Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski, Stanislaw R. Burzynski, Stanislaw Burzynski, Stan R. Burzynski, Stan Burzynski, S. R. BURZYNSKI, S. Burzynski, Arthur Burzynski, Hippocrates Hypocrite Hypocrites Critic Critics Critical HipoCritical
Dr. David H. Gorski a/k/a D H Gorski a/k/a Gorski DH a/k/a Gorski D. a/k/a “Orac” a/k/a GorskGeek of University of Michigan, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Alexander J. Walt Comprehensive Breast Center, American College of Surgeons Committee on Cancer, Institute for Science in Medicine, #sciencebasedmedicine, science based medicine, National Geographic’s (#NatGeo) scienceblogs, Respectful Insolence, @gorskon, @oracknows, @ScienceBasedMed“fame”, is a certifiable “Hack” ๐ท
He claims to believe in “science-based medicine”, but he so readily and easily bastardizes the term on his blogs and during his “talk” at The Amazing Meeting (TAM 2013) in July, about Stanislaw Burzynski, MD, PhD [1]: “Why We Fight (Part I): Stanislaw Burzynski Versus Science-Based Medicine” and the “Medical Cranks and Quacks”panel discussion, that it becomes painfully obvious, when Mark Crislip stated [2]:
—————————————————————— (37:00)
—————————————————————— “As a philosophical approach to medicine, I would probably say that 99% of doctors are not science-based“
——————————————————————
and:
—————————————————————— (37:25)
—————————————————————— “This table, is probably pretty much all of the science-based medicine docs in the United States” ๐ฎ
—————————————————————— Note: There were only 4 individual’s at the table, and Bob Blaskiewicz is NOT a doctor, he’s a QUACK ๐
——————————————————————
The world might indeed need more Mark Crislipโข , but I think it needs some more insolence for “The Skepticsโข” ๐
So, in that spirit, the videos, recently released by the James Randi Educational Foundation(JREF), of Bob Blaskiewicz, GorskGeek, and some key SBM players that youโve come to know and love for their transparency, deserve some of what’s mentioned by Mark Crislip at:
—————————————————————— 25:00
—————————————————————— 1. Embarrassment ๐ณ 2. Ridicule ๐ 3. Education ๐
๐
David Gorski makes the stupendous remark that Burzynski “could treat anyone he wanted” in the clinical trials ๐
How asinine ๐
—————————————————————— (18:20)
—————————————————————— David Gorski then has the temerity to suggest that Millerโs Children at Long Beach Memorial misdiagnosed Tori Moreno’s inoperable stage 4 BSG ๐
David Gorski has the gall to profer that City of Hope misdiagnosed Tori Moreno’s inoperable stage 4 brain stem glioma ๐ฆ
David Gorski has the chutzpah to pontificate that Dr. Fred Epstein in New York misdiagnosed Tori Moreno’s inoperable stage IV brainstem glioma ๐ก
David Gorski; who is a BREAST cancer oncology specialist, and NOT a BRAIN cancer oncology specialist, has the presumptiveness to speculate that 3 different medical opinions could have misdiagnosed Tori Moreno in August 1998; who was diagnosed with a very large tumor, about 3 inches in the largest diameter and located in the brain stem, which was too risky for surgery, and about which her parents were told by ALL 3, that Toriโs brain cancer was fatal and, she would die in a few days or at the most, 2-6 weeks, and that there was nothing that could be done, and was finally put on antineoplaston therapy in October, when she was about 3 ยฝ months old, and in such condition that they were afraid that she might die at any time, David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., FACS; who claims, “I do know cancer science” [3], has the audacity, because of his “book learnin'” to postulate his “science-based medicine theory”, but he obviously does NOT have the “balls” to name the medical institutions or doctors involved, whose opinions he disagrees with โป
—————————————————————— (20:00)
—————————————————————— David Gorski; who has had the stupendity to state: “[I]f I had screwed up, I would have admitted itโ[4], in the case of Hannah Bradley, who had a grade III anaplastic astrocytoma brain tumor, while noting that Hannah had epileptic seizures, he then serendipitously stupified the not-so-startling but nonetheless shocking revelations that he seemingly had fallen when climbing a tree, and been hit by every “stupid stick” on the way to reinforcing Newton’s Law of Gravity; whilst claiming that he had watched the entire movie about her trip to the Burzynski Clinic, but was inexplicably unable to determine that the reason Hannah experienced a “change in mood” and “double-vision”, was because, as stated in the movie, a nurse said it was because of a new anti-seizure drug she had NOT used before to control her epileptic seizures, and which was most likely responsible for the rash that Hannah developed, which GorskGeek acted clueless about [5] ๐
——————————————————————
If GorskGeek actually knew HOW to apply SCIENCE, he might be somewhat credible ๐
Never let it be said that Mark Crislip canโt match “Orac” in shameless promotion of “Orac’s” shameless stupidity ๐
——————————————————————
The second video is David Gorski’s brother in bulkshit, Bob Blaskiewicz, of Skeptical Humanities and The Other Burzynski Patient Group
Itโs entitled, appropriately enough, “Why We Fight (Part II): Itโs All About the Patients”
Robert Blaskiewicz is the epitome of a “Medical Crank” ๐ฒ
@rjblaskiewicz is “infamous” for talking out of both sides of his mouth ๐
Blatherskitewicz is the “intellectual juggernaut” who during the Google+ Hangout Burzynski Discussion, 9/28/2013, stated:
โwe respect scientific methodโ [6]
But if he really does, he certainly does NOT prove it on theotherburzynskipatientgroup which is saturated with so much of his bias, that it’s extremely difficult for one to separate his bullshit from the actual patient
story, and NO ONE can draw any coherent science-based conclusions from his “stories” because they grossly lack the necessary scientific data, such as:
—————————————————————— 1. When were they diagnosed with cancer ? 2. What previous treatment(s) did they have, if any ? (a) biopsy only (b) surgery (c) chemotherapy (d) radiation (e) radiotherapy (f) other 3. How long did they have prior treatment(s), if any ? 4. How long were they on antineoplaston therapy ?
——————————————————————
Donโt forget to pay attention to Bob Blaskiewiczโs plea at the end of his talk to contact him if youโre interested in becoming active, since he needs all the help he can get ๐
Online, just mosey on over to The Other Burzynski Patient Group and contact Bob Blaskiewicz, and ask him why he posted such crap in an attempt to smear Burzynski, NOT based on SCIENCE, but instead on hyperbole ๐ถ
Interview with Dr. Burzynski (M.D., Ph.D. Biochemistry)
Interviewer: Gavin Phillips ยฉ
Distributed 12.05.03
Anyone may post this interview to their website, as long as it remains
unaltered and freely available. Please place a link back to this webpage.
You may click here to download the PDF version of my interview and
save it to your computer. Please help distribute it. Thank you. Gavin.
Click here to download the free Adobe Reader if you do
not already have it on your computer.
This telephone interview with Dr. Burzynski was held in December 2002. The purpose of the interview is to inform people about Dr. Burzynskiโs cancer treatment, Antineoplastons. It will be circulated for free on the Internet. I have no affiliations with Dr. Burzynski either personally or professionally.
Hello Dr. Burzynski. I would like to thank you for taking the time to inform people about your cancer treatment Antineoplastons, and your experiences in the area of cancer over the last 25 years.
Is it true that you were the youngest person in Poland in the 20th century to earn two advanced degrees, an M.D. (Medical Doctor) and Ph.D. in biochemistry at only 24?
Iโm not sure if I was the youngest, I was among the youngest. In Poland, its 15 years average (Gavin. For a Ph.D.) after you receive an M.D.
What motivated you to come to the United States? When did you arrive here?
Well basically freedom. You see, I could easily stay in Poland. I was a prominent student, one of the best they ever had in medical school and certainly if I would become a member of the Communist Party I would accomplish a lot in Poland. But I didnโt want to be a Communist and after I declared, โforget it, Iโm not going to be a Communistโ, they persecuted me. So, practically, it would not be possible for me to do any research in Poland. I arrived in the United States on the 4th of September 1970.
You began working at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston?
I was not employed for 6 weeks, then I got the appointment at Baylor in the position of research assistant. A couple of years later I became Assistant Professor.
I have read that your cancer research was motivated by your observation of a cancer patient in Poland that was missing a particular peptide in their blood, is this correct?
Well Yes. First I discovered some peptide fractions in blood and then I was trying to determine their significance. This means that I was screening the blood samples from people who suffer from various illnesses, among them cancer patients. I found some remarkable changes in concentration of these Peptides in cancer patients. Basically there was a great deficiency of these Peptide fractions in the blood of cancer patients.
What are peptides and how did your research develop from there to developing Antineoplastons?
Peptides are chains of Amino Acids, so if you put together 2 Amino Acids, you have a Peptide.
You have said, “Cancer is really a disease of cells that are not programmed correctly. Antineoplastons simply reprogram them so that they behave normally again.”
They do, but we are not really interested in making normal cells out of cancer cells. What we are interested in is correcting one basic difference between cancer cells and normal cells, and this is the mortality of normal cells and the immortality of cancer cells. Cancer cells are immortal. And if you change them into mortal cells again they will die and the tumor will disappear.
I read a humorous part in Daniel Haley’s chapter about you in his book, “Politics in Medicine.” He says that initially you derived Antineoplastons from your friends blood, but had to change because your friends stopped coming around, is that correct?
Certainly it was difficult to obtain a lot of blood for the research. It was a necessity to look for a source that is widely available. I realized from the very beginning that once I use urine, my critics will use this against me; try to just smear me, โThatโs the doctor who is using urine to treat cancer.โ But there was no other way to do it.
There are plenty of ignorant remarks about your treatment because it used to be derived from human urine. The process you use now does not involve collecting human urine. Please describe the complete process you use.
Ever since 1980, we are using synthetic analogues of Antineoplastons, made in a state-of-the art biomedical manufacturing facility. These have nothing to do with urine or blood.
Would you describe Antineoplastons as natural?
They are natural of course, they exist in our body.
Your treatment does require a strong commitment from your patients as they must be infused with Antineoplastons for many weeks or months, is that correct?
But most of our patients are taking oral formulations. I would say that perhaps 15% of our patients are taking intravenous infusions of Antineoplastons; the rest take capsules or tablets.
The patients who have the most advanced type of cancer will require heavy dosages. There is a limitation of how much medicine you can take by mouth. Fifty or sixty tablets a day, thatโs pretty much all you can take by mouth. But if you give intravenous infusion you can deliver the equivalent of 3,000 tablets a day.
You went into private practice in 1977. How was this funded?
Well, I started private practice in 1973. It was not necessary for me to have any funding, because I joined with other physicians.
Is it true that Dr. Mask at a hospital in Jacksboro, Texas ran your first human clinical trial? What types of cancers did you treat? What were the results of these trials?
I would not call it a clinical trial, because only two patients received initial treatment. They were very advanced, close to death and unfortunately, both of them died. But these cases were not lost because we found we can administer Antineoplastons without having bad side effects.
What is the general side effect experienced by your patients when using Antineoplastons? Does it damage the immune system as chemotherapy does?
We are not talking about one medicine; we tried 12 different pharmaceutical formulations. Basically it depends what formulation we use, but when we give them orally, we see practically no side effects at all. Patients may develop skin rash, which may last for a day or two.
But, when we give large dosages intravenously, we have to watch fluid balanceโฆand electrolyte balance. We donโt see any delayed toxicity once the treatment stops. Everything practically goes back to normal within say a day or two. It does not even come close to the adverse reactions that you experience with chemotherapy.
What is the cost today for a patient using your treatment in a pill form and do insurance companies pay for it? *
Well basically, we do not charge patients for medicines, Antineoplastons are given free of charge. What we are charging for are supplies, and we are charging for standard services such as office visits, nursing services, Lab tests, consultation, evaluation etc. And these services are priced the same way as the average medical services, and they are covered by the insurance.
*(Gavin. Insurance companies will rarely pay for Antineoplastons, which is considered an experimental treatment. It also depends on the type of insurance plan someone may be on.)
So if a patient were using the pills, what would it normally cost per month.
About $2,000 a month.
Antineoplastons is most effective against brain cancer, is that correct?
Well, itโs not really correct. Because brain tumors are very difficult to treat, we concentrate our efforts on the toughest type of cancers. Out of our clinical trials, we have eight that came to the final point, which means they proved that there is some efficacy, and six of these are in various types of brain tumors. But there is another clinical trial, which deals with advanced colon cancer, which also proved efficacy and another one with liver cancer. But we still need to wait a little longer to have a larger number of patients treated and then statistically find out if this is going to work.
Basically the treatment works when we have involvement of the gene, which can be activated by Antineoplastons, and such genes, like gene p 53, are involved in 50% of all cancers. The treatment turns on gene p 53. So it has more to do with what kind of gene the patient has in his cancer cell, rather than the type of cancer.
Is there a special diet to follow when using your treatment?
Yes, since we are expecting there may be some changes in minerals, we usually emphasize a diet that is relatively low in sodium. We treat every patient individually. Every patient has a consultation with a dietary expert who tries to individualize his diet
Is your treatment being used in any other countries?
Yes, we have people coming to us from all over the world. I think we can probably count easily 70 to a 100 countries from which people are coming. But the main effort is now in Japan, outside the US. In Japan there are 2 clinical trials being conducted by Japanese doctors. Also, a group of doctors in Mexico obtained approval from the FDA and Mexican government to do clinical trials.
Now I have several related questions about brain cancer in children.
Dustin Kunnari and Dr. Burzynski. Dustin is one of Dr. Burzynskiโs great success stories.
Dustin had brain surgery at 2 ยฝ years old. The surgery removed only 75% of the tumor.
Dustinโs parents, Mariann and Jack, were told that Dustin would only live for 6 months. Chemotherapy and radiation may extend Dustinโs life slightly, but at a very high cost in quality of life with very serious side effects.
Mariann and Jack decided to look into alternatives. They found out about Antineoplastons and after only 6 weeks of intravenous treatment, Dustinโs MRI showed he was cancer free.
One year later another tumor appeared on the MRI. By this time Dr. Burzynski had developed a more concentrated form of Antineoplastons. After 5 months the tumor was gone. Dustin has remained cancer free ever since and was taken off Antineoplastons when he was 7. Dustin is 12 today.
About how many children suffer from brain cancer in the US each year?
The statistics are available for 1999. The new cases of brain tumors in children were counted as 2,200. Now around 3,000, I would say.
Approximately what percentage of children is still alive after 5 years using orthodox treatments for brain cancer?
It depends on the type of tumor and itโs location, some of the toughest are those that are located in the brain stem. Up to 5 years, you have practically no survival when you use the best treatment available, which is radiation therapy. Chemotherapy usually doesnโt work for such patients. After 2 years, 7 % survival. After 5 years, practically none.
Dustin, after brain surgery.
To further complicate matters, Dustinโs oncologist kept threatening his parents with a court proceeding to take Dustin away and force him to take Chemotherapy/Radiation treatment.
This continued for a year, even after Dustinโs success with Antineoplastons.
You may also e-mail Mary Jo Siegel, the lady who runs the web site. Mary is also a cancer survivor using Antineoplastons.
maryjo@siegel.net
Is it correct to say you have had very good results when treating brain cancer in children?
Yes we have. I gave you the example of the toughest, which is located in the brain stem. We get about 40% survival rates after two years. After 5 years at the moment we have about 20% survival rate. The reason is that most of the patients who come to us, have received prior heavy radiation therapy, or chemotherapy. They usually die from complications from these treatments. Those who survive the longest are patients who previously did not receive radiation therapy or chemotherapy. The longest survivor in this category is now reaching 15 years from the time of diagnosis; and sheโs in perfect health.
With the more common variety, which is aciotoma located outside the brain stem, we get much, much better. We have 75% of patients who are objectively responding to the treatment. This means that the tumor will disappear completely or will be reduced by more than 50%.
This is another strong point. Itโs extremely important. Children are usually damaged for life after radiation therapy, when we can avoid it and bring them back to life.
What criteria must parents of children with brain cancer meet before being able to have their children treated by you?
Well, practically all of these brain tumors must be inoperable. This means that itโs not possible to remove them with surgery. Except for one category, they should have advanced disease. The tumor should have the size of more than 5 mm in diameter and be located in a place that cannot be operated upon.
There is one category of these tumors, medulloblastoma, where the FDA requires that the patients would receive prior standard treatment and fail before we can accept them. In the rest of these children we can accept them without failure of prior treatment.
You may also e-mail Mary Jo Siegel, the lady who runs the web site. Mary is also a cancer survivor using Antineoplastons.
maryjo@siegel.net
Let us talk a little about some of your most successful stories using Antineoplastons with children. Probably the most remarkable case is that of Tori Moreno . In August 1998 Tori was diagnosed with a stage 4 brainstem glioma that was inoperable. Her parents were told she would die in a few days or at the most, a few weeks. When did you start treating her?
Tori had Stage 4 brain stem glioma. The tumor was too risky for surgery. She was diagnosed shortly after her birth. The tumor was very large, about 3 inches in the largest diameter and located in the brain stem. Her parents consulted the best centers in the country and they were told there was nothing to be done. So finally she was brought to us, when she was about 3 ยฝ months old. This was in October 5 years ago. She was in such condition that we were afraid that she might die at any time. Fortunately she responded, and about 5 months later we determined that she obtained a complete response, which means complete disappearance of active tumor by
MRI criteria. She is a perfectly healthy child and tumor free. She still takes small dosages of capsules of Antineoplastons, but we will discontinue this shortly.
Tori Moreno 9.28.98. Temporarily enlarged due to taking Decadron.
Toriโs parents were told there was nothing that could be done for her and she would be dead in a few weeks.
Tori is alive and well today thanks to Antineoplastons. See photo below.
At the end of this interview, there is a short interview with Kim Moreno, Toriโs mother.
Kim Moreno has set-up a Yahoo e-mail account to answer peoples cancer related questions.
kimmoreno5@yahoo.com
And today she is over 5 years old?
Yes, sheโs 5 years old and living a pretty much normal life.
Tori 22.10.02. A perfectly healthy child. Orthodox treatment consists of high does of radiation therapy and possibly toxic chemotherapy as well. Most of the children are dead in a few years. The ones that survive suffer from permanent retardation, along with other serious side effects from the radiation.
Please do not forget about the interview with Kim Moreno, Toriโs mother, at the end of this interview.
But mainstream medicine has been trying to kill the cancer cell using chemotherapy and radiation, is that correct?
Thatโs right, yes.
Chemotherapy and radiation cannot differentiate between healthy and cancerous cells?
They can differentiate to some point, but basically, this difference is very small, so ultimately, the normal cells will be killed.
Is that why they have such a terrible effect on the immune system?
Thatโs right, not only the immune system, but also many other systems in the body. Practically, the treatment is destroying healthy parts of the body.
Chemotherapy and radiation also cause cancer, don’t they?
Yes. For instance right now we see a lot of patients who in childhood were successfully treated for leukemia or for Hodgkinโs disease. Then they develop cancer that is practically incurable, like lung cancer, breast cancers; I even encountered a patient in my practice that developed three different types of cancers, and was only 28 years of age. First she was treated for Hodgkinโs Disease, then she developed bone cancer in the places which were radiated for Hodgkinโs Disease, and then she developed breast cancer after that; itโs really horrible. So there is increased incidence of secondary cancers in patients who were treated previously with chemotherapy and radiation.
Shontelle Huron. In remission for several years after using Antineoplastons.
You may also e-mail Mary Jo Siegel, the lady who runs the web site. Mary is also a cancer survivor using Antineoplastons. maryjo@siegel.net
Ric and Paula Schiff write about the torture their daughter Crystin had to endure during chemotherapy/radiation treatment.
Crystin was diagnosed with perhaps the most malignant tumor known, which is a rhabdoid tumor of the brain. Of course, historically, there was no case of such a tumor ever having a long response to chemotherapy or radiation therapy. She received extremely heavy does of radiation therapy and chemotherapy, because nobody expected that she would live longer than a year or so. So unfortunately she was terribly damaged with this. She responded very well to Antineoplastons. We put her in complete response. But unfortunately she died from pneumonia. Her immune system was wiped out, so when she aspirated some food, she died from it. The autopsy revealed that she didnโt have any sign of malignancy.
But there are also likely permanent severe health concerns related to taking chemotherapy and radiation.
In young children there is permanent damage to the brain. Unfortunately some oncologists who are dealing with such cases are really cruel to the parents, because they are saying, โwell, your child will survive, but you are going to have a jolly idiot for the rest of your life.โ
Is it true that if parents refuse chemotherapy/radiation treatment for their children the hospital, via the courts, could have the child removed from the parents care and forced to take chemotherapy/radiation treatment?
Yes, unfortunately in some States, the law may require taking children away from the custody of the parents to send them to such treatments.
Jared Wadman. In remission for several years after using Antineoplastons.
You may also e-mail Mary Jo Siegel, the lady who runs the web site. Mary is also a cancer survivor using Antineoplastons.
maryjo@siegel.net
Isn’t this what happened to Donna and Jim Navarro when they chose your treatment over orthodox treatments?
That is correct. Thomas Navarro was diagnosed with medulloblastoma. He was operated on and the tumor was removed. Then he was scheduled for radiation therapy. Since he was only 4 years old, the parents knew that heโd be damaged by radiation therapy. Nobody at his age survives this type of tumor anyway after radiation therapy. So thatโs why they decided to come to our clinic. Unfortunately I could not treat him because FDA requires failure of radiation therapy for such patients.
And tragically he died in November 2001.
What happened was, the parents decided not to take any treatment. We asked the FDA several times to allow administration of Antineoplastons, because we have already had successful treatments for some other children without any prior radiation. Then ultimately he developed numerous tumors in May the following year. Then we suggested to the parents of Thomas, that if they are not going to take our treatment, they should go for at least chemotherapy. They went for chemotherapy to one of the best centers in the country, to Beth Israel Hospital in New York. The chemotherapy was successful, but he almost died from it. It severely affected his bone marrow. I remember a phone call from Thomasโs father telling me that the doctors are thinking that they wonโt do anything else for him and that Thomas will die within a week because of severe suppression of bone marrow.
But I encouraged his father to do whatever is possible because such patients may turn around. Fortunately he turned around, but about a month or two later he developed 15 tumors in the brain and the spinal cord. Then, when he was close to death, when nothing was available for him, the FDA called us and told us now we can treat Thomas. When we treated Thomas he survived 6 months, and the tumors had substantially decreased, but ultimately he died from pneumonia.
Is it accurate to say that the initial orthodox treatment for brain cancer is surgery to remove the tumor?
If the tumor is located in the proper part of the brain. For some locations it is out of the question. But, you are right, that is the first step.
Does surgery alone ever cure a patient with brain cancer?
Well, some cases, with benign brain tumors, when the tumor can be completely dissected, yes, itโs possible. But in most cases itโs not possible.
How much of a risk does surgery present regarding spreading the cancer more quickly and other complications?
Well, not so much regarding spreading the cancer more quickly in the case of brain tumors. Such a spread may happen only with a small percentage of brain tumors that have the highest aggressiveness. But for most of the patients the tumor is not going to spread just because of surgery. Certainly surgery may damage the brain and patients may even die during the surgery. Itโs not the ideal thing to do of course because you are removing the tumor and you are removing a healthy part of the brain at the same time. The patient may be permanently damaged by such procedures.
Would you warn against rushing into surgery in light of how effective your treatment is? Would you most times recommend trying your treatment first?
We really would like to know what we are dealing with. This means that we would like to have at least a biopsy; if by chance itโs not going to create sufficient risk for the patient. If the tumor was located in such a place in the brain where surgery is possible, then certainly we could try to remove the tumor. But I think it would be best if we can treat the patient with brain intact and get rid of the tumor completely, because then we risk the least damage possible.
Now I will turn my attention to your legal battles with the FDA. They began in 1983 when they sued you in civil court, is this correct?
In 1983, that was the first court battle with the FDA. The FDA sued us. It took about 6 weeks in court and again, we won.
Then there was an enormous raid by the FDA at your offices on July 17, 1985. What was the reason for this raid?
We were never given a reason. I think there was a concentrated action against a few alternative medicine centers because at the same time there were similar actions in the Bahamas and in some other places.
In the four court cases the FDA has brought against you, have any of your patients testified against you?
Well, on their own will, nobody testified against us. But the FDA encouraged some of our patients, and threatened them in various ways. They forced them to come to the witness stand. But really, once they were on the witness stand they behaved more like our witnesses, not FDA witnesses.
According to Daniel Haley, after the FDA lost its last court case against you in 1997, Congressman Richard Burr said it was “one of the worst abuses of the criminal justice system”. Did Burr ever speak to you about it?
Yes, we talk with Congressman Burr. I believe he is right, because certainly there was no reason for such massive action on the part of the FDA. They knew that the treatment works; that the treatment helps patients, that the patients will die if they win, so they should not do it. All of this was with the taxpayerโs money.
So the FDA has wasted many millions of taxpayer dollars trying to convict you on false charges of transporting Antineoplastons across State lines. What was the motivation for this vendetta?
Well, itโs hard to tell, because it was never properly investigated; why they did it. But, we have some leads. For instance, on one side you have a large pharmaceutical company, which was very interested in getting hold of our patents; this is Elan Pharmaceutical. It happened that I treated successfully a close relative to the CEO of Elan. Elan became very interested in what we have. They came close to signing a final license agreement. But after they learned what we have, they decided to withdraw and then suddenly the FDA and NCI gave their full support to Elan, to do clinical trials with one of the ingredients of Antineoplastons, phenylacetate.
This was a large pharmaceutical company that was trying to appropriate my invention. On the other hand, within the FDA and NCI you have had people who were working closely with this company. For instance Mary Pendergast, who was responsible for the legal action against us, became Vice President of Elan. Also Doctor Michael Friedman, who was initially in charge of NCI cancer research, and who knew that our treatment works, later became commissioner of FDA and he did whatever he could to put us out of business. Not only that, but to simply destroy me.
On the other hand, suddenly the government decided to file for the patents, which claimed the same thing that our patents did. Never in the history of the United States do you have the issuance of two patents for the same invention. It was really a breach of patent procedure. The patent office allowed them to patent something I invented, and which I patented. And dishonest scientist Dr. Dvorit Samid, who initially worked for us, was receiving funds from us and finally went for the higher bidder (Elan).
So you have a lot of leads, which indicate that there was something between the government, dishonest scientists like Dvorit Samid and the large pharmaceutical company, Elan. And it was in best interests for them to get rid of me, destroy me, so they could appropriate my discoveries and benefit from that.
When did you initially apply for your Investigational New Drug (IND)?
We applied in May 1983.
When did you receive it?
Well, it took an extremely long time. Ultimately most of our clinical trials began in 1996, a long time after that. FDA did not allow us to proceed with clinical trials for an extremely long time. Please click here to read the
conclusion of this interview
E-mail this sites address to someone and help spread the word
You may also e-mail Mary Jo Siegel, the lady who runs the web site. Mary is also a cancer survivor using Antineoplastons.
maryjo@siegel.net
It is important for everyone to understand the economics of the drug industry. I have heard that the cost today for bringing a drug to market is upwards of 500 million and takes about 12 years, is that true?
Yes, youโre right.
The drug company is then given a 17-year patent so that it can make a profit on the drug. It is little wonder the drug companies fight against natural treatments such as Laetrile, because they are unable to patent them and they pose a serious threat to their profit margins. But you are able to patent your treatment, so why was there no interest in it from the drug companies?
Basically you have 17 years from the time when you have approval of the patent and this is independent from FDAโs approval process. You file the patent, once you make a discovery, and then you go through FDA procedure. You spend say 12 years or 15 years for the approval process, then you have only 2 years license from the FDA, because license is going to expire in another 2 years. Certainly the pharmaceutical companies are spending a lot of money in this process.
In our case I decided to develop this on my own, to generate money from my private practice and use the money to support the research of Antineoplastons. Again we were approached by many different pharmaceutical companies, which were interested in working with us. Certainly after the bad experience (with Elan) we are very cautious with whom to deal. On the other hand pharmaceutical companies were afraid of action from the FDA.
The NCI put off testing Antineoplastons using the fact that it failed their standard P388 leukemia mouse test, is that correct?
Yes
What is the P388 leukemia mouse test and why did Antineoplastons fail it?
Well we had informed the NCI that this was a bad type of test for antineoplastons. Antineoplastons seems to be specific for species. Different animals have different antineoplastons; mice have a different composition of antineoplastons than humans. Practically, human antineoplastons may work well in humans, but they may not have much activity in mice. We knew this, even before the NCI began testing. On the other hand we didnโt have good results at all in the acute form of leukemia and we didnโt even accept such patients. It was known that if they only do this type of test, it was not going to work. They still tested and used this to say that Antineoplastons donโt work against cancer. Certainly the fact that something works or doesnโt work against mice leukemia is irrelevant.
I’d like the reader to bear with me in the next few questions, as the point will become clear. One of the chemicals you identified in the peptides was phenylacetate. But it was far inferior to the others and you chose not to patent it, is that correct?
This is not a peptide, this is a metabolite of our antineoplastons and itโs an organic acid. So this is a final metabolite of antineoplastons. It has some anti-cancer activity, but the weakest of all antineoplastons. We knew about it and thatโs why after some preliminary experience in the treatment of phenylacetate back in 1980, we decided that itโs not worth pursuing this and then we used antineoplastons that have higher activity.
But didn’t you later find out that the NCI actually holds the patent for phenylacetate?
Youโre right. NCI is the owner of the patent, Dr. Samid is the author but Elan has the license to use these patents. All of these three work together.
Why did the NCI patent something that was far inferior to your other Antineoplastons?
Because they knew that this was the only chance that they can get hold of something which has to do with antineoplastons.
The NCI ran clinical trials on phenylacetate in 1992 and found it to be worthless, is that correct?
Well, the clinical trials began in 1992 but it took a few years to have the results. It shows some effectiveness in brain tumors and in prostate cancer. But of course it was far away from the results that we can get with antineoplastons.
When did the NCI eventually start clinical trials of Antineoplastons?
In 1994.
I assume you gave the doctors running the trials all the information about correct dosages, is that true?
Yes, well, basically they used dosages that were 50 times lower than what we feel are effective dosages. We have some patientโs relatives who were present when the treatment was administered. Formulations of antineoplastons were badly diluted. This means that the patient was receiving very little antineoplastons and some of these patients were removed from the treatment after a short period of time because they were overloaded with fluid. Well normally we see fluid overload in perhaps less than 2% of our patients. So it makes sense that perhaps the formulations of antineoplastons were diluted and when the Mayo Clinic (1999) determined the concentration of antineoplastons in blood, we realize that it was something like 50 times lower than what it should be.
Do you think the NCI purposely sabotaged your trials?
I have no doubt about it. They sabotaged the trial; they accepted patients who were too advanced. Their main effort was to give a low dose of the medicine for a short period of time and to stop treatment just for some minor problem, like if a patient developed a skin rash. They were trying to give the treatment only for a very short period of time, like for instance a couple of weeks or a month. And then of course the patient was dying after that. It was completely unethical, it was horrible. As you probably heard recently, the pharmacist who was diluting an anti-cancer drug, was sentenced to 10 years in prison. I think the same should happen to these guys who really were trying to use this for their political manipulations.
Jessica Kerfoot. In remission for several years after using Antineoplastons.
You may also e-mail Mary Jo Siegel, the lady who runs the web site. Mary is also a cancer survivor using Antineoplastons.
maryjo@siegel.net
How much influence do the pharmaceutical companies wield in medicine in the US?
Extreme influence. Most of the oncologists, Iโm talking about reputable oncologists, they work for pharmaceutical companies, they work in clinical trials, they receive various type of incentives from pharmaceutical companies. And basically these doctors are approving medicine, FDA may approve the medicine, but finally this advisory board may advise FDA to go ahead with this or do not approve that medicine. So really the doctors who are deciding if the medicine should be approved or not, practically all of them have some type of relation with large pharmaceutical companies.
Is there a conspiracy to suppress other treatments or is it just a case of avaricious businesses, the pharmaceutical and hospital industry’s, doing everything in their power to protect their bottom line?
Well certainly they have a lot of power. When I filed my application for IND, the standard FDA policy was such that they would never approve a new drug for an individual owner, only for the large pharmaceutical companies. And thatโs why I believe we waited for such a long time to receive the go-ahead for our clinical trial. So certainly there were obstruction tactics. Whether this is a conspiracy or not is hard for me to tell. As you can see, the leads which I presented, like for instance a researcher who worked for me initially and then decided to go to the higher bidder, which was a pharmaceutical company; then the relationship between the pharmaceutical company and governmental agencies. All of this indicates that there is some type of conspiracy. I think a Congressional committee should study this.
Turning our attention to the doctor/oncology profession. When reading Thomas Elias’s excellent book, “The Burzynski Breakthrough”, I was struck by how many times patients said that their oncologists were aggressively opposed to them taking your treatment.
Even after a patient’s success with your treatment, very few doctors give you the credit. Is this due to jealousy, arrogance, plain old denial or something else?
Probably a lot of arrogance. We have some prominent specialists, the best specialists in the world who really acknowledge our results and would like to work with us. On the other hand you have some doctors who hate to see a patient with success on our treatment. The fact that the patient is coming to their office, years after the patient should be dead, is something like a slap in the face. They hate it.
They will do everything they can to lie, to obstruct the information about this patient. We have a lot of evidence that oncologists were lying about the patientโs condition. For instance the patient recovered completely from highly malignant cancer and the oncologist was telling us the patient died from cancer. So certainly, we have a lot of evidence about some of these doctors who are dishonest, who are liars, who cheat. But on the other hand you canโt really put the same label on the entire profession. There are many other doctors who are honest and who like to know about what we have. Of course our clinic has board certified oncologists who are taking care of our patients.
I found an interesting quote by David Stewart, a philanthropist who helped fund Gaston Naessens cancer research in the 70’s. He says,
“I can say categorically that most scientific researchers with whom I have had to deal are highly opinionated, arrogant, condescending, and have built-in, insurmountable prejudices.”
Would you agree with these sentiments? What have your experiences been?
Well certainly, I think heโs right; unfortunately thatโs the truth.
We spoke about Crystin Schiff briefly before. This is a particularly despicable story, because when Ric Schiff asked Dr. Michael Prados, then head of neuro-oncology at University of California at San Francisco Medical Center (UCSF), if he knew of any other treatment besides chemotherapy/radiation for Crystin’s brain tumor, Prados replied in the negative. But a few years before, he had sent you 14 letters documenting the effectiveness of Antineoplastons on Jeff Keller, another patient with brain cancer. Is this story true?
Yes, itโs true; of course Jeff Keller had an extremely malignant brain tumor. He had a high-grade glioma of the brain; he failed radiation therapy and additional treatments. He responded extremely well to our treatment. He was one of the patients whose case was presented to the NCI. So there was no doubt about his response. Dr. Prados knew about it. If he was dealing with a hopeless tumor like Crystin Schiff, why didnโt he call us?
Ryan and mother Cindy. Ryan is in remission for several years after using Antineoplastons.
You may also e-mail Mary Jo Siegel, the lady who runs the web site. Mary is also a cancer survivor using Antineoplastons.
maryjo@siegel.net
Do you know why Prados did not tell them about Keller’s success with your treatment?
Itโs hard for me to tell. It happens that Dr. Prados and Dr, Friedman, who became the boss of the FDA, came from the same medical school. So they work closely together, and perhaps there is something to do with the general action against us. It would be inconvenient for Dr. Prados to say that the treatment works if FDA was trying to get rid of us and when his friend was Commissioner of the FDA at that time. Perhaps thatโs the connectionโฆ.
One of your greatest critics is Saul Green (Ph.D. Biochemistry), a retired biochemist from Memorial Sloan Kettering. In 1992 the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), published Greenโs article, โAntineoplastons: An Unproved Cancer Therapy.โ What were his conclusions about Antineoplastons?
Well, Green is not a medical doctor, heโs a retired biochemist; he never reviewed our results. He got hold of some of our patents and thatโs what he based his opinion on.
He was hired by another insurance company (Aetna) that was in litigation with us. Heโs like a hired assassin. Not telling the truth. So really to argue with him is good for nothing. Even if something were completely clear he would negate it. He is simply a guy who was hired by our adversaries. He would do whatever they paid him to do.
Paul Leverett was diagnosed with a glioblastoma multiforme grade 4 brain stem tumor in May 1999. The prognosis was that he would probably be dead before the end of 1999. Orthodox medicine gave him no hope of survival.
Paul was given the maximum amount of radiation he was capable of receiving. It slowed the tumors growth slightly, but this did not alter Paul’s prospects for survival at all.
After completing some research on the Internet Paul learned about Dr. Burzynski’s Antineoplastons. Paul began taking Antineoplastons intravenously, administered by his wife, in September 1999. After 6 weeks Paul’s tumor had grown by only 2 %, Glioblastoma’s normally double in size every 2 weeks.
A PET scan in December 2000 confirmed that Paul was in complete remission. He stayed on Antineoplastons until August 2001 to ensure the tumor would not reoccur. There is just under 20% tumor necrosis remaining in his brain stem, which is probably scar tissue.
Paul’s oncologist (at MD Anderson, Houston) initially wanted to show his scan’s to his hospitals (MD Anderson) tumor review board. But then, for whaever reason, he refused further contact with Paul and did not go ahead with it.
The photo was taken with his wife Jennie. Paul had a web site created in order to inform people about his cancer experiences. http://www.dontevergiveup.com
E-mail: pjleverett@ev1.net
Did Green ask to look at your patientsโ files or even talk to any of your patients themselves?
No.
You responded with an article with 137 references, did JAMA publish even part of it?
JAMA refused to publish the article. They decided that they would publish a short letter to the editors. And obviously this is another dirty thing, because letters to the editors are not in the reference books. If you look in the computer and try to find letters to the editor from JAMA, youโll never find it. So people who are interested will always find Greenโs article, but they will never find our reply to Greenโs article, unless they go to the library. Then they can look in the JAMA volume in which the letter was published, and then they will find it. So many doctors were asking me why I did not respond to Saul Greenโs article because they never found my letter to the editors.
Are they obligated to publish your rebuttal?
Certainly they are, because they put Greenโs article in JAMA in the first place, they accepted it without any peer review and then they did not allow me to honestly respond to it. I should be allowed to publish my response to the article in JAMA.
At the time of the publication Green was working as a consultant to Grace Powers Monaco, Esq., a Washington attorney who was assisting Aetna insurance agency in its lawsuit against you. What was the Aetna lawsuit about?
One of our patients sued Aetna because Aetna refused to pay for my treatment. Then Aetna got involved and Aetna sued us. Aetna really became involved in what you can call racketeering tactics because they contacted practically every insurance company in the US. They smeared us, they advised insurance companies to not pay for our services. So based on all of this, our lawyer decided to file a racketeering suit against Aetna. This was a 190 million dollar lawsuit against Aetna. So certainly Aetna was trying to discredit us by using people like Saul Green. And they hired him to work on their behalf.
So there was an obvious conflict of interest for Green because he worked for Monaco who was assisting Aetna. Was this information published in the JAMA article?
No.
Green also questions the fact that you have a Ph.D.. At the American Association for Clinical Chemistry Symposium, July 1997, Atlanta, GA., he says in part
โBurzynski’s claim to a Ph.D. is questionable. Letters from the Ministry of Health,
Warsaw, Poland, and from faculty at the Medical Academy at Lublin, Poland, say,
respectively:
1. At the time Burzynski was in school, medical schools did not give a Ph.D.
2. Burzynski received the D.Msc. in 1968 after completing a one-year laboratory
project and passing an exam. (3) Burzynski did no independent research while in medical school.โ
He cites the people below as giving him some of this information.
1. Nizanskowski, R. ,Personal communication. Jan 15, 1992.
3. Bielinski, S., Personal communication, Nov. 22, 1987
First of all, do you have a Ph.D.?
Well, the program in Poland is somewhat different than the US. What I have is equivalent to a US Ph.D. When a medical doctor in the US graduates from medical school, he receives a medical doctor diploma. In Poland itโs a similar diploma, but itโs called a physician diploma, which is equal to medical doctor. And after that, if you would like to obtain a Ph.D., you have to do independent research, both in the US and in Poland. So you have to work on an independent project, you have to write a doctorate thesis and, in addition, to that in Poland, you have to take exams in medicine, in philosophy and also you have to take exams in the subjects on which you have written your thesis, in my case this was biochemistry.
As you can see from the letter from the President of the medical school from which I graduated, this is a Ph.D..
Saul Green got information from the guys who were key communist figures in my medical school. The second secretary of the communist party in my school, hated my guts, because I didnโt want to be a communist. So, somehow, Green got hold of โreputableโ communist sources (laugh) to give him that information. It is exactly the President of the medical school who certified that I have a Ph.D..
So you are saying that theses people he received his personal communication from, Nizanskowski R, and Bielinski S, are both Communists, is that correct, or they were?
Not only communists, but Bielinski was one of the key players in the communist party in my medical school. So certainly he was extremely active as a communist. And, you know that communists, they usually donโt tell the truth.
So there is absolutely no question about it, you have a Ph.D. and Green’s doubts are totally without foundation. Has he ever acknowledged publicly the fact that you have a Ph.D.?
Heโs never got in touch with me regarding this.
There are some mainstream oncologists who have stated publicly that your treatment works such as Dr. Robert Burdick, oncologist and professor at the University of Washington Medical School.
He is one of the top experts in this field.
Dr. Burzynski, there are undoubtedly many people alive today solely because of your treatments, but there could be many hundreds or thousands more alive if the public was given free access to your treatment. Do you see this ever happening?
I see this happening within a few years. We already have 8 clinical trials that prove efficacy of the treatment. However, we still need to treat more patients, because in each of our clinical trials it is required that we treat 40 patients. If we are talking about 78 clinical trials, then the number of patients that need to be treated is about 3,000. We are moving forward, probably in another 2 to 3 years we will have final approval.
A group shot of some of Dr. Burzynskiโs patients. Please see the Burzynski Patients web site for more information,
http:// http://www.burzynskipatientgroup.org
You may also e-mail Mary Jo Siegel, the lady who runs the web site. Mary is also a cancer survivor using Antineoplastons.
maryjo@siegel.net
You have fought the government on behalf of your patientsโ rights for over 25 years. There must have been a few times when you considered calling it quits. What has sustained you over the years and kept you fighting?
Well you see, basically the principle. Certainly I could practice just regular medicine and not
spend millions of dollars for the research, which I did. And I could go to some other country and practice. But I feel that this is my obligation because what I am doing is right. Iโm saving peoples lives. So why should I give in to some mediocre characters, to liars, to people who really misrepresent what I do. And if I fail, then America will fail also. Because really America is the bastion of Democracy in the world. If America is rotten, then the whole world will go down to hell. So if something is rotten in the Patent office, in the NCI and FDA, it is the duty of the citizen to show that this is rotten and should be corrected.
There are a number of good people who can make it work, so why should bad people erode and destroy the entire system. I felt that this was my obligation; I felt that I was right and even if I had to go to prison, I would fight for it, because this is the right thing to do. Otherwise I could not look at myself in the mirror. I would despise myself.
Do you think we will we ever have medical freedom of choice in the US, where we can choose whatever treatment we want for cancer?
I am not sure if this will ever happen. But at least I am hoping that the movement, which we pioneered, like this alternative medicine movement, will bring a lot of good to the American people. After all, now you have official recognition of alternative treatment, more or less, and this is because of our fight. If we wouldnโt fight at that time, then perhaps it would not happen, but maybe it would happen another ten years from now.
Standard medical practices and the observations of physicians who are outside the medical establishment are extremely important, because anybody can make a discovery and improve the health of people. This I think is an important movement, but whether the people of America will ever have a chance to select whatever treatment they want, is another story.
Finally Dr. Burzynski, a hearty thanks to you for keeping your treatment available to cancer patients, for keeping your oath as a doctor and putting the patient ahead of financial gain, and of course, for saving lives. Please keep up the great work. Thank you for giving me the time to conduct this interview and inform people about your work and treatment.
Thank you.
End of interview.
Gavin.
Please be aware. Orthodox medicine often states that people who have recovered from cancer by unapproved methods did so due to a โspontaneous remissionโ. This means that the cancer just disappears for no apparent reason. First of all, I do not know of any documented cases of spontaneous remissions in brain cancer. In other serious cancers it is so rare as to be unworthy of discussion.
But here is the most crucial point. A true spontaneous remission is when the cancer goes away without any treatment, either approved or unapproved. Itโs absurd to suggest that someone who received large amounts of Antineoplastons, and is then cancer free, had a spontaneous remission. If someone has surgery to remove a tumor and they are cancer free for years, we know it was because of the surgery.
Also remember that in many cases cancer patients turn to Antineoplastons (and other so-called alternatives) after chemotherapy and/or radiation have failed. If the patient goes into remission, oncologists often state that it was a delayed response to their treatment. This is a very convenient situation for oncologists. When their treatments fail, they still claim the credit for the patientโs recovery, even after the patient has been on Antineoplastons (or other treatments) for months/years.
Read about Dr. Burzynskiโs treatment from the most important sources, the patients who had cancer and who are alive today because of Antineoplastons. The Burzynski Patients Web Site
http:// http://www.burzynskipatientgroup.org
Dr. Burzynskiโs clinic can be reached at 713-335-5697.
His web site is http://www.cancermed.com
Kim Morenoโs short interview is below.
Kim also has an e-mail account she specifically set-up for people to contact her about her experiences with Dr. Burzynski, oncologists, Antineoplastons and cancer treatments in general. Any e-mail unrelated to these subjects will be deleted.
kimmoreno5@yahoo.com
While searching the Internet for links related to Kochโs glyoxylide, I found a recent article on Dr. Mercolaโs web site related to a drug called Methylglyoxal (the lead ingredient, which is a metabolite in our body) that has been tested in India for over ten years. Please see, http://www.mercola.com/2001/jun/13/methylglyoxal.htm
Thank you for taking the time to inform people about your familyโs experiences while your daughter Tori was taking Antineoplastons.
Tori was first diagnosed with a Stage 4 brain stem glioma in August 1998, is that correct?
Yes
What was the prognosis?
The doctorโs basically told us to take her home and prepare for her to die.
Were there any records of anyone surviving with this type of cancer, using orthodox treatments?
None that they could provide us with.
How many cancer centers did you visit?
We originally were at Millerโs Children at Long Beach Memorial and then went to City of Hope. We also sent her MRIโs to Dr. Fred Epstein in New York to be looked at.
And they all said the same thing, Toriโs brain cancer was fatal and nothing could be done? How long was she expected to live?
Yes, they all said there was nothing we could do. She was given 2-6 weeks to live.
How did you find out about Dr. Burzynski and Antineoplastons?
On the Internet on a brain tumor support group. We read a letter from a father whose daughter was on the treatment.
Did you ask your doctors about Burzynski? Had they heard of him or researched his treatment?
Yes, we asked all of them about it. Most frowned at the idea, the oncologist refused to see her if we took her to see Dr. Burzynski. The only one who told us that he thought Dr. B might have a good chance with helping us was Dr. Fred Epstein.
When did you first visit him?
In October 1998
Did he tell you he could cure Tori?
No. He said he thought Antineoplastons would help her, but he wasnโt sure he had enough time. He was very upfront and honest with the statistics he had with her type of cancer but offered no promises.
How much Antineoplastons was Tori taking?
I canโt even remember what dose she ended up on when she was taking it intravenously.
What were the side effects? In the photos you sent me, Tori is greatly enlarged, I assume due to fluid retention. Is that what it was? How was that alleviated? Were there any other side effects due to the Antineoplastons?
We always had to monitor her potassium and sodium. So, she had to drink a lot of water and therefore we went through a lot of diapers. Those were the worst of the side effects. In the picture, she was so large due to being on Decadron, which we were able to wean her off of in January 1999.
Were you surprised when Tori started responding?
Yes, I have to say I was. It is hard to believe something great is going to come out of something so painful. I guess she taught me not to lose faith in life.
How soon was it before Toriโs brain tumor started reducing in size?
Immediately. It had shrunk in size by 20% after the very first MRI, which I believe was in 6-8 weeksโฆitโs been a long time and a lot of MRIโs later.
For how long did Tori continue to take Antineoplastons intravenously? Did you administer this yourself at home?
She took them through IV for 2 years and yes; we did this all at home.
Does your insurance company pay for the treatment? Did they try to avoid paying for it?
No, they do not pay for the treatment.
I understand Tori is 5 today. Is she still taking Antineoplastons? Has the tumor completely gone?
Yes, she just turned five in June. She still takes Antineoplastons orallyโฆ. she takes 40 capsules a day. Her tumor has decreased in size by 86% and they believe what is left may be scar tissue.
Has Tori suffered any permanent side-side effects from Antineoplastons?
Not one. In fact, it decreased her symptoms dramatically and never caused her any harm.
So Tori is cancer free and side effect free today?
Absolutelyโฆ.
This is an incredible story Kim. Your child was diagnosed with a fatal brain cancer and the best oncologists and surgeons in America told you it was hopeless. Yet you found a cure for your child, without the billions, and so-called cancer specialists, that the NCI has at its disposal. Have any oncologists or doctors asked you about Dr. Burzynskiโs treatment?
They tend to ask very quietly, but never really respond to what I have to tell them. There is curiosity there, just no one is really willing to step up to the plate and believe that the antineoplastons had something to do with her survival.
What do they say now that Tori is alive and well?
The neurologists told us that sometimes it happens and they called it โspontaneous remissionโ. Again, I asked them to provide some statistics and there were none to be seen.
That is of course the height of absurdity. To my knowledge, there has never been a documented case of any brain cancer going into spontaneous remission. Have you ever mentioned that to them?
Yes, again with no intelligent response.
So they are quite content to administer the same cancer causing, toxic treatments, when they know about your daughterโs success with Antineoplastons?
Absolutely. It amazes me that some of them can sleep at night.
Has your opinion about the medical profession, specifically cancer specialists, changed since Toriโs recovery? If it has, in what manner?
Yes, it has changed a lot. I guess the biggest change would be that I no longer sit back and believe anything a doctor tells m e and that we have to take our healthcare into our hands by searching for legitimate options. I believe we have the right to choose.
What do you think about the fact that some 3,000 children in the US (untold thousands worldwide) this year will be diagnosed with some form of brain cancer, and their families will have to face the same horror you did, the horror of losing a child. But virtually all of them will not be told about Antineoplastons, the treatment that cured Tori?
It really makes me sick to my stomach. That is why I want to talk to anyone who wants to listen about Toriโs Story
Finally, I commend you and your husband for finding a way to cure your daughter, when all the โexpertsโ said it was hopeless. You gave her life when she was born, and then you saved her life by finding Antineoplastons.
I thank you once again Kim for answering my questions and sending me the photos of Tori. Give my best to your family.
Gavin Phillips opinion
Dr. Burzynski is a great rarity these days. He is a courageous man who risked everything battling the FDA for over 15 years so as to allow cancer patients access to his treatment. A doctor who puts his patients well being before financial gains. But how many people diagnosed with cancer this year will ever find out about Antineoplastons? A tiny percentage, because very few mainstream oncologists will inform their patients about a treatment that has yet to be approved. And why is that? The NCI and ACS have supposedly been searching for decades for any and all treatments that are effective against cancer. For over 15 years Dr. Burzynskiโs treatment has shown that it is effective. Many cancer patients, including some very young children with supposedly hopeless brain cancers, are alive today because of Antineoplastons.
Here we come to the most crucial questions of all. Why did the FDA try their utmost to ruin Dr. Burzynski by involving him in 4 court cases? Why did the NCI make certain Burzynskiโs clinical trials failed by diluting his treatment and enrolling patients who were the least likely to respond to Antineoplastons? If this was a one-time only event, we could dismiss it as an aberration; on overzealous government agencies. But the persecution of Dr. Burzynski is not an aberration, but the norm. There have been many well-documented cases in the last 70 some years of doctors/healers who discovered an effective cancer treatment, only to find the full force of the cancer agencies trying to destroy them and their discoveries. I have learned about several during my research. Dr. William Koch/Glyoxylide, Dr. Andrew Ivy/Krebiozen, Harry Hoxsey method/herbs, Royal Rife/radio waves, Ernst Krebs/ Laetrile/Amygdalin, Gaston Naessens/714 X, Dr. Lawrence Burton/Immuno-Augmentative Therapy, Dr. Max Gerson method/diet.
What, if anything, does Dr. Burzynskiโs Antineoplastons have in common with these other treatments? Most of them are natural; all of them are inexpensive to produce, especially when compared to the enormous costs of conventional treatments. If cheap cancer treatments with virtually no side effects were allowed to freely compete with the cancer causing offerings of the pharmaceutical companies, the outcome is obvious. The pharmaceutical companies, and the hospitals that administer their drugs, will lose tens of billions in profits. And this I believe is the reason Dr. Burzynski, and the people who have gone before him, have been publicly vilified as โquacksโ and their treatments discredited. The fact is that the pharmaceutical companies control American medicine, and they are only interested in treatments from which they can derive a profit.
Every cancer patient in America, and the world, should have free access to Antineoplastons. It is intolerable, not to mention totally un-American, to give a profit obsessed industry a monopoly over Americans healthcare. Nobody should have the right to force toxic chemicals down our familyโs throat, especially when Dr. Burzynskiโs treatment has proven effective (for some cancers) and does not have appalling side effects.
One point, in which I disagree with Burzynski about, is the possibility of medical freedom of choice happening in America. It would happen in a year or two if enough Americans demanded it. You can help make that a reality. Please forward this interview to as many people as you know, as well as media outlets. Around ten thousand Americans die every week from cancer; we simply must have medical freedom of choice. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Gavin Phillips. http://www.cancerinform.org
E-mail this sites address to someone and help spread the word
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
All comments by Professor Robert J. (Bob) Blaskiewicz of University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire “fame” should be considered as likely LIES until such time as he keeps his word to respond on this blog, to criticism of him on this blog
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ “I hope somebody is writing all this down out there, so that we can go back and look at these claims later, right ?”
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:19:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Seriously, Bob ?
Do you really think one of “The Skepticsโข” was going to write all this down, when none of them showed that they had written down much of anything of much note about Burzynski 2 when they attended the screenings ? ๐
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ *Some words may or may not be missing, but it doesn’t take away from the final result
I will be adding separate critiques that break this down into manageable parts, but wanted to have entire video comments altogether here
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
(0:04:38)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Are you there ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Yes
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Okay, we might as well get started if were going to do this
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Okay
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
(0:05:00)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Alright, so ummm I guess we can start with uhhh bit of a conversation [0]
Uhhh
You’ve been on the Burzynski Hashtag for a long time – what’s you’re motivation ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well as I put in my about page, I agreed with the juror that he was neither guilty or innocent [8]
So, so since I see all this opposition by these Skeptics, and I see that the they’re getting all of their facts straight
(Freudian sarcasm slip)
I decided to take the position of being a Skeptic Skeptic
In other words I am skeptical of Skeptics who do not fact-check their information before they post it on social media
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Okay
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
And since I see ahhh y’all pretty much trying to take over the net with y’all’s information I decided to come back and correct all the false information that was being put out by other Skeptics
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ So what information have Skeptics posted that they uhhh that they missed that demonstrates that Burzynski’s uhhh treatments are effective ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
(0:06:00)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ What, what have we missed ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well the major issue is that the FDA’s own information says if phase 3 trials are approved – phase 2 trials is to see if there’s evidence of effectiveness
And so if phase 3 trials are approved, that means you’ve provided evidence of effectiveness
That’s the FDA’s own information – I have that clearly on my blog [9]
Also the FDA has given Burzynski uhhh Orphan Drug Designation in 2004 for uhhh brainstem glioma and then in 2009 for all gliomas [10]
So that must mean that there is evidence of effectiveness, otherwise I don’t think they would be doing that
0:07:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Well okay, uh one of the issues that Skeptics have with Burzynski is that in order to, let’s say, elevate uh the profile of his drug, in order to make sure that everybody who needs it can get, is to complete a phase 3 uh trial uh he started uh I believe was it just the one, right ?
Uhmmm, and that’s gone nowhere
In fact, it was withdrawn this I think within the last week
It doesn’t look like its going to happen, and this is, you know, for all the the phase 1 and phase 2 trials, those are very preliminary trials
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
(0:08:00)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Uhmmm, the phase 3 is is will be the gold standard, and also the bare minimum that that the larger medical community will accept uhhh as evidence, so it’s like you’ve lowered the bar for for evidence in a way that that you know oncologists don’t
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well the issue is he was given 2 phase 3 trials that we know of
One was on uh Clinical Trials . gov – the one about eye cancer
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ The the
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
The vision cancer
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Right
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
And then the other one was not posted on there, but then again the FDA has said, and I posted this on my blog because I specifically contacted and asked them and they said we don’t post all clinical trials on our web-site [11]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ (Correction: NCI)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
And so he obviously had that other one about brainstem glioma, that he was trying to get started [12]
But the other issue is that Skeptics have posted on there that he could not get that accelerated approval until he had published a phase 2 trial and that is exactly not the case because other drugs have been given accelerated approval before their results were published in phase 2 clinical trial publications, cuz, so that question remains as well [13]
(0:09:00)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
9:13
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ So, do you think that there is a uh uh conspiracy to keep Burzynski from publishing ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well, what we do know is that in the movie, Merola showed that one page rejection from The Lancet
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Right
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
where Burzynski was trying to show his results from like 8 to 16 years, and they said we think your uh publication would be seen best elsewhere, or some ridiculous statement like that
And so, I thought that funny of The Lancet[14]
Of course, I understand their 2nd response, which came out, which Eric posted on his Facebook page, y’all, that y’all have talked about – that, you know, they’re busy, they get a lot of
submissions
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
(0:10:00)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
I understand that, so obviously he would have to look for a different publication for both of those, things he’s trying to get published
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Clarification: Burzynski and Tsuda
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Right
So, uhmmm, as far as I understand it The Lancet, uhhh the the question of The Lancet publication ehhh is par for the course, that most people are, when they get a speedy rejection from a uh uh, uh journal, are actually uh grateful, because that means there allowed to go ahead and submit their material to another journal more quickly and get it out there
Uhm, but the reaction that we saw on the side of the Burzynski camp was that, see, they’ll never publish us
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
(0:11:00)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Uhm, which is, eg, taken as far as I can tell as evidence of a conspiracy or that his name is is poison uh I mean, I think it is, but uhmmm, that wasn’t indicated in the in the rejection letter in order to uh claim that it is is to go beyond the evidence which again we’re not really willing to do
So, uhmmm what is the the ration the the something that I think a lot of of a lot of The Skeptics have been curious about when it comes to your your your blog and your behavior on-line uhhh is that that that, that the format of your blog does not make sense to us, we don’t understand exactly what you’re trying to do with it
Could you kind of clarify that for us because it’s uhhh long and it’s it’s intense and there’s a lot of emotion behind it but we don’t understand exactly, what it’s supposed to mean
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
(0:12:00)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well a lot of the time I’m making fun of y’all’s favorite oncologist, the way he words his blogs, and uhmmm I cite specifically from the FDA, from from the National Cancer Institute, from these other scientific sources, from scientific publications
I give people specific information so they can fact-check me, unlike a lot of The Skeptics who just go out there and say things and publish things on social media, they provide no back-up for their uhhh sayings
And so when I critique an oncologist or any other Skeptic I always provide source material so people can always fact-check me and I specifically said that people should fact-check everything ummm that the oncologist should say because he has, I’ve proven him to be frequently incorrect about his information and misleading
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
(0:13:00)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
And so I’ve tried to add those things and allow people to search, on specific things like publications, or what I posted about The Lancet, or specifically about The Skeptics, or specifically about the oncologist
So whenever I see something posted new on Twitter, by y’all, sometimes I’ll check it out and sometimes I won’t, and sometimes I’ll comment on it
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Alright, ah have you read The Other Burzynski Patient Group ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
I was, on there just yesterday to see some more of your post on there [15]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ So, ahmmm what is your response say to the story of Amelia Saunders ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well the thing is, when you accepted this hangout, I published my newest blog article and I specifically listed all the information I had critiqued from you previously including Amelia, and I posted the specific Twitter responses by BurzynskiMovie; which is probably Eric, to your issues with Amelia, and he disagrees with what the oncologist posted, and so I pretty much let his Twitter responses stand to what the oncologist said [2]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
0:14:24
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Okay, what part of, what did I get wrong ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well I also did a critique of the newspaper story that was put out about Amelia in the U.K. [16]
And they had 2, 2 patients that were dealt with
And
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Uh was that Amelia and Luna ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
I believe, yes
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Luna was the other one, correct[17]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
And one of the patients, Burzynski has specifically published in one of his scientific publications that maximum dosage is not reached for a month
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
0:15:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
So if someone, so if someone only goes in there and has treatment for a month, they’re not even, you know, they’re finally going to reach the uh maximum dosage [18]
And I think that was maybe the case with Luna, I think she was only there for a month
Oh, I, you’re talking, oh this is one of the very 1st ones that we did on the, on the site
Uhmmm, oh, her name is, her name escapes me at the moment
Um, but she wasn’t there for for very long but uh her condition deteriorated very rapidly
Uhmmm, and one of the questions that we had, we raised, is is, you know, you you don’t need to reach full dosage ’cause the the full dosage for these ANP seem to be pretty high, at least the sodium load that that that patients are asked to to carry, or required to carry if they they go on it
And we wondered if the sodium load was ah to great for someone who has a brain tumor, I mean uh, you know uh sodium load will increase your blood pressure, and these people have extra things in their brains that probably won’t react well to swelling, right, and and wont react well to pressure, so we were wondering, if in fact you don’t have to reach the full dosage in order to have uh severe side effects
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
(0:16:00)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Ummm, you know maybe you haven’t reached a therapeutic dose level, but that doesn’t mean that it didn’t have an effect on her
And you can clearly tell, that, you know in the videos, well at least the videos before the family took it down, that she was lethargic and a little bit out of it, she uh the the difference in her conscious state was no noticeable for anyone to see
Ummm, to, you know where she had been up and about to in her bed kind of slurring and and, and and and, in fact just disoriented, just looked like someone had taken the piss out of her
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
0:17:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ I mean, ummm, so that’s, that one, ummm, you know the critique that, reaching therapeutic levels and having a biological effect on someone are are clearly different things in her case
Uhmmm, now I never went on you know on to say ummm that uh she had uh reached therapeutic levels
Uhmmm, I I think as far as I went was that she went, she paid her $30,000 dollars and then she died
Uhmmm, and and and what part of that’s not true
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well my only thing is, uh, we know that sometimes he will go to a maximum dosage, or you know, the suggested dosage, but he will back down off it, in fact in the uh adverse effects you mentioned those are specifically adverse effects mentioned in his publications, and when that happens normally they will subside within 24 to 48 hours is what it says once you take them off the treatment and let, you know, those conditions take care of themselves, and then you will slowly raise the medication again [19]
0:18:33
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
So, you know, it just didn’t tell, if only one month of treatment was enough to even start to do anything for her [20]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Okay, so, um, going back to Amelia, um, some of the the most um I think the most serious charges is that we see a uh repeatedly in his uh uh stories of his patients, um those are all cited, those are all backed uh by, you know, um at least as good as anything the Burzynski Patient Group has ever done
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
0:19:11
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Uhmmm, something that we see over and over are patients reporting over and over that signs of getting worse are signs if getting better
Um, in particular a, uh report that’s very common from from patients is that the center of their solid tumors are breaking up
One of the problems that we we we see is that that is more frequently a sign of ischemic necrosis that the tumor has outgrown its blood supply and that it’s dying on the inside
And when you see something like a 5th of the patients who we’ve been able to to document, reporting this excitedly, we get extremely concerned about what’s happening
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
0:20:02
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Uhmmm, what part of that is not absolutely terrifying to you
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well the thing is, the FDA has approved phase 3 <strong[12]and also given them the Orphan Drug Designation, which means they should have some knowledge about what’s going on, I would think [10]
Plus we don’t know for sure, we’ve heard about, ummm, some of the things supposedly the oncologist has talked about, which is cutting off the blood flow, to the tumor, which is something that some uhhh drugs can do, and I think that’s one of the things Burzynski has tried to do, ah he’s specifically mentioned it in his personalized treatment
But I donโt know for sure if itโs also something thatโs done with the ANPโs in just the clinical trials environment
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
0:20:02
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
So, that could be a possibility
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Well, the the yeah I’ve never seen anyone say that the purpose of the antineoplastons is to cause uhhh, you know, to restrict the blood flow to the tumor and and and uh cause it to die that way, which is certainly one therapeutic approach that’s been, that’s been floated and research has been done on uh and might even be promising and uh what he’s saying is that cancer is caused by a lack of antineoplastons in the system and that basically what he is doing is antineoplaston uh uh supplement therapy uh rath, what’s the word I’m looking for, uhm uh, replacement therapy
Uh and there isn’t a doctor on the planet, uh not a medical specialist on the planet, who, I, who has identified at at as a contributing factor as a contributor to cancer or antineo or lack of antineoplastons
So
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Why isn’t he, you know, you understand that these doctors, ummm like nothing is true or false because a doctor says it is true or false
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
0:22:26
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Uhmmm it’s it’s it but when the entire medical community uhhh who are des are desperately are are every bit as tired of seeing patients die uhmmm and seeing patients suffer or as anyone else’s families are you you imagine what an oncologist sees in that office over the course of of a year and there’s going to be unimaginable suffering
I’m sure that they’re tired of that
And that they would, you know, that if there was the slightest hint that antineoplaston deficiency was a cause of cancer that it would make it into the literature, with or without Burzynski
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
0:23:10
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Uhhh ummm, why should we trust him when he has uh the sole uh the only person who had identified antineoplastons as a contributor to cancer when he is the sole manufacturer of the of the therapy uh when he is the uh sole prescriber of the therapy and when he is, where the sole distributor of the therapy from his pharmacy
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well what I find interesting about these other doctors is like like the doctors mentioned in the movie and BBC Panorama’s report and in some of these newspaper articles where they are mentioned again is that these doctors never do a review of Burzynski’s scientific publications and including our favorite oncologist who refuses to do so [20]
I think
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Oh yeah he says he’s read everything but uh you know he claims that he’s uhmmm reviewed, reviewed uh Burzynski’s personalized gene targeted therapy but he, but then just a few months ago he admitted, you know, I don’t know where Burzynski says which genes are targeted by antineoplastons [22]
And I pointed out which specific publications that Burzynski published, publications which specifically mention which genes are targeted by antineoplastons, and I said how can you claim that you’ve read and reviewed every Burzynski publication and you didn’t know which genes are targeted by antineoplastons when that’s specifically in the publications ? [10]
To me that tells me that you do not know how antineoplastons work be because you just admitted you don’t know which genes Burzynski talks about
I mean that’s just funny as heck to me that he would say that
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
0:25:07
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Can you go ahead and send me that link that that I saw in the chat that you had uh posted a couple of times in the chat
Could you send me that link, to that publication
I can give you a minute to to go find it if that’s
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well I’ve, I’ve got it on my blog
Uhm
I mean I can forward it to you at some point
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ That would be good
Uhmmm
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
But I agree with you about I don’t remember seeing anything about antineoplastons cutting off the blood flow to the, you know the blood brain barrier for sure either
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Well, yeah that’s a, that’s you know one of the major problems that this this cancer has is the location is such a pain to get to
Uhm, and often when we are talking about these cancers, the thing that gets me over and over and over, and this is something that I’ve learned from from working uh with others on the Burzynski Patient Group is what’s it like to be a cancer patient, only by proxy, man I couldn’t imagine really going through this myself, and, you know I’d hate to see my family go through this
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
0:26:22
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ That these people are at what could be described as a low point, they’re um uhhh, you get a diagnosis of uh brainstem glioma the prognosis is very bad
Uhmmm, there are only a few cases of people recovering from that, I mean they’re there uhm uhhh but, you know that it’s an, it’s an extremely grim prognosis
Uhhh and I worry that when they’re in that desperate state and especially let’s talk about the children, you have these kids who are uh you know 2 and 3 and have had this, you know uh awful diagnosis and the parents are willing to do literally anything to keep their kids alive
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
27:16
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ What protections are in place for patients as far as that these kids are and and their parents are protected
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
0:27:30
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well I think i know the point that you’re getting at uhhh about the IRB’s and all that good stuff
All I can say is that, you know the FDA can come in with any amount of investigators and say that you did this or that but you have the opportunity to respond, and so they can pretty much say anything, it’s only when the final report comes out that you can take that to the bank
And so all this speculation about what a investigative team may say about the clinic is, to me just like someone going into a lawsuit and saying so-and-so did this, you know, can you prove that, you know, did so-and-so do that [23]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
0:28:09
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
So it’s the same thing with the FDA, these um little reports, the final report is what counts, and so, also what I find interesting is some of Burzynski’s publications specifically said, you know this particular uh clinical trial, the IRB was agreed upon by the FDA [24]
Well if if the FDA agreed upon it, you know, then some questions should arise about exactly what did the FDA agree upon
What would we find out from a Freedom of Information Act request on that ?
And, and what I also found interesting is when I did research on other clinical trials for brainstem glioma I found, you know, all these other science based medicine studies where 374 children had died in their studies [25]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
0:29:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
And what I found interesting is back in 1999, they reported on a clinical trial, they had better results then all these clinical trials afterwards [18]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Who had the better results ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well, I would have to find you one, there were like 3
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Okay
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
There were like 3 major ones that Burzynski has mentioned in his publications to cross-reference his trials versus their trials as far as the results
And so, I, there was one back in 1999 that had better results than a lot of these clinical trials that come afterwards
So when we talk about, you know, what’s really right for the patients well we can see that the drug companies want to test their drugs through clinical trials and, you know, and if your kid dies, well, unfortunately the kid dies
Even though we showed better results in 1999 with a different type of treatment, you would have thought that maybe they would have poured more investment into that particular treatment but that’s not necessarily how the clinical trial system works
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
0:30:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Hmmm, yeah, the, Guy Chapman has just um uh tossed in a a, a comment
I guess uh that there are a lot of people who wanna talk to you (laughter)
Uh, Guy Chapman has just jumped in and said it looks like you forgot the phase 3 trial is withdrawn and none of the phase 2 trials were published
Uhmmm, this, this is not a minor thing for for for Skeptics
This, this is exactly what will convince us to get on board the Burzynski train is the publication of these trials
But even the preliminary trials, one has been finished, and none has been published in its entirety for over 15 years
When you consider that this is a, as you just pointed out, this is a a cancer, the, especially the brainstem gliomas
That these cancers uh the cases resolved fairly quickly, we know what the outcome are fairly quickly
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
0:31:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Ummm, do you have any sense of when these trials are going to be published ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well here’s my point, I mean, y’all probably get a better sense from, ummm, Hymas, about what’s going on with that
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ From Laura ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
From her uh fiancรฉ, or husband, whatever his status happens to be right now (laugh)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Right
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
And uh also from Ric, uh they’re more closer to Burzynski than I am, because I have never met Burzynski, I have never e-mailed Burzynski, uhmmm never talked to Burzynski, never met him, blah blah blah
Uh, my sense is that since 1996 when the FDA talked about antineoplastons, that specific FDA Commissioner that was in charge at the time, he set out 7 major points about how there was going to be less people required and there was going to be less paperwork, there was going to be less stringent things about Partial Response [26]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
0:32:07
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
And so, to me, the FDA is the final source to go to when people want to complain about how long their trials have lasted uh because the FDA is bottom line, you know, in charge of that
And
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ When you, when you think about a major, sorry, go ahead
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
And my other point is that, uhmmm, when these trials finish, as I’ve pointed out on my blog, M.D. Anderson finished a trial in 2006 and didn’t publish the results electronically until January of this year [27]
So, just think
Burzynski’s 1st trial we know that finished in 2009
So we would still have more years to go before he caught up to M.D. Anderson as far as publishing
So for him to actually be trying to publish stuff now and The Lancet not publishing because they have other stuff to do, put in there, that’s understandable
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
0:33:03
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
So, we know that he’s trying to publish, uh but they’re going to keep it close to the vest obviously, from, from how they do their things, and where they’re trying to publish
And plus, like I’ve said before
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Yeah, right, uh
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
We’ve still got the accelerated approval thing that’s out there, you know, like the FDA’s given Temodar and, and Avastin, and another drug, whereas they’re not doing the same thing for antineoplastons, eve even though for all intents and purposes from what we know, antineoplastons have had better success rates than Temodar and Avastin when they were approved [13]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Antineoplastons has a better rate ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well from the information that’s been published in certain um publications
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Right
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
And in, and in not only Burzynski’s but elsewhere in, in newspapers or articles, or such like that
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Right, one of the things that that there there are 2 points to be made here
Uhm, the 1st one is that major pharmaceutical companies that are getting this accelerated approval have a track record of producing results which Burzynski does not have
Secondly, when it comes to ummm the rates of antineoplastons, how can we possibly say without a single published trial he, that he has an improved rate over Temodar or anything like that, and that’s exactly what would show to us whether or not his rate is better, the the types of publications that he’s done, that look really good on paper, ummm, to the to the, the common persons eye are these case series where he goes through and picks out people who have happened to have survived
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
0:34:47
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ But what that doesn’t tell us is whether or not the antineoplaston had anything to do with it
What you need to do is go and separate the background noise, the random weird rare but very real survive, unexpected survivals that occur, and separate those, uhhh, from any effect of antineoplaston, he’s never done that
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
0:35:10
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well what I found interesting is when the FDA approved these other 1 or 2 drugs, some of them specifically said that, uhhh, some of these drugs had, you know, better survivability or they showed no better rate than any previous treatment but we’re approving it anyway [13]
Basically that’s what the publication said and I published this on my blog in an article specifically about, you know, those 2 or 3 drugs that the FDA approved for brainstem or brain related cancers [28]
And so, you know, I’m not going to buy that argument about that, about that specific thing
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ But if you think about that, I mean that if it does have a a an improvement rate above uh other treatments
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
0:36:03
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ That still has an improvement rate, you know, that, that would give another option to people, ummm, even if in the aggregate their rates aren’t better
It might work on some individuals tumors rather than on, you know, you you it it is it taken as a, as a lump but extend life by uh quality of life for 3 months or something um in some cases but, you know, it it still has an effect, a real effect, and deserves to be out there
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well one of these newspaper articles specifically said, you know, Avastin would maybe keep you alive for maybe 4 more months
So, you know, take that [2]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ That’s a long time when someone is dying
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well, we can wonder if some of Burzynski’s results are the same, otherwise why would the FDA say, you know, give the ODD [10], why would the FDA give the phase 3 approval [12]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
0:37:02
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Plus I don’t buy some of these doctors coming out and saying stuff, they have the opportunity just like the other doctors in Egypt [29], in Russia [30], in Germany, in, in Poland [31], in China [32 – 33], in Taiwan [34] that have done antineoplaston studies, I’m like, these people can do antineoplaston studies so what’s the excuse for all these other doctors who say that they supposedly can’t do them
You know, the information’s out there and
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Well, one of
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
and like these other doctors can do it
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ One of the problems that that doctors have in in this country when it comes to doing ummm antineoplastons studies to verify any any effect that uh Burzynski has uhhh I i think back to the one where people say well that the FDA sabotaged his trials, and
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well, we kind of know that that’s a fact [35]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Clarification: NIH, NCI, and the Investigators
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Well, if if you think about it though, um, the, the proposed action as I understand it of the antineoplaston is that it’s a deacetylase inhibitor, which slightly unspools DNA, that allows uh, which would allow uh proteins to get into a pair of damaged DNA
And we have drugs that do that which carry a much lower sodium load
Uh, um, it, that would have a therapeutic effect on and that the risks outweigh the possible benefits of using this one particular drug
Um, I’ve seen any number of people looking at um, if you look at the Luna ah Pettiguine uh uh story on The Other Burzynski Patient Group um you see that the doctor is absolutely horrified by the insane sodium load that that Burzynski’s patients are carrying
Um in in some ways that that sodium load is uh leading people to constantly drinking up to I’ve seen 12 liters of water a day
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
0:39:11
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ That’s not necessary for other deacetylase inhibitors
Um the, why would you prefer that to to another drug if it did essentially the same thing, that didnt have this massive side effect ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well what we know from 1996 from Burzynski’s own information that he’s published, is that not only does he have the original parent antineoplastons, but he’s developed 2nd and 3rd generations, but he can’t just stop in the middle of his clinical trial and use the 2nd and 3rd generations which may be better [36]
(Clarification: 1997)
He can't uh use these other types of um antineoplastons that other researchers, researchers like Egypt [29], or Japan [37] have found um that may be better because he can’t just switch in the middle of the clinical trial
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
0:40:04
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Now if he, if the FDA approves his product, well then, maybe he can roll out the 2nd and 3rd generation and these other types of antineoplastons that may be less harsh, but that’s all he’s got to work on and that takes us back to the FDA, having control over the entire process, as far as the paperwork, how many people are in the trials, etcetera
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Well that sss I believe that that’s proposed by the researchers, the design trial, you know they they sign off on it but that is is, is up to uh Burzynski uh my uh David James @StortSkeptic on the[38]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Right
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ ah he has asked everything that Burzynski does looks sort of like the behaviors of pseudo-science
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
0:40:56
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ So what we’re saying uhhh he does uh uhhh Burzynski like for instance like I said he has vertically integrated, ah, he controls all parts from identification to the creation of the drug uh to the diagnosing uh well he doesn’t do the diagnosing but he does um um prescribe and distribute, he does all that vertically, which is actually something that snake oil salesmen do
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
0:41:32
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Another thing that that’s a red flag in Skeptic circles is that his one compound seems to be a sort of panacea for all sorts of different types of, of of cancers, um where we know that cancer has a a varied uh, uh, ideology and and the uh panaceas are are are to be and a variety of different types of causes um, in fact in any one tumor you would, you could say that these, these tumors are are completely uh heterogenous
The idea that there’s gonna be one knockout, it seems rather unrealistic
Um, additionally he charges immense amounts of money for this drug, um, even though the components cost pennies
Um, on top of that, um, there’s something that he asks for a a huge payment up front
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
0:42:33
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ That’s something that’s been warned against for generations of uh by anti-quack um uh crusaders if if they’re asking for everything up front, then be afraid
Ummm, another thing is that uh the kind of cult that’s sprung up around Burzynski, uh, one that is immune to uh criticism, reason, and pits people who are doing standard cancer research, as enemies, um, creating a black and white version of the world where there are good people and there are bad people
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
0:43:15
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ There are people who are fighting the disease, and then there are people who are really helping the disease
I mean, if you look at the, the new web-site by the Burzynski patients fighting back group, they say support the cure not the cancer
That’s a manikin world-view of black and white
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
0:43:30
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Um, these are all huge red flags, that you’re dealing with a quack
Um, why hasn’t Burzynski done anything to change that ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well I find it interesting that you talk about the cost, because I’ve done a lot of research about the cost, and I was just looking at the cost again this morning, and put it into that particular blog article I was talking about, that I did for this particular program [39]
And, um
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
0:44:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
The thing that’s funny is that people can say, ohhh Burzynski charges a lot, but the fact is, so does chemo, radiation, and some of these newspaper articles that have been published, and specifically in the movie, Burzynski 2, one of the people mentioned how much someone was paying for standard treatment
And I noticed our
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Right
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
favorite oncologist didn’t comment about that in his movie review [40]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Well, there, this is important
This is really important though
Wha, when she’s talking about, that’s Luna Pettiguine’s mother, is is talking about the costs there
Uhmmm, you, when someone is not insured in in this country,
Ahm, the, the the base cost that that’s calculated is, is the hospital only expects to get a fraction, a tiny fraction of that back from the insurance companies, and that’s why the costs are so inflated
Um, usually, when a patient is self-pay there is a self-pay price which is a more reasonable price
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
0:45:01
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Additionally, all of those therapies, have demonstrated efficacy, and if Burzynski were to demonstrate his efficacy, $30,000 dollars to start on a life-saving treatment for a child would be a steal, and he would earn every nickel of it
Um, so, those arguments hold very little weight with us
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well what I find interesting, you know, I’m not sure how people think he’s supposed to pay for the clinical trials, you know, if he’s supposed to go into debt, millions of dollars
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ He has a a an enormous house that’s valued in the tens of millions of dollars, he could do that if if the other, the other thing he could do, and this, we would love to see him do this, wousa, would be apply to Federal grant
That, that would be amazing, if he could get a grant to study this stuff
But, you know, um, I I don’t think he’d be able to get one, I don’t think he’s shown uh that he can carry off a uh a research program responsibly
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
0:46:08
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Uhmmm
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
I find that funny considering the FDA approved phase 3, has given him ODD for brainstem glioma and also also all gliomas [12]
You know, that’s kind of ridiculous [10]
And the people
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Well
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
gettin’ off about his house, well who cares ?
They don’t know where his money came for that particular source
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ (Clarification: “They don’t know the particular source where his money came from for that house”)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Oh he, have you noticed the the, the thing on his web-site where if you make a donation to the clinic it goes directly to him ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well, you know, when you have good tax lawyers your tax lawyers will tell you how to structure things, and everybody in America has the right to structure their taxes in a manner that effectively serves them according to our Supreme Court
So, if you have a tax lawyer who tells you, hey this is the best way to do it, to save money, well, you may do that uh based upon your lawyer’s advice
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
0:47:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
So, maybe Burzynski has taken his tax lawyers advice, just like I’m sure he’s taken Richard Jaffe’s ad advice (laugh), which has proved well, for him
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Right
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
You know, you know
That’s another thing
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Ummm, o-kay
Uh, I want to turn this over to the people who are watching
Um, I want to give them a a chance to address you as well
Uhmmm, hi everyone
Uhmmm, so, um, let’s, let’s wait for for that to roll in, and I do wait to go back to the, the the, the and let’s be very specific about this, the the things that you see on The Other Burzynski Patent Group, a patient reporting that um uh getting worse is getting better
How do you explain that ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
0:48:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well I guess we could ask, you know, Ben and Laura Hymas [41]
What was their experience, you know ?
Did they have, did she have to drink uh a lot of water because she was thirsty ?
You know, did she have to drink a lot of water due to the high sodium ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Well that’s just a known side-effect, your going to know that going in, but we actually have people say
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
So I would ask her about her personal experience instead of saying, you know, instead of quoting some of these other people
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Are there, why why why not, these people, see this is the thing though
The reason that site was started was because the people that don’t make it don’t have a voice
And when you, when you whittle away, when you only look at the at the, the positive outcomes, which is exactly in Burzynski’s favor to only look at the positive outcomes, and to have no sense of how other people’s diseases progressed, right, you’re gonna get a skewed and inaccurate version of the efficacy of this particular drug
Now lets lets lets go back and not talk about Laura, lets talk about these patients who report symptoms of getting worse, as if they were signs of getting better
Some people say that oh it’s a healing crisis or it’s progression of the disease
Or other people say it’s breaking up in the middle, hurrah
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
0:49:20
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ No, it’s actually a tumor that’s growing
That record there, that’s being left by patients, whose stories are every bit as important as the as the stories of the patients who have lived, are painting a completely different picture
How do you explain that ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well we all know the FDA is in charge of this, and so hopefully they know what’s going on
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Are they feeding these people their stories ?
Are they feeding these people their stories
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
No, I’m sure the FDA can look at the records because Burzynski sent them 2.5 million pages according to our friend Fabio [42]
0:50:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
And uh, you know just something the doctors who came in and did the little ol’ one day, 6 patient records, where they reviewed all the records and slides, and MRI’s, etcetera, you know they can do the same thing, the FDA can do the same thing with all these patients [35]
(Clarification: 7)
And see the same MRI’s and scans, etcetera
I mean, we, we know that with all these 374 children I mentioned dying in other science-based medicine clinical trials [25]
I mean, they, FDA probably went through all their records
And, so, all these people didn’t look good either but, you know, the FDA still gave approval to Avastin and Te Temodar even though a lot of people died in their clinical trials [25]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Okay I’m going to go back, I want to point something else out to you
Um, I have to, I don’t remember the exact patient so I have to go back to my web-site to take a look at it
Um
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
0:51:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Because we are, because we’re on a Google+ stream that that’s a lot of data it takes awhile to bring up my, my site
Let me
Uhmmm
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
I mean, we could agree that since Burzynski’s publication says that it’s going to take a month to get up to required dosage, and so we know, the tumor can still grow, like he said, up to 50%, he specifically acknowledges that in his publication, so, we know that can happen [43]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
0:51:35
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Well, that seems to give him an instant out, no matter what happens
That turns his claims into something that’s unfalsifiable
If I could give you an example of what unfalsifiable is
Um, and I’ll I’ll draw an uh, uh, case, uh hypothetical case of um uh proposed by Carl Sagan as the invisible dragon in your garage
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
0:52:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ If you say you have have a dragon in your garage, um, you know, you should be able to go over and verify that there’s a dragon in the garage
So let’s say we go over to Carl Sagan’s garage and, you know
Well, I don’t see anything
Well it’s an invisible dragon
Well okay, well then, let’s uh spray paint it
Well, it’s incorporeal
Well, uh, let’s measure for the heat of the breath
Well it’s heatless flame that it breathes
And, you know, okay, well then we’ll put flour down on the ground to see that it’s it it’s standing there
And, oh no it’s ah it’s floating
Well, you know, at some point, when you can’t falsify something
When you cannot, even in principle, prove something false, it’s indistinguishable from something that’s not there
And that kind of out, that oh well the tumor can keep on growing
Th (laugh) that that that’s an invisible dragon, as far as I can tell
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
0:53:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well we know from his own publications, he says he can’t just go in and start giving the maximum dose, or recommended dose right off the bat because a particular condition will occur, and he specifically mentions, in the publications what that condition is, I don’t remember it right off the top of my head [20]
But then again, his 2nd generation, his 3rd generation, his other form of antineoplastons that may work in the future, if approved, well those could possibly (not) have the same uh adverse effects that the current parent generation have [36]
But we don’t know, and like I said the FDA I’m sure knows because they have all the records, we don’t have them, and so unlike our favorite oncologist I’m not going to speculate, about what the FDA knows and I do not know
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ A every time that I and and and and , and David points this out, that um, you you know your not going to speculate about the the FDA but then at every turn your invoking the FDA as being obstructionist
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
0:54:02
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ I, I just find that to be contradictory and and self-defeating
Um, let me see
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well we know they stopped this particular trial, supposedly because a patient died
So what’s the hold-up ?
I mean, hopefully they’ve done an autopsy
What was found
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Well, that’s not necessarily true
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
No
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ I mean uh when it when it comes to the case um I’ve i’ve talked to oncologists about this
And when it comes to uh for instance in in this case it sounds like it was a pediatric patient who was dying, ummm, who had died, ummm, the,
the 1st inclination is to ascribe the death to, um, to the tumor, which actually, would be to Burzynski’s benefit if there were other cases, I’m not saying there were, but if there were other cases where this type of complication arose, and it was ascribed to the tumor they might well not do it, uh, do an autopsy
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
0:55:08
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Um, it’s ah as you could imagine it could be very difficult for the families to do that especially when they have ooh ah, a possibility of what, you know, led to the ultimate demise, that didn’t involve them ultimately somehow being responsible for it, right?
So, it it it doesn’t seem to me that necessarily an autopsy would be um a a done deal
Um, let me see
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
And we don’t have a final report from the FDA on what the findings were
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ No we don’t and it would be irresponsible to completely speculate on on, on, the outcome of that uh, uh, uh, individual patient, I am still scrolling through looking for this story that I wanted to talk about
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
0:56:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Uh, and, I guess I’ll
It should be in Amelia’s I I, I packed Amelia’s story with all the stories, um, that I could find um in what we’d written up already
Um
Hold on a sec
She is a cute kid though
Um, alright
Now, our favorite oncologist (laugh), as you keep putting it, um, uh, with with the Amelia story, um, uh, was able to correctly determine that the Saunders family, had a, did not understand the significance of this cyst that had opened up in, uh, that had opened up in the center of the tumor, in fact they were ecstatic
They were delighted
Um, the family, of Haley, um, S, also
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
0:57:10
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Uh, the the family of Haley S., also, had the same reading given to them
Um, the same diagnosis uh same prognosis was to, was given to Justin B in 2006
A similar cyst in Lesley S’s story uh ah, was in 2006
Um, and that kept her on uh treatment for a a another month so that could be another $7,000 some odd dollars
We same thing in the, in the case of, uh, Samantha T in 2005
We see it again as far back as 1994, in Cody G’s story
And then lastly and and the worst uh thing that we’ve seen, the patients report that Burzynski himself told Chase uh Sammut
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
0:58:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ The exact same thing
Um, and that was a
Have you read Chase’s story
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
I don’t remember specifically
Possibly not
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ It would stick with you, because that case is grotesque
The parents, uh, there was even a uh, uh, a fight over whether or not the parents should be allowed to continue treating this kid
He was basically lying, uh, in a uh uh brain dead uh for all intents and purposes, uh, in a in a coma uh without possibility of reversal, in his parents living room for months
Um, eh, all the while, he’s still on the, uh, we’ll I don’t actually, I can’t say that, I don’t exactly know if he was on the treatment the whole time
Um, but, we do have this pattern, that is there, of people believing, that this particular pattern is, uh, progress, a a is not progression of disease but is is inducement to to stay on, um, eh, and this has been going on for decades
Eh, eh just based on what we’ve been able to find that patients have been reporting this for decades
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
0:59:20
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ At some point, you would think that a doctor would realize that perhaps what these patients are walking away with is inaccurate
Why hasn’t that changed ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well he’s using the same 1st generation drug
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ E wel that that that that’s not it
This is this is like the 2nd day of oncology class, that that’s what the tumor looks like
People are reporting that the tumor is no longer growing, um, or that the growing has slowed after they’ve started
Well, okay
There, there is an explanation for that, and why you can’t take that as necessarily being evidence of efficacy
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:00:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Ah, the tumor grows exponentially while the resources are available to it, but then it reaches a point where it’s a self-limited growth, so it, the time between uh doublings in size decreases logarithmically
Um, so this is, this is like basic tumor physiology that we’re talking about, and his patients don’t leave his office, knowing these facts, for decades
This doesn’t have anything to do with the, do with the drug
This this
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well I’m sure a lot of people leave the doctors office not knowing things (laugh), for decades
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ But, but when it’s, this treatment is working or this is not evidence that the treatment is working
That’s pretty basic
I mean we’re not, we’re not talking about deacetylase inhibitors or anything like that were you’d really need to know something about
This is, whether or not, you’re getting the outcome that you want
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:01:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ This is the whole reason for going
And it has nothing to do with the with the with the drugs
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well we know the contin, the tumors can uh continue to grow for awhile, at least, and certain effects that they probably would
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Which is, which is like which we just pointed out was a was an invisible dragon
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well I’m sure, I mean, it’s going to continue to grow, in any other clinical trial too, for a certain awhile
I mean like
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ you’re you’re you’re assuming
You’re you’re you’re assuming that
You’re assuming that
Um, I’m not assuming that
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well we know that all these other kids died in these science-based medicine trials, and, you know, we can assume that that was the case there too [25]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:02:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Ultimately it would, but whether or not it it it had a genuine therapeutic effect is a different matter all together
Um, this, what would, what would convince you that you’re wrong
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
The FDA not giving him phase 3 approval [12], the FDA not giving him ODD designation [10]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ So you’re saying because the Orphan Drug Designation and the face that there’s a phase 3, therefor it works ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
And showing that, and showing the FDA that there’s evidence of effectiveness [11]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ So what you’re saying is there’s nothing that would convince you now, that it doesn’t work
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Not until the FDA says it doesn’t work
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ O-kay
Um, it’s it’s it’s not the FDA’s, but you understand it’s not the FDA’s job to tell someone that their drug doesn’t work
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well they seem to be doing a good job of it
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:03:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ it’s it’s it’s up to Burzynski
It’s up to Burzynski to show that his drug does work
And it’s always been his burden of proof
He’s the one that’s been claiming this miracle cancer cure, forever
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well I’m sure, I’m sure they wouldn’t have done things if they didn’t see some evidence that it was working
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Um, I don’t know if you’ve read Jaffe’s book
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
No I haven’t read it [44]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ There seems to have been a lot going on there you really should look at it because it’s it’s it’s kind of revealing
Um, that that that it seems that there was a lot of political pressure applied to the FDA which may have been, uh, uh, have influenced the way in which these these trials were approved
I I would say that it is a genuine con uh uh bit of confusion on the parts of Skeptics
We don’t know why the phase 3 trial was approved
I don’t know that we’ve seen even the phase 1 trials, we don’t know why he’s getting a phase 3
And there’s a real story in that, we think
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:04:02
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Um, that we’d love to see, however we can’t see, however we can’t see it because of proti protri proprietary uh protections that the FDA is giving to Burzynski, right ?
They’re not sharing his trial designs because they are his trial designs, right?
That the makeup of his drug that he’s distributing are his, uh design, and his intellectual property
So the FDA is protecting him, uh from outside scrutiny
While you may imagine that that, that that the FDA is is somehow antagonistic toward him
They’ve given him every opportunity, over 60 opportunities to prove himself worth uh their confidence and hasn’t
Um, but I definitely recommend that you look at Jaffe’s book and you will see, I think, um that um it’s called um, uh Galileo’s
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:05:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
I know what it’s called [44]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ You know what it’s called, okay, yeah
Um, definitely look at that
Um, you, you will see, the ways in which, the way that we got to this point, isn’t necessarily having anything to do with the efficacy of the drug
That comes across very clearly
Um, you, you mentioned it yourself, he he’s done well to listen to Jaffe’s advice, right ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Right
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ So, there there’s a lot to that
Um, uh, but yeah, let me go back to the Twitter feed
Um
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well I’m just gonna say, you know, the F, the FDA doing what they’ve done, since they approved those 72 initial trials, pretty much speaks for itself [45]
I mean they’ve had every opportunity to shut this down, since then
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Well it sounds to me like they’re they’re not um, the the the you know, they’ve put the clinical hold on now because they now have evidence that somebody may have died because of the treatment
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:06:06
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Um, I don’t know what the state of that is right now
Um, uh, oh my gosh, um, let me see
Someone has just sent me a, a ah a link to, are you following the Hashtag, as this is going on
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
No, I’m just concentrating on what we’re doing
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Okay
I’m doing, I’m doing the 2 things at once and it’s um, ok ok well it’s well ok I can’t I can’t go in and read that right now
Um, I would, ok let me tell you exactly what it will take, for me to come around and promote Burzynski
Um, for me, he needs to get a publication in a uh, yeah, uh uh uh publication in a peer-reviewed journal, a respected peer-reviewed journal, not like the the Journal of Medical Hypothesis or things we just made up
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:07:16
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Um, something, you know, a a good, respectable journal that oncologists would read, that research oncologists would read
I would need an completely independent group to replicate his findings, and then I’d be all for it
I would say that right now, the business model that the Burzynski Clinic seems to depend on, as best as I can tell from an outsider, that, um, uh, that it depends on people paying money up front
It doesn’t depend on him developing and taking away a viable drug, that he can market to the entire world
His business model as best I can tell, is to keep it in house
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:08:03
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ That seems, if it works, if his drug genuinely works, and he hasn’t sent it along to mass approval, where he gets, for a couple of years at least, you know, exclusive rights to produce and sell this stuff, for one of the most intractable diseases, uh that man eh can can can, you know, can get, um, that suggests to me that there’s something else going on here
Now, someone has just sent a a note, uh that he has failed 3 different Institutional Review Board audits; this is Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy), uh no other institution has a 3 for 3 fail, according to to Guy iye he knows no other one
Um, that 45% of phase 3 clinical trials fail due to deficient phase 2 design
Um, he has an approved phase 3, but phase 2 was deficient so phase 3 fails
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:09:07
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Do you think that that could possibly have anything to do with why we’re not seeing the phase 3 advance
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well #1 I don’t think the one with brainstem glioma where they wanted to use radiation with ANP was really the right way to go, I mean he’s already proven that uh he seems to have better results without [12]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ He’s claimed
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
first starting radiation [20]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ He’s claimed
That’s a different thing altogether
And in fact
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Yeah but the thing is radi, I, the FDA was not saying, ok, one study, one side of the study we’re only going to use ANP, in the other side of the study we’re going to use radiation and and ANP like like they would normally do
No, they wanted to make him use radiation in both sides of the study [20]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Well, you understand why they do that, because in order to, it’s
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
They don’t do that with other drugs [13]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ No, they do do this with other drugs, well, it depends on the type
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:10:01
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Some drugs it’s ethical to give something completely questionable, what they want to make sure that they at least get the standard care, you know which includes radiation
Um, and radiation does seem to extend life, reduce the size of some tumors some times
Um, do you concede, that in order to have a phase 3, you do not need to have a successful phase 2 ?
When 45% of phase 3 fail because they have a deficient phase 2 design, do you concede that ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well I don’t buy anything Guy Chapman sells, considering his past record [46]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Well, ok
It doesn’t matter where
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
(laughing)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ It doesn’t matter where it comes from uh, um
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well his theories are suspect, anything he hands out, let me tell ya [47]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ So-kay, um that would be shooting the messenger as opposed to dealing with the question, but
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
But the question may be bogus, because of where the messenger has been bogus a lot of times before (laugh) [48]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:11:04
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ the idea, the best, well, the best, well in that case the best response is “I don’t know”
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well I’m just gonna say what I think about Chapman because he’s proven himself, many times to be questionable
I don’t see him on my blog responding to my criticism [7]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ There’s something that that we don’t know, you’re coming, honestly we didn’t know what to expect when we talked to you
We, were looking at the design, of your web-site and wondering whether or not we would be able to get a a coherent sentence out of you, because the web-site is disorganized, uh
Um, at at at at least it’s the organization is not apparent to the readers
Um, and um according to
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
That’s like, that’s like saying that Gorski’s web-site is disorganized, his blog is like anti vaccine one day, Burzynski the next, blah blah blah
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ No, that is tied together
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:12:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
(laughing)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ But let me, we know that that the the, the central concern is Burzynski
Ah, the source of this ah of of those #’s that I just gave you, Chapman has just updated me and he says um that it is, and I’ll go back to the, the ADR research . com issues in clinical research, so it’s the question, Bay Clinical uh Research and Clinical Development,a white paper called “Why do so many phase 3 clinical trials fail ?”
Uh, it’s prepared by Anistazios Retzios, Ph.D
Is Anistazios Retzios reliable ?
There is a correct here
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well how would I know ?
I don’t have
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Exactly
That’s the right answer
You don’t know
You don’t know
You need to look into it
Alright ?
Before you dismiss it you have to look into it
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:13:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Everytime somebody throws uh uh something to me, I have to look into it
That’s just, it’s my responsibility as a reader
Um
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well you didn’t when I tried to get you to do stuff the 1st time, did ya ? [2]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ What, what stuff would you like
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
(laughing)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ What stuff would you like me to do ?
I generally, I don’t read your blog
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well I, the most, the mostly, excuse me, the most recent article I posted on there is the one about this particular conversation, where I went through all your comments that you had posted, and my response to them
And so I tried to consolidate everything into one, particular article
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Uh um, alright
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
And that’s the newest article [2]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ 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
Um, one question I’d wondered, what is the Didymus Judas Thomas reference to
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:14:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well I thought that was pretty funny because doing biblical research, you come upon, Didymus Judas Thomas, or he’s all, also known by other names
He’s basically The Skeptic
And so, like I said, I consider myself to be Skeptic of The Skeptics
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Oh, so this is the Doubting Thomas
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
I thought it was apropos
Of course
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ This is the Doubting Thomas
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
I’m doubting The Skeptics
Exactly
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Okay, so this is the one, you show me the, you put your your, the, your hand inside the wound
You know, Jesus says, basically, ok, bring it on, check me out, right ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Exactly
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Okay
Alright
That that, I didn’t, I didn’t realize that he was also, that that was the same guy
So, it’s it’s the Doubting Thomas
Um, what we would say, um, is that if Burzynski is the savior that he claims to be, that he should, open up his trials, he should open up his uh research uh protocols um and just say, “Look, bring it on”
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:15:08
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Check out these wounds
But he’s never done that
Instead he he he wants us to just take the words of of of of his apostles
I don’t necessarily trust his apostles
I don’t think that they’re unbiased
(laughing)
I wanna see the data
I wanna see the the wounds in his hands and the the mark on his side
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well I like how The Skeptics say, you know, all of Burzynski’s successes over the years are anecdotal and uh I consider on the same way that everything negative about Burzynski is anecdotal
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Oh, hey when when we talk about The Other Burzynski Patient Group, I don’t make any pretensions to make that my site proves anything
I I I really don’t
It’s not my job to prove anything
It’s Burzynski’s job
It is a researchers job to prove these things
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:16:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well my point is he’s proven them to the FDA because they’re the ones
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ But we just pointed out, we just pointed out, that the FDA, often approves, phase 3 trials, based on flawed phase 2 clinical trials
That is therefor a real possibility in this case
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Could be, but I would have to read, read the
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Yes you would
T t and what I would honestly expect and hope, is that you would be honest about this, to yourself, and and and that’s the thing we don’t, we often don’t realize that we’re not being honest with ourself
I try to fight against it, constantly
But, um, uh but the way that you’d earlier phrased your uh your response to “could you possibly be proved wrong ?”, . . really did exclude other possibilities of of of of yourself being wrong
So if the FDA
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well when it comes to Guy Chapman, yeah
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Well I’m not talking about the Guy Chapman
What you off, when I asked you, yourself, you know, what would prove you wrong, you said that the FDA hasn’t approved a phase 3
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:17:03
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Well, ok
Let’s let’s back, let’s back up
What would the FDA, what happens if the FDA occasionally op op opposes, approves uh phase 3 trials, based on bad phase 2 trials
Would that be, would that cause any doubt in your mind ?
About the efficacy of ANP
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
You still there ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Yeah, hello, yeah, you’re back
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Yeah, something cut off there for awhile
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Yeah Google+ is a little wonky sometimes
But, would, does, if you were to learn, that sometimes phase 3 trials, uh, are approved, and failed, based on flawed phase 2, would, would that make you reconsider your position of the phase 3 being evidence that it works
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:18:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well I would certainly look at that, but then again I would also look at the FDA granting him Orphan Drug Designation [10]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Uh um could you send me that link, the, the, um . me see
I’m just looking at other things that are coming in on the Hashtag right now
Um, so the ANP is Orphan Drug status but is it Orphan Drug for glioma ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Orphan Drug for brainstem glioma and all gliomas [10]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Is it sodium phenylbutyrate or is it the the versions of the drug, the AS10 stuff or A1 or whatever it’s called ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Right, it’s both AS10 AS2-1 and AS
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Clarification: A10 and AS2-1
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Okay, that’s what has Orphan Drug status
Alright, I’ll look into that
I hope somebody is writing all this down out there, so that we can go back and look at these claims later, right ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:19:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ So, oh, um
Do you have any questions for me ?
I’ve spent a lot of times asking questions of you
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well not really, since you mentioned that you’d go in and look at my most recent article, anything you show in there or any reply you give is going to cover, what we’ve gone over
And so we can re debate it there
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Mhmm
Guy Chapman, throws up the the, the comment, permission to investigate is not evidence of anything other than evidence of a valid protocol, not a uh, evidence of efficacy, in and of itself
That’s another comment
Um, alright then, this is your chance t, there are lots of people have lots of questions about me out there
Uh, about what my motivations are and such
I might as well put that out on the table just so it’s on the record, is that I am taking exactly no money from anyone for this, and have gotten nothin’ but grief from a lot of people, even people who (laugh), even people who support me have given me grief for this
Um, just so that you know, um, there have been, some of the things that have happened, oh, this is an important point too
Um, that when we have criticized this, uh, a # of us, especially Gorski, uh myself, uh Rhys Morgan, uh, um, and and uh Popehat, the the lawyer, blog, uh, um, who else was on there, um, oh, the Merritts, uh, t, uh Wayne Merritt, and his family, people have been critical of of of Burzynski have faced retaliation for opposing him ah and intimidation, and including, um, I had my uh a couple weeks before Christmas my, my, the Chancellor of my University was contacted via e-mail, and uh Eric Merola said that I had been um, uh, been spreading mis truths about Burzynski, that I had been a be, on my my show um had said things that were demonstratively untrue, and he also said that the drug was FDA approved, which it, you know, that’s not right
But um, he said that he was gonna do, talk about me in his new movie, in, uh, relat, in millions of homes, um, and he wanted to get a statement from the University
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:22:02
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ The University of course ignored him, and immediately let me know that I was going to get smeared
Um, I consulted my lawyer and uh uh, you know, the best course of action was figured out, and um uh a Gorski has had his accreditation board contacted, he’s had his bosses contacted, Rhys Morgan received threats of liable suits from somebody who had been hired, by the clinic, to clean up his on-line reputation if he didn’t take down his on-line review of Burzynski, uh, had his a picture of his house sent to him, clearly the message being, “We know where you live kid,” uh, Wayne Merritt; a pancreatic cancer patient, this is something that, that people generally, do not recover from, like generally, die from, received phone calls at home, from, this individual, threatening him with lawsuits; he doesn’t have a law degree so he’s misrepresenting himself
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:23:15
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Um, but all of this, was done, to critics
Do you think that is deserved ?
Do you think that that is right ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well I’ve specifically stated on my blog that Marc Stephens uh obviously didn’t know what he was doing and went about it the wrong way
My position was he should of bou, got around it, gone about it the way I did, which is, I blog, and show where Rhys is wrong [49], I blog and show where Gorski is wrong [40], I blog and show where you are wrong [2], or Josephine Jones [50], or Guy Chapman [7], etcetera
And, eh, y’all have every opportunity to come on my blog, and I’ve had very few takers, uh, one claiming to be from Wikipedia, who I shot down [51]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:24:04
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
And hasn’t come back
So, you know, I am welcome to anybody trying to come on my blog, and prove what I posted is wrong, and debate anything
Unlike some of The Skeptics I don’t block people on my blog
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Mhmm
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
I don’t give lame reasons for blocking people on my blog because I’m an American and I actually believe in “Free Speech”
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Well to be fair
It it it doesn’t strike me as necessarily a “Free Speech” issue, you know
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well to me it is when Forbes removes all my comments, in response to Skeptics some, and I showed this from screen-shots
You know, stuff like that [52]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Was it down-voted ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Oh no
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ No
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
It wasn’t down-voted
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Mhmm
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
They, I mean I’ve got screen-shots of where my comments were there, between other people’s comments, and uh, and they just decided to remove all my comments, and I blogged specifically about, you know, what they did and, uh, Gorski’s good friend and pal who authored that particular article
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Mhmm
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
So I, I like how The Skeptics run things, you know
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:25:14
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Well we do have for for for for one thing, um, I guess to understand is that we are uh motivated by um uh a respect, this is the one thing that that all Skeptics I think um are uh respect critical thinking, um, and um respect scientific uh a we we’re mostly scientific enthusiasts, there’s some Skeptics who are not um, uh, you know oh u space nerds, or whatever who are um just sc scholars and the humanities but for the most part we all respect scientific consensus and we respect scientific method and have an enthusiasm for living in the real world, this is something that like all of us us are about
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:26:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ And to that end, sometimes that influence is how we run, is how we decide to run our personal web-sites
Um, uh, that whether or not we want our, to give a platform to people who disagree with us, um, you know, uh, when we do, uh . . it it is our sandbox, you know, right ?
This, this (laughter), we’re allowed to to let whoever we want into our sandbox if we, you know, uh if we want
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well I think that people who really believe in “Free Speech,” and when it’s done rationally, I mean, Gorski would never, really respond to any of my questions, so I [53]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Did he, did he leave them up ?
Did he leave them up ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well I know that he specifically removed a review I did uh of his review of Burzynski I on his web, on his blog
But he’s pretty much left a lot of my comments up that I’ve seen
Uh, but he never really responded to my questions about, what he based his beliefs upon
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:27:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Right, um, do you think that he is required to answer you
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well I would think, if you’re going to base your position on a certain thing, and then you can’t back it up with scientific literature, uh, you should answer, maybe not specifically to me, but answer the question
Answer to your readers
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Right
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
You know, I can tell his readers come on my blog because it shows that they come on my blog
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Mhmm
Um so a a question uh why were why do you have so many Twitter and Wikipedia sock-puppets
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well the reason I have so many Twitter things is because, obviously, some of The Skeptics will be on there lying about some tweet I sent, and so Wikipedia, excuse me Twitter will do a little ol’, do their little, hey we’re going to block your account while we do blah blah blah, and I’m not gonna waste my time, going through their little review process, I’ll just create another uh Twitter address because, like, you know, if you read the Twitter information you can have a ridiculous amount of uh Twitter I.D.’s, and I’ll just use another Twitter I.D. and continue on
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:28:15
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
And so Wikipedia can say what they want, because I’ve only ever used one I.P., I’ve only got on there during one time, and when they finally said hey, you know, we’re not gonna uh grant your appeal, I completely left their web-site alone, so all that stuff [54]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Wikipedia
You left Wikipedia
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
that they post [55]
Yep [56]
So all that garbage that they posted about me, about how I supposedly got on-line, on these other articles is just entirely B.S. [57]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Mhmm
Um a
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
And if they can prove otherwise, I’d sure like to see it [58]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Uh We have uh a response from David James, everyone uh gave you a fair shout
You were a spammer plain and simple
You couldn’t, you couldn’t
work out your questions
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
But that’s what y’all always say
That’s what y’all like to say, about everything
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Twitter does not
Twitter does not block people for for arguing
Only for spamming and policy violations
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:29:05
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Yeah I’m sure that’s what they like to say
I mean, you can report an e-mail, or report a twit, and they’ll block it
But um they’ll never come back and say, and this is why we blocked you, for this particular twit, for this particular reason
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Mhmm
Okay
Um, let me see
Each new account was blocked for additional violations of policies
Um, this is a uh uh referring to the Wikipedia rules too
Um, so
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Wikipedia is a joke [59]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Um, Wikipedia, do you know why um they’ve locked the Burzynski page ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Oh sure, I’m sure, that’s no problem [60]
I don’t have any problem with them locking that [61]
You know, I could tell when I was on there, and when Merola was on there, because he had a different I.P. address than me, I could tell they were his questions because of the way they were formed [62]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:30:04
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
So I said, well they’re not answering his questions, I’ll just take on that role, and uh ask his questions and ask further questions, and they didn’t wanna deal with it, you know [63]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Did you notice the part where he threatened, did you notice the part where he threatened to expose Wikipedia
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Expose them for what ?
For doing what they do, which is basically provide false information and one-sided information ? [64]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ We have to, well, they they uh are looking that it’s not one-sided information they want to show
Like they discuss, there is controversy about this guy
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Oh, please
They get on there and they say hey, Lola Quinlan filed a lawsuit, but they don’t tell you anything else
They don’t tell you, you know, Jaffe’s side of the story, and her lawyer’s side of the story
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Yeah, Jaffe’s on there
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
(laughing)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Jaffe’s on there
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Oh Jaffe’s on there but on that specific article about Lola, they didn’t say, here’s the article that was posted on uh Lola’s attorney’s web-site that, that mentions both his responses and Jaffe’s responses, to the uh lawsuit
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:31:10
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ uh well you could add that if you hadn’t gotten blocked
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Uh, trust me, I tried to add that and they wouldn’t add it
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:32:20 Okay
Um, so, who are you
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
(laughter)
You know, The Skeptics like to be nasty, and so, I’ve been like Josephine Jones (@_JosephineJones)
If she wants to play anonymous, I’ll play anonymous [65]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ She’s gotten threats
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well, I don’t threaten people
I don’t threaten Gorski
I don’t send letters to people’s employers
I deal with them directly, and, you know, if if they won’t answer questions, then, you know, I’ll just post them on my blog for other people to see, and question uh themselves
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ So we don’t know who you are
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:33:01
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Like I said, I’m going to be like Josephine Jones [66]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Like, she has suffered at the hands of some really mess, and she’s also, you have to realize she’s in the U.K, where libel laws are very lax at this point
That’s changing, ah, but uh, the the legitimate criticism, there is a big case last, me maybe 2 years ago of Simon Singh, talking about an alternative therapy, and, um, he was just saying that there’s no evidence for it but it’s promoted by um chiropractors, or something, or something like that
And he got slapped with a libel suit that cost him several years of his life and a lot of money
Um, so, there are several reasons why someone in the U.K. might uh be uh reticent to use their real name um, uh, and legitimate reasons
Um, in the U.S., I’m not sure that there is
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:34:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ I’ve been using my real name for a long time now
Um, you know, Gorski blogs under his real name, and is critical of uh, uh, also, let’s face it, everyone know, knows who “Orac” is
Um, how do we know that you don’t work for the clinic ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Because I’ve said so
I’m not even in Texas
I was born in Texas, but I don’t live in Texas
I don’t even, didn’t even, uh live in Houston
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Mhm
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Wasn’t even close to Houston
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Well see, one of the the problems is, Ju, I don’t know if you were around for the BurzynskiSaves thing
Did you ever see that account ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Oh, of course, I, I’ve seen a lot of stuff goes on Twitter [67]
I’ve see y’all saying “Oh, we’re “The Skeptics” and y’all know are names,” but, there’s a lot of Skeptics that post on there with pseudonyms, also [68]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Mhmm
Right
Oh no, I mean you have a right to do that but but I I’ve found that posting under a pseudonym diminishes my credibility
Um, so, . . the quote was uh um, uh, “Happily promotes bogus therapies,” was Simon Singh’s quote that got him sued
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:35:10
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Um, but Josephine Jones does it to, quote “protect her family”
Um
So there’s that
Um, are you afraid for you’re family ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well, I’m just not sure how some of these uh Skeptics will react considering their past behavior [69]
I mean, when Skeptics refuse to, I mean they block you on your blogs [70]
They block your comments [71]
You know, they decide, “Well, I’m maybe going to accept one comment from you, but I won’t accept anymore [72]
You know, to me that’s just ridiculous [73]
Uh, the action on Forbes that happened, the action on The Guardian that happened, where, you know, you had someone on Gorski’s blog basically lie to the Gua, to The Guardian to get them to get them to uh block my comment [74]
So, you know, I’m Skeptical of The Skeptics and their uh and what they would do [75]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:36:01
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Um, you don’t see that there would be anything to gain from, from going on-record ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Not really [76]
I like my anonymity just like Josephine Jones likes hers [77]
I mean, I will read her stuff and reply to it and treat it seriously jus, just like any other blogger [78]
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Um I I haven’t, I’ve never, honestly, I’ve never seen a Skeptic actually go after a person individually
Um, you know, uh, you, unless they were doing colossal harm to people
Um, to to focus on an, uh, let’s say, call someone’s work for um, yeah
Cite one example, of a Skeptic making shit for a Burzynski shill or anyone else in real life
That’s a quote
That’s, that’s something coming in from, from Guy
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:36:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well the thing is, some of these Skeptics use names, and they’re not necessarily their real names
So, you know, I’ve seen
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Like had anyone ever contacted Sheila Herron, or has anyone to to um, go after her job, or go after um, you know, my brother has gotten stuff from people
He didn’t tell me because he didn’t want to upset me, but my brother gets things from Burzynski supporters that are violent and threatening
I get letters telling me that I suck cancer’s dick
Um, I I’ve all sorts of things um, and I just, I’ve never seen that, that intrusion into real life on the part of uh, um, uh, Skeptics
I’ve never seen them doing that type of of of stuff
I’ve never seen them threatening bogus lawsuits
Um, and I I I wonder there, if there is some sort of, what do you think accounts for that, that difference?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well I think that some people just have bad manners
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Mhmm
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
I mean see, I’ve seen Skeptics on Twitter basically harass someone pro-Burzynski and keep sending them tweets, and that person specifically send them a tweet saying please keep, stop sending me tweets
You know, they didn’t go in and ask Twitter to block the, that particular person
That person just kept sending them tweets
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Mhmm
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
So, you know, I’ve seen that stuff before
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ I’ve I’ve I’ve shown up on, you know, as you, as you might, I imagine you moni, you monitor the Hashtag, right ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Yeah, I’ll look at it, and if you notice, I don’t uh, I usually don’t reply to Skeptics individually because I pretty much figure that y’all are gonna try and get my next account blocked whenever I do that kind of junk, so, well, you know, I just post what I want to post, under the Hashtag
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:38:01
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Okay
Um, which is, which is your right
Um, uh, but every so often I jump in and say, you know, this movie has some flaws in it
You know, that’s something I say rather frequently
Um, and I invite people, if they’re interested, to take a look at a couple of links
I don’t, I, you’ll notice that I no longer force people to like, “Well how do you explain this ?,” because that doesn’t seem to be very persuasive, or work at all
Ah, only people who are open minded to having their mind changed, those are the only ones I want to talk to
So I give them a choice
Kind of like Morpheus in The Matrix really
Um, b, that was a joke for me
Um (laugh), um anyway
Um, but, it it I, honestly, I would encourage you to go on-record, um, but I have, less than nothing invested in that, so, um
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ (Why would I want to reveal my identity, when David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., FACS, a/k/a “Orac” claimed that he was pretty certain he knew who I was ?
Just Bring it, Gorski)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:39:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Uh, what’s next for you
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well I’ll just keep reviewing the, any inaccurate statements I see posted
You know, it depends on if it’s Gorski, you know
Gorski’s gone on there and posted inaccurate stuff, and I call him out, you know he’s basically said on his blog, you know, if I do something inaccurate, you know, I’ll ‘fess up to it
Well, I’ve pointed out where he’s done that and said “Hey, you said you were gonna ‘fess up to it”
If I said on my blog that I was going to ‘fess up to doing something wrong, and you caught me, well, then I should, come out and say, “Okay, you got me”
But Gorski won’t even do that, you know, he just continues to go on down the road, as if
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Well what happens
Well what happens if he doesn’t understand what you’re saying ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
(laughing)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ I mean one of the
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
excuse
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ I mean seriously
Well, one of the problems I think that a lot of Skeptics have had, in in back channel discussions about this is that we don’t understand exactly what you’re saying
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:40:01
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ We certainly don’t understand why you’re so attached to him if you’ve never had any uh, you know, close dealing with uh, uh, with Burzynski
We don’t really understand that
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
I find, I find
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Actually, especially when you consider, that all the information that we’ve put forward, that we’ve backed up with statements from uh, you know, uh, it, it, the statements that we have from from patients saying that you know, we’ve we’ve, we were told that, no that’s not exactly, they put it usually that but that that we believe that getting worse is getting better
Like how could someone continue to defend someone, when we pile up all of these different, you know, sources, saying the same thing ?
It it is, it is beyond us and we wonder if there’s absolutely anything that we could say that would convince you otherwise
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
You know, I’m just going to let the FDA do their job, and let y’all speculate all y’all want
Uh, I mean (laugh)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ But, I mean, but that means
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:41:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
See, I’m here for full discussion
And y’all don’t seem to want to discuss, after y’all just go out there and spam the Internet with garbage, that you don’t back-up with citations and references and links
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Everything on The Other Other Burzynski Patient Group is referenced
It goes
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
But some of your other stuff that you tweeted that you haven’t backed up with links, and some of the stuff on thehoustoncancerquack isn’t backed-up with links, and Gorski’s stuff
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ There’s very little on thehoustoncancerquack
There’s very little on thehoustoncancerquack in the 1st place
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well, that and the anp4all one
isn’t backed up
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Eh, right
The they both go to the same place
Uh un but, you know, we, the thing that that totally befuddles us, and is just endlessly frustrating, is like how many more examples, of patients believing that getting worse is getting better, and it’s not us saying it, it’s the patients saying it
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:42:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ And how many more of those patients do we need to to give you before you will like reconsider that perhaps you might be wrong ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
When the FDA says he’s wrong
I mean, I’m not, I’m not just gonna accept your story
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ I don’t, the thing is though that, that that’s a inver, shifting the burden of proof off of Burzynski
Burzynski has to prove them wrong, has to prove him right
The FDA is not there to say this doesn’t work
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Burzynski provides the FDA with the evidence, and the FDA makes the
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ The evidence would be
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
the FDA doesn’t approve a drug
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ The evidence
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
if something’s not proved
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ The evidence would be phase 2 trials
And ev the evidence would be a completed and published phase 3 trial
That’s not forthcoming
The phase 3
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well you know that he’s trying
I mean, y’all can sit there and jump up and down all you want
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ You don’t know that he’s trying
He’d start completing these trials
And he would, he would be soliciting um, uh, lots of um, uh, you know, you know he’d be putting out papers constantly um and if the the British Medical Journal example’s anything uh representative of how Burzynski works, he’d immediately tell everyone that his he’s being . . blackballed by the, by the journal, even when it’s just a courtesy that he gets a a rejection
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:43:30
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ So, I mean, honestly, um, saying “Well, when the F, FDA tells you that it doesn’t work, the FDA’s never gonna say that because that’s not their job
So, given that what would, how many more patients do we have to show you before you consider that you may be wrong ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:44:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well, I’m gonna go with what the FDA is gonna do still because they’re running the show
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ That’s not an option, because they’re never gonna do it
They relinquish, a lot of authority, over to Burzynski, and his Institutional Review Board, which, I would mention, has failed 3 reviews in a row
Right ?
It is Burzynski’s job to be convincing
It is not our uh, uh, it it it he hasn’t produced in decades
In decades
In hundreds and hundreds of patients, who’ve payed to be on this
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
What I find funny is that y’all complain, “Well, he hasn’t published, uh a final report”
Well his 1st final, was completed in 2009, and like I said, the M.D. Anderson 2006 study wasn’t published until 2, 2013
I mean, so y’all can jump up and down all you want
Y’all want a final report
Well, the final report will be done when the clinical trial is over
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Hell, we’d we’d we’d like a prelim, well when you’re talking about something that is so difficult as brainstem glioma, that type of thing gets, really does in the publishing stream get fast-tracked there
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well, unless you’re The Lancet, I guess
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ they test it
Yeah, and they they they want uh, that was evidence of fast-tracking is what, that rejection was uh e was very quickly
Um, so, uh, uh again, the FDA is not the arbiter of this
It’s ultimately Burzynski
So, how long will it be before Burzynski doesn’t publish, that you decide that uh perhaps he’s he’s, doesn’t have the goods ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well, I’m not gonna get into speculation, I’m just going to wait and see
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ You’ve been speculating about what the FDA’s motivation are like crazy
Why not speculate about Burzynski a little bit
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well, how have I been speculating ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:46:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Well actually I’m not even asking you to speculate about Burzynski, I’m only asking you to tell me, how long would it take, uh how, for him to go unpublished like this, um, for this long, before you would doubt it ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
what the journals keep saying, in response
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ What ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
You know, are they going to give The Lancet response, like they did in 2 hours and such, saying, “Well, we think your message would be best heard elsewhere,” or they gonna gonna give The Lancet response of, “Well, we don’t have room in our publication this time, well, because we’re full up, so, try and pick another place
But these but but but that doesn’t have any bearing on
That doesn’t
Oh I’m not asking you how long, how long, would it take you for you to start doubting whether or not he has the goods ?
How long would it take ?
It’s a it’s a it’s a question that should be answered by a number uh uh months ?
Years ?
How long ?
It’s been 15 years already
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well, you like to jump up and down with the 15 year quote, but then again I always get back to, Hey, it’s when, when the report, when the clinical trial is done
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:47:06
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Not that he’s been practicing medicine medicine for 36 years, or whatever, it’s when the clin, clinical trial was done
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ I could push it back to 36 years
He hasn’t shown that it works for 36 years
I can do that
I was being nice
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
The FDA A believes there is evidence of efficacy
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Perhaps based on bad phase 2
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well, we don’t know that
We don’t have the Freedom of Information Act information
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ He withdrew
He withdrew the the phase 3 clinical trial
I that before recruiting,
although I’ve seen lots of people say they were on a phase 3 clinical trial
I wonder how that happened
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well, we know what happened in the movie because Eric particularly covered that when they tried to get what, what, was it 200 or 300 something institutions to take on a phase 3, and they refused
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:48:01
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Uh did do do you think that if they thought that he was a real doctor that they all would have refused like that ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well, Eric gave the reasons that they said they would not take a particular uh phase 3
And so using that excuse that you you just gave there, I’m not even gonna buy that one, because that’s not one of the reasons
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ He’s changed things
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Eric said they gave
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ That The Lancet is a top-tier journal like New England Journal of Medicine
It’s basically be, besieged by uh 100’s of people submitting their, their, their reports
Um, it’s just, you know, let’s say he, someone has such a thin publishing record as Burzynski does, do you think that it’s likely that he will ever get in a top-tier journal ?
What about the the Public Library of Science ?
It’s not the only journal there
What about BMC Cancer ?
There’s lots of places that he can go
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
We’ll I’m
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Um, and he doesn’t seem to to have evailed himself of that, as far as I can tell
And I would know because he’d get rejected, or he’d be crowing, you know
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:49:02
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Either way, he’s gonna tell us what happens
He told us what happened with The Lancet, you know
I don’t have any evidence that suggests to me that he’s even trying
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well, I’m, I’m sure that they’re going to keep you appraised just like they have in the past, just like Eric has done in the past
So
I mean, we’ll see what happens with the Japanese study
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ So let’s go back to this
How long will it take ?
How long will it take before you, the Japanese study’s interesting too because we should be able to find that in the Japanese science databases, and we can find, we can’t find it at all
We can’t find it anywhere
And, and those are in English, so it’s not a language problem
We can’t find that anywhere
We’ve asked
We asked Rick Schiff, for, for that study
And, and it hasn’t come to us
He is now I believe on the Board of Directors, over there
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:50:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ He should have access to this
We can’t get it
How how long will it take before you recognize that, nothing is forthcoming ?
How long would that take ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well that’s like me asking “How long is it going to take for y’all’s, y’all’s Skeptics to respond to my questions ?”
Because y’all haven’t been forthcoming
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Well, I mean, were talking about a blog here
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
(laughing)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ We’re talking about life
No, we’re talking about a blogger’s feelings in that case
In in this case we’re talking about, 1,000’s of patients, over the course of of of generations, you know
This is important stuff
This is not eh eh equating what’s happening to to patients with what’s happening to you is is completely off-kilter as far as I can tell
It’s nothing
It’s nothing like you not getting to say something on my web-site
You know
This is they they have thrown in with Burzynski, and they’ve trusted him, and he’s produced nothing
Nothing of substance
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:51:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Nothing thas that has made all of that um, uh, n nothing th th th that uh his peers would take seriously
The other thing that that that strikes me now is that, you know, you you you you keep saying that, well Eric is going to to share things with you
Does it ever concern you eh uh eh occur to you that Eric might not be reliable ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well, he gave you The Lancet information and he posted the e-mail in the movie, and Josephine Jones posted a copy of it
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ He then, and then he
And then he he, you know, the the the the dialogue that sprung up around that was, well see, he’s never going to get to get published
Well you’re just setting yourself up for wish fulfillment
You want him to be, persecuted, so you are ecstatic when he doesn’t get to publish, which is unfortunate for all the cancer patients, who really thought that one day, all the studies were going to be published
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:52:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well, y’all are free to, you know, claim that all you want, because I don’t always agree with Eric, and uh, he’s free to express his opinion
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Where has Eric been wrong ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well I don’t necessarily believe, what Eric would say about, you know, The Lancet that refused to publish the 2nd one, for the reasons he stated, and which y’all have commented on, including Gorski
You know, I don’t necessarily agree with that
I am more agreeable to y’all, saying that, you know, they’re busy, they’ve got other things to do, but I’m kind of still laughing at their 1st response which he showed in the movie about how they felt about, you know his results would be better in some other publication
I thought that was kind of a ridiculous response to give someone
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ It’s it’s it’s it’s a form letter
You know
They’re just saying, “No thanks”
“Thanks, but no thanks” is what they were saying, in the most generic way possible
Like I said, they’re besieged by researchers trying to publish
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:53:05
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well you would think that if its a form letter they would use the same form that they used the 2nd time
You know, they didn’t use the same wording that they used the 1st time
I would have think that, you know, their 2nd comment
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ So, so, possibly
So possibly what you are saying is that they in fact have read it, and after having read it they’ve rejected it
Is that what you’re saying ?
Because that’s what peer-review is
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Nah, I’m not saying that they did that all
I’m just sayin’, you know, that they gave, 2 different responses, and I would think that the 2nd one they gave
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Do you know it was the same editor, that it came from the same desk ?
You can’t make that assumption that that the form letter will be the same form letter every time
I mean you just can’t
I mean in in some ways we have a lot of non-information that you’re filling in, with what you expect, as as opposed to what’s actually really there, and I I I just think you’re putting too much uh stock in one uh, uh, in in in in this uh the publication kerfuffle
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:54:16
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Um
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well I find it funny, something along the lines of, you know, “We believe your message would be received better elsewhere, you know
I don’t see that as a normal response, a scientific publication would send to someone trying to publish something
I mean, to me that sounds, like, if you’re doing that, and you’re The Lancet Oncology, maybe you need to set some different procedures in place, ‘cuz you would think that with such a great scientific peer-reviewed magazine, that they would have structured things in as far as how they do their operations
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Well, not necessarily
I’ve been in any # of professional groups where the organization is just not optimal, and publications certainly th there are all sorts of pressures from all sorts of different places
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:55:08
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ I I have no problems whatsoever with seeing that this might not be completely uh um uh streamlining uniform processes as possible
The fact that it’s not uniform, doesn’t have anything to do with Burzynski not publishing, not producing good data
Not just going to a, you know, god, even if, even if, let’s put it this way, even if he went to a pay to play type publication where you have to pay in order to get your manuscript accepted; and he has the money to do this, it wouldn’t take that much, and he were to put out a good protocol, and he were to show us his data, and he would make his, his his stuff accessible to us, then we could validate it, then we could look at it and say, “Yeah, this is good,” or “No, this is the problem, you have to go back and you have to fix this”
Right ?
So we really, every time we talk about the letter that he got, yeah that doesn’t have much to do with anything, really
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:56:02
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ We wanna see the frickin’ data
And if he had a cure for some cancers that otherwise don’t have reliable treatments, he has an obligation to get that out there anyway he can
And if if peer-review doesn’t, you know, play a, if peer-review can’t do it, you know, isn’t fast enough for him, then he should take it to the web, and he should send copies out to every pediatric, uh, you know, oncologist that there is
That’s the way to do it
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well, I’m sure, I’m sure Gorski would have a comment about that, as he’s commented previously about how he thinks uh Burzynski should publish
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Oh I, I I I certainly don’t think that he would put a lot of stock in it, but I, I, I know Dave Gorski enough, he wants this to work
He has patients who are dying, you know
And if if if let’s say that that Burzynski could get ah his gene-targeted therapy to work on breast cancer patients in in a reliable way, that would be, such a help to these people, that that Gorski’s trying to help
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:57:10
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ And, it it it doesn’t make sense, I mean, there, some of the best um, one of the the most important developments in medical history, was the development of of just washing your hands uh uh before uh uh going in and delivering a baby
Right ?
The guy who did it, was a colossal jerk, but it still worked and it’s the standard now
Right ?
Um, yea, it doesn’t matter now whether or not Burz, whether or not Gorski agrees with how Burzynski publishes
It’s the, it’s the data itself
If if Burzynski is is, is confident in his data, he will put it out there
Right ?
One way or the other
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Like I said before
Like I said before on my blog, you know, even if Burzynski publishes his phase 2 information, Gorski can just jump up and down and say, “Well, that just shows evidence of efficacy, you know, it’s not phase 3, so it doesn’t really prove it”
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:58:04
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
So then he can go on, you know, for however many years he wants to
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ 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
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well,
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ 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 ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
This is, this is a guy who must phone it in because, he went in there and posted the old Josephine Jones response that, you know, no drugs had been approved by the FDA without their final phase 2 publication 1st being published, which was not a factual statement, and you’ve made the same statement
So I, I’m thinking that Gorski just bought her statement and took it and ran with it, and before he fact-checked it, and what, what happened, it was wrong
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
1:59:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
I mean, Gorski needs to stop phoning stuff in, and check his sources before he posts stuff, because I’ve found many cases where, he hasn’t seemed to do that, and that’s why I question him
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Well what about all the other physicians, um, going back long before the Burzynski thing broke on-line
Of all these patients, with whom they have long-established relationships, and then doctors essentially after years, of treating these patients, basically saying, “I can’t work with you anymore if you go to Burzynski”
What about that ?
Di, are all of these doctors just as biased ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well, I found it interesting that uh the one on the, Burzynski 2, you know he gave his ex excuses for not, working with uh, that patient, and, but yet, he was the same doctor that treated a another Burzynski patient, according to the movie
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
2:00:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
I mean, so what does he do ?
Pick and choose ?
Or do doctors pick and choose over there in Britain ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Did he get burned at some point ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well, the movie didn’t say anything
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ We don’t know
Yeah, well, you wouldn’t expect Eric Merola to say that he got, that a doctor got burned
Would you ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well, I fail to see these doctors on there, providing any factual information, anywhere on the Internet about, uh their disagreements, in a serious way, instead of just making these over-broad statements, you know, “He hasn’t published anything in the blah blah blah,” and
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ But he, he doesn’t have, he hasn’t given us his data
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well, he’s provided some data, and specifically 4 publications
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ He’s given, he’s given, he’s given case studies
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
He’s given more than the case studies
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ He’s done
Okay
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
He’s done more than the case studies
He’s specifically given uh, almost all the information om an oncologist would want
And Gorski, and Gorski
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Except for a ph, completed phase 3 clinical trial
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
(laughing)
I mean, I love Gorski, but he comes up with these stupid excuses like, “Well, Burzynski is not an oncologist”
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
2:01:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well, Gorski doesn’t go go in there and look at his other, his phase 2 clinical trial publications, as far as the preliminary reports, and look at the co-authors, and see if any of those guys are oncologists, and that they’re working with Gorski, I mean they’re working with Burzynski
I find that ridiculous
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Yeah
One of the things, one of the things that I’ve noticed going through these um, well, well there there is that
Uh, Guy Chapman, “It’s a blog, not a peer-reviewed publication” [79]
Um, almost no treatment goes out without trials
Massive amounts of data are required
Um, so, it it is kind of, slightly disingenuous to hold uh Gorski to the same . . standard that you would, it on his blog
I think that professionally he would make, he he he would follow-up on these things, but u what I’ve noticed when you you mention these other people who are working with with Burzynski as co-investigators, the co- investigators don’t seem to have access to these, to these records
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
2:02:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Um, you know, when they have to, when a patient has to, and often you have someone like a pediatrician, uh, signing on um uh to eh eh to work with with, uh and arrange care for patients when they’re out of state, away from Burzynski
Um, it’s it’s it’s often not an oncologist
It’s accurate to say that B Burzynski is not a board s uh certified oncologist
It’s accurate to say that no trial has been completed and fully published
Um, yeah it’s um, it it it if, all of the arguing on behalf of Burzynski doesn’t give him a single phase 3
It doesn’t give him um a uh uh of of a completed and and published phase 2
Uh, in in in that sense, you know, uh all the the the, you know, kind of back-peddling and and and trying to defend him is is going to, not going to help his case at all
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
2:03:03
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ You are, honestly as far as I can tell you are doing the um, you know, you’re you’re ah throwing up uh, uh, uh, you’re giving me another uh invisible dragon in the garage, um
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well y’all, y’all can call things what y’all want
I mean, y’all can give these, fallacy arguments and all that garbage that y’all like, because that’s what y’all like to talk about instead of dealing with the issues
I mean, Gorski doesn’t want to deal with the issues
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ What is the issue were not talking about
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Hey, I’ve said it to Gorski
He liked to back his stuff up on the Mayo study, yet he wouldn’t, he wouldn’t uh debate about the Mayo study
He likes to say, “Well, Burzynski is not an oncologist,” but he won’t, say Hey, look at the publications, are any of the guys on the publications oncologists ?
We know that Gorski, we know that Burzynski works with oncologists in his practice
So, just because Burzynski himself is not an an oncologist, does not necessarily mean anything
Do we need to go out, onto PubMed, and, and review every particular person that’s published something about cancer and see if they’re all oncologists ?
Seriously
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
2:04:11
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
I mean, Gorski will just
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Yeah, but they
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
post a lot of stuff without backing it up
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ But they have track records that support the idea that you should trust them
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well, (laughing), I, you know, that’s up to someone’s opinion, considering some of the information that’s that the FDA has accepted, as far as giving these guys approval
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Okay, so
What you’re telling me is that you trust the FDA to to be able to tell you when he’s not doing, good science, but also that you don’t trust the FDA
Do you see an inherent conflict there ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
How did I say I, I didn’t trust them ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Well, when I, whenever I would ask about, like, why would these trials aren’t happening uh and, you know, you say well the the FDA’s arranged it
The FDA’s in control
They sign off on these things
But they’re they’re they’re they’re at the same that they’re, they’re trustworthy they’re also not trustworthy depending on what you need for the particular argument at the time
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
2:05:12
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well, I didn’t say that they weren’t trustworthy, I just raised questions that no one wants to answer about ’em
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ You’re suggesting that they’re untrustworthy
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
No, I’m just sayin’ that I’ve raised questions and none of The Skeptics wanna to uh talk about ’em
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ I I would say that the the FDA has given Burzynski every opportunity for decades
Every opportunity
When he didn’t have r r really, he got special treatment as far as I can tell
Uh, the, I’m rather stunned every morning I wake up and don’t see in the paper, that that place has has been closed down
I, I really am
Uh, so, you know,that one doesn’t really fly with me either
Um
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
2:06:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well, to me the FDA owes Burzynski for a lot of the garbage they pulled off against him (laugh), not to say, you know, they owe him in that way, but they owed him
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Do you know that the FDA pulled out of the prosecution ?
Did you know that the FDA pulled out of the prosecution um of his criminal case, because they were backing a researcher ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well, we know a lot stuff they did, but that still doesn’t impress me that they pulled out of the prosecution
I mean
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Yeah, the the the it wasn’t the FDA who was pressing charges, it was a Federal prosecutor
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Right
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Right
And and, they declined to provide information that the prosecution needed
That’s important
That that that’s really important
That he has been given the benefit of the doubt, and he has come up wanting, for decades now
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well I find it interesting a lot of this uh, a lot of these letters that were provided between, you know, the government and Burzynski, when the uh phase 2 study was going on, at the behest of the NCI
You know, anybody who reads that stuff knows, that when just ignore the person that’s been doing, do treating their patients for 20 something years, or close to 20 years, and you change the protocol without his approval, and you don’t use the drugs in the manner that he knows works
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ The, no, claims works
He claims works
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well, he says they work together and they’re not going to work if you don’t use them that way
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ One of the things I think
One of the things that I think is happening here
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
(laughing)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ One of the things I think is happening here, is that lots of people have worked with Burzynski and then have stopped working with B Burzynski
Uh, you know, uh lots of uh uh uh these partnerships do not seem to work out in the end
I often wonder, if the uh, the way that these things are, are are playing out, because it’s s so reliable that they’re, that these partnerships are going to fail, I I wonder if th they are designed in such a way, that for instance, um a, uh, a a partner would be uncomfortable working with him
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
2:08:18
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Or um or that the specifications for what it takes to enter one of these trials is so high, that nobody will ever enter the trials
I mean, I wonder if they are, what, especially, like why hasn’t Burzynski left the country ?
That’s what I want to know
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Why would he leave the country ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Exactly
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
I think he’s made it clear
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ If he was so, if he was s so persecuted and really cares about getting his treatment out to the world, why wouldn’t he ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
2:09:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ They’re, they’re lots of things going on here
David James has pointed this out, that a lot of questions I’m asking are not going answered
“I still don’t know how long it would take before you would have any doubts about Burzynski”
“I still have no idea, how often we can see patients reporting that signs of getting worse are getting better, before you would change your mind”
I’ve made it very clear that he just needs to have a completed study published and replicated before I support his right to go out and charge people what he’s charging for these, for these drugs, and I’m I’m just not seeing that here with you, and I I wonder what could come from, and don’t worry I will go to your site and I will comment on on on what you’ve run
Um, but, you know, I I I I it’s hard for Skeptics to imagine, what could be gained from engaging with you, if there seems to be no conceivable way, that we can, one, get a straight answer for, how many patients will have to report that getting worse is getting better before you starting doubting your opinion, or, uh, how many uh, uh, how many years does this have to go on before you decide that, “No, we probably just can’t produce the goods”
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
2:10:15
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ One of the interesting things about Doubting Thomas that I think you should definitely consider for yourself, is that at some point, when faced with the real opportunity to prove or disprove his assertions, he doubted himself
And that’s important
And that’s where you’re falling short in the analogy
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well, I think The Skeptics, Skeptics are falling short because, you know, they don’t own up to
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ I’ve laid out exactly what it would take for me to turn on a fucking dime
I have, I have made it abundantly clear what I need
Gorski has made it abundantly clear
Everybody else, Guy, and David, and Josephine Jones, uh, the Morgans, all of them have made it abundantly clear, what it would take to change our minds, and you’ve never done that
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
2:11:02
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ And even in this, this was an opportunity to do that
To come up with a basis for understanding, where it’s like, you know what, If we can show this, you know, if we can show a this guy, that, that, there, that his standards are not being met, then, you know, we could possibly have some sort of ongoing dialogue after this
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
So I can say that since the Mayo Clinic finished their study in 2006, and it took them until 2013, to actually publish it, then I can say, well, Burzynski finished his in 2009, which was 3 years later, which would give Burzynski until 2016
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Correction: M.D. Anderson
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Why wasn’t that study
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
for me to make up my mind (laughing)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Why wasn’t that , that that that, still . . again, it it doesn’t seem really to to approach the the the, main question here
You know, um . . what are the standards that you have that it isn’t, what are your standards to show that it isn’t efficacious ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
2:12:05
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well I can say, well I’m going to have to wait, the same amount of time I had to wait for Mayo to publish their study; which was from 2006 to 2013
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Clarification: M.D. Anderson
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Why was the Mayo
Why was the Mayo study delayed ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
How do you know it was delayed ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Well you said you had so many years before you finish it and go in
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
I mean, has anybody
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Why, why did it take so long ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
done a review of when a clinical trial is studied, and completed, and how long it took the people to publish it ?
You know
If they could point to me a study that’s done that, and say, well here’s the high end, here’s the low end of the spectrum, here’s the middle
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ I have something for you, okay ?
Send me that
Could you send me that study the way that it was published because um, just just send me the final study, um, to my e-mail address
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Sure
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Um, because, I can ask that question of those researchers, why was this study in this time, and what happened in-between
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
2:13:03
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Why did it take so long for it, for it to come out
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Sure, but that’s not gonna, you know like, answer an overall question of, you know, somebody did a comparative study of all clinical trials, and, when they were finished, and at, and when the study was actually published afterwards
You know, that’s only gonna be one, particular clinical study
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Right
Um, but it it would, perhaps, answer the question; because you’re using it as an example on the basis of which to dismiss criticism, whether or not, uh, it is the standard, and therefor you’re allowed to accept that Burzynski hasn’t published until 2016, or, um, it’s an anomaly, which is also a possibility, that most stuff comes out more quickly
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well, we know that the Declaration of Helsinki doesn’t even give a standard saying, “You must publish within x amount of years,” you know ?
So, I’ve yet to find a Skeptic who posted something that said, “Here are the standards, published here”
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
2:14:07
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ I I, yeah, the other thing that David James points out is, you know, why 2016 when he’s had 36 years already ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Again, we get back to, when the clinical trial is finished, not when Burzynski started
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Treating people
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
I mean, you would expect to find a results to be published after, the final results are in
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ You would expect the Burzynski Patient Group to be a lot bigger after 36 years, and in fact is
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
You would expect some people would want to have confidentiality, and maybe not want to be included
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ So, if you’re unsure about this stuff, if you’re unsure about the the time to publication, why are you defending it so hard, other than saying, “I don’t know, I really need to”
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Why am I unsure ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Uh about the
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
(laughing) I just gave you an example
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ The reasons, the reasons for which that he’s, no, why are you defending him so hard, when you’re unsure ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
2:15:02
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Oh, who said I was unsure ?
I just gave you an example
I mean, I’m just, I believe in free and open debate
I mean, I believe, if y’all are gonna spam the Internet, the Internet with garbage that y’all do not back-up, with specific
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ I’ve backed-up everything that
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
references
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Every time that I’ve tried
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
(laughing)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ and then other people
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Like your tweet that said uh, “antineoplastons is uron, is Unicorn pee,” right ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Way back
It is about
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
(laughing)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ It is about as efficacious
We have the same
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
“Burzynski is a vampire”
Good one (laughing)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Yeah, I’ve, and and I based that on a a a that type of thing
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
He sucks their blood out of ’em right ?
Yeah (laughing)
Humor
Okay, I understand humor
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ You, you, you can read that how you want, right ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
(laughing)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ There
He does have the accent though
Right ?
No (laugh)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well, that’s because he’s Polish
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ (laughing)
Alright ?
No, but listen, like, it it it’s not, it, we we don’t understand why you defend himself so hard, when there is such a paucity of of of information out there
Um
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
2:16:09
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
What I defend, is that, y’all post stuff, a lot of Skeptics post stuff, including Gorski, and they do not back it up, with references, citations, or links
Gorski will just post stuff, like he did about saying, you know, the FDA would not approve, uh, accelerated approval, without a final phase 2 clinical trial being published, which was an incorrect statement, he did not provide any link
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Even if it’s true or false you, honestly though
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
We know it’s false
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Even if it’s true or false, in in that particular instance, you know, eh let’s just say that you’re right
Gorski gets that point completely wrong
It has no bearing on whether or not, ANP works
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well, I’m just
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ That’s a Red Herring
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
I’m just
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ You’re just focusing on this, on this little niggly stuff, where the real question, is does it work ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Not
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Are patients getting better at a better rate then not
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
2:17:01
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
That’s
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ or otherwise ?
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well, that is just lame
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Y’all, Skeptics, like to sh spam Twitter, and social media, with all this negative stuff about Burzynski, but then when I ask you to back it up, you can’t back it up, and then, and then on this conversation you want to come down and pinhole it, to a specific subject, you know, the nitty-gritty
Well, if y’all were only debating the nitty-gritty, we would only be d debating the nitty-gritty, but that’s not what y’all do
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ We’re were talking about whether or not there’s evidence to suggest it works
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well, we know the FDA’s said there is
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ The FDA, see that’s the thing
You, the FDA are are, you know, you invest them with, we’re just, we’re just circling around again
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
(laughing)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Uh um, alright
Well, this has gone on for rather a, longer than I thought it would
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
2:18:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Um, I, uh, wanna thank you for coming on here
I wasn’t sure that you would actually do it
Um, I’m glad that you did
I’m glad that we talked
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
Um
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
And I’ll give you those links that I told you I would give you
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Please do
And I will look at those
Maybe not in the next few days; I’ve got a lot going on but
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Yeah, that’s fine
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Alright
Um
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Well, I thought it was productive too
You know, I don’t see why Gorski is afraid of debating issues
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ I don’t think he is
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
on the Internet, on his blog
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ I don’t think he’s afraid
I just think he’s got a lot going on
He is act, a full-time surgical oncologist and researcher
He does have insane am, he has to pick and choose his battles
And if, if if he saw that we were going to ultimately be circling around our same arguments again and again; kind of like we’ve done here, um, he uh, you, he doesn’t have time for that, I don’t think
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
2:19:00
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ I mean
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Hey, he has time to post about, “Hey, uh, Burzynski got a Catholic award from somebody,” which, has nothing to do with antineoplastons, whatsoever
So, you know, he’s not focusing just in on, “Do antineoplastons work, yes or no?,” “When will Burzynski publish ?,” yes or no ?
You know, he’s putting all this ridiculous side junk, you know
So, I am not going to take that seriously
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Alright
I I would ask that you to to go back over The The Other Burzynski Patient Group and take their stories seriously, because they deserve at least the same amount of consideration that the survivors do
That’s my
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Exactly
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ That’s my kids, okay
Well, Thanks for much for talking
I greatly appreciate it
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
You bet
Thank you
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Alright
Take it easy
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
You too
====================================
==================================== END
====================================
====================================
I thought that this was very productive, because it proved that Randy Hinton was correct when he commented on #Forbes:
Yes
Okay Well as I put in my about page, I agreed with the juror that he was neither guilty or innocent
So, so since I see all this opposition by these Skeptics, and I see that the theyโre getting all of their facts straight
I decided to take the position of being a Skeptic Skeptic
In other words I am skeptical of Skeptics who do not fact-check their information before they post it on social media
And since I see ahhh yโall pretty much trying to take over the net with yโallโs information I decided to come back and correct all the false information that was being put out by other Skeptics Well the major issue is that the FDAโs own information says if phase 3 trials are approved โ phase 2 trials is to see if thereโs evidence of effectiveness
And so if phase 3 trials are approved, that means youโve provided evidence of effectiveness
Thatโs the FDAโs own information โ I have that clearly on my blog
Also the FDA has given Burzynski uhhh Orphan Drug Designation in 2004 for uhhh brainstem glioma and then in 2009 for all gliomas
So that must mean that there is evidence of effectiveness, otherwise I donโt think they would be doing that Well the issue is he was given 2 phase 3 trials that we know of
One was on uh Clinical Trials . gov โ the one about eye cancer
The vision cancer
And then the other one was not posted on there, but then again the FDA has said, and I posted this on my blog because I specifically contacted and asked them and they said we donโt post all clinical trials on our web-site
And so he obviously had that other one about brainstem glioma, that he was trying to get started
But the other issue is that Skeptics have posted on there that he could not get that accelerated approval until he had published a phase 2 trial and that is exactly not the case because other drugs have been given accelerated approval before their results were published in phase 2 clinical trial publications, cuz, so that question remains as well Well, what we do know is that in the movie, Merola showed that one page rejection from The Lancet
where Burzynski was trying to show his results from like 8 to 16 years, and they said we think your uh publication would be seen best elsewhere, or some ridiculous statement like that
And so, I thought that funny of The Lancet
Of course, I understand their 2nd response, which came out, which Eric posted on his Facebook page, yโall, that yโall have talked about โ that, you know, theyโre busy, they get a lot of
submissions
I understand that, so obviously he would have to look for a different publication for both of those, things heโs trying to get published Well a lot of the time Iโm making fun of yโallโs favorite oncologist, the way he words his blogs, and uhmmm I cite specifically from the FDA, from from the National Cancer Institute, from these other scientific sources, from scientific publications
I give people specific information so they can fact-check me, unlike a lot of The Skeptics who just go out there and say things and publish things on social media, they provide no back-up for their uhhh sayings
And so when I critique an oncologist or any other Skeptic I always provide source material so people can always fact-check me and I specifically said that people should fact-check everything ummm that the oncologist should say because he has, Iโve proven him to be frequently incorrect about his information and misleading
And so Iโve tried to add those things and allow people to search, on specific things like publications, or what I posted about The Lancet, or specifically about The Skeptics, or specifically about the oncologist
So whenever I see something posted new on Twitter, by yโall, sometimes Iโll check it out and sometimes I wonโt, and sometimes Iโll comment on it
I was, on there just yesterday to see some more of your post on there Well the thing is, when you accepted this hangout, I published my newest blog article and I specifically listed all the information I had critiqued from you previously including Amelia, and I posted the specific Twitter responses by BurzynskiMovie; which is probably Eric, to your issues with Amelia, and he disagrees with what the oncologist posted, and so I pretty much let his Twitter responses stand to what the oncologist said Well I also did a critique of the newspaper story that was put out about Amelia in the U.K.
And they had 2, 2 patients that were dealt with
And
I believe, yes
And one of the patients, Burzynski has specifically published in one of his scientific publications that maximum dosage is not reached for a month
So if someone, so if someone only goes in there and has treatment for a month, theyโre not even, you know, theyโre finally going to reach the uh maximum dosage
And I think that was maybe the case with Luna, I think she was only there for a month Well my only thing is, uh, we know that sometimes he will go to a maximum dosage, or you know, the suggested dosage, but he will back down off it, in fact in the uh adverse effects you mentioned those are specifically adverse effects mentioned in his publications, and when that happens normally they will subside within 24 to 48 hours is what it says once you take them off the treatment and let, you know, those conditions take care of themselves, and then you will slowly raise the medication again
So, you know, it just didnโt tell, if only one month of treatment was enough to even start to do anything for her Well the thing is, the FDA has approved phase 3, and also given them the Orphan Drug Designation, which means they should have some knowledge about whatโs going on, I would think
Plus we donโt know for sure, weโve heard about, ummm, some of the things supposedly the oncologist has talked about, which is cutting off the blood flow, to the tumor, which is something that some uhhh drugs can do, and I think thatโs one of the things Burzynski has tried to do, ah heโs specifically mentioned it in his personalized treatment
But I donโt know for sure if itโs also something thatโs done with the ANPโs in just the clinical trials environment
So, that could be a possibility Well Well what I find interesting about these other doctors is like like the doctors mentioned in the movie and BBC Panoramaโs report and in some of these newspaper articles where they are mentioned again is that these doctors never do a review of Burzynskiโs scientific publications and including our favorite oncologist who refuses to do so
Uhhh
Oh yeah he says heโs read everything but uh you know he claims that heโs uhmmm reviewed, reviewed uh Burzynskiโs personalized gene targeted therapy but he, but then just a few months ago he admitted, you know, I donโt know where Burzynski says which genes are targeted by antineoplastons
And I pointed out which specific publications that Burzynski published, publications which specifically mention which genes are targeted by antineoplastons, and I said how can you claim that youโve read and reviewed every Burzynski publication and you didnโt know which genes are targeted by antineoplastons when thatโs specifically in the publications ?
To me that tells me that you do not know how antineoplastons work be because you just admitted you donโt know which genes Burzynski talks about
I mean thatโs just funny as heck to me that he would say that Well Iโve, Iโve got it on my blog
Uhm
I mean I can forward it to you at some point
But I agree with you about I donโt remember seeing anything about antineoplastons cutting off the blood flow to the, you know the blood brain barrier for sure either Well I think I know the point that youโre getting at uhhh about the IRBโs and all that good stuff
All I can say is that, you know the FDA can come in with any amount of investigators and say that you did this or that but you have the opportunity to respond, and so they can pretty much say anything, itโs only when the final report comes out that you can take that to the bank
And so all this speculation about what a investigative team may say about the clinic is, to me just like someone going into a lawsuit and saying so-and-so did this, you know, can you prove that, you know, did so-and-so do that
So itโs the same thing with the FDA, these um little reports, the final report is what counts, and so, also what I find interesting is some of Burzynskiโs publications specifically said, you know this particular uh clinical trial, the IRB was agreed upon by the FDA Well if if the FDA agreed upon it, you know, then some questions should arise about exactly what did the FDA agree upon
What would we find out from a Freedom of Information Act request on that ?
And, and what I also found interesting is when I did research on other clinical trials for brainstem glioma I found, you know, all these other science based medicine studies where 374 children had died in their studies
And what I found interesting is back in 1999, they reported on a clinical trial, they had better results then all these clinical trials afterwards Well, I would have to find you one, there were like 3
There were like 3 major ones that Burzynski has mentioned in his publications to cross-reference his trials versus their trials as far as the results
And so, I, there was one back in 1999 that had better results than a lot of these clinical trials that come afterwards
So when we talk about, you know, whatโs really right for the patients well we can see that the drug companies want to test their drugs through clinical trials and, you know, and if your kid dies, well, unfortunately the kid dies
Even though we showed better results in 1999 with a different type of treatment, you would have thought that maybe they would have poured more investment into that particular treatment but thatโs not necessarily how the clinical trial system works Well hereโs my point, I mean, yโall probably get a better sense from, ummm, Hymas, about whatโs going on with that
From her uh fiancรฉ, or husband, whatever his status happens to be right now
And uh also from Ric, uh theyโre more closer to Burzynski than I am, because I have never met Burzynski, I have never e-mailed Burzynski, uhmmm never talked to Burzynski, never met him, blah blah blah
Uh, my sense is that since 1996 when the FDA talked about antineoplastons, that specific FDA Commissioner that was in charge at the time, he set out 7 major points about how there was going to be less people required and there was going to be less paperwork, there was going to be less stringent things about Partial Response
And so, to me, the FDA is the final source to go to when people want to complain about how long their trials have lasted uh because the FDA is bottom line, you know, in charge of that
And
And my other point is that, uhmmm, when these trials finish, as Iโve pointed out on my blog, M.D. Anderson finished a trial in 2006 and didnโt publish the results electronically until January of this year
So, just think
Burzynskiโs 1st trial we know that finished in 2009
So we would still have more years to go before he caught up to M.D. Anderson as far as publishing
So for him to actually be trying to publish stuff now and The Lancet not publishing because they have other stuff to do, put in there, thatโs understandable
So, we know that heโs trying to publish, uh but theyโre going to keep it close to the vest obviously, from, from how they do their things, and where theyโre trying to publish
And plus, like Iโve said before
Weโve still got the accelerated approval thing thatโs out there, you know, like the FDAโs given Temodar and, and Avastin, and another drug, whereas theyโre not doing the same thing for antineoplastons, eve even though for all intents and purposes from what we know, antineoplastons have had better success rates than Temodar and Avastin when they were approved Well from the information thatโs been published in certain um publications
And in, and in not only Burzynskiโs but elsewhere in, in newspapers or articles, or such like that Well what I found interesting is when the FDA approved these other 1 or 2 drugs, some of them specifically said that, uhhh, some of these drugs had, you know, better survivability or they showed no better rate than any previous treatment but weโre approving it anyway
Basically thatโs what the publication said and I published this on my blog in an article specifically about, you know, those 2 or 3 drugs that the FDA approved for brainstem or brain related cancers
And so, you know, Iโm not going to buy that argument about that, about that specific thing Well one of these newspaper articles specifically said, you know, Avastin would maybe keep you alive for maybe 4 more months
So, you know, take that Well, we can wonder if some of Burzynskiโs results are the same, otherwise why would the FDA say, you know, give the ODD, why would the FDA give the phase 3 approval
Plus I donโt buy some of these doctors coming out and saying stuff, they have the opportunity just like the other doctors in Egypt, in Russia, in Germany, in, in Poland in China in Taiwan that have done antineoplaston studies, Iโm like, these people can do antineoplaston studies so whatโs the excuse for all these other doctors who say that they supposedly canโt do them You know, the informationโs out there and
and like these other doctors can do it Well, we kind of know that thatโs a fact Well what we know from 1996 from Burzynskiโs own information that heโs published, is that not only does he have the original parent antineoplastons, but heโs developed 2nd and 3rd generations, but he canโt just stop in the middle of his clinical trial and use the 2nd and 3rd generations which may be better
He canโt uh use these other types of um antineoplastons that other researchers, researchers like Egypt, or Japan have found um that may be better because he canโt just switch in the middle of the clinical trial
Now if he, if the FDA approves his product, well then, maybe he can roll out the 2nd and 3rd generation and these other types of antineoplastons that may be less harsh, but thatโs all heโs got to work on and that takes us back to the FDA, having control over the entire process, as far as the paperwork, how many people are in the trials, etcetera
Right Well I find it interesting that you talk about the cost, because Iโve done a lot of research about the cost, and I was just looking at the cost again this morning, and put it into that particular blog article I was talking about, that I did for this particular program
And, um
The thing thatโs funny is that people can say, ohhh Burzynski charges a lot, but the fact is, so does chemo, radiation, and some of these newspaper articles that have been published, and specifically in the movie, Burzynski 2, one of the people mentioned how much someone was paying for standard treatment
And I noticed our
favorite oncologist didnโt comment about that in his movie review Well what I find interesting, you know, Iโm not sure how people think heโs supposed to pay for the clinical trials, you know, if heโs supposed to go into debt, millions of dollars
I find that funny considering the FDA approved phase 3, has given him ODD for brainstem glioma and also also all gliomas You know, thatโs kind of ridiculous
And the people
gettinโ off about his house, well who cares ?
They donโt know where his money came for that particular source Well, you know, when you have good tax lawyers your tax lawyers will tell you how to structure things, and everybody in America has the right to structure their taxes in a manner that effectively serves them according to our Supreme Court
So, if you have a tax lawyer who tells you, hey this is the best way to do it, to save money, well, you may do that uh based upon your lawyerโs advice
So, maybe Burzynski has taken his tax lawyers advice, just like Iโm sure heโs taken Richard Jaffeโs ad advice (laugh), which has proved well, for him You know, you know
Thatโs another thing Well I guess we could ask, you know, Ben and Laura Hymas
What was their experience, you know ?
Did they have, did she have to drink uh a lot of water because she was thirsty ? You know, did she have to drink a lot of water due to the high sodium ?
So I would ask her about her personal experience instead of saying, you know, instead of quoting some of these other people Well we all know the FDA is in charge of this, and so hopefully they know whatโs going on
No, Iโm sure the FDA can look at the records because Burzynski sent them 2.5 million pages according to our friend Fabio
And uh, you know just something the doctors who came in and did the little olโ one day, 6 patient records, where they reviewed all the records and slides, and MRIโs, etcetera, you know they can do the same thing, the FDA can do the same thing with all these patients
And see the same MRIโs and scans, etcetera I mean, we, we know that with all these 374 children I mentioned dying in other science-based medicine clinical trials I mean, they, FDA probably went through all their records
And, so, all these people didnโt look good either but, you know, the FDA still gave approval to Avastin and Te Temodar even though a lot of people died in their clinical trials I mean, we could agree that since
Burzynskiโs publication says that itโs going to take a month to get up to required dosage, and so we know, the tumor can still grow, like he said, up to 50%, he specifically acknowledges that in his publication, so, we know that can happen Well we know from his own publications, he says he canโt just go in and start giving the maximum dose, or recommended dose right off the bat because a particular condition will occur, and he specifically mentions, in the publications what that condition is, I donโt remember it right off the top of my head
But then again, his 2nd generation, his 3rd generation, his other form of antineoplastons that may work in the future, if approved, well those could possibly have the same uh adverse effects that the current parent generation have
But we donโt know, and like I said the FDA Iโm sure knows because they have all the records, we donโt have them, and so unlike our favorite oncologist Iโm not going to speculate, about what the FDA knows and I do not know Well we know they stopped this particular trial, supposedly because a patient died
So whatโs the hold-up ? I mean, hopefully theyโve done an autopsy
What was found
No
And we donโt have a final report from the FDA on what the findings wer
I donโt remember specifically
Possibly not Well heโs using the same 1st generation drug Well Iโm sure a lot of people leave the doctors office not knowing things, for decades Well we know the contin, the tumors can uh continue to grow for awhile, at least, and certain effects that they probably would Well Iโm sure, I mean, itโs going to continue to grow, in any other clinical trial too, for a certain awhile I mean like Well we know that all these other kids died in these science-based medicine trials, and, you know, we can assume that that was the case there too
The FDA not giving him phase 3 approval, the FDA not giving him ODD designation
And showing that, and showing the FDA that thereโs evidence of effectiveness
Not until the FDA says it doesnโt work Well they seem to be doing a good job at it Well Iโm sure, Iโm sure they wouldnโt have done things if they didnโt see some evidence that it was working
No I havenโt read it
I know what itโs called
Right Well Iโm just gonna say, you know, the F, the FDA doing what theyโve done, since they approved those 72 initial trials, pretty much speaks for itself I mean theyโve had every opportunity to shut this down, since then
No, Iโm just concentrating on what weโre doing Well #1 I donโt think the one with brainstem glioma where they wanted to use radiation with ANP was really the right way to go, I mean heโs already proven that uh he seems to have better results without
first starting radiation
Yeah but the thing is radi, I, the FDA was not saying, ok, one study, one side of the study weโre only going to use ANP, in the other side of the study weโre going to use radiation and and ANP like like they would normally do
No, they wanted to make him use radiation in both sides of the study
They donโt do that with other drugs Well I donโt buy anything Guy Chapman sells, considering his past record Well his theories are suspect, anything he hands out, let me tell ya
But the question may be bogus, because of where the messenger has been bogus a lot of times before Well Iโm just gonna say what I think about Chapman because heโs proven himself, many times to be questionable
I donโt see him on my blog responding to my criticism
Thatโs like, thatโs like saying that Gorskiโs web-site is disorganized, his blog is like anti vaccine one day, Burzynski the next, blah blah blah Well how would I know ?
I donโt have Well you didnโt when I tried to get you to do stuff the 1st time, did ya ? Well I, the most, the mostly, excuse me, the most recent article I posted on there is the one about this particular conversation, where I went through all your comments that you had posted, and my response to them
And so I tried to consolidate everything into one, particular article
And thatโs the newest article Well I thought that was pretty funny because doing biblical research, you come upon, Didymus Judas Thomas, or heโs all, also known by other names
Heโs basically The Skeptic
And so, like I said, I consider myself to be Skeptic of The Skeptics
I thought it was apropos
Of course
Iโm doubting The Skeptics
Exactly
Exactly Well I like how The Skeptics say, you know, all of Burzynskiโs successes over the years are anecdotal and uh I consider on the same way that everything negative about Burzynski is anecdotal Well my point is heโs proven them to the FDA because theyโre the ones
Could be, but I would have to read, read the Well when it comes to Guy Chapman, yeah
You still there ?
Yeah, something cut off there for awhile Well I would certainly look at that, but then again I would also look at the FDA granting him Orphan Drug Designation
Orphan Drug for brainstem glioma and all gliomas
Right, itโs both AS10 AS2-1 and AS Well not really, since you mentioned that youโd go in and look at my most recent article, anything you show in there or any reply you give is going to cover, what weโve gone over
And so we can re debate it there Well Iโve specifically stated on my blog that Marc Stephens uh obviously didnโt know what he was doing and went about it the wrong way
My position was he should of bou, got around it, gone about it the way I did, which is, I blog, and show where Rhys is wrong, I blog and show where Gorski is wrong, I blog and show where you are wrong, or Josephine Jones, or Guy Chapman, etcetera
And, eh, yโall have every opportunity to come on my blog, and Iโve had very few takers, uh, one claiming to be from Wikipedia, who I shot down
And hasnโt come back
So, you know, I am welcome to anybody trying to come on my blog, and prove what I posted is wrong, and debate anything
Unlike some of The Skeptics I donโt block people on my blog
I donโt give lame reasons for blocking people on my blog because Iโm an American and I actually believe in โFree Speechโ Well to me it is when Forbes removes all my comments, in response to Skeptics some, and I showed this from screen-shots You know, stuff like that
Oh no
It wasnโt down-voted
They, I mean Iโve got screen-shots of where my comments were there, between other peopleโs comments, and uh, and they just decided to remove all my comments, and I blogged specifically about, you know, what they did and, uh, Gorskiโs good friend and pal who authored that particular article
So I, I like how The Skeptics run things, you know
Well I think that people who really believe in โFree Speech,โ and when itโs done rationally, I mean, Gorski would never, really respond to any of my questions, so I Well I know that he specifically removed a review I did uh of his review of Burzynski I on his web, on his blog
But heโs pretty much left a lot of my comments up that Iโve seen
Uh, but he never really responded to my questions about, what he based his beliefs upon Well I would think, if youโre going to base your position on a certain thing, and then you canโt back it up with scientific literature, uh, you should answer, maybe not specifically to me, but answer the question
Answer to your readers You know, I can tell his readers come on my blog because it shows that they come on my blog Well the reason I have so many Twitter things is because, obviously, some of The Skeptics will be on there lying about some tweet I sent, and so Wikipedia, excuse me Twitter will do a little olโ, do their little, hey weโre going to block your account while we do blah blah blah, and Iโm not gonna waste my time, going through their little review process, Iโll just create another uh Twitter address because, like, you know, if you read the Twitter information you can have a ridiculous amount of uh Twitter I.D.โs, and Iโll just use another Twitter I.D. and continue on
And so Wikipedia can say what they want, because Iโve only ever used one I.P., Iโve only got on there during one time, and when they finally said hey, you know, weโre not gonna uh grant your appeal, I completely left their web-site alone, so all that stuff
that they post
Yep
So all that garbage that they posted about me, about how I supposedly got on-line, on these other articles is just entirely B.S.
And if they can prove otherwise, Iโd sure like to see it
But thatโs what yโall always say
Thatโs what yโall like to say, about everything
Yeah Iโm sure thatโs what they like to say
I mean, you can report an e-mail, or report a twit, and theyโll block it
But um theyโll never come back and say, and this is why we blocked you, for this particular twit, for this particular reason
Wikipedia is a joke
Oh sure, Iโm sure, thatโs no problem
I donโt have any problem with them locking that You know, I could tell when I was on there, and when Merola was on there, because he had a different I.P. address than me, I could tell they were his questions because of the way they were formed
So I said, well theyโre not answering his questions, Iโll just take on that role, and uh ask his questions and ask further questions, and they didnโt wanna deal with it, you know
Expose them for what ?
For doing what they do, which is basically provide false information and one-sided information ?
Oh, please
They get on there and they say hey, Lola Quinlan filed a lawsuit, but they donโt tell you anything else
They donโt tell you, you know, Jaffeโs side of the story, and her lawyerโs side of the story
Oh Jaffeโs on there but on that specific article about Lola, they didnโt say, hereโs the article that was posted on uh Lolaโs attorneyโs web-site that, that mentions both his responses and Jaffeโs responses, to the uh lawsuit
Uh, trust me, I tried to add that and they wouldnโt add it You know, The Skeptics like to be nasty, and so, Iโve been like Josephine Jones
If she wants to play anonymous, Iโll play anonymous Well, I donโt threaten people
I donโt threaten Gorski
I donโt send letters to peopleโs employers
I deal with them directly, and, you know, if if they wonโt answer questions, then, you know, Iโll just post them on my blog for other people to see, and question uh themselves
Like I said, Iโm going to be like Josephine Jones
Because Iโve said so
Iโm not even in Texas
I was born in Texas, but I donโt live in Texas
I donโt even, didnโt even, uh live in Houston
Wasnโt even close to Houston
Oh, of course, I, Iโve seen a lot of stuff goes on Twitter
Iโve see yโall saying โOh, weโre โThe Skepticsโ and yโall know are names,โ but, thereโs a lot of Skeptics that post on there with pseudonyms, also Well, Iโm just not sure how some of these uh Skeptics will react considering their past behavior I mean, when Skeptics refuse to, I mean they block you on your blogs
They block your comments You know, they decide, โWell, Iโm maybe going to accept one comment from you, but I wonโt accept anymore You know, to me thatโs just ridiculous
Uh, the action on Forbes that happened, the action on The Guardian that happened, where, you know, you had someone on Gorskiโs blog basically lie to the Gua, to The Guardian to get them to get them to uh block my comment
So, you know, Iโm Skeptical of The Skeptics and their uh and what they would do
Not really
I like my anonymity just like Josephine Jones likes hers I mean, I will read her stuff and reply to it and treat it seriously jus, just like any other blogger Well the thing is, some of these Skeptics use names, and theyโre not necessarily their real names
So, you know, Iโve seen Well I think that some people just have bad manners I mean see, Iโve seen Skeptics on Twitter basically harass someone pro-Burzynski and keep sending them tweets, and that person specifically send them a tweet saying please keep, stop sending me tweets You know, they didnโt go in and ask Twitter to block the, that particular person
That person just kept sending them tweets
So, you know, Iโve seen that stuff before
Yeah, Iโll look at it, and if you notice, I donโt uh, I usually donโt reply to Skeptics individually because I pretty much figure that yโall are gonna try and get my next account blocked whenever I do that kind of junk, so, well, you know, I just post what I want to post, under the Hashtag Well Iโll just keep reviewing the, any inaccurate statements I see posted You know, it depends on if itโs Gorski, you know
Gorskiโs gone on there and posted inaccurate stuff, and I call him out, you know heโs basically said on his blog, you know, if I do something inaccurate, you know, Iโll โfess up to it Well, Iโve pointed out where heโs done that and said โHey, you said you were gonna โfess up to itโ
If I said on my blog that I was going to โfess up to doing something wrong, and you caught me, well, then I should, come out and say, โOkay, you got meโ
But Gorski wonโt even do that, you know, he just continues to go on down the road, as if I mean one of the
excuse
I find, I find You know, Iโm just going to let the FDA do their job, and let yโall speculate all yโall want
Uh, I mean
See, Iโm here for full discussion
And yโall donโt seem to want to discuss, after yโall just go out there and spam the Internet with garbage, that you donโt back-up with citations and references and links
But some of your other stuff that you tweeted that you havenโt backed up with links, and some of the stuff on thehoustoncancerquack isnโt backed-up with links, and Gorskiโs stuff Well, that and the anp4all one
isnโt backed up
When the FDA says heโs wrong I mean, Iโm not, Iโm not just gonna accept your story
Burzynski provides the FDA with the evidence, and the FDA makes the
the FDA doesnโt approve a drug
if somethingโs not proved Well you know that heโs trying I mean, yโall can sit there and jump up and down all you want Well, Iโm gonna go with what the FDA is gonna do still because theyโre running the show
What I find funny is that yโall complain, โWell, he hasnโt published, uh a final reportโ Well his 1st final, was completed in 2009, and like I said, the M.D. Anderson 2006 study wasnโt published until 2, 2013 I mean, so yโall can jump up and down all you want
Yโall want a final report Well, the final report will be done when the clinical trial is over Well, unless youโre The Lancet, I guess Well, Iโm not gonna get into speculation, Iโm just going to wait and see Well how have I been speculating ?
what the journals keep saying, in response You know, are they going to give The Lancet response, like they did in 2 hours and such, saying, โWell, we think your message would be best heard elsewhere,โ or they gonna gonna give The Lancet response of, โWell, we donโt have room in our publication this time, well, because weโre full up, so, try and pick another place Well, you like to jump up and down with the 15 year quote, but then again I always get back to, Hey, itโs when, when the report, when the clinical trial is done
Not that heโs been practicing medicine medicine for 36 years, or whatever, itโs when the clin, clinical trial was done
The FDA A believes there is evidence of efficacy Well, we donโt know that
We donโt have the Freedom of Information Act information Well, we know what happened in the movie because Eric particularly covered that when they tried to get what, what, was it 200 or 300 something institutions to take on a phase 3, and they refused Well, Eric gave the reasons that they said they would not take a particular uh phase 3
And so using that excuse that you you just gave there, Iโm not even gonna buy that one, because thatโs not one of the reasons
Eric said they gave Well Iโm Well, Iโm, Iโm sure that theyโre going to keep you appraised just like they have in the past, just like Eric has done in the past
So I mean, weโll see what happens with the Japanese publication Well thatโs like me asking โHow long is it going to take for yโallโs, yโallโs Skeptics to respond to my questions ?โ
Because yโall havenโt been forthcoming Well, he gave you The Lancet information and he posted the e-mail in the movie, and Josephine Jones posted a copy of it Well, yโall are free to, you know, claim that all you want, because I donโt always agree with Eric, and uh, heโs free to express his opinion Well I donโt necessarily believe, what Eric would say about, you know, The Lancet that refused to publish the 2nd one, for the reasons he stated, and which yโall have commented on, including Gorski You know, I donโt necessarily agree with that
I am more agreeable to yโall, saying that, you know, theyโre busy, theyโve got other things to do, but Iโm kind of still laughing at their 1st response which he showed in the movie about how they felt about, you know his results would be better in some other publication
I thought that was kind of a ridiculous response to give someone Well you would think that if its a form letter they would use the same form that they used the 2nd time You know, they didnโt use the same wording that they used the 1st time
I would have think that, you know, their 2nd comment
Nah, Iโm not saying that they did that all
Iโm just sayinโ, you know, that they gave, 2 different responses, and I would think that the 2nd one they gave Well I find it funny, something along the lines of, you know, โWe believe your message would be received better elsewhere,” you know
I donโt see that as a normal response, a scientific publication would send to someone trying to publish something I mean, to me that sounds, like, if youโre doing that, and youโre The Lancet Oncology, maybe you need to set some different procedures in place, โcuz you would think that with such a great scientific peer-reviewed magazine, that they would have structured things in as far as how they do their operations Well, Iโm sure, Iโm sure Gorski would have a comment about that, as heโs commented previously about how he thinks uh Burzynski should publish
Like I said before
Like I said before on my blog, you know, even if Burzynski publishes his phase 2 information, Gorski can just jump up and down and say, โWell, that just shows evidence of efficacy, you know, itโs not phase 3, so it doesnโt really prove itโ
So then he can go on, you know, for however many years he wants to Well,
This is, this is a guy who must phone it in because, he went in there and posted the old Josephine Jones response that, you know, no drugs had been approved by the FDA without their final phase 2 publication 1st being published, which was not a factual statement, and youโve made the same statement
So I, Iโm thinking that Gorski just bought her statement and took it and ran with it, and before he fact-checked it, and what, what happened, it was wrong I mean, Gorski needs to stop phoning stuff in, and check his sources before he posts stuff, because Iโve found many cases where, he hasnโt seemed to do that, and thatโs why I question him Well, I found it interesting that uh the one on the, Burzynski 2, you know he gave his ex excuses for not, working with uh, that patient, and, but yet, he was the same doctor that treated a another Burzynski patient, according to the movie I mean, so what does he do ?
Pick and choose ?
Or do doctors pick and choose over there in Britain ? Well, the movie didnโt say anything Well, I fail to see these doctors on there, providing any factual information, anywhere on the Internet about, uh their disagreements, in a serious way, instead of just making these over-broad statements, you know, โHe hasnโt published anything in the blah blah blah,โ and Well, heโs provided some data, and specifically 4 publications
Heโs given more than the case studies
Heโs done more than the case studies
Heโs specifically given uh, almost all the information om an oncologist would want
And Gorski, and Gorski I mean, I love Gorski, but he comes up with these stupid excuses like, โWell, Burzynski is not an oncologistโ Well, Gorski doesnโt go go in there and look at his other, his phase 2 clinical trial publications, as far as the preliminary reports, and look at the co-authors, and see if any of those guys are oncologists, and that theyโre working with Gorski, I mean theyโre working with Burzynski
I find that ridiculous Well yโall, yโall can call things what yโall want I mean, yโall can give these, fallacy arguments and all that garbage that yโall like, because thatโs what yโall like to talk about instead of dealing with the issues I mean, Gorski doesnโt want to deal with the issues
Hey, Iโve said it to Gorski
He liked to back his stuff up on the Mayo study, yet he wouldnโt, he wouldnโt uh debate about the Mayo study
He likes to say, โWell, Burzynski is not an oncologist,โ but he wonโt, say Hey, look at the publications, are any of the guys on the publications oncologists ?
We know that Gorski, we know that Burzynski works with oncologists in his practice
So, just because Burzynski himself is not an an oncologist, does not necessarily mean anything
Do we need to go out, onto PubMed, and, and review every particular person thatโs published something about cancer and see if theyโre all oncologists ?
Seriously I mean, Gorski will just
post a lot of stuff without backing it up Well, I, you know, thatโs up to someoneโs opinion, considering some of the information thatโs that the FDA has accepted, as far as giving these guys approval
How did I say I, I didnโt trust them ? Well, I didnโt say that they werenโt trustworthy, I just raised questions that no one wants to answer about โem
No, Iโm just sayinโ that Iโve raised questions and none of The Skeptics wanna to uh talk about โem Well, to me the FDA owes Burzynski for a lot of the garbage they pulled off against him (laugh), not to say, you know, they owe him in that way, but they owed him Well, we know a lot stuff they did, but that still doesnโt impress me that they pulled out of the prosecution I mean
Right Well I find it interesting a lot of this uh, a lot of these letters that were provided between, you know, the government and Burzynski, when the uh phase 2 study was going on, at the behest of the NCI You know, anybody who reads that stuff knows, that when just ignore the person thatโs been doing, do treating their patients for 20 something years, or close to 20 years, and you change the protocol without his approval, and you donโt use the drugs in the manner that he knows works Well, he says they work together and theyโre not going to work if you donโt use them that way
Why would he leave the country ?
I think heโs made it clear Well, I think The Skeptics, Skeptics are falling short because, you know, they donโt own up to
So I can say that since the Mayo Clinic finished their study in 2006, and it took them until 2013, to actually publish it, then I can say, well, Burzynski finished his in 2009, which was 3 years later, which would give Burzynski until 2016
for me to make up my mind Well I can say, well Iโm going to have to wait, the same amount of time I had to wait for Mayo to publish their study; which was from 2006 to 2013
How do you know it was delayed ? I mean, has anybody
done a review of when a clinical trial is studied, and completed, and how long it took the people to publish it ? You know
If they could point to me a study thatโs done that, and say, well hereโs the high end, hereโs the low end of the spectrum, hereโs the middle
Sure
Sure, but thatโs not gonna, you know like, answer an overall question of, you know, somebody did a comparative study of all clinical trials, and, when they were finished, and at, and when the study was actually published afterwards You know, thatโs only gonna be one, particular clinical study Well, we know that the Declaration of Helsinki doesnโt even give a standard saying, โYou must publish within x amount of years,โ you know ?
So, Iโve yet to find a Skeptic who posted something that said, โHere are the standards, published hereโ
Again, we get back to, when the clinical trial is finished, not when Burzynski started I mean, you would expect to find a results to be published after, the final results are in
You would expect some people would want to have confidentiality, and maybe not want to be included
Why am I unsure ?
I just gave you an example
Oh, who said I was unsure ?
I just gave you an example
I mean, Iโm just, I believe in free and open debate
I mean, I believe, if yโall are gonna spam the Internet, the Internet with garbage that yโall do not back-up, with specific
references
Like your tweet that said uh, โantineoplastons is uron, is Unicorn pee,โ right ?
โBurzynski is a vampireโ
Good one
He sucks their blood out of โem right ?
Yeah
Humor
Okay, I understand humor Well, thatโs because heโs Polish
What I defend, is that, yโall post stuff, a lot of Skeptics post stuff, including Gorski, and they do not back it up, with references, citations, or links
Gorski will just post stuff, like he did about saying, you know, the FDA would not approve, uh, accelerated approval, without a final phase 2 clinical trial being published, which was an incorrect statement, he did not provide any link
We know itโs false Well, Iโm just
Iโm just
Not
Thatโs Well, that is just lame
Yโall, Skeptics, like to sh spam Twitter, and social media, with all this negative stuff about Burzynski, but then when I ask you to back it up, you canโt back it up, and then, and then on this conversation you want to come down and pinhole it, to a specific subject, you know, the nitty-gritty Well, if yโall were only debating the nitty-gritty, we would only be d debating the nitty-gritty, but thatโs not what yโall do Well, we know the FDAโs said there is
And Iโll give you those links that I told you I would give you
Yeah, thatโs fine Well, I thought it was productive too You know, I donโt see why Gorski is afraid of debating issues
on the Internet, on his blog
Hey, he has time to post about, โHey, uh, Burzynski got a Catholic award from somebody,โ which, has nothing to do with antineoplastons, whatsoever
So, you know, heโs not focusing just in on, โDo antineoplastons work, yes or no?,โ โWhen will Burzynski publish ?,โ yes or no ? You know, heโs putting all this ridiculous side junk, you know
So, I am not going to take that seriously
Exactly
You bet
Thank you
You too
“Our only goal is to promote high standards of science in medicine”
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ So proclaims Science Based Medicine . org
6/10/2013 Gorski published:
====================================== BBC Panorama investigates Stanislaw Burzynski
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/bbc-panorama-investigates-stanislaw-burzynski/
====================================== “Burzynski hasnโt 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”
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Gorski’s above statement makes me wonder if PhD’s are handed out to any hack that requests one
Burzynski has published at least 4 publications which list all of the patients and information like:
====================================== [2] 16. 2003 (Pgs. 95-96) data charts
(Pg. 95)
Case
Sex
Age
Date of initial diagnosis
Tumor histology
Tumour location
Tumour size
Previous therapies
Karnofsky performance status
KPS baseline
Date of recurrence (Pg. 96)
Start date
Stop date
Days on treatment
Dosage
Response
Status / date of death
Progression date
Survival time (weeks) from start
Time (weeks) to progression
Last contact
====================================== [9] 17. 2004 (Pgs. 316 + 318-321) data charts
(Pg. 316)
Gender
Age
Tumour histology
Tumour size (total of measured lesions)
Previous therapies
Karnofsky performance status (Pg. 318)
Case
Age at admission
Sex
Ethnicity
Date of initial diagnosis
Pathology code
Visual Pathway Glioma (VPG)
Karnofsky baseline
Previous treatment
Multicentric tumour location (Pg. 319)
” ” (Pg. 320)
Case
Start date
Stop date
Days on treatment
Average dosage (IV treatment / PO treatment) (Pg. 321)
Case
Response
Maximum response date
Time to maximum response (months)
Radiological PD as of 1/03/04
Progression Free Survival (PFS) (year)
Status
Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) baseline
Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) follow-up
Reason for withdrawal
Survival time from diagnosis (years)
====================================== [10] 18. 6/2005 (Pgs. 169 + 171.–.172) data charts
(Pg. 169)
Gender
Tumor type
Tumor spread
Previous therapies
Age
Karnofsky performance status (Pg. 171)
Case
Protocol
Gender
Age at Admission (years)
Ethnicity
Date of Initial Diagnosis
Tumor Type
Tumor Dissemination
Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) Baseline
Previous treatment (Pg. 172)
Case
Start Date
Stop Date
Days on Treatment
Average Dosage g/kg/d (A10 / AS2-1)
Case
Response
Radiological PD
Progression Free Survival (PFS) (month)
Status
Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) Baseline
Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) Follow-up
Reason for Withdrawal
Overall Survival from Diagnosis (OSD) (month)
Overall Survival from Start (OSS) (month)
====================================== [12] 19. 3/2006 (Pgs. 42-45) data charts
(Pg. 42)
Gender
Age
Tumor history
Tumor size at baseline
Previous therapies
Karnofsky Performance Status (Pg. 43)
Case
Protocol
Sex
Age (years)
Date of Initial Diagnosis
Tumor Type
Tumor Dissemination
Recurrence
Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) Baseline
Previous Treatment (Pg. 44)
Case
Start Date
Stop Date
Days On
Average Dosage g/kg/d (A10 / AS2-1) (Pg. 45)
Case
Response
Radiological PD
Progression Free Survival (PFS) (months)
Status
Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) Baseline
Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) Follow-Up
Reason for Withdrawal
Overall Survival from Diagnosis (OSD) (month)
Overall Survival from Start of antineoplaston(OST) (month)
======================================
Maybe Gorski should try “deconstructing” some of these, especially the ones where patients did NOT have chemotherapy or radiation therapy
I’ve even provided a handy reference list
But by George, I’m George Dubya dubious that Gorski can handle it, given his track record
๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ [18] 12/2009 (Pg. 923)
1 – Special Exception (SE)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [3] 1. 3/2004 (Pg. 52)
10 – subgroup
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [3] 1. 3/2004 (Pg. 55)
10 – Japan
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [11] 7. 7/2005 (Pg. 300)
10 – children
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 98)
11 – Special Exception (SE)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [7] 4. 10/2004 (Pg. 427)
11 – children
4 – children Study (ST)
7 – children Special Exception (SE)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [1] 1. 10/2003 (Pg. 358)
12 – children
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 91)
1st 12 – Study (ST)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [4] 4. 9/2004 (Pg. 257)
12
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [9] 17. 2004 (Pg. 316)
1st 12 – children
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [15] 10. 6/2008 (Pg. 450)
1st 12 – children
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [10] 18. 6/2005 (Pgs. 169 + 176)
13 – children
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [8] 5. 10/2004 (Pg. 428)
17
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [20] 14. 6/2010 (Pg. ii95)
17
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [12] 19. 3/2006 (Pgs. 40-41 + 46)
18
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [3] 1. 3/2004 (Pg. 50)
19 – children
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [3] 1. 3/2004 (Pg. 55)
19 – Japan
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [14] 8. 10/2006 (Pg. 466)
19
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [16] 10/2008 (Pg. 821)
20
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [17] 12/2008 (Pg. 1067)
20
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [21] 15. 11/2010 (Pg. iv72)
20
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [5] 2. 10/2004 (Pg. 384)
22
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [6] 3. 10/2004 (Pg. 386)
31 – Special Exception (SE)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [19] 13. 12/2009 (Pg. 951)
40
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [19] 13. 12/2009 (Pg. 951)
52 – Special Exception SE)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [3] 1. 3/2004 (Pg. 55)
56 – Japan
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [6] 3. 10/2004 (Pg. 386)
60
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [3] 1. 3/2004 (Pg. 52)
62
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [3] 1. 3/2004 (Pg. 53)
80
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [13] 2006
30 (Pg. 173)
335 – children (Pg. 174)
1652 – adults (Pg. 174)
๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ [18] 12/2009 (Pg. 923)
1 – evaluable Special Exception (SE)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 91)
1st 10 – evaluable Study (ST)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [3] 1. 3/2004 (Pg. 52)
10 – evaluable subgroup
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [3] 1. 3/2004 (Pg. 55)
10 – evaluable Japan
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [11] 7. 7/2005 (Pg. 300)
10 – evaluable children
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 98)
11 – evaluable Special Exception (SE)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [7] 4. 10/2004 (Pg. 427)
11 – evaluable children
4 – evaluable children Study (ST)
7 – evaluable children Special Exception (SE)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [1] 1. 10/2003 (Pg. 358)
12 – evaluable children
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [9] 17. 2004 (Pg. 316)
1st 12 – evaluable children
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [15] 10. 6/2008 (Pg. 450)
1st 12 – evaluable children
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [10] 18. 6/2005 (Pgs. 169 + 176)
13 – evaluable children
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [21] 15. 11/2010 (Pg. iv72)
13 – evaluable
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [8] 5. 10/2004 (Pg. 428)
17 – evaluable
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [20] 14. 6/2010 (Pg. ii95)
17 – evaluable
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [3] 1. 3/2004 (Pg. 51)
18 – evaluable children
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [12] 19. 3/2006 (Pgs. 40-41 + 46)
18 – evaluable
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [3] 1. 3/2004 (Pg. 55)
19 – evaluable Japan
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [14] 8. 10/2006 (Pg. 466)
19 – evaluable
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [16] 10/2008 (Pg. 821)
20 – evaluable
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [17] 12/2008 (Pg. 1067)
20 – evaluable
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [5] 2. 10/2004 (Pg. 384)
22 – evaluable
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [6] 3. 10/2004 (Pg. 386)
31 – evaluable Special Exception (SE)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [19] 13. 12/2009 (Pg. 951)
52 – evaluable Special Exception SE)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [3] 1. 3/2004 (Pg. 55)
56 – evaluable Japan
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [6] 3. 10/2004 (Pg. 386)
60 – evaluable
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [3] 1. 3/2004 (Pg. 52)
62 – evaluable
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [3] 1. 3/2004 (Pg. 53)
80 – evaluable
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [13] 2006
30 – evaluable (Pg. 173)
335 – children (Pg. 174)
1652 – adults (Pg. 174)
๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ [1] 1. 10/2003 (Pg. 358)
escalating doses of ANP intravenous injections (IV) and subsequently capsules (po)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 91)
Patients received escalating doses of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 by intravenous bolus injections
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 93)
Antineoplaston therapy was administered in gradually escalating doses by intermittent bolus injections 6 times a day using a portable Provider 6000 dual-channel pump (Abbott Laboratories, North Chicago, IL, USA)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [5] 2. 10/2004 (Pg. 384)
ANP was given in escalating doses by intravenous bolus injections
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [9] 17. 2004 (Pg. 317)
Gradually escalating doses were administered by intermittent bolus injections 6 times a day using a portable Provider 6000 dual channel pump (Abbott Laboratories, North Chicago, IL, USA)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [12] 19. 3/2006 (Pg. 40)
Antineoplastons A10 (A10I) and AS2-1 injections, were given in escalating doses by intravenous injections
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [20] 14. 6/2010 (Pg. ii95)
Patients received escalating doses of intravenous A10 and AS2-1 6 times daily
12 or more weeks – ANP
or
at least 4 weeks – ANP but developed progressive disease (PD)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [21] 15. 11/2010 (Pg. iv72)
Patients received escalating doses of intravenous ANP 6 times daily
๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ [2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 93)
Dose escalation was necessary to prevent peritumoral oedema
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [9] 17. 2004 (Pg. 317)
Gradual dose escalation was necessary to prevent peritumoral oedema
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [12] 19. 3/2006 (Pg. 44)
ANP was given by intravenous injections in escalating doses to prevent peritumoral oedema
๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ [2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 93)
Treatment consisted of daily intravenous injections of antineoplaston A10 (300 mg / mL) and AS2-1 (80 mg / mL) through a Broviac or equivalent catheter
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [4] 4. 9/2004 (Pgs. 257-260)
he was admitted for administration of intravenous antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 through a subclavian venous catheter by intermittent bolus injections 6 times per day using a portable pump
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [7] 4. 10/2004 (Pg. 427)
intravenous injection of ANP
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [8] 5. 10/2004 (Pg. 428)
intravenous infusions of ANP
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [9] 17. 2004 (Pg. 317)
300 mg / ML – Daily intravenous injections of A10
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [9] 17. 2004 (Pg. 317)
80 mg / ML – Daily intravenous injections of AS2-1
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [9] 17. 2004 (Pg. 317)
administered through a subclavian venous catheter
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [9] 17. 2004 (Pg. 315)
ANP intravenously initially and subsequently orally
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [10] 18. 6/2005 (Pg. 169)
intravenous infusions of 2 formulations of ANP, A10 and AS2-1
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [10] 18. 6/2005 (Pg. 170)
IV ANP
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [11] 7. 7/2005 (Pg. 300)
ANP was given intravenously daily through a subclavian venous catheter and double channel infusion pump
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [12] 19. 3/2006 (Pg. 42)
Treatment involved daily intravenous injections of A10I and AS2-1
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [12] 19. 3/2006 (Pg. 42)
The injections were administered every 4 hours through a subclavian venous catheter via a dual-channel infusion pump
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [14] 8. 10/2006 (Pg. 466)
ANP was given intravenously daily through a subclavian venous catheter and a double-channel infusion pump
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [15] 10. 6/2008 (Pg. 450)
Treatment consisted of intravenous infusions of antineoplastons (ANP) A10 and AS2-1
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [16] 10/2008 (Pg. 821)
ANP was administered intravenously daily through a subclavian central venous catheter by a double-channel infusion pump
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [17] 12/2008 (Pg. 1067)
ANP was administered intravenously daily through a subclavian venous catheter via a double-channel infusion pump
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [18] 12/2009 (Pg. 923)
The patient received intravenous injections of ANP every 4 hours through a subclavian central venous catheter via a double channel infusion pump followed by PO ANP only
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [18] 12/2009 (Pg. 923)
6/8/2000 – PO ANP
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [18] 12/2009 (Pg. 923)
IV ANP
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [19] 13. 12/2009 (Pg. 951)
ANP was administered daily through a subclavian venous catheter via a double channel infusion pump
๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ [9] 17. 2004 (Pg. 317)
Intravenous injections were discontinued after determination of CR, PR, or stable disease (SD)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [9] 17. 2004 (Pg. 317)
After discontinuation of injections, the patients continued A10 and AS2-1 in 0.5g capsules
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [18] 12/2009 (Pg. 923)
7/8/2004 – discontinued
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [18] 12/2009 (Pg. 923)
2/1999 – CR
๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ [5] 2. 10/2004 (Pg. 384)
4.3 months – median duration of administration
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [21] 15. 11/2010 (Pg. iv72)
4.4 months – median duration of treatment
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [14] 8. 10/2006 (Pg. 466)
4 1/2 months – median duration of i.v. ANP
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [12] 19. 3/2006 (Pg. 40)
5 months – median duration of antineoplaston administration
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [8] 5. 10/2004 (Pg. 428)
5.2 months – administered median
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [19] 13. 12/2009 (Pg. 951)
5.4 months – median duration of treatment (ST)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [19] 13. 12/2009 (Pg. 951)
5.6 months – median duration of treatment (SE)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [7] 4. 10/2004 (Pg. 427)
5.7 months – average duration of ANP
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [16] 10/2008 (Pg. 821)
5.7 months – median duration of treatment
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [2] 16. 2003 (Pgs. 91 + 96)
6 months – median duration of treatment
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [17] 12/2008 (Pg. 1067)
6.5 months – median duration of treatment
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [1] 1. 10/2003 (Pg. 358)
9.5 months – median duration of IV ANP
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [11] 7. 7/2005 (Pg. 300)
9 1/2 months – median duration of administration
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [9] 17. 2004 (Pgs. 315 + 320)
16 months (1 year 4 months) average duration of intravenous ANP
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [15] 10. 6/2008 (Pg. 450)
16.5 months – median
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [9] 17. 2004 (Pg. 320)
19 months – average duration of oral ANP
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [10] 18. 6/2005 (Pgs. 168 + 170)
20 months (1 year 8 months) administered average duration
๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ [1] 1. 10/2003 (Pg. 358)
28.6 months – median duration of po ANP
After obtaining at least minor response (SD), the treatment continued with po ANP
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [4] 4. 9/2004 (Pg. 257)
655 consecutive days – administration of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 with the exception of a few short interruptions
๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ [16] 10/2008 (Pg. 821)
5.69 g/kg/day – median average dosage of A10
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [17] 12/2008 (Pg. 1067)
5.8 g/kg/day – median average dosages of A10
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [21] 15. 11/2010 (Pg. iv72)
6.0 g/kg/day – median average dosages of A10
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [5] 2. 10/2004 (Pg. 384)
6.37 g/kg/day – average dosage of Antineoplaston A10
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [1] 1. 10/2003 (Pg. 358)
7.95 g/kg/day – average dosage of A10
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [9] 17. 2004 (Pgs. 315 + 320)
7.95 g/kg/day – average dosage of A10
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [15] 10. 6/2008 (Pg. 450)
8.36 g/kg/day – average dosage of A10
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [19] 13. 12/2009 (Pg. 951)
9.0 g/kg/day – median of average dosages of A10 (ST)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [14] 8. 10/2006 (Pg. 466)
9.2 g/kg/day – average dosage of A10
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [12] 19. 3/2006 (Pg. 40)
9.22 g/kg/day – average dosage of A10I
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [8] 5. 10/2004 (Pg. 428)
9.4 g/kg/d – median of average dosages of A10
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [19] 13. 12/2009 (Pg. 951)
9.4 g/kg/day – median of average dosages of A10 (SE)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [10] 18. 6/2005 (Pgs. 168 + 170)
10.30 g/kg/day – average dosage of A10
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [7] 4. 10/2004 (Pg. 427)
10.6 g/kg/d – median of average dosages of A10
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 91)
11.3 g/kg/day – average dosage of A10
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [11] 7. 7/2005 (Pg. 300)
12.16 g/kg/day – average dosage of A10
====================================== [2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 96)
5.3-16.1 g/kg/day – dosage of A10
๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ [1] 1. 10/2003 (Pg. 358)
0.28 g/kg/d – average dosage of A10 and AS2-1
After obtaining at least minor response (SD), the treatment continued with po ANP
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [9] 17. 2004 (Pg. 320)
0.28 g/kg/day – average dosage of A10 and AS2-1
๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ [4] 4. 9/2004 (Pg. 257)
8.15 g/kg/d – maximum dosage of A10
๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ [2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 96)
11.3 g/kg/day – average maximum dosage of A10
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [12] 19. 3/2006 (Pg. 42)
13.37 g/kg/day – maximum dosage of A10I (SD = 7.36 g/kg/day)
๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ [2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 93)
20 g/kg/day – highest tolerated or effective dosage of A10 not exceeding
๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ [2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 96)
331.4 kg – maximum total dose of A10
๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ [5] 2. 10/2004 (Pg. 384)
0.24 g/kg/day – average dosage of Antineoplaston AS2-1
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [17] 12/2008 (Pg. 1067)
0.24 g/kg/day – median average dosages of AS2-1
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [16] 10/2008 (Pg. 821)
0.28 g/kg/day – median average dosage of AS2-1
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [19] 13. 12/2009 (Pg. 951)
0.3 g/kg/day – median of average dosages of AS2-1 (ST and SE)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [21] 15. 11/2010 (Pg. iv72)
0.3 g/kg/day – median average dosages of AS2-1
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [12] 19. 3/2006 (Pg. 40)
0.31 g/kg/day – average dosage of AS2-1
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [14] 8. 10/2006 (Pg. 466)
0.32 g/kg/day – average dosage of AS2-1
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [9] 17. 2004 (Pgs. 315 + 320)
0.33 g/kg/day – average dosage of AS2-1
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [1] 1. 10/2003 (Pg. 358)
0.34 g/kg/d – average dosage of AS2-1
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [15] 10. 6/2008 (Pg. 450)
0.37 g/kg/day – average dosage of AS2-1
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [10] 18. 6/2005 (Pgs. 168 + 170)
0.38 g/kg/day – average dosage of AS2-1
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 91)
0.4 g/kg/day – average dosage of AS2-1
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [7] 4. 10/2004 (Pg. 427)
0.4 g/kg/d – median of average dosages of AS2-1
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [8] 5. 10/2004 (Pg. 428)
0.4 g/kg/d – median of average dosages of AS2-1
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [11] 7. 7/2005 (Pg. 300)
0.41 g/kg/day – average dosage of AS2-1
๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ [2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 96)
0.2-0.6 g/kg/day – dosage of AS2-1
๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ [4] 4. 9/2004 (Pg. 257)
0.35 g/kg/d – maximum dosage of
AS2-1
๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ [2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 96)
0.4 g/kg/day – average maximum dosage of AS2-1
๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ [2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 93)
0.4 g/kg/day – highest tolerated or effective dosage of AS2-1 not exceeding
๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ [12] 19. 3/2006 (Pg. 42)
0.49 g/kg/day – maximum dosage of AS2-1 (SD = 0.26 g/kg/day)
๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ [2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 96)
23.9 kg – maximum total dose of AS2-1
๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ [1] 1. 10/2003 (Pg. 358)
1 / 9% – nonevaluable due to only 4 weeks of treatment and lack of follow-up scans
This patient died while on treatment due to a brain infarct and was counted as a treatment failure
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [7] 4. 10/2004 (Pg. 427)
1 – nonevaluable
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [9] 17. 2004
1 – nonevaluable due to only receiving 4 weeks of ANP and no follow-up scans
This patient died while receiving ANP due to a nonhemorrhaging brain infarction and was considered a treatment failure (Pg. 320)
(only 4 weeks after initiation of ANP Pg. 321)
(There was no evidence that these were treatment related deaths Pg. 321)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 96)
Patient 2 unable to be evaluated because didn’t have follow-up MRI to determine response
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 96)
Patient 11 unable to be evaluated because died of intratumoral hemorrhage and her duration of treatment was too short to short for evaluation of response
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [8] 5. 10/2004 (Pg. 428)
2 – nonevaluable due to lack of follow-up scans
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [7] 4. 10/2004 (Pg. 427)
3 Special Exception (SE) – nonevaluable
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [21] 15. 11/2010 (Pg. iv72)
7 – couldn’t be evaluated due to an inadequate duration of treatment and lack of follow-up magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [19] 13. 12/2009 (Pg. 951)
12 – not evaluable due to too short a duration of treatment and lack of follow-up MRIs
๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ [2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 97)
4 – died from the tumour
4 – died from aspiration pneumonia
2 – intratumoral bleeding
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [7] 4. 10/2004 (Pg. 427)
One CR patient developed recurrence after premature discontinuation of ANP and obtained a 2nd CR after ANP was restarted
This patient who initially had multiple metastases to the brain and spinal cord died due to aspiration pneumonia and was confirmed by autopsy as disease free
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [9] 17. 2004
1 patient who had stable disease discontinued ANP against medical advice and died 4.5 years later (Pgs. 315 + 320)
(There was no evidence that these were treatment related deaths Pg. 321)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [10] 18. 6/2005
1 patient passed away after 6 years, 10 months from the start of the treatment (3 years after discontinuation of ANP)
The cause of death was recurrent pneumonia, possibly due (Pg. 170)
to chronic immunosuppression from chemotherapy administered prior to ANP (patient 1) (Pg. 172)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [12] 19. 3/2006 (Pg. 45)
The deaths of 12 patients were most likely tumor related
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [12] 19. 3/2006 (Pg. 45)
There was a single death due to a pulmonary embolism
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [12] 19. 3/2006 (Pg. 45)
2 cases of death possibly resulting from aspiration pneumonia
๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ [2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 97) The 2 surviving patients weren’t previously treated with chemotherapy and radiation therapy and didn’t develop pneumonia or intratumoral bleeding
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [10] 18. 6/2005 (Pg. 169) 6 hadn’t received prior chemotherapy or radiation
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [10] 18. 6/2005 (Pg. 175) 6 long-term
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [12] 19. 3/2006 (Pgs. 40-41) 6 – didn’t have radiation therapy or chemotherapy
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [16] 10/2008 (Pg. 821) No patients received radiation or chemotherapy before starting ANP, but 6 patients underwent surgery and 14 had biopsy only
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [18] 12/2009 (Pg. 923)
The tumor was inoperable
๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ [2] 16. 2003
Patient 3 (Pg. 95)
Patient 8 (Pg. 95)
Case 10 (Pgs. 96-97)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [3] 1. 3/2004
Case Study, Patient 1 (Pgs. 50-51)
Case Study, Patient 2 (Pgs. 51-52)
Case Study, Patient 3 (Pgs. 53-54)
Case Study, Patient 4 (Pg. 54)
Case Study, Patient 5 (Pg. 55)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [9] 17. 2004
Case 8 (Pgs. 321-322)
Case 10 (Pgs. 321 + 323)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [10] 18. 6/2005 (Pgs. 172-173)
Patient 4
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [10] 18. 6/2005 (Pgs. 173-174)
Patient 11
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [12] 19. 3/2006 (Pgs. 45-46)
Case Report Patient 12
๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ [2] 16. 2003 (Pg. 94)
Trial design – Fleming
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ [9] 17. 2004 (Pg. 317)
Trial design – Fleming
๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ
====================================== Gorski has claimed:
====================================== 6/7/2013 โUnlike Mr. Merola, I am indeed very concerned with getting my facts correctโ
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/07/i-want-my-anp/
====================================== 6/5/2013 โ โฆ I do know cancer scienceโ
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/05/odds-and-ends-about-burzynski-clinic/
====================================== 11/2/2012 โPersonally, having pored over Burzynskiโs publications โฆ โ
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/11/02/stanislaw-burzynski-fails-to-save-another-patient/
====================================== 5/8/2013 โIโve searched Burzynskiโs publications โฆ โ
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/05/08/eric-merola-and-stanislaw-burzynskis-secret-weapon-against-the-skeptics-fabio-lanzoni-part-2/
======================================
โAnthonyJeselnikโ ๐ซGorskonOrac๐ซ
You tweeted 12:44pm-3/30/13๐
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 12:44pm – 30 Mar 13:
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ Defend your tweet๐
#Burzynskiโ
(@FauxSkeptic) May 23, 2013
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ David Gorski (@gorskon)
5/23/13, 9:32 AM
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
@FauxSkeptic No need to defend my Tweet. The defense is in the link. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/stanislaw-burzynski-bad-medicine-a-bad-movie
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ NO, Dr. Gorski, you have NOT “deconstructed his “evidence” in depth before” Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business (Part I) consists of the documentary; as well as the documents on the movie web-site, which you have NOT “deconstructed … in depth before”
(What Gorski did is termed: “cherry-picking”)
Maybe #ScienceBasedMedicine needs to change this
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ “Our only goal is to promote high standards of science in medicine”
======================================
๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ References:
๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/scientific-publications.html
๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ [1] 1. 10/2003 (Pg. 358)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
Phase II study of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in children with recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma
A preliminary report
Neuro-Oncology. 2003; 5: 358
Volume 5 Issue 4 October 2003
====================================== [2] 16. 2003 (Pgs. 91-101)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials
BT-11 – BRAIN STEM GLIOMA
Special exception (SE) to BT-11
DRUGS IN R&D
Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma:
a preliminary report
recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma
Drugs in R and D
(Drugs in Research and Development) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12718563
Drugs In R and D / Drugs in Research and Development: 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
====================================== [3] 1. 3/2004 (Pgs. 47-58)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Review Articles on Clinical Trials:
INTEGRATIVE CANCER THERAPIES
The Present State of Antineoplaston Research
Integrative Cancer Therapies 2004;3:47-58
Volume 3, No. 1, March 2004
DOI: 10.1177/1534735-403261964
====================================== [4] 4. 9/2004 (Pgs. 257-261)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Case Reports:
INTEGRATIVE CANCER THERAPIES
Special exception (SE) to BT-11 BRAIN STEM GLIOMA
Long-term survival and complete response of a patient with recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioblastoma multiforme
Integrative Cancer Therapies 2004;3:257-261
Volume 3, Number 3 September 2004
====================================== [5] 2. 10/2004 (Pg. 384)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
BT-20 Patients With GLIOBLASTOMA MULTIFORME (GBM)
Phase II study of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in recurrent glioblastoma multiforme
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
====================================== [6] 3. 10/2004 (Pg. 386)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
(DBSG) (Study (ST) and Special Exception (SE))
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
Long-term survivals in phase II studies of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in patients with diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma
Neuro-Oncology. 2004; 6: 386
Volume 6 Issue 4 October 2004
====================================== [7] 4. 10/2004 (Pg. 427)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
(AT/RT of CNS) (Study (ST) and Special Exception (SE))
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
BT-14 CHILDREN WITH RHABDOID TUMOR OF THE CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM
Phase II studies of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in children with atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumors (AT/RT) of the central nervous system
A preliminary report
Neuro-Oncology. 2004; 6: 427
Volume 6 Issue 4 October 2004
Abstracts from the Eleventh International Symposium on Pediatric Neuro-Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts, June 13-16, 2004
====================================== [8] 5. 10/2004 (Pg. 428)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
BT-12 CHILDREN WITH PRIMITIVE NEUROECTODERMAL TUMORS (PNET)
Treatment of primitive neuroectodermal tumors (PNET) with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP)
Preliminary results of phase II studies
Neuro-Oncology. 2004; 6: 428
Volume 6 Issue 4 October 2004
Abstracts from the Eleventh International Symposium on Pediatric Neuro-Oncology
====================================== [9] 17. 2004 (Pgs. 315-326)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
DRUGS IN R&D
Drugs in R and D
(Drugs in Research and Development)
Pg. 317
BT-13 – children with low-grade astrocytoma
BT-23 – children with visual pathway gliomas
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
====================================== [10] 18. 6/2005 (Pgs. 168-177)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
INTEGRATIVE CANCER THERAPIES
BT-12 children with PRIMITIVE NEUROECTODERMAL TUMORS (PNET)
CAN-01 (CAN-1) PATIENTS WITH REFRACTORY MALIGNANCIES
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/pubmed/15911929
Integrative Cancer Therapies 2005;4(2):168-177 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15911929
Integr Cancer Ther. 2005 Jun;4(2):168-77
DOI: 10.1177/1534735405276835 http://m.ict.sagepub.com/content/4/2/168.long?view=long&pmid=15911929
Volume 4 Number 2 June 2005
====================================== [11] 7. 7/2005 (Pg. 300)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
BT-11 BRAIN STEM GLIOMA
Targeted therapy with ANP in children less than 4 years old with inoperable brain stem gliomas. Neuro-Oncology. 2005; 7:300
Volume 7 Issue 3 July 2005
Abstracts from the World Federation of Neuro-Oncology Meeting
====================================== [12] 19. 3/2006 (Pgs. 40-47)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
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
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
====================================== [14] 8. 10/2006 (Pg. 466)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
BT-11 BRAIN STEM GLIOMA
Treatment of multicentric brainstem gliomas with antineoplastons (ANP) A10 and AS2-1. Neuro-Oncology. 2006; 8:466
Volume 8 Issue 4 October 2006
Abstracts for the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO)
====================================== [15] 10. 6/2008 (Pg. 450)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
Interim Reports on Clinical Trials:
(OPG)
BT-23 – CHILDREN WITH VISUAL PATHWAY GLIOMA
Phase II study of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in children with optic pathway glioma:
A preliminary report
Neuro-Oncology 2008; 10:450
Volume 10 Issue 3 June 2008
====================================== [16] 10/2008 (Pg. 821)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
Phase II study of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in patients with newly diagnosed anaplastic astrocytoma:
A preliminary report
Neuro-Oncology 2008; 10:821
Volume 10 Issue 5 October 2008
====================================== [17] 12/2008 (Pg. 1067)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
Phase II study of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 infusions (ANP) in patients with recurrent anaplastic astrocytoma
Neuro-Oncology 2008; 10:1067
Volume 10 Issue 6 December 2008
====================================== [18] 12/2009 (Pg. 923)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Case Reports:
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
Over a 10-year survival and complete response of a patient with diffuse intrinsic brainstem glioma (DBSG) treated with antineoplastons (ANP)
Neuro-Oncology 2009; 11:923
Volume 11 Issue 6 December 2009
====================================== [19] 13. 12/2009 (Pg. 951)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
BT-11 BRAIN STEM GLIOMA
(Study (ST) and Special Exception (SE))
Phase II study of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 in patients with brainstem glioma
Protocol BC-BT-11
Neuro-Oncology 2009, 11:951.
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
====================================== [20] 14. 6/2010 (Pg. ii95)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Interim Reports on Clinical Trials:
BT-13 – CHILDREN WITH LOW GRADE ASTROCYTOMA
A Phase II Study of Antineoplaston A-10 and AS-1 Injections in children with low-grade astrocytomas
Neuro-Oncology 2010; 12, ii95.
Volume 12 Issue 6 June 2010
Antineoplaston A10 (Atengenal)
Antineoplaston AS2-1 (Astugenal)
====================================== [21] 15. 11/2010 (Pg. iv72)
โโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโโ
Interim Reports on Clinical Trials:
BT-18 – ADULT PATIENTS WITH MIXED GLIOMA
Preliminary Results of a Phase II Study of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in Adult Patients with Recurrent Mixed Gliomas
Neuro-Oncology 2010; 12:iv72.
Volume 12 Supplement 4 November 2010
======================================