposed to having “an enormous tool” His cranium is too small to have “enormous tool”)
——————————————————————
GorskGeek then hacks:
——————————————————————
“Look at him dismiss his critics, particularly former patients, many of whom, let’s recall, have terminal cancer, many of whom are dead:”

“Burzynski dismisses criticism of his work, referring to his detractors as “hooligans” and “hired assassins.””
——————————————————————
GorskGeek, you are a “hooligan”, liar, lame, loser, et al.
——————————————————————
GorskGeek proceeds:
——————————————————————
“You know, whenever I hear Burzynski fans like Eric Merola accuse skeptics of attacking cancer patients, of accusing them of horrible things”

“I think I will throw this quote right back in their faces”

“Here’s Burzynski calling his patients prostitutes, thieves, and mafia bosses, and “not the greatest people in the world,” while accusing them of wanting to “extort money from us.””
——————————————————————
GorskGeek, LAME attempt at another LIE

Burzynski did NOT CALL his patients what YOU claim he called them

Let me repeat it for YOU, because I have the sneaking suspicion that YOU are “intellectually challenged”

Burzynski SAID:

“We see patients from various walks of life”

“We see great people”

“We see crooks”

“We have prostitutes”

“We have thieves”

“We have mafia bosses”

“We have Secret Service agents”

“Many people are coming to us, OK?”

“Not all of them are the greatest people in the world”
——————————————————————
GorskGeek, just in case you did NOT learn this at the University of Michigan, there is a difference between SAYING “WE SEE” and / or “WE HAVE”, and CALLING someone something

Allow me to provide you with a great example

If I SAY that YOU are the BIGGEST POMPOUS ASS I’ve ever seen, and YOU are NOT a BIG POMPOUS ASS, then THAT is derogatory

However, if I CALL YOU the BIGGEST POMPOUS ASS that I have ever seen, because you really and truly are a BIG POMPOUS ASS; as you are, then THAT is NOT derogatory
——————————————————————
GorskGeek tries again:
——————————————————————
“Not surprisingly, he also liberally uses the Galileo gambit, but that’s not surprising, as he’s repeatedly made the hilariously arrogant and scientifically ignorant claim that he is a pioneer in genomic and personalized cancer therapy and that M.D. Anderson Cancer Center and other world-class cancer centers are “following his lead.””

“Indeed, he claimed to have invented the field 20 years ago”

“Sadly, his publication record does not support such grandiose claims“
——————————————————————
GorskGeek, how would you know ?

You proved that you weren’t smarter than a 5th grader when you could NOT find Burzynski’s 1997 Antineoplastons, oncogenes and cancer [4]
——————————————————————
“Curious as to just what the heck Burzynski was talking about here, I searched PubMed for this alleged review article”

“I couldn’t find it on PubMed“

“Perhaps Burzynski proposed this “revolutionary” new idea in a peer-reviewed article that’s not indexed in PubMed, but if he did I couldn’t find it using Google and Google Scholar“ [5]

So why should ANYONE believe that you were able to locate the rest of his publications
and review all of them?

Now THAT would be a “grandiose claim”
——————————————————————
GorskGeek was also the village “idiot savant” (minus the “savant”) who face planted:

“how Burzynski never explains which genes are targeted by antineoplastons … “ [6]

GorskGeek must have fumed for days when he found I “fact-checked” his fluff and found it false: [7-8]
——————————————————————
GorskGeek hopes to wreak havoc when he harrumphs:
——————————————————————
“For instance, experts are saying the same things I’ve been saying for a couple of years now about Burzynski’s anecdotes of “miracle cures,” such as Hannah Bradley and Laura Hymas”

“The reasons for these anecdotes include:”

“Burzynski often relies on anecdotes, which don’t tell the full story”

“Burzynski’s therapies are unproven“

“Burzynski’s patients may have been misdiagnosed“

“Burzynski’s patients may have been cured by previous therapy“

“There’s a reason why I’ve spent so much time deconstructing Burzynski anecdotes, and it’s for all of those reasons plus that anecdotes are often interpreted incorrectly by patients without medical training”

“Even doctors who are not oncologists sometimes interpret such anecdotes incorrectly to indicate that the cancer therapy chosen is the therapy that cured the patient“

“It’s not just Burzynski patient anecdotes, but it’s any cancer cure anecdote“

“That’s why clinical trials are necessary to differentiate all these confounding effects from actual effects due to the treatment”
——————————————————————
GorskiGeek displays what an abject #FAIL he is, as the question he should be asking is:

Why is the Food and Drug Administration FORCING patients to #FAIL conventional treatments; such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy, before being allowed to utilize antineoplaston therapy ?

If the FDA was NOT doing this, then GorskGeek and the “so-called experts” would NOT have this crutch to fall back on

GorskGeek, please list all the other phase II clinical trials where the F.D.A. has done this, and please also explain what would you do if the FDA did this to YOUR clinical trials ?

I know this might require some “Grapefruits” on your part, but do try and see if you can find yours in order to pull this off, if you’re NOT the coward I think you are

And when you’re done with that, please try to explain away the case of Jessica Ressel-Doeden

GorskGeek winds up for the pitch of bullshit

He ratchets back his right arm and rockets it right into his rectum, reaches ’round and pulls out this righteousness:
——————————————————————
“Not coincidentally, Hannah Bradley had surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation, and Laura Hymas had radiation and chemotherapy”

GorskGeek, Hannah Bradley NEVER had chemotherapy, unless you are now going to claim that by “chemotherapy” you meant antineoplastons [9]

Hannah specifically mentioned:

“Chemotherapy also mentioned but not strong enough for that” [10]
——————————————————————
GorskGeek:

“Even doctors who are not oncologists sometimes interpret such anecdotes incorrectly” ?

I think you meant, even breast cancer oncologist specialists who are NOT brain cancer oncology specialists interpret incorrectly, you JackASS

In insolence

DJT
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – 11/15/2013 – Stanislaw Burzynski in USA Today: Abuse of clinical trials and patients versus the ineffectiveness of the FDA and Texas Medical Board
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/11/15/stanislaw-burzynski-in-usa-today-abuse-of-clinical-trials-and-patients-versus-the-ineffectiveness-of-the-fda-and-texas-medical-board/
======================================
[2] – 11/16/2013 – Critiquing: Doctor accused of selling false hope to families (USA TODAY NEWS, NATION, Liz Szabo, USA TODAY):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/16/httpwww-usatoday-comstorynewsnation20131115stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-controversy2994561/
======================================
[3] – 9/2004 – A Non-Fatal Case of Sodium Toxicity
J Anal Toxicol. 2004 Sep;28(6):526-8
——————————————————————
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15516309/
——————————————————————
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15516309/
——————————————————————

Click to access 526.full.pdf

======================================
[4] – 1997 – Burzynski. S.R. Antineoplastons. oncogenes and cancer. Anti-Aging Medical Therapeutics, Vol.1. Klatz RM.
Goldman R. (Ed). Health Quest Publication 1997; Marina del Rey, CA. USA
Pg. 24
——————————————————————

Click to access burzynski_fdauntitled_promo_2012.pdf

======================================
[5] – 12/5/2012 – Stanislaw Burzynski: On the arrogance of ignorance about cancer and targeted therapies:
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/12/05/arrogance-of-ignorance-about-cancer/
======================================
[6] – 6/4/2013 – Stanislaw Burzynski versus the BBC:
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/04/stanislaw-burzynski-versus-the-bbc/
======================================
[7] – 8/7/2013 – Critiquing: Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski, M.D., Ph.D, L.I.A.R.:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/07/critiquing-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-m-d-ph-d-l-i-a-r/
======================================
[8] – 9/21/2013 – Critiquing: The Institute of Medicine report on cancer care: Is the system “in crisis”?:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/critiquing-the-institute-of-medicine-report-on-cancer-care-is-the-system-in-crisis/
======================================
[9] – 10/25/2013 – Hannah Bradley – I Feel Empowered, In Control Of My Body: Four Women On Fighting Cancer With Alternative Therapies:
——————————————————————
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10383724/I-feel-empowered-in-control-of-my-body-four-women-on-fighting-cancer-with-alternative-therapies.html
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/25/hannah-bradley-i-feel-empowered-in-control-of-my-body-four-women-on-fighting-cancer-with-alternative-therapies-httpwww-telegraph-co-ukhealth10383724i-feel-empowered-in-control-of-my-body-fo/
======================================
[10] – 2/17/2012 – Friday – REAL LIFE – ‘I’ll try anything to beat brain cancer’
——————————————————————
http://m.gulfnews.com/i-ll-try-anything-to-beat-brain-cancer-1.981203
======================================
======================================

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

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

“Guy,”

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

Bob ? [3]

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

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

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

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

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

It’s like a whole ‘nother Country

My motivation ?

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

Verstehen ?

There’s a saying:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Actually, we know what he is”

“A troll”

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

“Excellent summary, Guy”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guy “Crapman” Chapman is a SkeptiCoward©

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

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

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

Where’s your stats, Guy ?

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

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

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

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

NO such example is on Al Gore’s Internet

Whose got one ?

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

Do NOT post deceptive Twits:

#faIL

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

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

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

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

The About page on my blog is crystal clear:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#fAiL

Guy, hasn’t ONE been completed ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You’re one FAIL after another

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EXPLAIN THIS [15]

Prove I spammed 🙂

Are you a man ?

Or are you a

SkeptiCoward© ?

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

The Skeptics™” Robert J. (don’t call me “Bobby”) Blaskiewicz wants to Debate

Bob thinks we can debate all this in an hour 🙂
======================================
3/4/2013 – 7:58pm – You posted on Colorado Public Television (CPT12):

“ANP is toxic as anything!”

So you’re saying what ?

ANP is as toxic as water ?

[1]
——————————————————————
“It gives people insanely high sodium, and Burzynski is currently not allowed to be dispensed by Burzynski because, according to a patient, it killed someone”

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support “toxic” and “tons of chemo” statements

[1]
——————————————————————
“This is not harmless stuff”

“This is not non-toxic”

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support “toxic” and “tons of chemo” statements

[1]
——————————————————————
“And most of Burzynski’s patients never qualify for his trials”

“That’s the lure”

“They all end up taking tons of chemo used off label”

FAIL – provides no citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support “toxic” and “tons of chemo” statements

“Tons of chemo” ?

Even your “man-crush” cancer oncologist has blogged that it’s “low-dose” chemo

======================================
12/13/2012 – Stanislaw Burzynski: “Personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy” for dummies
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/12/13/stanislaw-burzynski-personalized-gene-targeted-cancer-therapy-for-dummies/
======================================
[1]
——————————————————————
3/5/2013 at 12:25pm – You posted on CPT12:

“How awful does your feedback need to be before you realize that you are going to endanger your viewership?”

The feedback was:

241 – Yes
97 – No
2 – Undecided

What was your point ?

[2]
——————————————————————
3/12/2013 – Why did “The Skeptics™” on CPT12 resort to adolescent name-calling:

“trolls,” “spammers,” “disingenuous,” “dishonest,” “profoundly dishonest,” “sheer stubborn stupid,” “stupid,” “spambot,” “fools,” “shills, “conman” ?

Don’t they have the intelligence a “Professor of Writing” should have ?

[3]
——————————————————————
3/12/2013 – Why did “The Skeptics™” on CPT12 and elsewhere whine about publication when the Declaration of Helsinki

30. addresses publishing human clinical trial data

does NOT indicate WHEN the data should be published, leaving it open to interpretation as to if it should be done piecemeal, or when all trials re a specific drug or drugs are completed after Phase I, II, or III, for example ?

[3]
——————————————————————
Why did “The Skeptics™” on CPT12 and elsewhere rant about scientific peer-reviewed journals and their “Impact Factors” but did NOT know what to do about this ?:

National Cancer Institute
at the National Institutes of Health

Cancer Clinical Trials

15. “The results of clinical trials are OFTEN published in peer-reviewed scientific journals”

” … whether or NOT the results are published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal … “
http://m.cancer.gov/topics/factsheets/clinical-trials

[4]
——————————————————————
Blaskiewicz, do you have this many honors / awards ?

20 – HONORS AND AWARDS

LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD. March 2012. Dallas /Ft. Worth, TX

The Order of Merit of the President of Poland – Officer’s Cross, October, 2004

Decoration of Polish Medical Association, November, 2001

The Order of Saint Brigida – Grand Cross with Star, November, 2001

The Order of Saint Stanislas – Grand Cross with Star, November, 2000

The Order of Reconciliation – Noember, 2000

The Cross Virtus Nobilitat, June, 1999

The Wisdom Award of Honor, December, 1998

The Medal of the President of City of Lublin, Poland, December, 1998

The Order of Saint Stanislas- Commander’s Cross with Star, December, 1997

The Lady Liberty Award “for engaging in invigorating the Right to be Secure in their Effects by fourteen years of perseverance in practicing his Profession free of interference by a government having no probable cause and in the determined resistance to that interference,” Libertarian Party of Texas, Dallas, TX, July, 1997

The Gold Medal from the American Institute of Polish Culture for outstanding achievements in the field of medicine and discovery of anti-cancer drugs antineoplastons, Miami, FL, February, 1997

The Medal “Heart for Hearts” for saving human lives, Lublin, Poland, August, 1997

The Memorial Medal of Zamoyski’s Lyceum in appreciation of outstanding contribution to increase scientific ranking of the school, Lublin, Poland, November, 1997

The Heritage Award by Polish American Congress in recognition of extraordinary achievement in the research, treatment, and prevention of cancer, Chicago, IL, October, 1993

Special Medal from the Polish government’s Institute for Drug Research and Control for achievement in the field of cancer research, Bialvstok, Poland, September, 1989

Honorable Membership in the Academia del Medeterraneo, Rome, Italy, 1984

Recipient of commendation for Dedicated Service and for Personal Contribution made in the
Advancement of Medical Education, Research and Health Care, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, April, 1977

Recipient of Medical Doctor Diploma with Distinction, Medical Academy, Lublin, Poland, 1967

Co-winner of the prize for best paper presented at the 7th Conference of Polish Medical Student Research
Societies, Poanan, Poland, 1966

[5]
——————————————————————
Why do some Burzynski critics claim they are NOT a “group” when they comment on each others blogs?

“That’s why I like the idea of the campaign that Bob Baskiewicz has come up with to wish Dr. Burzynski a happy birthday this year, skeptic style:”

(Citing and linking to 1/4/2013 blog)

1/4/2013 – Bob Blaskiewicz @rjblaskiewicz
Happy Birthday, Dr. Burzynski!
http://thehoustoncancerquack.com/2013/01/04/happy-birthday-dr-burzynski

3/15/2013 – Bob Blaskiewicz @rjblaskiewicz

https://twitter.com/gorskon/status/312601559647281154
retweeted David Gorski @gorskon Orac @oracknows (David H. Gorski) #sciencebasedmedicine

1/7/2013
Post #2 – rjblaskiewicz @rjblaskiewicz (Bob Blaskiewicz) – Wisconsin – Thanks, PZ

Posted by PZ Myers 1/6/2013
Let’s make Houston cancer quack Burzynski pay!

1/7/2013
Post #2 – Robert Blaskiewicz @rjblaskiewicz (Bob Blaskiewicz) –
“The Skeptics” non-group activity on Forbes:

[6]
——————————————————————

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/310589187797700608
Except YOU have NOT yet actually demonstrated that you believe in “interesting and civil discussions

[7]
——————————————————————

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/310856694525730817
Bobby, please point out where the Declaration of Helsinki supports your tweet?
http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3
[7]
——————————————————————
Please point out where the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) supports your tweet
http://m.cancer.gov/topics/factsheets/clinical-trials
[7]
——————————————————————

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

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/311317995861442560
Do you mean THIS present ?

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

PZ Myers

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

“his snake oil”

“bilk people out of buckets of money”

“Crime does pay”

“This fraud”

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

“The lies”

“his quackery”

======================================
Let’s make Houston cancer quack Burzynski pay!
Posted by PZ Myers on January 6, 2013
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/01/06/lets-make-houston-cancer-quack-burzynski-pay/
======================================
[7]
——————————————————————
Do you mean THIS St. Jude ?
St. Jude:
http://www.stjude.org/stjude/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=403c6f9523e70110VgnVCM1000001e0215acRCRD

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

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

Burzynski does NOT receive Federal Funds

[7]
——————————————————————
Tax-Exempt: Receives Federal Grants / Funds
http://www.stjude.org/stjude/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=b7e79bb8a0cf5110VgnVCM1000001e0215acRCRD&cpsextcurrchannel=1
Burzynski does NOT receive Federal Grants

Burzynski is NOT Tax-Exempt

[7]
——————————————————————
Donations to St. Jude are tax deductible as allowed by law
http://www.stjude.org/stjude/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=6f8afa3186e70110VgnVCM1000001e0215acRCRD&vgnextchannel=2f62940504f9a210VgnVCM1000001e0215acRCRD

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

[7]
——————————————————————
FORBES: St. Jude CEO – $742,718
http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
[7]
——————————————————————

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/310964881253867521
THIS Phenylbutyrate (PB) ?

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

SODIUM PHENYLBUTYRATE was given an orphan drug designation by the FDA for use as an adjunct to surgery,
radiation therapy, and
chemotherapy
for treatment of individuals with
primary or recurrent malignant glioma

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

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

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

Bob, you do know that the research only took off once Dvorit D. Samid (Burzynski I) learned about it from Burzynski, right ?

[7]
——————————————————————

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/310979838372626432
THESE trials ?

2003 – 2006 Phase II preliminary reports

2003 – Phase II
Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma:

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

recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma

antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1

6 months median duration of treatment
of all 12 patients

2 years / 33.3% – Survival

2 / 17% – alive and tumour free for over 5 years since initial diagnosis
from the start of treatment

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

Only mild and moderate toxicities were observed, which included
3 cases of skin allergy
2 cases of:
anaemia
fever
hypernatraemuia
single cases of:
agranulocytosis
hypoglycaemia
numbness
tiredness
myalgia
vomiting

2003 – Protocol – recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma

12 – Patients Accrued
10 – Evaluable Patients

2 / 20% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
3 / 30% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
3 / 30% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
2 / 20% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease

2004 – Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in children with recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma :

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

incurable recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma

antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 (ANP)

9 – patients’ median age

6 patients were diagnosed with pilocytic astrocytoma
4 with low-grade astrocytoma
1 with astrocytoma grade 2
1 case of visual pathway glioma, a biopsy was not performed due to a dangerous location

16 months – The average duration of intravenous ANP therapy
19 months – The average duration of oral ANP

1 patient was non-evaluable due to only 4 weeks of ANP and lack of follow-up scans
1 patient who had stable disease discontinued ANP against medical advice and died 4.5 years later

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

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

2004 – Protocol – incurable recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma

12 – Patients Accrued

33% – % of Patients Showing Complete Response
25% – % of Patients Showing Partial Response
33% – % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
0 / 0% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease

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

13 children with recurrent disease or high risk

6 (46%) survived more than 5 years

2005 – Protocol – recurrent disease or high risk

23% – % of Patients Showing Complete Response
8% – % of Patients Showing Partial Response
31% – % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
38% – % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease

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

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

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

Treatment is even more challenging when an inoperable tumor is of high-grade pathology (HBSG)
patients with inoperable tumor of high-grade pathology (HBSG) treated with antineoplastons in 4 phase 2 trials

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

17+ years maximum survival for a patient with anaplastic astrocytoma

5+ years for a patient with glioblastoma

39% – Progression-free survival at 6 months

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

18 – evaluable
4 – glioblastomas
14 – anaplastic HBSG
14 – diffuse intrinsic tumors
12 – recurrence
6 – did not have radiation therapy or chemotherapy

Antineoplastons, A10 (A10I) and AS2-1 injections
5 months median duration
Responses were assessed by gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography
Antineoplastons tolerated very well
1 case of grade 4 toxicity (reversible anemia)

2006 – Protocol – high-grade pathology (HBSG)

18 – Evaluable Patients

11% – % of Patients Showing Complete Response
11% – % of Patients Showing Partial Response
39% – % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
39% – % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease

Or did you expect Burzynski to publish the final clinical trial results before they were finished, Bob?

[7]
——————————————————————
2/24/2013
http://www.skeptical.gb.net/blog/?p=1442
2/27/2013
http://www.skeptical.gb.net/blog/?p=1798
3/9/2013
http://www.thetwentyfirstfloor.com/?p=8001

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/311091486349475840
Bobby, oh REALLY ?

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

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

[7]
——————————————————————

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/311524673819144192
No Bobby, you did NOT

[7]
——————————————————————

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/311543395556409344
“VAMPIRE” ?

[7]
——————————————————————

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/311594720373645312
Bobby, like THIS ?

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

“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting ‘fire’ in a theater and causing a panic.”

United States Supreme Court ruled 3/3/1919

Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/stanislaw-rajmund-burzynski-m-d-ph-d-and-freedom-of-speech

[7]
——————————————————————

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/311681213934997505
Bobby, like THIS ?
David H. Gorski and the Cult of “MISINFORMATION”
Colorado Public Television 12 – PBS: Part II
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/david-h-gorski-and-the-cult-of-misinformation
Orac and the Cult of “Misinformation” (Part III)
David H. Gorski
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/orac-and-the-cult-of-misinformation-part-iii
Josephine Jones and the Cult of Misinformation
JJ recently blogged:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/josephine-jones-and-the-cult-of-misinformation
Keir Liddle and the Cult of MISINFORMATION
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/09/keir-liddle-and-the-cult-of-misinformation
The Cult of “Misinformation”
Review of “disinformation,” “misinformation,” and “misdirection” posted by #Burzynski critics
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/the-cult-of-misinformation
The cult of “Misinformation” continued
Adam Jacobs
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/the-cult-of-misinformation-continued

[7]
——————————————————————

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/311854061550960642
Bobby, where’s your
Citation(s),
Reference(s), and / or
Link(s) ?

[7]
——————————————————————

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/311859126965788672
Bobby, Adam Jacobs does NOT care about “FREE SPEECH,” he censors it:
http://dianthus.co.uk/burzynski-qa

[7]
——————————————————————

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/311931318629986305
Well, Bobby, We know a lot of the skeptics seem to “hate” the truth

[7]
——————————————————————

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/312013682408292354
Bobby, maybe you should have actually watched THIS:

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

[7]
——————————————————————

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/312052091407433728
Bobby, maybe you should ACTUALLY listen to it

[7]
——————————————————————
https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/31212153099585536

Yeah, riiiiiiiiight, Bobby
rjblaskiewicz:

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

Learning is Cool

Response to the release of Burzynski 2, Havanna Nights

Posted by Bob

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

The text of my segment follows the episode

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(those notes did NOT seem very “key” considering Orac’s (David H. Gorski @gorskon #sciencebasedmedicine @ScienceBasedMed @oracknows)

“Second-Hand” “review” of Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business, Part II)

“skeptics are hiding behind their BS free speech.”

(Yep, TRUE)

[7]
——————————————————————
This is my takeaway, after talking to the people who I know were there

We are wiggly little scumbags who are hateful and slimy

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

[7]
——————————————————————
We ridicule the desperate and dying

Some of us are paid by big pharma

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

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

[7]
——————————————————————
But make no mistake–and this was hammered home to me by everyone I talked to–we are to them pure evil

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

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

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

[7]
——————————————————————
Nobody asked me for my opinion or to give a statement or to respond or clarify; they went straight to my boss

Maybe they figured out your “opinion” and didn’t need any “clarification”

[7]
——————————————————————
Fine

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

I fully expect it to happen in the future

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

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

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

No real identifying information

Which, you know, I’m OK with

However, there are some problems here

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

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

Filmmakers ?

[7]
——————————————————————
2) Someone asked me about a quote,

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

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

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

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

That might be funny to you but maybe not to your Human Resources Department, and if that was “scary voices” and “scary music” to you, what’s the last scary movie you saw?

Scooby Doo, Where are You?

[7]
——————————————————————
It’s clear that the reason I’m in the movie in the capacity I am, as chief bad guy, is because I’m on video talking about the Burzynski Clinic

Are you sure it’s not because you are somewhere behind Gorski with the disinformation?

After all, he was invited to appear in the movie

Were you ?

[7]
——————————————————————
And this leads me to another thing that Brian mentioned

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

“skeptical teleconference”

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

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

Um….we publicize our show constantly?

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

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

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

Could you do that more?”

Really, Eric?

(Do you know it was Eric ?

After all, you thought I was Eric)
Bob Blaskiewicz

[7]
——————————————————————
Yeah, I have a feeling it’s Merola

That’s just me though

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

Do you think I’m two years old?
(Your “fact-checking” ability makes me wonder)

[7]
——————————————————————
I am interested in ultimately seeing it

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

(As if jref is a “reliable source”)

[7]
——————————————————————
Or you could screen it in Minneapolis

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

I guess he wasn’t

[7]
——————————————————————
Another thing

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

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

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

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

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

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

[7]
——————————————————————
Skeptics evilly, and with malice aforethought, raised $14.5K dollars for St. Jude’s

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

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

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

[7]
——————————————————————
This demonization is unfair and at the expense of the truth–if you ever read theotherburzynskipatientgroup blog you know whose side I’m on

P Z who ?

[7]
——————————————————————
If he used the video clip of us that he cited in his letter to my employer, about us bringing a “present” to Burzynski and knowing what it actually was without clarifying it, well, that just speaks to his regard for completeness and accuracy

I don’t think you really wanted P Z’s “present” “clarified”

[7]
——————————————————————
No messiah should need such fudging

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

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

[7]
——————————————————————
References:

PZ Myer’s announcement of the Houston Cancer Quack
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/01/06/lets-make-houston-cancer-quack-burzynski-pay/
The Virtual Skeptics episode that appears in the movie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IK-yF8w6nLo

RJB
rjblaskiewicz:
http://t.co/F79zndTjuZ

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/312234423288487936
Bob Blaskiewicz retweeted

https://twitter.com/jref/status/312255856928509953
Bobby, did you know that I tried to post a comment on the James Randi Educational Funding (jref) article Written by Brian Thompson, about this, but they did NOT post my response ?

Did you post something about “FREE SPEECH” ?

“Burzynski II” Fails to Convince
Swift”
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/2050-qburzynski-iiq-is-more-of-the-same.html

[7]
——————————————————————
My 1st-hand Review of Orac’s 2nd-Hand Review – Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business, Part II

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

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/312998393259622402
Bobby, does this mean it will be punctuated correctly, but NOT “Fact-Checked” ?

[7]
——————————————————————

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/313465677614817280
Bobby, it did NOT help

[7]
——————————————————————

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/313496736708583424
rjblaskiewicz:
Not really. 🙂

[7]
——————————————————————

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/313508346399428608
That’s what I thought, Bobby

[7]
——————————————————————

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

[7]
——————————————————————

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

[7]
——————————————————————

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/310589187797700608
Bobby, what was that about
“many interesting and civil discussions” ?

[7]
——————————————————————
Bobby, you can’t always get what you want

But if you try sometime, you just might find

you get what you need

[7]
——————————————————————

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/314115938960154624
Bobby, let me guess

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

[7]
——————————————————————
You do know FDA required ?

” … in 1997, his medical practice was expanded to include traditional cancer treatment options such as
chemotherapy,
gene targeted therapy,
immunotherapy and
hormonal therapy
in response to FDA requirements that cancer patients utilize more traditional cancer treatment options in order to be eligible to participate in the Company’s
Antineoplaston CLINICAL TRIALS
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/724445/000091205702038660/a2091272z10qsb.txt

[7]
——————————————————————

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/315972148684529664
Yes it does, Bobby
You’ve just been Insolently pwned

[7]
——————————————————————
Skeptical Humanities
Learning is Cool

A Letter to the PBS Ombudsman about CPT12′s Airing of
“Burzynski”
http://t.co/RxDZHDN2RM
Posted by Bob

PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler

“To understand the complexities and history involved takes a lot of work, far more than we could possibly expect of Mr. Getler”

(or, as I have proven, of YOU)
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/critiquing-bob-blaskiewicz-burzynski-cancer-is-serious-business-part-ii

[8]
——————————————————————
“That said, however, I do disagree with some of his conclusions”

(You could see that coming a mile away, couldn’t you?)

Getler starts off:

[ ” … It is about the decades-long struggle of a Polish-born physician and biochemist, Stanislaw Burzynski, who set up a clinic in Texas in 1976, to achieve acceptance for a cancer-cure therapy based on a treatment he developed based on what he calls “Antineoplastons.” [ANP]”

“I submit this is already wrong
There is little evidence that Burzynski is at all serious about developing antineoplastons for wider marketing”

THAT certainly explains the Phase III stuff

[8]
——————————————————————
“If that were true, surely he would have managed to have completed and published a single advanced trial in 35 years

Bob, who was ultimately in charge of the trials?

The FDA ?

[8]
——————————————————————
“If you look at the trials he’s been required to register at clinicaltrials.gov, you see over 60 trials, 1 completed, and none published

NONE”

Bobby, where is the
Citation(s),
Reference(s), and / or
Link(s)

that support your
“required to register”
statement ?

NONE ?

Are you a sociopath who thinks that people should believe you just because you blogged or twitted it ?

[8]
——————————————————————
“This is important because he is restricted to giving his ANP in clinical trials

But he apparently abandons his trials, almost all of them

This is not normal”

Bobby, how many is
“almost all of them” ?

[8]
——————————————————————
“He charges patients out the nose to participate in the clinical trials

This is not normal”

Does it cost as much as any of THESE ?

Cost cancer: The hospital wanted a $30,000 deposit
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-16/politics/health.care.hearing_1_health-insurance-post-claims-underwriting-individual-health?_s=PM:POLITICS
2008 – Cost cancer insurance: Avastin, made by Genentech, is a wonder drug. Approved for patients with advanced lung, colon or breast cancer, it cuts off tumors’ blood supply, an idea that has tantalized science for decades. And despite its price, which can reach $100,000 a year, Avastin has become one of the most popular cancer drugs in the world, with sales last year of about $3.5 billion, $2.3 billion of that in the United States. Avastin costs $50,000 a year and adds four months of life. “There is a shocking disparity between value and price,” he said, “and it’s not sustainable.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/health/06avastin.html?_r=0
Cost cancer chemo up-front: $45,000 to Come In
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120934207044648511.html?mod=2_1566_topbox#articleTabs%3Darticle
3/2012 – Total Cost of Cancer Care by Site of Service: Physician Office vs Outpatient Hospital (22 pages)
http://www.avalerehealth.net/news/2012-04-03_COA/Cost_of_Care.pdf
CHEMOTHERAPY:
9/24/2012 – The newspapers found hospitals are routinely marking up prices on cancer drugs by two to 10 times over cost. Some markups are far higher. • Levine Cancer Institute, owned by Charlotte-based Carolinas HealthCare, this year collected nearly $4,500 for a 240-milligram dose of irinotecan, a drug used to treat people with colon or rectal cancer. The average sales price for that amount of the drug: less than $60.
• Carolinas Medical Center-NorthEast in Concord was paid about $19,000 for a one-gram dose of rituximab, used to treat lymphoma and leukemia. That was roughly three times the average sales price.
• Forsyth Medical Center in Winston-Salem, owned by Novant Health, collected about $680 for 50 milligrams of cisplatin. The markup: more than 50 times the average sales price. Treating a cancer patient with Avastin, for instance, costs about $90,000 a year, doctors say
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/09/24/3549634/prices-soar-as-hospitals-dominate.html
5/14/2012 – Oral anti-cancer medications, on the other hand, are generally considered a pharmacy benefit. Instead of a co-payment, plan members often pay a percentage of the drugs’ cost — up to 50 percent, in some cases — with no annual out-of-pocket limit. And these drugs are expensive, often costing tens of thousands of dollars a year.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-05-14/national/35457286_1_lung-cancer-drug-drugs-work-multiple-myeloma-patients
RADIATION:
1/4/2013 – The new study was the most comprehensive cost analysis ever, and it compared the costs and outcomes associated with the various types of treatment for all forms of the disease, which ranged from $19,901 for robot-assisted prostatectomy to treat low-risk disease, to $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, the researchers looked at 26,163 women with localized breast cancer who had undergone surgery and radiation from 2001 to 2005. They found that Medicare billing for IMRT increased from 0.9% of patients diagnosed in 2001 to 11.2% of women whose breast cancer was diagnosed in 2005.
The average cost for radiation treatment during the first year was $7,179 for non-IMRT and $15,230 with IMRT. Moreover, billing for IMRT was more than five times higher in regions across the nation where the local Medicare coverage determinations were favorable to IMRT compared to regions where coverage was unfavorable. sorafenib (Nexavar) in kidney cancer as an example. “NICE evaluated sorafenib as it was indicated for kidney cancer and determined that it indeed had value, but not $80,000 per year’s worth. The agency said that it would reimburse one-third of the total cost, and if the drug company wants to market their product to 60 million British citizens, they will need to be price flexible,”
http://www.ascopost.com/issues/march-15-2012/rising-costs-in-radiation-oncology-linked-to-medicare-coverage.aspx

http://cancer.disease.com/Treatment/Radiation-Therapy

Bob, did you watch Burzynski 2 and hear the lady talk about how much it was costing someone she knew for “traditional treatment ?

[8]
——————————————————————
“This is not the behavior of someone who intends to market the product widely later and expects a return on an investment

It sure looks like someone taking the money while he can”

THAT sure explains THIS 7/5/2012 Marketing and Consulting Agreement contract:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/724445/000110465912047927/a12-16018_1ex10d10.htm

[8]
——————————————————————
“I put the word “documentary” in quotes above because while the actual film does indeed document very well Burzynski’s seemingly endless battle to win acceptance and approval for his treatment against the FDA, National Cancer Institute, patent challenges and big pharmaceutical companies — and includes very powerful filmed interviews with cancer survivors who say his treatment (in Texas, where it was allowed) saved them — it doesn’t have the kind of critical other-side that one is used to in other documentaries

That last part is true
the movie is one-sided”

Bobby, you do know that Eric Merola offered oncologist and self-described researcher, David H. Gorski

(@gorskon @oracknows @ScienceBasedMed #sciencebasedmedicine http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org)

the opportunity to appear in
Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business, Part II, and he REFUSED, right ?

[8]
——————————————————————
“Of course, why this is might be more apparent if Mr. Getler had realized that Merola’s cousin was a patient of Burzynski (she later died, of course) and that Merola raised funds for his cousin’s treatments on his website

Merola is not impartial

He has skin in the game

He has sunk an enormous amount into Burzynski”

Yeah, just like every other documentary film-maker or director of multiple movies re the same subject (Jaws, Terminator, Predator, Alien, etc.)

[8]
——————————————————————
“Mr. Getler mentions that Shari Bernson, the person responsible for the programming and who appeared in fundraising spots, described the movie as “controversial.”

To someone on the outside, it may appear to be controversial

To someone who understands the science and process of publication and who has found endless descriptions of how patients end up making really, really bad choices out of desperation at that clinic, however, there is no controversy”

The “controversy” is “The Skeptics” who do NOT know how to “Fact-Check,” and instead “Insert Foot in Mouth”

[8]
——————————————————————
“The fact remains that after 35+ years, the Clinic has never produced a single reproducible result that would constitute the barest minimum for serious consideration among experts

It just hasn’t”

That certainly explains the antineoplaston studies done in Poland, South Korea, Russia, Egypt, Japan, China, Taiwan (ROC), and the USA

That China published their most recent antineoplaston A10 study 10/1/2010
Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry
October 2010, Volume 286, Issue 1, pp 135-140
#Burzynski References: 5. – 6.

[8]
——————————————————————
The Randomized Japan study is scheduled for publication THIS year

“Should that ever happen (I’m not holding my breath), then, hell, yes, we’ll be on board cheering the advance of science”

“But he has to play by the rules

And this is important too, playing by the rules that all real researchers abide to

Part of the FDA’s job is to ensure that Burzynski’s people are doing this

And on February 7th, they were doing just that; they were in the facility inspecting to make sure that Burzynski’s team was playing by the rules

In a FOIA release this week, the FDA revealed a number of things that had been found out and reported to the clinic by the time the movie aired

By law, the Clinic had 15 days to respond, so if they responded, it was before CPT12′s love-in

(The observational notes can be found here:”
http://skepticalhumanities.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/burzynskiform483feb2013.pdf)

“Two investigators observed:”

“The IRB [Institutional Review Board] used an expedited review procedure for research which did not appear in an FDA list of categories eligible for expedited review, and which had not previously been approved by the IRB”

“Specifically, your IRB routinely provided expedited approvals for new subjects to enroll under Single Patient Protocols.”

“[2 adults and 3 pediatric patients are mentioned]”

“The IRB approved the conduct of research, but did not determine that the risks to subjects were reasonable in relation to the anticipated benefits (if any) to subjects, and to the importance of the knowledge that might be expected to result”

“Specifically, your IRB gave Expedited Approval for several Single Patient Protocols (SPP) without all the information necessary to determine that the risk to subjects are minimized.”

“[4 examples follow]”

“The IRB did not determine at the time of initial review that a study was in compliance with 21 CFR Part 50 Subpart D, ‘Additional Safeguards for Children in Clinical Investigations.’”

“Specifically, an IRB that reviews and approves research involving children is required to make a finding that the study is in compliance with 21 CFR Part 50 Subpart D, ‘Additional Safeguards for Children in Clinical Investigations.’”

“Your IRB approved research involving children without documentation of the IRBs finding that the clinical investigation satisfied the criteria under Subpart D.””

“[3 examples follow and there is a note that this is a repeat observation that had been found in an Oct 2010 Inspection.]”

“The IRB did not follow its written procedure for conducting its initial review of research”

“Specifically, the IRB is required to follow its written procedures for conducting initial and continuing review”

“Your IRB did not follow your written procedures for conducting initial and continuing review because these subjects received IRB approval via an expedited review procedure not described in your Standard Operating Procedures”

“If your IRB would have followed your own SOP for initial and continuing review, the following subjects would have received review and approval from the full board rather than an expedited review.””

“[2 adults and 3 pediatric patients are listed.]”

“The IRB has no written procedures for ensuring prompt reporting to the IRB, appropriate institutional officials, and the FDA of any unanticipated problems involving risks to human subjects or others”

“Specifically, your current SOP-2012 v2-draft doc does not describe the requirements on Investigators on how unanticipated problems are reported to the IRB, Institutional Official, and the FDA, such as time intervals and the mode of reporting, or otherwise address how the prompt reporting of such instances will be ensured.”

“The IRB has no written procedures [in the SOP-2012 v2-draft doc] for ensuring prompt reporting to the IRB, appropriate institutional officials, and the FDA of any instance of serious or continuing noncompliance with theses [sic] regulations or the requirements or determinations of the IRB.”

“A list of IRB members has not been prepared and maintained, identifying members by name, earned degrees, representative capacity, and any employment or other relationship between each member and the institution.”

“You have to play by the rules”

So, NOT as bad as THIS 9 pager ?
http://www.pharmalive.com/fda-warns-stem-cell-company-over-violations

Bob, you know these are just allegations, right ?

Not the final report ?

[8]
——————————————————————
“I’m not sure that this round of investigation is over yet, as the audience at the premier of the sequel was apparently told that the FDA was still on site”

“Researchers should not be playing fast and loose with the rules that protect children (a protected subject population, like prisoners and students–yeah, I’m IRB certified)”

“There should be procedures in place to see that proper oversight and reporting of unexpected events is ensured”

“Hell, there was apparently no document even saying WHO was on the IRB!”

“This is not a report on a serious research institution”

“It’s more like the observations of the IRB of a clown school”

How many more businesses with more IRB issues than Burzynski did you find during you intense “Fact-Finding” mission ?

Bob, did you read Burzynski’s publications with their notes about the IRB ?

“Back to Mr Getler’s letter:”

“On the other hand, Bernson’s sidekick on the in-studio, pledge-drive promotion who was interviewing the clinic spokesman, made me gag when she said,
“I’m Rebecca Stevens and I’m proud to be a journalist who asks the hard questions.”

There were no hard questions”

[I believe the question that followed up this statement was, “What is peer-review?”–RJB]

“And where Bernson may have gone too far, depending on who you believe, was in her statement that:

“Antineoplaston therapy has had significant success rates with terminal brain cancer patients and especially in children.”

No, she went too far no matter who you believe, and his next paragraph demonstrates this:”

“The National Cancer Institute, reporting last month on Antineoplastons, said, among other things:

“No randomized, controlled trials showing the effectiveness of antineoplastons have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals”
and that they are
“not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the prevention or treatment of any disease.”

Aaaand…how’s that controversial?

In light of this, how could Sherri possibly be right?

My bottom line is that CPT12 obviously has a right to show this film

Nobody questions that

“What we wanted, and what was offered to the station, was the opportunity to have an independent oncologist in the studio at the time of the broadcast, you know, to stir up the kind of informed discussion the station says they want to have instead of settling for two True Believers talking to two CPT12 pitch people”

“When the station had that opportunity, they walked away from it”

“That’s indefensible”

Bob, like your man-crush oncologist who refuses to debate ?

[8]
——————————————————————
“Especially when you consider that the people we are worried about, patients and their families, may NOT be as discerning as your average viewer, as CPT President Willard Rowland suggests in his response to the ombudsman:

“The program’s airing is grounded in the station’s mission, specifically those portions about respecting our viewers as inquisitive and discerning citizens, addressing social issues and public concerns not otherwise adequately covered in the community, and cultivating an environment of discovery and learning.”

Some of them haven’t had good news since their diagnosis”

“Then they hear that some lone genius with the cure for cancer is operating in Houston and they are on the next flight down”

“I’ve seen it dozens of times, and I have hundreds more patients on deck to write about”

“These are vulnerable, vulnerable people who deserve the best information from their public broadcasters”

“I’m fairly disappointed by the tepid response, honestly”

“I have a hard time imagining that Mr. Getler, or Mr Willard Rowland for that matter, could possibly think that this program was anything but misleading if they spent a half hour at The OTHER Burzynski Patient Group, which chronicles, in patients’ own words, what goes on in that Clinic”

“All of the people told that getting worse is getting better”

“(for decades being fed the same line!),

the children having strokes

(unrelated to their tumors)

while on the medicine, the “terrifying” amounts of sodium that go into patients”

“The quasi-legalistic threats and phone calls to dissatisfied cancer patients”

“The untested chemo cocktails given to most of his patients”

“None of that was mentioned in the CPT12 fundraiser”

“Of course, that’s not Mr. Getler’s fight”

RJB
http://skepticalhumanities.com/2013/03/26/a-letter-to-the-pbs-ombudsman-about-cpt12s-airing-burzynski
Maybe you should go here and explain the critics actions:
https://www.facebook.com/questions/488444654552853

[8]
——————————————————————
HoustonCancerQuack proclaims:

“Fact-checking Burzynski II”

“DO YOU THINK YOU HAVE AN OPEN MIND?”

“DO YOU HAVE THE ALL THE FACTS?”

Let’s find out if they have all the “FACTS,” shall we?

“Basic claims about ANP”

“Antineoplastons are chemotherapy, regardless of what supporters say”

Bob, it is NOT “ordinary” chemotherapy”

[9]
——————————————————————
“Toxicity, reactions, and even patient deaths can and do happen due to their administration”

FACT: Is any citation, reference, or link to an independent reliable source provided for this claim?

“patient deaths can and do happen due to their administration”

NO

FACT: This is only an “opinion” until it is supported by “FACTS”

Here is what the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) lists as POSSIBLE “Adverse Effects”:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/healthprofessional/page6

[9]
——————————————————————
“The most common side effect of ANP, hypernatremia, is an effect of the sodium in the mixture”

FACT: Is any citation, reference, or link to an independent reliable source provided for this claim?

NO

FACT: Is “HYPERNATREMIA” listed on the above National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) list as a possible “Adverse Effect”?

Let’s see what we can find out about “HYPERNATREMIA,” shall we?

2/13/2013 – The frequency, cost, and clinical outcomes of HYPERNATREMIA in patients hospitalized to a comprehensive cancer center
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23404230
Division of Internal Medicine, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
Department of General Internal Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
Division of Endocrinology, Mayo Clinic
Support Care Cancer. 2013 Feb 13. [Epub ahead of print]
(Supportive Care in Cancer)
DOI
10.1007/s00520-013-1734-6
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00520-013-1734-6
This 3 month study of 3,446 patients in 2006 found that most of the HYPERNATREMIA (90 %) was acquired during hospital stay

HYPERNATREMIA in the U.S.:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000394.htm
HYPERNATREMIA is the most common electrolyte disorder in the United States

In some cases, cancer may cause the condition

[9]
——————————————————————
“In order to maintain their doses of ANP, patients are required to drink obscene amounts of water every day (some report up to 12 quarts or more)”

“If they fail to do so, they may lapse into unconsciousness or die”

Let’s put this in perspective

FACT: Some sources indicate:

1) A man should drink about
3 liters (101.44 ounces / 3 quarts 5.44 ounces) per day
{12 quarts = 384 ounces = 11.356 liters}
[12 quarts in 24 hours = 1/2 quart or 16 ounces per hour]

2) Extremely healthy kidneys could process about 30 ounces (approx .9 liters) of water in an hour
{30 ounces in 24 hours = 720 ounces}
[720 ounces = 22.5 quarts per day]

3) A person with healthy kidneys could develop water intoxication by drinking about 2 to 3 times what their kidneys can process

So, if extremely healthy kidneys could process about 30 ounces per hour and 12 quarts per day would require one to only drink 16 ounces per hour, that means one is being asked to drink 14 ounces less per hour than what extremely healthy kidneys could process

So even if one drinks more than 16 ounces per hour so that one does not have to be awake hourly, there is still opportunity to do that

Of course, there are certain other factors that might have to be taken into consideration depending on the patient

“There are two cases of children (Haley S. and Elizabeth K.) at The OTHER Burzynski Patient Group who have had strokes unrelated to their tumors, likely because of the treatment”

FACT: Is any citation, reference, or link to an independent reliable source provided for this claim?

NO

FACT: Is “STROKE” listed on the above National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) list as a possible “Adverse Effect”?

FACT: This is only an “opinion” until it is supported by “FACTS”

[9]
——————————————————————
“For an example of a patient nearly overdosing, see Adam M’s story”

“Patients seem to often end up in the hospital because of the treatment”

FACT: Is any citation, reference, or link to an independent reliable source provided for this claim?

NO

FACT: Is “ENDING UP IN THE HOSPITAL” listed on the above National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) list as a possible “Adverse Effect”?

FACT: This is only an “opinion” until it is supported by “FACTS”

[9]
——————————————————————
“A surgical oncologist, researcher and patient advocate explains why physicians question Dr. Burzynski’s methods:”

My blog explains WHY I question this physician:
http://www.stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com

[9]
——————————————————————
“This physician and others declined to be interviewed for the movie because of Merola’s track record of slanted presentation and because of past threats issued by people hired by the Burzynski Clinic”

“Past threats issued by people hired by the Burzynski Clinic”?

FACT: Is any citation, reference, or link to an independent reliable source provided for this claim?

NO

FACT: This is only an “opinion” until it is supported by “FACTS”

excuses, Excuses, EXCUSES
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/18/david-h-gorskis-conspiracy-mongering-and-more-of-his-dr-stanislaw-burzynski-stories

[9]
——————————————————————
“What was the “present” from skeptics that was alluded to in the movie?”

“The “present” the Skeptics for the Protection of Cancer Patients (SPCP) delivered to Burzynski on his birthday, was a donation of $14,500 to St Jude Children’s Hospital for research into childhood cancers”

“They challenged Dr. Burzynski to match their donation”

“He did not”

“In fact, some of the interviews in the movie (conducted after the FDA inspection of the Burzynski Clinic, mentioned at the end) were filmed after the fundraiser had been announced, so Merola seems to have deliberately omitted the whole truth, because he certainly was aware of it”

“Doesn’t sound so sinister now, does it?”

“Also, Burzynski got a card”

Want to know what that “PRESENT” really was?

Critiquing Bob Blaskiewicz
(#Burzynski Cancer is Serious Business, Part II)
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/critiquing-bob-blaskiewicz-burzynski-cancer-is-serious-business-part-ii

[9]
——————————————————————
“Are skeptics really calling out cancer patients, ridiculing and harassing them?”

You tell me:

https://twitter.com/Ac2cSheila/status/186164592676843520

https://twitter.com/RatbagsDotCom/status/304050113834262528

[9]
——————————————————————
“What about the 2-hour rejection from The Lancet?”

“The vast majority of papers that get rejected from The Lancet are rejected within 48 hours thanks to an editorial pre-screening process”

“Most researchers are thankful for this courtesy because it allows them to resubmit to other journals more quickly”

“Why does Merola try to convince the audience that this is evidence of a conspiracy against Burzynski?”

Why bring it up if you really have nothing to add that is relevant?

FACT: The Lancet Oncology will not discuss any submission that may or may not have been submitted to The Lancet Oncology with anyone other than the corresponding author

To do so would constitute a breach in confidentiality

[9]
——————————————————————
“Patients pay a lot of money upfront to enter his clinical trials, presumably believing that the trials will eventually be published”

Is that really the patients’
motivation?

FACT: Is any citation, reference, or link to an independent reliable source provided for this claim?

NO

FACT: This is only an “opinion” until it is supported by “FACTS”

[9]
——————————————————————
“Burzynski has never published the results of those trials but keeps the money:”

Really?

Burzynski Clinical Trials (The SEC filings)
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/11/burzynski-clinical-trials-2

[9]
——————————————————————
“Burzynski’s abysmal trial completion record, over sixty abandoned trials, the trust of every patient who participated betrayed”

“If trial completion were a batting average, he’d be batting .016”

Really?

FACTS:
http://cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/search/results?protocolsearchid=11475951

http://cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/search/results?protocolsearchid=11476036

[9]
——————————————————————
“His publication average is .000”

“Really:”
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=burzynski&pg=1
REALLY?
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/18/david-h-gorskis-conspiracy-mongering-and-more-of-his-dr-stanislaw-burzynski-stories

[9]
——————————————————————
“Speaking of harassment…”

“Merola does not mention that skeptics only caught wind of the Burzynski story in November 2011, after a teenaged blogger critical of the Clinic received phony legal threats from someone who had been hired by the Clinic to “clean up” its reputation”

“This person, Marc Stephens, sent this high school student images of his family’s home, the message clearly:”

“We know where you live.”

“These threats were well documented in the international press”

“Somehow Merola managed to not mention that in the movie”

Maybe it wouldn’t be so bad if the loquacious “teenaged” high school student got his “FACTS” straight:

TheSkeptiCritic (@TheSkeptiCritic) tweeted at 8:12pm – 16 Apr 13:
https://twitter.com/TheSkeptiCritic/status/324329482712391680

http://rhysmorgan.co/blog

http://rhysmorgan.co/burzynski-morally-reprehensible

http://thewelshboyo.wordpress.com
[9]
——————————————————————
“What really happened to Amelia Saunders?”

“Merola suggests that Amelia Saunders died as a result of her parents taking her off of antineoplaston therapy, that there “confusion and disagreement” between the doctors in the UK and Houston’s reading”

Really?

https://twitter.com/frozenwarning/status/312141313451634688

https://twitter.com/BurzynskiMovie/status/312256370936266752

https://twitter.com/BurzynskiMovie/status/312264347277737984

https://twitter.com/BurzynskiMovie/status/312270472341487616
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 11:49pm – 14 Mar 13:
http://t.co/wxU2PHJ3GD

https://twitter.com/BurzynskiMovie/status/312425208462049280
[9]
——————————————————————
“We hope this makes it clear that what you are seeing in the new Burzynski movie may not be entirely reliable”

So … like your blog?

[9]
——————————————————————
“As we get more information about the claims in the movie, we will add additional rebuttals and provide context for understanding what really goes on at the Burzynski Clinic”
http://www.anp4all.com
I can’t wait
http://thehoustoncancerquack.com/fact-checking-burzynski-ii
[9]
======================================
Burzynski referenced by other doctors:

Phase II trial of tipifarnib and radiation in children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas
http://neuro-oncology.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/3/298.full
University of California—San Francisco
Children’s Hospital Boston, Massachusetts
St Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee
Seattle Children’s Hospital, Seattle, Washington
Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Children’s National Medical Center, Washington, DC
Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Ohio
Neuro Oncol (2011) 13 (3): 298-306
doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noq202
5.723 Impact Factor
25. ↵ Burzynski SR
Treatments for astrocytic tumors in children: current and emerging strategies
Paediatr Drugs. 2006;8:167-178
http://link.springer.com/article/10.2165%2F00148581-200608030-00003
Pediatric Drugs
May 2006, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 167-178

[10]
——————————————————————
“[T]he emphasis in Phase 2 is on EFFECTIVENESS”

“Phase 3 studies begin if EVIDENCE of EFFECTIVENESS is shown in Phase 2″

[11]
——————————————————————
9-10/2009 – Stable disease is a valid end point in clinical trials
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19826356/
strong>10,675 – # of times “stable disease” found on PubMed
[12]
——————————————————————
costs (see above)

[13]
——————————————————————
rjblaskiewicz 1 week ago
(@rjblaskiewicz a/k/a Blatherskitewicz)

Mr. R.J. Blaskiewicz, is well known as:
“Bob Blaskiewicz, Faux Skeptic Exposed!”

There are numerous Internet pages and great pictures of him re Atlanta, Georgia, where he was called out, but hid behind his keyboard:

[14]
——————————————————————
Forbes – Waiting for the 10,000

Bob, I thought it funny that “The Skeptics” were allowed to comment freely on #Forbes, without citations, references, or links, while my comments were deleted

Did they ever have 10,000 views like Boris Ogon posted ?

[15]
——————————————————————
Forbes – rjblaskiewicz 6 days ago

“It’s not a thread about the inherent corruption throughout all of medicine.”

“It’s about some bully/man-child trying to shut up critics.”

Mr. rjblaskiewicz (also known as Bob Blaskiewicz), so, like Forbes was?

[16]
——————————————————————
c0nc0rdance – http://t.co/WDfUPtBpmz
56.�skeptical humanities
http://t.co/aMJ1HaUTfh
57.�skeptical humanities
http://t.co/EGhiG5WgQA
58.�skeptical humanities
http://t.co/Fwkd7x2E0C

Bob, how many times did y’all need to “mirror” the video ?

[17]
——————————————————————
David James (@stortskeptic) chat room
(@SkepticCanary)(@_JosephineJones)

Skeptic Canary – blogtalkradio

Man-crush

Freedom from Facts

Informed consent

Phenylbutyrate (PB)

Hypernatraemia

Skeptics are opposed to facts

Bob, you and Gorski did a great job of NOT cover these issues

BB claims his rbutr has been used to “Fair and utterly destroyed it,” in relation to “Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business

BB states:

“His son I believe trained in Poland”
Blatherskitewicz, with your phenomenal attention to detail, aren’t you positive?

BB mentions two (2) possible honorary professorships in China for Dr. Burzynski

Call in comments

[18]
——————————————————————
Faux Skeptic
Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz)
6/3/13, 3:49 PM
@FauxSkeptic @bbc5live I believe he said, “Put up or shut up, you little bitch.” Something like that.

[19]
——————————————————————
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
—————————————————————
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 psrtial 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”?

[20]
——————————————————————
?
Oncologist

Survival rate 776 15%

2 1/2 million pages

Phase 3 radiation

Lancet

1652 / 335 = 1,799

Accelerated approval

Bob, at least we talked about some of these

[21]
——————————————————————
IRB – FDA

Burzynski’s publications sometimes mentioned IRB was agreed on per FDA

[22]
——————————————————————
Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) tweeted at 10:44am – 31 Jul 13:

@TomLemley1 @AceofSpadesHQ @mikespillane The FDA won’t approve his drug until he ever finishes and publishes a trial. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?te…

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/362599624596393984

[23]
——————————————————————
Robert J. (Bob) Blaskiewicz, Professor
Bob Blaskiewicz Faux Skeptic Exposed!
@rjblatherskiewicz
Blatherskitewicz
University of Wisconsin
rbutr
r-but-r
Eau Claire, Wisconsin
——————————————————————
http://www.skepticalhumanities.com/
——————————————————————
http://virtualskeptics.com/
——————————————————————
http://rbutr.com/
——————————————————————
http://blog.rbutr.com/
——————————————————————
http://www.uwec.edu/Staff/blaskir/
——————————————————————
http://www.csicop.org/author/rblaskiewicz
——————————————————————
http://necss.org/speakers/bob-blaskiewicz/
——————————————————————
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/speakers/blaskiewicz_bob
——————————————————————
http://lanyrd.com/2013/tam/sckkdy/
======================================
http://thehoustoncancerquack.com/

[24]
——————————————————————
Critiquing https://theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com

[25]
——————————————————————
25. 6/20/2013 Mark Burger published a review:
——————————————————————
http://www.yesweekly.com/triad/article-16162-burzynski-cancer-is-.html
——————————————————————
As could be expected, The Skeptics™
showed up
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “I’m afraid you’ve fallen for Dr Burzynski’s PR efforts here”
——————————————————————
LIE: The documentary film is by Eric Merola, NOT “Dr. Burzynski’s Public Relations”
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “In reality, Dr B is a quack and a charlatan of the worst order, and the movie is nothing more than a desperate attempt to try to sell his snake oil to the gullible”
——————————————————————
LIE: After reading through the comments, this sounds like the infamous lying Professor Robert J. (Bob) Blaskiewicz of University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire, “infamy”, who is a charlatan of the first order, and belabors his ignorance by referring to “snake oil”, which as far as I know, has never been approved for phase III clinical trials, unlike Dr. Burzynski’s antineoplastons A10 (Atengenal) and AS2-1 (Astugenal)
——————————————————————
Bob Blaskiewicz (Blatherskitewicz), Faux Skeptic Exposed!:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/bob-blaskiewicz-blatherskitewicz-faux-skeptic-exposed/
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “You have to ask why he’s never published any data showing that his treatment works”
——————————————————————
LIE: What people should ask is why does “Professor” @rjblaskiewicz and his other Skeptic pals continue posting idiotic statements like this on the Internet and social media (Twitter) ?
——————————————————————
Critiquing David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/critiquing-david-h-gorski-md-phd-facs-www-sciencebasedmedicine-orgeditorial-staffdavid-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “Well, if you believe everything the movie tells you, then perhaps you think it’s because of a huge global conspiracy that prevents him from publishing in any journal anywhere in the world”
——————————————————————
If you want to talk Jesse Ventura type “conspiracy theory”:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

submitted 4 days ago by davidreiss666 to reportthespammers

1 comment
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “Even if you are sufficiently conspiracy minded to believe that’s true, then it still doesn’t explain why he hasn’t published his results on the clinicaltrials dot gov website, where most of his trials are recorded as either “ongoing”, “withdrawn”, or “unknown status””
——————————————————————
Did you NOT appear on the below blog talk radio show with your “pal” Gorski who said at 29:00 that Burzynski should NOT publish the information himself ?
——————————————————————
Ep09 – Talking Burzynski – David Gorski and Bob Blaskiewicz 05/29/2013
Skeptic Canary Show – BlogTalkRadio
May 29, 2013 … This week, join your hosts as we talk about Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski and the Burzynski Clinic. Well be joined by two special guest, Doctor David Gorski and Bob Blaskiewicz
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/…/ep09–talking-burzynski–david-gorski-and-bob-blaskiewicz
——————————————————————
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/skepticcanary/2013/05/29/ep09–talking-burzynski–david-gorski-and-bob-blaskiewicz
——————————————————————
http://goo.gl/7pWIj
——————————————————————
http://bit.ly/15lv5zG
——————————————————————
Critiquing the #SkepticCanary: “The Skeptics™” (SkeptiCowards©) Bob Blatherskitewicz and the so-called, “self-proclaimed” “CANCER RESEARCHER”:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/critiquing-the-skepticcanary-the-skeptics-skepticowards-bob-blatherskitewicz-and-the-so-called-self-proclaimed-cancer-researcher/
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “Only one of his trials is recorded as being completed, and that one doesn’t reveal it’s results”
——————————————————————
Did you notice that your above 5/29/2013 appearance was BEFORE this article was published 6/20/2013 ?
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “The fact is that Burzynski keeps is actual research data an extremely closely guarded secret”
——————————————————————
Like THIS ?
——————————————————————
Critiquing: Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski, M.D., Ph.D, L.I.A.R.:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/07/critiquing-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-m-d-ph-d-l-i-a-r/
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “If is treatment were actually effective, do you seriously think he’d do that?”
——————————————————————
RATS!!!. Like this ?
——————————————————————
Burzynski: Oh, RATS!!!
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/26/the-lancet-oncology-peer-review-team-d-12-01519-fail-2/
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “Burzynski likes to cultivate his conspiracy theories because it helps his business of scamming vulnerable cancer patients”
——————————————————————
Is that like The Skeptics™ like to LIE to people ?
——————————————————————
Critiquing: In which the latest movie about Stanislaw Burzynski “cancer cure” is reviewed…with Insolence:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/critiquing-in-which-the-latest-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-cure-is-reviewed-with-insolence-2/
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “For Burzynski, at least, cancer is indeed serious business”
——————————————————————
And for you, it must be a joke, considering how you are too much of a coward to debate questions like these
——————————————————————
QUESTIONS the Critics and Cynics, “The Skeptics™” do NOT want to ANSWER:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/23/questions-the-critics-and-cynics-the-skeptics-do-not-want-to-answer/
======================================
JEFF: “it has been tested independently in other countries, as the film shows”
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “The Japanese study remains unpublished, Jeff, just like all the over 60 studies Burzynski has started”

“Even if it were published, it would need to be replicated”
——————————————————————
Really ? Why not try pointing out where these studies were replicated before the FDA allowed these drugs to be used ?
——————————————————————
Burzynski: Why has the FDA NOT granted Accelerated Approval for Antineoplastons A10 (Atengenal) and AS2-1 (Astugenal) ?
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/burzynski-why-has-the-fda-not-granted-accelerated-approval-for-antineoplastons-a10-astengenal-and-as2-1-astugenal/
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “Merola manipulated by voice, face and even what I said in his movie and never asked for my comments”

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

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

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

I will critique this one also, and let people see what YOU got wrong
======================================
The Burzynski Skeptics:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/the-burzynski-skeptics/
======================================
CHEEZ WHIZ !!! http://anp4all.com is nothing more than Robert J. “Bob” Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz)’s thick processed cheese spread of http://thehoustoncancerquack.com
======================================
Where he asks:

DO YOU THINK YOU HAVE AN OPEN MIND? DO YOU HAVE THE ALL THE FACTS?
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/18/fact-checking-httpthehoustoncancerquack-com/
======================================
He is supposedly a “Professor of Writing”, but check out his writing gaffes here, as “ANONYMOUS”
======================================
Yes! Weekly: Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business Part II:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/26/yes-weekly-burzynski-cancer-is-serious-business-part-ii/
======================================
Critiquing https://theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/24/critiquing-httpstheotherburzynskipatientgroup-wordpress-com/
======================================
“The skeptic who called Dr. Burzynski “my little Polish sausage” has a Polish last name, which the director Eric Merola scrubbed from the movie”

Just because you think that referring to someone as:

“my little Polish sausage”

is humorous, and therefor we should excuse your behavior because of your below excuse, does NOT mean that it makes it acceptable

“Literally one second after he said that, all of the other participants made jokes about that fact”

(which of course was the point)

“Instead allowing the audience to hear that ribbing, Merola inserted an evil laugh, which was lifted and spliced from minute 18:25 of Virtual Skeptics episode 13”

If you thought that was an “evil laugh”, you’ve got an overactive imagination

“Voices were altered to sound sinister, and menacing music was added”

If you thought voices sounded “sinister” and that was “menacing music”, you must not watch any scary movies

Do you think this is a fair representation or were you misled?

YES

I think it’s a fair representation that you try to mislead people

“What about the 2-hour rejection from The Lancet?”

“High impact journals like The Lancet receive huge numbers of submissions, as their journal is the most prestigious”

“The vast majority of papers that get rejected by The Lancet are rejected within 48 hours thanks to an editorial pre-screening process that helps accommodate this huge work load”

“Most researchers are thankful for this courtesy because it allows them to resubmit to other journals more quickly”

“Why does Merola try to convince the audience that this is evidence of a conspiracy against Burzynski?”

All of your above comments prove what a waste of time you are, based on:
======================================
See #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/
======================================
2 hours 8 minutes and 51 seconds
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/
======================================
“Does Eric Merola have any conflicts of interest that he is not disclosing?”

“Eric Merola does not reveal a possible conflict of interest, one that a journalist would feel obliged to share”

“He fails to disclose in the movie that his cousin was a patient of Dr. Burzynski and that he has raised money on his movie’s website for patients to see Burzynski”

Sounds like someone failed to read the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section on the BurzynskiMovie web-site:
======================================
http://burzynskimovie.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=75&Itemid=55
======================================
“Burzynski has never published the results of those trials but keeps the money:”

“Burzynski’s abysmal trial completion record, over sixty abandoned trials, the trust of every patient who participated betrayed”

“If trial completion were a batting average, he’d be batting .016”

“His publication average is .000.”

“Really:”
——————————————————————
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=burzynski&pg=1
——————————————————————
Really ?

“over sixty abandoned trials” ?

This just shows that you do NOT even know the subject-matter

Have you even bothered to read Burzynski’s publications ?
======================================
Burzynski updates Scientific Publications page:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/burzynski-updates-scientific-publications-page/
======================================
Because if you had, you would know that Burzynski has used the clinical trial design proposed by Fleming
======================================
16. 2003 Trial design – Fleming (Pg. 94)
——————————————————————
17. 2004 Trial design – Fleming (Pg. 317)
======================================
Protocol Design

2-stage phase II clinical trial design proposed by Fleming used

Initially, 20 adequately treated patients to be assessed

If less than one Objective Response (Complete Response (CR) or Partial Response (PR)) observed, it’d be concluded there was less than desired activity and study would be discontinued

If one or more Objective Responses observed, 20 more patients would be accrued to study

If 4 or more responses observed among 40 patients, evidence would be sufficient to conclude the treatment has desired activity
======================================
One-sample multiple testing procedure for phase II clinical trials
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7082756/
Journal
Biometrics. 1982 Mar;38(1):143-51
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7082756/

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2530297?uid=3739256&uid=2460338175&uid=2460337855&uid=2&uid=4&uid=83&uid=63&sid=21102589296903
======================================
“This person, Marc Stephens, sent this high school student images of his family’s home, the message clearly:”

“We know where you live.”

“These threats were well documented in the international press”

“Somehow Merola managed to not mention that in the movie”

Yes

Marc Stephens’ actions were idiotic

My personal opinion is that he should have done what I am doing, which is showing how “The Skeptics™ lie, misinform, disinform, misdirect, deceive, misrepresent, etc.

Eric Merola did NOT mention your lame blogs either

Why don’t you complain about that ?

“Burzynski has a long history of patients believing that symptoms of getting worse are signs they are getting better”

“Follow any of the links at that site to hear how, in patients’ own words, this EXACT SAME misleading interpretation has been fed to patients for decades”

So, are you a doctor ?

No ?

I didn’t think so, quack

“Merola has publicly slandered Burzynski critics in a way a real journalist couldn’t”

Why can “real journalists” NOT slander someone ?

“We hope this makes it clear that what you are seeing in the new Burzynski movie may not be entirely reliable”

So, like this web-site
======================================
DEBATE E-Mails:
======================================
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Didymos Thomas wrote:
So now you’re brave ?

Bob Blaskiewicz @rjblaskiewicz

@PDJudasT @robertquickert Hey, Judas. I have no respect for you as a person. Never address me.
1:56 PM – 18 Mar 2013
https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/313725494170361856
——————————————————————
On Monday, September 23, 2013, Robert Blaskiewicz wrote:
You going to be a rotten little troll or do you want to debate?
——————————————————————
You’re the one who posted this on Twitter

Do NOT try to make me the COWARD

Bob Blaskiewicz @rjblaskiewicz

@PDJudasT @robertquickert Hey, Judas. I have no respect for you as a person. Never address me.
1:56 PM – 18 Mar 2013
——————————————————————
2/13/2013 (7/2013)
The frequency, cost, and clinical outcomes of HYPERNATREMIA in patients hospitalized to a comprehensive CANCER center

Over 3 month period in 2006 re 3,446 patients, most of the HYPERNATREMIA (90 %) was acquired during hospital stay
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23404230
——————————————————————
6/3/2013 – “[I]f I had screwed up, I would have admitted it”
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/stanislaw-burzynski-propaganda-versus-news
“Our only goal is to promote high standards of science in medicine”
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/
11/.2/2012 – “Personally, having pored over Burzynski’s publications … “
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/11/02/stanislaw-burzynski-fails-to-save-another-patient/
5/8/2013 – “I’ve searched Burzynski’s publications … “
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/05/08/eric-merola-and-stanislaw-burzynskis-secret-weapon-against-the-skeptics-fabio-lanzoni-part-2/
5/31/2013 – “Burzynski has a contingent of defenders who have targeted skeptics like me for special abuse, up to and including harassing me at work by calling my university to complain about my online verbiage critical of Burzynski and implying that I am somehow doing something wrong”
“(My university quickly realized that I was not.)”
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/05/31/on-helping-that-is-anything-but/
6/5/2013 – “ … I do know cancer science”
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/05/odds-and-ends-about-burzynski-clinic/
6/7/2013 – “Unlike Mr. Merola, I am indeed very concerned with getting my facts correct”
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/07/i-want-my-anp/
.3/14/2013 – “Temodar and Avastin both had proper, completed, and published phase II trials before approval”
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/burzynski-cancer-is-a-serious-business-part-2-like-the-first-burzynski-movie-only-more-so/
and
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/03/14/five-things-i-learned-second-hand-from-the-recent-screening-of-burzynski-cancer-is-serious-business-part-2/
I prove him wrong
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/wayne-state-university-detroit-michigan-quickly-realized-that-david-h-gorski-md-phd-facs-is-not-doing-something-wrong-when-he-lies-about-burzynski/
——————————————————————
6/4/2013 – “Dr. Elloise Garside, a research scientists, echoes a lot of the questions I have, such as”

“how Burzynski never explains which genes are targeted by antineoplastons … “
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/04/stanislaw-burzynski-versus-the-bbc/
I prove him wrong
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/07/critiquing-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-m-d-ph-d-l-i-a-r/
and
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/critiquing-the-institute-of-medicine-report-on-cancer-care-is-the-system-in-crisis/
——————————————————————
Bob, this is unsupported, just like when Gorski put it on his blog:
Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) tweeted at 10:44am – 31 Jul 13:

@TomLemley1 @AceofSpadesHQ @mikespillaneThe FDA won’t approve his drug until he ever finishes and publishes a trial.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?te…

https://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz/status/362599624596393984
Bob, “unable to publish”? Shouldn’t that be “able to publish” but The Lancet Oncology would NOT publish?
——————————————————————
Manuscript reference number: THELANCETONCOLOGY-D-12-01519

Title: Glioblastoma multiforme: a report of long-term progression-free survival and overall survival of 8 to 16 years after antineoplaston therapy and review of literature

Dear Dr. Burzynski,

Thank you for your recent submission to The Lancet Oncology. We have now had time to consider your manuscript and unfortunately, on this occasion, we have decided not to publish it because we believe the message would be better elsewhere.

Although the decision has not been a positive one, I thank you for your interest in the journal and hope it does not deter from considering us again in the future

Josephine Jones (@_JosephineJones) tweeted at.5:21pm – 11.Sep.13:

@Majikthyse @frozenwarning @drpaulmorgan @dianthusmed @oracknows It was about 1hr30 mins into Burzynski Movie II. pic.twitter.com/8n3fQkX0v0

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BT6kM-zCcAAHsnV.png

https://twitter.com/_JosephineJones/status/377919961659764736
Eric Merola revealed in Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II (2), at (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
——————————————————————
Temozolomide received accelerated approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration 1/1999 for treatment of ANAPLASTIC ASTROCYTOMA (brain cancer) patients

At time of approval, NO RESULTS were available from randomized controlled trials in refractory ANAPLASTIC ASTROCYTOMA that show clinical benefit such as improvement in disease-related symptoms or prolonged survival
http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/11/19/6767.full
Was the United States Food and Drug Administration’s 1/1999 accelerated approval based on the PUBLISHED FINAL RESULTS OF A PHASE II (2) CLINICAL TRIAL?

12/2000 – Temozolomide and ANAPLASTIC ASTROCYTOMA:

NO CLEAR PROOF OF EFFICACY
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11475493/
NO BETTER THAN SURVIVAL BEFORE THE INTRODUCTION OF temozolomide

The answer is: NO

1/1999 – FDA Accelerated Approval

9/1999 – Phase 2 publication

9/1999 – Multicenter phase II trial of temozolomide in patients with ANAPLASTIC ASTROCYTOMA or anaplastic oligoastrocytoma at first relapse

Temodal Brain Tumor Group
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10561351/
M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
http://www.drugs.com/pro/temodar.html

http://www.temodar.com/temodar/index.do
2004 – Supratentorial high-grade ASTROCYTOMA and DIFFUSE BRAINSTEM GLIOMA:

two challenges for the pediatric oncologist
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15047924/

http://m.theoncologist.alphamedpress.org/content/9/2/197.long
St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital

administration of temozolomide after RT DIDN’T ALTER POOR PROGNOSIS associated with newly diagnosed diffuse BRAINSTEM GLIOMA in children

1/1/2005 (11/24/2004) – Role of temozolomide after radiotherapy for newly diagnosed diffuse BRAINSTEM GLIOMA in children:

results of a multiinstitutional study (SJHG-98)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15565574

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.20741/abstract;jsessionid=6717837591CCC8FCBD8E46163808E221.d03t01

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.20741/full
administration of temozolomide after RT DIDN’T ALTER POOR PROGNOSIS associated with newly diagnosed diffuse BRAINSTEM GLIOMA in children

Avastin (Bevacizumab):

5/6/2009 – U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval of Avastin (bevacizumab) for people with GLIOBLASTOMA (brain cancer) with progressive disease following prior therapy

effectiveness of Avastin in AGGRESSIVE form of BRAIN CANCER based on improvement in objective response rate

Currently, NO DATA available from randomized controlled trials demonstrating improvement in disease-related symptoms or increased survival with Avastin in GLIOBLASTOMA
http://www.drugs.com/newdrugs/fda-grants-accelerated-approval-avastin-combination-paclitaxel-chemotherapy-first-line-advanced-852.html
According to FDA analysis of study

Study AVF3708g

Study NCI 06-C-0064E
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/druginfo/fda-bevacizumab

http://www.drugs.com/newdrugs/fda-grants-accelerated-approval-avastin-brain-cancer-glioblastoma-has-progressed-following-prior-1342.html
COMPARE COMBINED:

ANAPLASTIC ASTROCYTOMA

22% – Objective Response: Objective response = complete response and partial response – Antineoplastons

22% – response rate: Temodar

11% – Complete Response: Antineoplastons

9% – Complete Response rate: Temodar

17+ years – Maximum Survival : patient with ANAPLASTIC ASTROCYTOMA – Antineoplastons

50 weeks (16-114 weeks) – Median duration of all responses: Temodar

17+ years – Maximum Survival : patient with ANAPLASTIC ASTROCYTOMA – Antineoplastons

64 weeks (52-114 weeks) – Median duration of Complete Response: Temodar

6 months – 7 / 39% Progression-Free Survival: Antineoplastons

4.4 months – Median Progression-Free Survival: Temodar

5 years – 4 / 22% Overall Survival: Antineoplastons

2 years – 7 / 39% Overall Survival: Antineoplastons

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

15.9 months (1 year 3.9 months) – Median Overall Survival: Temodar

COMPARE COMBINED:

GLIOBLASTOMA

39% – Progression-Free Survival (PFS) at 6 months: Antineoplastons

5.28 months – Median Progression-Free Survival (PFS): Antineoplastons

11.3 months – Progression-Free Survival: Avastin

32% – % of Patients Showing Objective Response = complete response and partial response: Antineoplastons

26% – tumor responses observed Avastin

42% – special exception (SE): Overall survival (OS) – 2 years: Antineoplastons

36% – BT-11: Overall survival (OS) – 2 years: Antineoplastons

19% – special exception (SE): Overall survival (OS) – 5 years: Antineoplastons

25% – BT-11: Overall survival (OS) – 5 years: Antineoplastons

4.2 months – Median duration of response in patients: Avastin

9 / 32% – # and % of Patients Showing Objective response = complete response and partial response – Antineoplastons

11 / 20% of patients – Responses were observed: Avastin

5+ years – Maximum Survival : patient with GLIOBLASTOMA – Antineoplastons

3.9 months – Median duration of response: Avastin
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/burzynski-why-has-the-fda-not-granted-accelerated-approval-for-antineoplastons-a10-astengenal-and-as2-1-astugenal/
Do “The Skeptics” believe Burzynski’s data will change from what he’s provided previously, in any FINAL phase 2 pub ?
——————————————————————
2004 – Cited by Burzynski

3/15/1999 – 40 / 30.9% – ARM 1: 1 year Patients Surviving: Protocol – easier to treat cases of newly diagnosed BRAIN STEM (tumor) GLIOMA patients: radiation therapy and chemotherapy with cisplatin (Mandell et al.) (6/1992–10/1997)

3/15/1999 – 17 / 27.0% – ARM 2: 1 year Patients Surviving: Protocol – easier to treat cases of newly diagnosed BRAIN STEM (tumor) GLIOMA patients: radiation therapy and chemotherapy with cisplatin (Mandell et al.) (6/1992–10/1997)

3/15/1999 – 6 months – ARM 1: Median time to Disease Progression: Protocol – easier to treat cases of newly diagnosed BRAIN STEM (tumor) GLIOMA patients: radiation therapy and chemotherapy with cisplatin (Mandell et al.) (6/1992–10/1997)

3/15/1999 – 5 months – ARM 2: Median time to Disease Progression: Protocol – easier to treat cases of newly diagnosed BRAIN STEM (tumor) GLIOMA patients: radiation therapy and chemotherapy with cisplatin (Mandell et al.) (6/1992–10/1997)

3/15/1999 – 8.5 months – ARM 1: Median Overall Survival from start of Treatment (OST): Median time to Death: Protocol – easier to treat cases of newly diagnosed BRAIN STEM (tumor) GLIOMA patients: radiation therapy and chemotherapy with cisplatin (Mandell et al.) (6/1992–10/1997)

3/15/1999 – 8.5 months – ARM 1: Median time to Death: Median Overall Survival from Diagnosis (OSD): Protocol – easier to treat cases of newly diagnosed BRAIN STEM (tumor) GLIOMA patients: radiation therapy and chemotherapy with cisplatin (Mandell et al.) (6/1992–10/1997)

3/15/1999 – 8 months – ARM 2: Median Overall Survival from Diagnosis (OSD): Median time to Death: Protocol – easier to treat cases of newly diagnosed BRAIN STEM (tumor) GLIOMA patients: radiation therapy and chemotherapy with cisplatin (Mandell et al.) (6/1992–10/1997)

3/15/1999 – 8 months – ARM 2: Median Overall Survival from start of Treatment (OST): Median time to Death: Protocol – easier to treat cases of newly diagnosed BRAIN STEM (tumor) GLIOMA patients: radiation therapy and chemotherapy with cisplatin (Mandell et al.) (6/1992–10/1997)

3/15/1999 – 8 months – ARM 2: Median time to Death: radiation therapy and chemotherapy with cisplatin (Mandell et al.) (6/1992 – 10/1997)

3/15/1999 – 8.5 months – Median Survival (MST): standard radiation therapy in combination with chemotherapy (RAT) (Mandell et al.) (6/1992–10/1997) children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM TUMORS: results of pediatric oncology group
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/24/critiquing-httpstheotherburzynskipatientgroup-wordpress-com/
There is no role for hyperfractionated radiotherapy in the management of children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic brainstem tumors: results of a Pediatric Oncology Group phase III trial comparing conventional vs. hyperfractionated radiotherapy
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10192340/
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – 3/9/2013 – March 4 at 7:58pm – Colorado Public Television – PBS:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/09/colorado-public-television-pbs/
======================================
[2] – 3/10/2013 – March 5 at 12:25pm – CPT12 – The Cult of “Misinformation”:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/the-cult-of-misinformation/
======================================
[3] – 3/12/2013 – CPT12 – FACTS Burzynski critics do NOT like:
——————————————————————
[4] – 3/12/2013 – CPT12
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/facts-burzynski-critics-do-not-like/
======================================
[5] – 3/17/2013 – Critiquing the Critics on Orac’s Respectful Insolence blog: Part II:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/17/critiquing-the-critics-on-oracs-respectful-insolence-blog-part-ii/
======================================
[6] – 3/24/2013 – “The Skeptics” (Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business, Part II):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/the-skeptics/
======================================
[7] – 3/25/2013 – Critiquing Bob Blaskiewicz (#Burzynski Cancer is Serious Business, Part II):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/critiquing-bob-blaskiewicz-burzynski-cancer-is-serious-business-part-ii/
======================================
[8] – 3/26/2013 – 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/
======================================
[9] – 4/18/2013 – Fact-checking http://thehoustoncancerquack.com
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/18/fact-checking-httpthehoustoncancerquack-com/
======================================
[10] – 4/24/2013 – Burzynski referenced by other Cancer researchers:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/burzynski-referenced-by-other-cancer-researchers/
======================================
[11] – 4/24/2013 – Burzynski: The FDA’s Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-the-fdas-drug-review-process-ensuring-drugs-are-safe-and-effective/
======================================
[12] – 4/24/2013 – Burzynski: Stable Disease:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-stable-disease/
======================================
[13] – 4/24/2013 – Burzynski: Costs of Cancer treatments:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-costs-of-cancer-treatments/
======================================
[14] – 4/27/2013 – Bob Blaskiewicz (Blatherskitewicz), Faux Skeptic Exposed!:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/bob-blaskiewicz-blatherskitewicz-faux-skeptic-exposed/
======================================
[15] – 4/19/2013 (4/27/2013-4/28/2013) Critiquing “The Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics (page 1):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/critiquing-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics-page-1/
======================================
[16] – 4/30/2013 – Critiquing “The Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics (page 6):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/critiquing-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics-page-6/
======================================
[17] – 5/6/2013 – Critiquing: Is Eric Merola issuing bogus DMCA takedown notices against critics of Stanislaw Burzynski?:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/critiquing-is-eric-merola-issuing-bogus-dmca-takedown-notices-against-critics-of-stanislaw-burzynski/
======================================
[18] – 5/29/2013 (6/2) – Critiquing the #SkepticCanary: “The Skeptics™” (SkeptiCowards©) Bob Blatherskitewicz and the so-called, “self-proclaimed” “CANCER RESEARCHER”:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/critiquing-the-skepticcanary-the-skeptics-skepticowards-bob-blatherskitewicz-and-the-so-called-self-proclaimed-cancer-researcher/
======================================
[19] – 6/6/2013 – Bob Blaskiewicz (Blatherskitewicz), Faux Skeptic Exposed!:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/bob-blaskiewicz-blatherskitewicz-faux-skeptic-exposed/
======================================
[20] – 6/8/2013 – (19. March 29, 1996) – MISDIRECTION: Critiquing “Antineoplastons: Has the FDA kept it’s 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/
======================================
[21] – 6/23/2013 – QUESTIONS the Critics and Cynics, “The Skeptics™” do NOT want to ANSWER:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/23/questions-the-critics-and-cynics-the-skeptics-do-not-want-to-answer/
======================================
[ 22] – 7/2/2013 –
Burzynski: Institutional Review Board (IRB):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/burzynski-institutional-review-board-irb/
======================================
[23] – 7/31/2013 – Perfessor Robert J. (Bob) Blaskiewicz Blatherskitewicz:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/31/the-burzynski-b-s-app/
======================================
[24] – 8/18/2013 – The Burzynski Skeptics:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/the-burzynski-skeptics/
======================================
[25] – 8/25/2013 – Critiquing https://theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/24/critiquing-httpstheotherburzynskipatientgroup-wordpress-com/
======================================
[26] – 8/26/2013 – Yes! Weekly: Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business Part II:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/26/yes-weekly-burzynski-cancer-is-serious-business-part-ii/
======================================
“Orphan Drug”
phenylbutyrate
PB
“Orphan Drug”
phenylacetate
PN
Orphan Drug”
phenylacetylglutamine
“Orphan Drug”
phenylacetylisoglutimine
PG
“Orphan Drug”
phenylacetylisoglutiminate
PG
2011 – Orphan Drugs in Development
http://www.phrma.org/sites/default/files/pdf/rarediseases2011.pdf

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2005/020645s000_ClinPharmR.pdf

http://www.hrsa.gov/opa/programrequirements/orphandrugexclusion/orphandruglist.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2764862/
Phenylbutyrate is a aromatic fatty acid, able to induce hyperacetylation of histones H3 and H4 and growth arrest, differentiation and apoptosis of AML cell lines and primary leukemic cells. It has been effectively used to induce fetal erythropoiesis in patients with sickle cell anemia and β-thalassemia [105]. The aromatic ring does not contribute to the antitumor activity, as butyric acid is of equal or greater potency at producing these biological changes, while shortening of the fatty acid carbon chain length, as demonstrated with phenylacetate, significantly diminished drug potency [106]. After administration phenylbutyrate is metabolized to phenylacetate, then to phenylacetylglutamine and eliminated by urine [107]. The maximum tolerated doses, when administered as a 7-day continuous infusion, was 375 mg/kg/day, while higher doses were associated with encephalopathy apparently attributable to accumulation of the metabolite phenylacetate. At the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), median steady state concentration of phenylbutyrate is 0.3 mM, which is less than the ED50 of 1-2 mM required for differentiation and cytostasis in vitro but in within the concentration range in which phenylbutyrate
induces acetylation of histones. Dose-limiting toxicities were mainly represented by neurocortical toxicity, including lethargy, confusion, and slurred speech, which completely disappeared within 24 to 48 h upon cessation of the infusion. Non dose-limiting toxicities were hyperammoniemia, hyperuricemia, hypocalcemia, skin abnormalities and interstitial pneumonia [108, 109].
Bobby Blaskiewicz Bows Up ‘Bout Burzynski;
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/bobby-blaskiewicz-bows-up-bout-burzynski/

Critiquing: Six stubborn myths about cancer

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

“Six stubborn myths about cancer”

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

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

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

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

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

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

31 August 2013 1:30am

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

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

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

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

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

31 August 2013 1:30am

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

The #Burzynski Skeptics™ are SkeptiScared

8/10/2013 Burzynski, The Movie published at 7:51 pm, that the Japanese randomized phase II antineoplastons A10 (Atengenal) and AS2-1 (Astugenal) clinical trial study had been rejected by The Lancet Oncology
——————————————————————
https://m.facebook.com/pages/Burzynski-The-Movie/318281183441?id=318281183441&refsrc=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fpages%2FBurzynski-The-Movie%2F318281183441&_rdr
======================================
Burzynski – The Antineoplaston Randomized Japan Phase II Clinical Trial Study:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/burzynski-the-antineoplaston-randomized-japan-phase-ii-clinical-trial-study/
======================================
8/12/2013 The Skeptics™ “god” of misdirection, misinformation, disinformation, and MisDisInformation, David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D, L.I.A.R., posted his newest piece of propaganda PoundMUDcake
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/08/12/antineoplaston-fails-publication/
======================================
The Skeptics™ Sheeple Oracolytes followed with the usual lemming-like Twitter bomb
——————————————————————
[1]

https://twitter.com/_JosephineJones/status/366839339478560768

[2]

https://twitter.com/oracknows/status/366843399753564161

[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]

https://twitter.com/_JosephineJones/status/366839971702775808
——————————————————————
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

https://twitter.com/BurzynskiMovie/status/281899938076569600

https://twitter.com/drpaulmorgan/status/281904032027652096

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]

https://twitter.com/_JosephineJones/status/366840961281687552

[6]

https://twitter.com/gorskon/status/366866988083052544

[7]

https://twitter.com/frozenwarning/status/366863839041556481

[8]

https://twitter.com/DrNescio/status/366897062119342080

“Orac” is god’s article is titled:

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”

The false god conveniently uses misdirection to ignore all of the National Cancer Institute clinical studies which Dvorit D. Samid; who learned about antineoplastons from Burzynski, was a part of
======================================
Critiquing: Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski and The Skeptics™:
http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/critiquing-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-and-the-skeptics/
======================================
He also misdirects readers away from antineoplaston studies done in other countries
======================================
Burzynski: Egypt antineoplaston publications:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-egypt-antineoplaston-publication/
======================================
Burzynski: Japan antineoplaston publications:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/burzynski-japan/
======================================
Burzynski: China antineoplaston publications:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-china-antineoplaston-publications/
======================================
And he turns a blind eye to the fact that Burzynski completed the first phase II clinical trial in 2009, whereas M.D. Anderson completed a cancer clinical study in 2006, yet the results of that study were NOT available electronically until 2/13/2013
——————————————————————
See point #21
======================================
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/
======================================
See here for the actual M.D. Anderson study
——————————————————————
Burzynski: HYPERNATREMIA:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/burzynski-hypernatremia/
======================================
In addition, Gorski calls antineoplastons:

“chemotherapy”

This is classic Gorski disinformation

It is NOT “chemotherapy”

It is: “not ordinary chemotherapy”

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:

“Another curious thing happened yesterday”

“There appeared this Tweet:”

Captain Morgan wannabe https://t.co/n2GyapAG6Q Why did TheLancetOncology NOT publish #Burzynski ? YOU suggested them http://t.co/Ag1VHH5VSN

— John Q. Public (@JohnQBull) August 11, 2013

“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
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

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

Believe in Facts ???

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

Let me put that in bold for emphasis

Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski is a liar

Open wide and say ahhhhhhh …

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

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

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

Hear No Evil

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

LIES

Misdirection

Disinformation

Misinformation

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

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

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

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

Misdirection

Disinformation

Misinformation

MisDisInformation

While I DISS his MisDisInformation

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

Critiquing: In which the latest movie about Stanislaw Burzynski “cancer cure” is reviewed…with Insolence:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/critiquing-in-which-the-latest-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-cure-is-reviewed-with-insolence-2/
======================================
Gorski posits:
——————————————————————
“I needed something science-based to cleanse the rancid taste of intelligence-insulting nonsense from my mind”
——————————————————————
My understanding of Gorski’s definition of #ScienceBasedMedicine is:

1. Visualize a Victim

2. Create biased blogposts utilizing:

a. LIES

b. Misdirection

c. Disinformation

d. Misinformation

e. MisDisInformation

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

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

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

Misdirection

Disinformation

Misinformation

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

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

2. there was no evidence that Burzynski met either patient

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

with their:

LIES

Misdirection

Disinformation

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

What was he going to say ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Maybe he’s referring to some of the papers we’ve heard about from Mr. Cohen and others that were editorially rejected and not even sent out for peer review because the editor either didn’t think them appropriate or didn’t want to waste the reviewers’ time”
——————————————————————
Gorski, who did a “review” of Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II (2), 6/3/2013, somehow magically “forgets” the very next day, that the documentary indicates that Burzynski submitted a phase II (2) clinical trial for publication, and was refused in 2 hours 8 minutes and 51 seconds, and Gorski is as silent as the dead about the lame reason given for NOT publishing it
======================================
See #12:
======================================
Critiquing: In which the latest movie about Stanislaw Burzynski “cancer cure” is reviewed…with Insolence:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/critiquing-in-which-the-latest-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-cure-is-reviewed-with-insolence-2/
======================================
How disingenuous, Gorski

Your opinion should mean

Nada

Zip

Zero

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But then again, “Orac” is god

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

“Of course, this is an utterly meaningless factoid”

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

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

The proverbial “pot calling the kettle, black”

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

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

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

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

Comment #128 Didymus Judas Thomas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“This is a huge red flag”

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

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

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

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

Pg. 96

2 patients unable to be evaluated

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

March 29, 1996
�
Then United States Food and Drug Administration Commissioner, David Kessler told the American people:
�
1. We will eliminate unnecessary paperwork … that used to delay or discourage … cancer research … by non-commercial clinical investigators
�
2. The … FDA’s initiatives … will allow …the agency … to rely on smaller 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
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/970.pdf
Neuro-Oncology. 2003; 5: 358
Volume 5 Issue 4 October 2003
�
10/2003 – Protocol – MULTICENTRIC GLIOMA
�
12 – Children Patients Accrued
10 – Evaluable Patients
(9 months-17 years / 9 – median age)
�
4 / 33% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
2 / 25% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
4 / 33% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
0 / 0% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
1 / 9% – # and % of Patients Nonevaluable due to only 4 weeks of treatment / lack of follow-up scans
======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
16. 2003
�
DRUGS IN R&D
Drugs in R and D
(Drugs in Research and Development)
�
BT-11
BRAIN STEM GLIOMA
�
Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA:
�
a preliminary report.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12718563
Burzynski, S.R., Lewy, R.I., Weaver, R.A., Axler, M.L., Janicki, T.J., Jurida, G.F., Paszkowiak, J.K., Szymkowski, B.G., Khan, M.I., Bestak, M.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12718563
Drugs R D. 2003;4(2):91-101
Drugs in R&D 2003;4:91-101
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/960.pdf
�
Pgs. 91-92 and 95
�
3/1996 – Protocol – recurrent diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (3/1996 – 5/1999 enrolled / Pg. 94)
�
12 – Patients Accrued (6 males / 6 females)
(4-29 years / 10 – median age)
10 – Evaluable Patients
�
2 / 20% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
3 / 30% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
3 / 30% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
2 / 20% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
======================================
2004 – Phase II
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15563234
Drugs R D. 2004;5(6):315-26
(Drugs in R and D / Drugs in Research and Development)
�
2004: Protocol – incurable recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma
�
12 – Patients Accrued
(9 – median age)
11 – Evaluable Patients
�
4 / 33% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
3 / 25% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
4 / 33% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
0 / 0% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
2. 10/2004
�
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
�
BT-20
Patients With GLIOBLASTOMA MULTIFORME (GBM)
�
Weaver, R.A., Burzynski, S.R., Bestak, M., Lewy, R.I., Janicki, T.J., Szymkowski, B., Jurida, G., Khan, M.I., Dolgopolov, V.
�
Phase II study of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in recurrent GLIOBLASTOMA MULTIFORME
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1218.pdf
Neuro-Oncology. 2004; 6: 384
Volume 6 Issue 4 October 2004
Abstracts from the Society for Neuro-Oncology Ninth Annual Meeting, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, November 18-21, 2004
�
Pg. 385
�
10/2004 – Protocol – glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) which recurred or progressed post surgery, radiation therapy, and / or chemotherapy
�
22 – Evaluable Patients
(6 men / 16 women / 27-63 /47 – median age)
�
1 / 4.5% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
1 / 4.5% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
12 / 54.5% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
8 / 36.5% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
3. 10/2004 (DBSG)
�
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
�
Burzynski, S.R., Weaver, R. Bestak. M., Lewy, R.I., Janicki, T., Jurida, G., Szymkowski, B., Khan, M., Dolgopolov, V.
�
Long-term survivals in phase II studies of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in patients with diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1219.pdf
Neuro-Oncology. 2004; 6: 386
Volume 6 Issue 4 October 2004
�
60 patients
(31 didn’t meet admission criteria to the study and were treated under Special Exception (SE))
�
10/2004 – Protocol – patients with diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (DBSG)
�
29 – Evaluable Patients
�
7 / 24% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
6 / 21% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
6 / 21% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
10 / 34% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
——————————————————————
31 – Evaluable Patients: Special exception (SE)
�
5 / 16% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
2 / 6% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
16 / 52% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
8 / 26% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
4. 10/2004 (AT/RT of CNS)
�
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
�
BT-14
�
CHILDREN WITH RHABDOID TUMOR OF THE CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM
�
Burzynski, S.R., Weaver, R. Bestak. M., Janicki, T., Jurida, G., Szymkowski, B., Khan, M., Dolgopolov, V.
�
Phase II studies of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in children with atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumors (AT/RT) of the central nervous system
�
A preliminary report
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1146.pdf
Neuro-Oncology. 2004; 6: 427
Volume 6 Issue 4 October 2004
Abstracts from the Eleventh International Symposium on Pediatric Neuro-Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts, June 13-16, 2004
�
10/2004 – Protocol – children with atypical teratoid / rhabdoid tumors (AT / RT) of the central nervous system
�
11 – Children Patients Accrued
8 – Evaluable Patients
(7 treated under Special Exception (SE))
�
2 / 25% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
1 / 12.5% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
1 / 12.5% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
4 / 50% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
5. 10/2004
�
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
�
BT-12
�
CHILDREN WITH PRIMITIVE NEUROECTODERMAL TUMORS (PNET)
�
Burzynski, S.R., Weaver, R. Bestak. M., Janicki, T., Szymkowski, B., Jurida, G., Khan, M., Dolgopolov, V.
�
Treatment of PRIMITIVE NEUROECTODERMAL TUMORS (PNET) with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP)
�
Preliminary results of phase II studies
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1147.pdf
Neuro-Oncology. 2004; 6: 428
Volume 6 Issue 4 October 2004
Abstracts from the Eleventh International Symposium on Pediatric Neuro-Oncology
�
10/2004 – Protocol – PRIMITIVE NEUROECTODERMAL TUMORS (PNET)
�
17 – Patients Accrued
15 – Evaluable Patients
(12 months – 23 years / 6 – median age)
�
3 / 20% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
2 / 13.4% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
5 / 33.3% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
5 / 33.3% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
17. 2004
�
DRUGS IN R&D
Drugs in R and D
(Drugs in Research and Development)
�
Burzynski, S.R., Weaver, R., Lewy, R., Janicki, T. Jurida, G., Szymkowski, B., Khan, M., Bestak, M.
�
Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in children with recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma.
�
A Preliminary Report.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15563234
Drugs R&D 2004;5(6):315-326.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15563234
Drugs R D. 2004;5(6):315-26
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1194.pdf
�
incurable recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma
�
Pg. 320
�
3 – treated under Special Exception (SE) granted by the US FDA
�
Pgs. 317 and 320
�
7/31/1996 – (7/31/1996 – 4/3/2002 as of 3/1/2004) Protocol – children with recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma (MCG)
�
Pg. 317
�
BT-13
�
children with low-grade astrocytoma
�
BT-23
�
children with visual pathway gliomas

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

�
14 – Patients Accrued
14 – Evaluable Patients
�
1 / 7% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
4 / 29% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
3 / 21% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
6 / 43% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
�
Pg. 326
�
38. Chamberlain MC, Grafe MR. Recurrent chiasmatic-hypothalamic glioma treated with oral etoposide. J Clin Oncol 1995; 13: 2072-6
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7636550/
J Clin Oncol. 1995 Aug;13(8):2072-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7636550/
Department of Neurosciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, USA.
http://m.jco.ascopubs.org/content/13/8/2072.long
Arch Neurol. 1995 May;52(5):509-13.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7733847/
Department of Neurosciences, University of California-San Diego, USA.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7733847/
Arch Neurol. 1995;52(5):509-513. doi:10.1001/archneur.1995.00540290099024.
http://archneur.jamanetwork.com/Mobile/article.aspx?articleid=593460
——————————————————————
Compare: The Pediatric Oncology Group. [39]
�
10/2000 – Protocol – solitary progressive optic pathway tumors with carboplatin
�
50 – Patients Accrued
50 – Evaluable Patients
�
2 / 4% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
37 / 74% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
11 / 22% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
�
39. Mahoney DH, Cohen ME, Friedman HS, et al. Carboplatin is effective therapy for young children with progressive optic pathway tumors: a Pediatric Oncology Group phase II study. Neuro-oncol 2000; 2: 213-20
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11265230/
Neuro Oncol. 2000 Oct;2(4):213-20.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11265230/
Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1920597/
�
http://neuro-oncology.oxfordjournals.org/content/2/4/213.full.pdf
======================================
2005 – Phase II
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15911929
Integr Cancer Ther. 2005 Jun;4(2):168-77
(Integrative Cancer Therapies)
�
2005: Protocol – recurrent disease or high risk
�
13 – Patients Accrued
(1-11 – age / 5 years 11 months – median age)
13 – Evaluable Patients
�
3 / 23% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
1 / 8% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
4 / 31% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
5 / 38% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
——————————————————————
(Updated 2007)
http://www.cancer-therapy.org/CT/v5/B/HTML/42._Burzynski,_379-390.html
2005 – Protocol – incurable recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma
�
13 – Patients Accrued
�
3 / 23% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
1 / 8% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
4 / 31% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
5 / 38% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
======================================
2006 – Phase II
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16484713
Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Mar;5(1):40-7
(Integrative Cancer Therapies)
�
2006: Protocol – high-grade pathology (HBSG)
�
– Patients Accrued
18 – Evaluable Patients
�
2 / 11% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
2 / 11% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
7 / 39% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
7 / 39% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
BT-03
�

�
BT-11
�
BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (BSG)
�
BT-18
�
6. MIXED GLIOMA
�
ADULT PATIENTS WITH MIXED GLIOMA
�
“mixed glioma”, a type of primary malignant brain tumor (PMBT)
�
BT-22
�
8. CHILDREN WITH PRIMARY MALIGNANT BRAIN TUMORS
�
CAN-01 (CAN-1)
�
PATIENTS WITH REFRACTORY MALIGNANCIES
�
19. 3/2006
�
Burzynski, S.R., Janicki, T.J., Weaver, R.A., Burzynski, B. Targeted therapy with Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 of high grade, recurrent, and progressive BRAINSTEM GLIOMA. Integrative Cancer Therapies 2006;5(1):40-47
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16484713
Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Mar;5(1):40-7
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16484713
DOI: 10.1177/1534735405285380
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/5825.pdf
�
http://m.ict.sagepub.com/content/5/1/40.long?view=long&pmid=16484713
Pgs. 40-41
�
4 phase 2 trials
�
BRAINSTEM GLIOMA (BSG)
�
patients with inoperable tumor of high-grade pathology (HBSG)
glioblastoma
�
recurrent diffuse intrinsic glioblastomas and ANAPLASTIC ASTROCYTOMAs of brainstem
�
Pg. 43
�
BT-03 – 1 / female
BT-11 – 13 (8 males/5 females)
BT-18 – 1 / female
BT-22 – 2 / females
CAN-01 – 1 / female
�
Pg. 44
�
High-grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem gliomas
�
Pgs. 40-42 and 44-45
�
7/12/1988 (7/12/1988 – 11/13/2003 as of 6/10/2005) – Protocol – recurrent diffuse intrinsic glioblastomas and anaplastic astrocytomas of the brainstem high-grade pathology (HBSG)
�
18 – Evaluable Patients (Pgs. 40-43)
(8 males / 10 females / 2-42 / 10 – median age / Pgs. 42-43)
�
2 / 11% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
2 / 11% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
7 / 39% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
7 / 39% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
BT-11
�
BRAIN STEM GLIOMA
�
8. 10/2006
�
Burzynski, S.R., Janicki, T.J., Weaver, R.A., Szymkowski, B.G., Khan, M.I., Dolgopolov, V. Treatment of multicentric BRAINSTEM GLIOMAs with antineoplastons (ANP) A10 and AS2-1. Neuro-Oncology. 2006; 8:466.
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/2105.pdf
Volume 8 Issue 4 October 2006
Abstracts for the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO)
�
Brainstem gliomas and multicentric tumors (MBSG)
�
10/2006 – Protocol – Brainstem gliomas and multicentric tumors (MBSG)
�
19 – Evaluable Patients
3.9 – 40.8 years (9.2 – median age)
(90% less than 18 years old)
�
2 / 11% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
1 / 5% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
7 / 37% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
9 / 47% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
======================================
2007
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1252.pdf
2004 – Protocol – small group of patients with progressive LGA, ANP
60% – % of Patients Showing Complete Response
10% – % of Patients Showing Partial Response
——————————————————————
2004 – Protocol – low-grade astrocytoma in children
Burzynski [39] – Reference
Phase II d – d = Preliminary results – Study type
P – P = progressive tumor – Tumor type
(no. of pts) – pts = patients
ANP (10) – ANP = antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 – Treatment
10 – Evaluable Patients {(78) = most in a study}
OS [%] – OS = overall survival
100% (1 yr) – 90% (3 yr) – Efficacy
93 mo – MST = MST = median survival time – {96 (1 y) next closest}
60% (6) – % and # of Patients Showing Complete Response {24 (11) next closest}
10% (1) – % and # of Patients Showing Partial Response {60% (9) best other study}
30% (3) – % and # of Patients Showing Stable Disease + MR = minor response {70% (14) best other study}
0% (0) – % and # of Patients Showing Progressive Disease {4% (2) next closest}
PFS (%)
90 (1 y) – 90 (3 y) – PFS = progression-free survival {100 (1 y) – 68 (3 y) best other study
——————————————————————
2004 – Protocol – diffuse, intrinsic brainstem glioma in children
Burzynski et al. [88] – Reference
Phase II – Study Type
(no. of pts) – pts = patients
RP (30) – RP = recurrent and progressive tumor – Tumor type
30 – Evaluable Patients
ANP – ANP = antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 – Treatment – ANP
OS (%) – OS = overall survival
[2y; 5y]
46.7; 30 – Efficacy
MST (mo)
19.9 – MST = median survival time
27% (8) – % and # of Patients Showing Complete Response
20% (6) – % and # of Patients Showing Partial Response
23% (7) – % and # of Patients Showing Stable Disease
30% (9) – % and # of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
——————————————————————
Burzynski et al. [89] – Reference
Phase II – Study Type
(no. of pts) – pts = patients
RPS (10) – RPS = recurrent and progressive tumors in children aged <4y – Tumor type {(66) = most in a study}
ANP – ANP = antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 – Treatment – ANP
OS (%) – OS = overall survival
[2y; 5y] – Efficacy
60; 20 {46.7 (30) = next best study}
MST (mo)
26.3 – MST = median survival time – {19.9 = next best study}
[% (no. )]
30% (3) – CR = complete response – {27% (8) = next best study}
[% (no. )]
0% (0) – PR = partial response – {56% (1) = next best}
[% (no. )]
40% (4) – SD = stable disease – {44% (25) = best}
[% (no. )]
30% (3) – PD = progressive disease – {23% (13) = best}
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
BT-11
�
BRAIN STEM GLIOMA
�
9. 4/2007 (NDBSG)
�
Burzynski, S.R., Weaver, R.A., Janicki, T.J., Jurida, G.F., Szymkowski, B.G., Kubove, E. Phase II studies of Antineoplastons A10 and AS 2-1 (ANP) in children with newly diagnosed diffuse, intrinsic BRAINSTEM GLIOMAs. Neuro-Oncology 2007; 9:206.
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/4021.pdf
Volume 9 Issue 2 April 2007
Abstracts from the Twelfth International Symposium on Pediatric Neuro-Oncology
�
4/2007 – Protocol – newly diagnosed diffuse, intrinsic BRAINSTEM GLIOMAs (NDBSG)
�
20 – Evaluable assessable children Patients
(3 months-20 years – age)
�
6 / 30% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
2 / 10% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
4 / 20% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
8 / 40% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
BT-11
�
BRAIN STEM GLIOMA
�
Special exception (SE)
�
13. 12/2009 (DBSG)
�
Burzynski, S.R., Janicki, T.J., Weaver, R.A., Szymkowski, B., Burzynski, G.S. Phase II study of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 in patients with BRAINSTEM GLIOMA. Protocol BC-BT-11. Neuro-Oncology 2009, 11:951.
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/8639.pdf
Volume 11 Issue 6 December 2009
Abstracts from the Third Quadrennial Meeting of the World Federation of Neuro-Oncology (WFNO) and the Sixth Meeting of the Asian Society for Neuro-Oncology (ASNO)
May 11-14, 2009
Yokohama, Japan
�
12/2009 – Protocol – BRAINSTEM GLIOMAs
�
40 – Patients Accrued
28 – Evaluable Patients
(23 children / 5 young adults)
�
5 / 18% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
4 / 14% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
12 / 43% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
7 / 25% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
——————————————————————
Special exception (SE)
�
12/2009 – Protocol – BRAINSTEM GLIOMAs
�
52 – Evaluable Patients
(40 children / 12 young adults)
�
5 / 10% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
2 / 4% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
28 / 54% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
17 / 32% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
——————————————————————
BT-11 and special exception (SE)
92% – diffuse intrinsic brainstem gliomas (DBSG)
�
Overall survival (OS) – 2 years:
42% – special exception (SE)
36% – BT-11
�
Overall survival (OS) – 5 years:
19% – special exception (SE)
25% – BT-11
======================================
Compare: standard radiation therapy in combination with chemotherapy (RAT) (Mandell et al. 1999)
�
2% – % of Patients Showing Complete Response
31% – % of Patients Showing Partial Response
�
Mandell LR, Kadota R, Freeman C, et al. There is no role for hyperfractionated radiotherapy in the management of children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic brain stem tumors: results of pediatric oncology group phase III trial comparing conventional vs. hyperfractionated radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;43:959-964.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10192340/
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999 Mar 15;43(5):959-64.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10192340/
International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
Volume 43, Issue 5, 15 March 1999, Pages 959–964
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036030169800501X
Department of Radiation Oncology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
6/1992 – 10/1997
�
Overall survival (OS):
7% – 2 years
0% – 5 years
=====================================
COMBINED:
——————————————————————
Overall survival (OS) – 2 years:
——————————————————————
42% – antineoplastons: special exception (SE)
�
36% – antineoplastons: BT-11
�
7% – standard radiation therapy in combination with chemotherapy (RAT)
——————————————————————
Overall survival (OS) – 5 years:
——————————————————————
25% – antineoplastons: BT-11
�
19% – antineoplastons: special exception (SE)
�
0% – standard radiation therapy in combination with chemotherapy (RAT)
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Break The Walls Down:
http://youtu.be/aAoJ1FY9kM8
——————————————————————
And “THAT’s The BOTTOM LINE”
Because Stone Cold Said So
http://youtu.be/v2KLaaykD5g
——————————————————————
IT’s GO TIME
Time To Play The Game:
http://youtu.be/xskJaEF-cuE
——————————————————————
Break The Walls Down:
http://youtu.be/JAG55VxlQeI
=====================================