Dr. Peter A. Lipson (and / or his Censor(s)) is a Coward: Critiquing “A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics”

Didymus Judas Thomas, Contributor

Musings on the intersection of Articles, Bias, and Censorship

(The BIG 3: A.B.C.)

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM

Peter A. Lipson, M.D.’s Article:

“A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics”

was posted:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics

http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW

onforb.es/11pwse9
Dr. Lipson has a web-site which advises that he:

“is an internist and medical blogger”
peteralipson.net

Dr. Lipson states in relation to Dr. Stanislaw R. Burzynski:

“His clinic claims to have a unique approach to cancer involving an experimental (and expensive) treatment he calls “anti-neoplastons”.”

Or, “antineoplastons”

Dr. Lipson does not state the relevance of his “(and expensive)” comment, as compared to any other cancer treatment

Nor does he indicate as he did re the other doctor, whether

” people come from all over the world to visit him and his colleagues”

in relation to Dr. Burzynski

Perhaps he was pressed to publish his article before he had time to completely research the subject-matter

Dr. Lipson contines:

“The basis for these claims is controversial to say the least and I’ll leave it to others to go into detail.”

The link that Dr. Lipson provides links to this source:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?s=burzynski
Unfortunately, for whatever reason, Dr. Lipson does not disclose in his article that he also publishes on this site:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/editorial-staff/peter-a-lipson-md

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/author/palmd
And that it is the site of Dr. David H. Gorski, who disclosed on social media that “Peter” was his “bud”

Dr. Lipson states:

“The Burzynski Clinic seems to be quite different”

“For one thing, it’s marketing seems to rely more on patient anecdotes than actual data”

I guess it’s possible that during his

” exploration of the public face of the Burzynski Clinic”
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com

http://www.cancermed.com
the good doctor was unable to find the “Scientific Publications:”
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/scientific-publications.html
Burzynski updates Scientific Publications page | Didymus Judas Thomas’ Hipocritical Oath Blog
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/burzynski-updates-scientific-publications-page
Dr. Lipson comments about:

[A] well-known “vlogger” who goes by the handle “C0nc0rdance”

and his

“posting a video critical of Burzynski”

and C0nc0rdance’s paranoid statement:

“He used the legal thuggery tactic of submitting a false DMCA in order to force me to give him my home address so that I can be the subject of legal harassment and intimidation by his lawyers and media thugs”

“And later:”

“I’ve been in touch with Eric Merola by email, and he’s agreed to retract his copyright claim if I can get his email removed from all the mirrors”

Dr. Lipson does not opine about the manufactured “hysteria” activities by the Burzynski “Critics,” that occurred on Twitter, YouTube, and other social media sites, which entailed this “fact-challenged” video being “mirrored” (duplicated), a ridiculous amount of times

My review of C0nc0rdance | Didymus Judas Thomas’ Hipocritical Oath Blog
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/23/my-review-of-c0nc0rdance

Dr. Lipson goes on to state:

“As a public figure issuing threats to another public figure, I don’t see how he should be entitled to hide his email, but I am not a lawyer.”

This is an exceptional point; and by that I mean Dr. Lipson pointing out that he is “not a lawyer,” since lawyers are usually bound by ethical rules

Dr. Lipson comments that Dr. Burzynski is

“not an oncologist by the usual definitions”

I am not sure what relevance this is since Dr. Burzynski is a biochemist

A fact that Dr. Lipson should have been able to find during his painstakingly, meticulous research

I am not sure if Dr. Lipson has an opinion that oncologists are somehow superior to biochemists, or not

Nor does Dr. Lipson disclose whether or not during his thorough investigation, he found if Dr. Burzynski works with any oncologist(s), or if any oncologist(s) are listed as co-authors on any of his clinical trial publications

Dr. Lipson goes on to state:

“His publications in the field of cancer are few…”

I am not quite sure what Dr. Lipson means by “few,” or why it is that Dr. Lipson was able during his previous research to find;

“By a quick check on PubMed, the (young) doctor I met there has about 60 publications to his name”

but was not able to find Dr. Burzynski’s 36 cancer publications that one can find, by

“a quick check on PubMed”

utilizing the search terms:

Burzynski S Cancer

or the other publications he has by utilizing the search:

Burzynski S

Dr. Lipson contines:

“Burzynski administers his experimental “antineoplaston” therapy under the aegis of clinical trials, but of sixty-one registered trials, he has completed only one and has not published the results of any of them.”

A “quick check on” clinicaltrials . gov using the search:

Burzynski S

displays what Dr. Lipson is referring to

However, Dr. Lipson does not mention:

Burzynski: Not every cancer clinical trial taking place in the United States is listed on our NCI clinical trials database | Didymus Judas Thomas’ Hipocritical Oath Blog
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/burzynski-not-every-cancer-clinical-trial-taking-place-in-the-united-states-is-listed-on-our-nci-clinical-trials-database

Also, if one follows the links on clinicaltrials . gov; which is supposedly sourced from the NCI, which link to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), one finds that the results are different, which leaves one wondering which source is correct

61 TOTAL
1 – Not Yet Recruiting (Open)(Phase 3)
1 – Closed
2 – Terminated (Withdrawn due to slow enrollment)
7 – Withdrawn (This study has been withdrawn prior to enrollment)
10 – Recruiting (Open)
11 – Open (1 Not Yet Recruiting / 10 Recruiting)
40 – Active, not recruiting (Closed)
http://cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/search/results?protocolsearchid=11475951

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

Dr. Lipson posits:

“Rather than a traditional trial setup, his patients pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege of participating in the studies (not the most ethical or effective subject selection strategy).”

Speaking of ethical, Dr. Lipson does not mention if Dr. Burzynski is receiving Federal funding or funding from any large pharmaceutical company

Or, If not, where does he propose Dr. Burzynski receive funding from?

Simply offering that there is a problem without offering a solution seems to be so very “last century”

Dr. Lipson also does not compare the costs of cancer treatments

Burzynski: Costs of Cancer treatments | Didymus Judas Thomas’ Hipocritical Oath Blog
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-costs-of-cancer-treatments

Dr. Lipson proceeds with:

“Burzynski’s treatment statistics (survival rates, etc.) are not made publicly available; all we get are anecdotes, nothing to help us compare his clinic to others.”

Luckily for Dr. Lipson, I provide resources like this:

Burzynski Clinical Trials (The SEC filings) | Didymus Judas Thomas’ Hipocritical Oath Blog
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/11/burzynski-clinical-trials-2
Dr. Lipson continues with:

“My experience with the Cleveland Clinic could not be more different from my exploration of the public face of the Burzynski Clinic.”

and:

“The other is a personality-driven clinic with questionable ethical standards that, despite claims of effective new treatments, declines to publish results that can be used by the rest of the medical community.”

Well, I’m glad I could help

Down at the bottom of the article it has:

“Comments”

“Facebook”
“Twitter”
“Email”

“SHARE:”

I’m not quite sure why an opportunity to comment is provided, since when I commented on the article numerous times, my comments were censored (removed), as I documented here:

A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics | Didymus Judas Thomas’ Hipocritical Oath Blog
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics

Forbes censors Peter Lipson “Speech is best countered by more speech” article comments | Didymus Judas Thomas’ Hipocritical Oath Blog
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/forbes-censors-peter-lipson-speech-is-best-countered-by-more-speech-article-comments

I found this to be quite ironic, considering that the source that this article was posted on, has done a number of articles re censorship, and given that in his article, Dr. Lipson states:

“Speech is best countered by more speech.”

and:

“Attempts by supporters of Burzynski to shut up critics (by whatever reasoning) is antagonistic to the goals of medicine to collect, analyze, and disseminate information.”

The question is, what motive would Dr. Lipson have for writing an article like this, and for comments to be censored?

I consider myself to be a “Critic Critic,” or “Skeptic Critic,” if you will

DJT

Advertisement

Burzynski: Not every cancer clinical trial taking place in the United States is listed on our NCI clinical trials database

Status: Connected

NCI Agent (Responding)

NCI Agent: Please wait.

An agent is connecting.

NCI Agent: Thank you for contacting the National Cancer Institute (NCI).

I am happy to help answer any questions you may have.

Before we get started, if you are using a mobile device, leaving the chat window (to view a link or answer a text message) may disconnect our session without warning.

We can email links to more information, including a transcript of our conversation, at the end of our session.

Please send your email address if you’d like me to do that.

You: Are you able to provide any info about existing clinical trials?

I was researching Burzynski and saw that some of the Clinical Trials . Gov data was not the same as what is on the linked NCI web-site re the trials.
[…]
Thank you very much

NCI Agent: I am happy to help with your question.

It will take me a few minutes to check on the Burzynski trials.

Thank you for your patience.

You: Thank you.

I appreciate it

NCI Agent: Thank you for your patience.

I am seeing only one phase III trial, the one that you mentioned about optic pathway glioma.

There are 11 trials total involving antineoplaston therapy.

Is that what you were interested in?

You: I was aware of those.
[…]
I was sure any search on Burzynski, antineoplastins, A10, or AS2-1 would display them if being done at another facility.

Again, thank you very much.

NCI Agent: You’re welcome.

Not every cancer clinical trial taking place in the United States is listed on our NCI clinical trials database.

The investigators must apply and follow guidelines to be included.

Are there any other questions you have that I can help with?

You: No.

You have been very helpful.

Thank you for your time and have a great week !

Burzynski: What happens when a clinical trial is over?

National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Cancer Clinical Trials, 15. What happens when a clinical trial is over?,” advises:
“The results of clinical trials are OFTEN published in peer-reviewed scientific journals”
” … WHETHER OR NOT the results are published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal … ”
http://m.cancer.gov/topics/factsheets/clinical-trials
This makes it clear that clinical trial results “are OFTEN” published, but sometimes they are “NOT” published “in a peer-reviewed scientific journal”

Burzynski: HYPERNATREMIA

FACT: Is “HYPERNATREMIA” listed on the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) list as a possible “Adverse Effect” of antineoplastons?
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/healthprofessional/page6
I do NOT see it on the list

2/13/2013 – The frequency, cost, and clinical outcomes of HYPERNATREMIA in patients hospitalized to a comprehensive CANCER center
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23404230
Over 3 month period in 2006 re 3,446 patients, most of the HYPERNATREMIA (90 %) was acquired during hospital stay

Division of Internal Medicine, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA

Department of General Internal Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

Division of Endocrinology, Mayo Clinic

Support Care Cancer. 2013 Feb 13. [Epub ahead of print]

Supportive Care in Cancer
February 2013

DOI
10.1007/s00520-013-1734-6
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00520-013-1734-6
HYPERNATREMIA in the U.S.:
“HYPERNATREMIA is the most common electrolyte disorder in the United States”
“In some cases, CANCER may cause the condition …”
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000394.htm
“In order to maintain their doses of ANP, patients are required to drink obscene amounts of water every day (some report up to 12 quarts or more)”

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

Let’s put this in perspective

FACT: Some sources indicate:

1) A man should drink about
3 liters (101.44 ounces / 3 quarts 5.44 ounces) per day

{12 quarts = 384 ounces = 11.356 liters}

[12 quarts in 24 hours = 1/2 quart or 16 ounces per hour]

2) Extremely healthy kidneys could process about 30 ounces (approx .9 liters) of water in an hour

{30 ounces in 24 hours = 720 ounces}

[720 ounces = 22.5 quarts per day]

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

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

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

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

Forbes censors Peter Lipson “Speech is best countered by more speech” article comments

Forbes (#Forbes) removed comments that were posted on the Peter Lipson (@palMD) article where he proclaimed:

“Speech is best countered by more speech”
http://t.co/8PjEPukjpP

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics
PalMD (@palmd) tweeted at 9:12am – 20 Apr 13:

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

— PalMD (@palmd) April 20, 2013

This happened after David H. Gorski

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

revealed on Twitter that Peter Lipson was his “bud” and Guy Chapman

(@SceptiGuy http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
@vGuyUK
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg)

mentioned Gorski on Peter Lipson’s article, and I posted Gorski’s “pal” status with Lipson on the article (see near bottom of this blog, in bold), after which ALL of my comments on the article were removed

Guy Chapman is best known for:
anarchic_teapot (@anarchic_teapot) tweeted at 5:24am – 15 Jun 12:
Cunts are nice things. He’s a malodorous arsehole & profiteering shite RT @SceptiGuy: Is Stanislaw Burzynski a cunt?
http://t.co/8bmXEJ7l

Cunts are nice things. He's a malodorous arsehole & profiteering shite RT @SceptiGuy: Is Stanislaw Burzynski a cunt? http://t.co/8bmXEJ7l

— anarchic_teapot (@anarchic_teapot) June 15, 2012

David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 3:58pm – 20 Apr 13:
http://t.co/ollMCNBukK

Egads. The pro-#Burzynski trolls have descended on my bud Peter's excellent post. Tactical air support, anyone? http://t.co/ollMCNBukK

— David Gorski (@gorskon) April 20, 2013

TheSkeptiCritic (@TheSkeptiCritic) tweeted at 12:14am – 21 Apr 13:
http://t.co/WjjtQvtD1d
“@gorskon: pro-#Burzynski
on my bud Peter’s post
Tactical air support
forbes.com/sites/peterlip…”
#Forbes
“The Skeptics” need “help”!!
I provide—
(@TheSkeptiCritic) April 21, 2013

TheSkeptiCritic (@TheSkeptiCritic) tweeted at 1:47pm – 21 Apr 13:
http://t.co/WjjtQvtD1d
“@IDoubtIt: @gorskon pro #Burzynski
descended
Peter’s post
Tactical air support forbes.com/sites/peterlip…”
•
“The Skeptics”need”HELP”
I provide—
(@TheSkeptiCritic) April 21, 2013

TheSkeptiCritic (@TheSkeptiCritic) tweeted at 2:28am – 22 Apr 13:
“@gorskon: @rjblaskiewicz #Burzynski trolls are in trouble now…”
#Forbes
Now we find out if your”pal”Peter Lipson walks the walk►”Speech”!—
(@TheSkeptiCritic) April 22, 2013

TheSkeptiCritic (@TheSkeptiCritic) tweeted at 11:41am – 20 Apr 13:
→http://t.co/8nuBkviWWF

► https://t.co/XYy7rjlCAi
↓
›Peter Lipson
»A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics – Forbes
→ onforb.es/11pwse9
#Burzynski←
► …anislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/a-f…—
(@TheSkeptiCritic) April 20, 2013

TheSkeptiCritic (@TheSkeptiCritic) tweeted at 11:52am – 20 Apr 13:
http://t.co/WjjtQvtD1d
“@palmd: Didnt take long for the #Burzynski trolls to show up
forbes.com/sites/peterlip…”
•
Didn’t take long for”The Skeptics”to show up
#Forbes—
(@TheSkeptiCritic) April 20, 2013

TheSkeptiCritic (@TheSkeptiCritic) tweeted at 2:34pm – 20 Apr 13:
› http://t.co/WjjtQvtD1d

►https://t.co/XYy7rjlCAi
“@medtek: Congratulations Eric!
› forbes.com/sites/peterlip…”
“The Sheeple”↓Barbara Streisand
» #Forbes «
→#Burzynski←
► …anislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/a-f…—
(@TheSkeptiCritic) April 20, 2013

TheSkeptiCritic (@TheSkeptiCritic) tweeted at 4:50pm – 20 Apr 13:
http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW

https://t.co/XYy7rjlCAi
“@palmd: Didnt take long for
#Burzynski trolls to show up
forbes.com/sites/peterlip…”
#Forbes
Look it’s ►”The Skeptics”!
…anislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/a-f…—
(@TheSkeptiCritic) April 20, 2013

TheSkeptiCritic (@TheSkeptiCritic) tweeted at 3:49pm – 21 Apr 13:
http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW
#Forbes Peter Lipson #Burzynski article proclaims:”Speech is best countered by more speech”
forbes.com/sites/peterlip…
•
@BurzynskiMovie
#EPIC—
(@TheSkeptiCritic) April 21, 2013

TheSkeptiCritic (@TheSkeptiCritic) tweeted at 4:03pm – 21 Apr 13:
http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW

Is #Forbes Peter Lipson #Burzynski article trying to invoke #Burzynski critics “Streisand effect”?
forbes.com/sites/peterlip…
•
@BurzynskiMovie—
(@TheSkeptiCritic) April 21, 2013

TheSkeptiCritic (@TheSkeptiCritic) tweeted at 3:04am – 22 Apr 13:
http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW
Peter Lipson #Burzynski article comment screenpics re”Speech is best countered by more speech”
#Forbes walk the walk?
forbes.com/sites/peterlip…—
(@TheSkeptiCritic) April 22, 2013

TheSkeptiCritic (@TheSkeptiCritic) tweeted at 11:38am – 22 Apr 13:
http://t.co/BaZ3aHXvUh
“@neilthackray: #burzynski
One more crack at asking
open question
http://t.co/BaZ3aHXvUh"
Read #Forbes Peter Lipson article
@BurzynskiMovie—
(@TheSkeptiCritic) April 22, 2013

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM |2,351 views
A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics
Comment Now Following Comments

Thank you for submitting your comment:

Mr. Morgan, I am not sure how you are obtaining your clinical trial data for Burzynski, since a simple review shows that:
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=antineoplaston&Search=Search
differs from what the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has when you follow the links on
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov
which is supposedly sourced from the NCI data:
61 TOTAL
1 – Not Yet Recruiting (Open)(Phase 3)
1 – Closed
2 – Terminated (Withdrawn due to slow enrollment)
7 – Withdrawn (This study has been withdrawn prior to enrollment)
10 – Recruiting (Open)
11 – Open (1 Not Yet Recruiting / 10 Recruiting)
40 – Active, not recruiting (Closed)
http://cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/search/results?protocolsearchid=11475951

http://cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/search/results?protocolsearchid
With the data being different between the 2 sources, how are we supposed to know what is correct?

Please note: Your comment will be reviewed by Forbes staff before appearing on the site.

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

Mr. Chapman, you commented:
“PDJT aka “Astroturfwatch””
You clearly seem to have me confused with someone else
I am NOT “Astroturfwatch”
I am NOT Eric Merola
What I AM is an American who asks the questions which those of you blogging in the UK, and those elsewhere, do NOT seem to want to address
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

Mr. Morgan, I am not sure how you are obtaining your clinical trial data for Burzynski, since a simple review of your link differs from what the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has when you follow the links on Clinical Trials . gov, which is supposedly sourced from the NCI data:
61 TOTAL
1 – Not Yet Recruiting (Open)(Phase 3)
1 – Closed
2 – Terminated (Withdrawn due to slow enrollment)
7 – Withdrawn (This study has been withdrawn prior to enrollment)
10 – Recruiting (Open)
11 – Open (1 Not Yet Recruiting / 10 Recruiting)
40 – Active, not recruiting (Closed)
http://cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/search/results?protocolsearchid=11475951
With the data being different between the 2 sources, how are we supposed to know what is correct?
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

Mr. Ogon, I’m not exactly who you were replying to, but you refer to a “25% cure rate,” and in the below 2 studies, neither one mentions a “25% cure rate” in it:
“You mean PMIDs 12718563 and 16484713? (These, at least, are the ones that Merola cites, which I assume is the sum total of your “fact checking.”)”
You then go on to comment:
“(2) it’s essentially the same group in both”
However, the dosages in the 2 studies are different, so I am not certain how you came to the above conclusion
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

Submit Comment
Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You’ll be notified if your comment is called out.

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM |2,372 views
A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics
Comment Now Following Comments

Comments
Called-Out
EXPAND ALL COMMENTS
– collapse comments

Didymus Thomas 3 hours ago
Mr. Chapman, you commented:
” … the failure to publish any usable results from any single trial is grossly unethical”
“ The FDA’s Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective” advises:
“[T]he emphasis in Phase 2 is on EFFECTIVENESS”
“This phase aims to obtain PRELIMINARY DATA on whether the drug works in people who have a certain disease or condition”
“Phase 3 studies begin if EVIDENCE of EFFECTIVENESS is shown in Phase 2″
“These studies gather more information about safety and EFFECTIVENESS, studying different populations and different dosages and using the drug in combination with other drugs”
I have already previously addressed the issue of publication re comments made by Mr. Ogon, before you made your most recent comment concerning the same subject.
Please see my reply to him.
Once you have done that, please advise how your ” … the failure to publish any usable results from any single trial is grossly unethical,” comment is relevant.
What is the relevance of publishing results of phase 2 clinical trials if it is only “ PRELIMINARY DATA,” and NOT waiting until phase 3 study which would “gather more information about safety and EFFECTIVENESS”?
http://www.fda.gov/drugs/resourcesforyou/consumers/ucm143534.htm
Reply

Didymus Thomas 1 hour ago
Mr. Morgan, here is the other NCI link:
http://cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/search/results?protocolsearchid=11476036
Reply

randy hinton 1 hour ago

Reply

Didymus Thomas 1 hour ago
Mr. Chapman, you commented:
“PDJT aka “Astroturfwatch””
You clearly seem to have me confused with someone else
I am NOT “Astroturfwatch”
I am NOT Eric Merola
What I AM is an American who asks the questions which those of you blogging in the UK, and those elsewhere, do NOT seem to want to address
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 1 hour ago
Mr. Morgan, I am not sure how you are obtaining your clinical trial data for Burzynski, since a simple review of your link differs from what the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has when you follow the links on Clinical Trials . gov, which is supposedly sourced from the NCI data:
61 TOTAL
1 – Not Yet Recruiting (Open)(Phase 3)
1 – Closed
2 – Terminated (Withdrawn due to slow enrollment)
7 – Withdrawn (This study has been withdrawn prior to enrollment)
10 – Recruiting (Open)
11 – Open (1 Not Yet Recruiting / 10 Recruiting)
40 – Active, not recruiting (Closed)
http://cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/search/results?protocolsearchid=11475951
With the data being different between the 2 sources, how are we supposed to know what is correct?
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 10 minutes ago
Mr. Ogon, I’m not exactly who you were replying to, but you refer to a “25% cure rate,” and in the below 2 studies, neither one mentions a “25% cure rate” in it:
“You mean PMIDs 12718563 and 16484713? (These, at least, are the ones that Merola cites, which I assume is the sum total of your “fact checking.”)”
You then go on to comment:
“(2) it’s essentially the same group in both”
However, the dosages in the 2 studies are different, so I am not certain how you came to the above conclusion
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM |2,377 views
A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics
Comment Now Following Comments

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

FW and Mr. Ogon, I contacted the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) earlier this year and was advised:
“Not every cancer clinical trial taking place in the United States is listed on our NCI clinical trials database”
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

Mr. Ogon, why is “HYPERNATREMIA” and “SEIZURES” NOT listed on the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) list of ADVERSE EFFECTS for antineoplastons?
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/healthprofessional/page6
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

Mr. Ogon, you made various comments re clinical trials, impact factors, etc.
Why should anyone care about your comments when the “National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Cancer Clinical Trials, 15. What happens when a clinical trial is over?,” advises:
“The results of clinical trials are OFTEN published in peer-reviewed scientific journals”
” … WHETHER OR NOT the results are published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal … ”
http://m.cancer.gov/topics/factsheets/clinical-trials
This makes it clear that clinical trial results “are OFTEN” published, but sometimes they are “NOT” published “in a peer-reviewed scientific journal”
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

Mr. Ogon, you commented:
“One further has to take into account the fact that Scamley has been known to employ idiosyncratic definitions, such as classifying tumor *growth* as “STABLE DISEASE” for “less than 50% reduction in size but no more than 50% increase in size of the tumor mass, lasting for at least twelve weeks.””
Why should anyone care about your comment re “STABLE DISEASE,” when the FDA has advised:
5/2007 – “Guidance for Industry – Food and Drug Administration”
“Clinical Trial Endpoints for the Approval of Cancer Drugs and Biologics”
“”STABLE DISEASE should not be a component of ORR”
“STABLE DISEASE can reflect the natural history of disease””
(Pg. 10 of 22 = actual pg. 7 of PDF)
“…STABLE DISEASE can be more accurately assessed by TTP or PFS analysis (see below)”
“Also, STABLE DISEASE can be more accurately assessed by TTP or PFS analysis (see below)”
(Pg. 11 of 22 = actual pg. 8 of PDF)
“Time to Progression and Progression-Free Survival”
“TTP – Time to Progression”
“PFS – Progression-Free Survival”
“TTP and PFS have served as primary endpoints for drug approval”
(Pg. 11 of 22 = actual pg. 8 of PDF)

Click to access ucm071590.pdf

And in addition, the below 2005 non-Burzynski study also uses “STABLE DISEASE?”
Role of temozolomide after radiotherapy for newly diagnosed diffuse brainstem glioma in children
Results of a multiinstitutional study (SJHG-98)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15565574
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM |2,386 views
A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics
Comment Now Following Comments

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

Mr. Chapman, where does the Declaration of Helsinki indicate WHEN human clinical trials results MUST be published?
I do NOT see it listed on the National Institutes of Health, Helsinki document:

Click to access helsinki.pdf

Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM |2,396 views
A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics
Comment Now Following Comments

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

Mr. Morgan, is this the Kurume Japanese case study you are referring to?
RANDOMIZED PHASE II STUDY of Hepatic Arterial Infusion with or without ANTINEOPLASTONS as Adjuvant Therapy after Hepatectomy for liver Metastases from Colorectal Cancer

Click to access CCAC_Research_June_19_2009.pdf

Annals of Oncology 2010;21:viii221
Game Over?
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

Mr. Ogon, you commented:
“You are right now having a live “debate” in front of more than 10,000 people … ”
I checked the “views” of this article and it was only 2,420 views
Please advise when the “live “debate” in front of more than 10,000 people,” will occur
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

Mr. Ogon, you commented:
“One further has to take into account the fact that Scamley has been known to employ idiosyncratic definitions, such as classifying tumor *growth* as “STABLE DISEASE” for “less than 50% reduction in size but no more than 50% increase in size of the tumor mass, lasting for at least twelve weeks.””
Why should anyone care about your comment re “STABLE DISEASE,” when the FDA has advised:
5/2007 – “Guidance for Industry – Food and Drug Administration”
“Clinical Trial Endpoints for the Approval of Cancer Drugs and Biologics”
“”STABLE DISEASE should not be a component of ORR”
“STABLE DISEASE can reflect the natural history of disease””
(Pg. 10 of 22 = actual pg. 7 of PDF)
“…STABLE DISEASE can be more accurately assessed by TTP or PFS analysis (see below)”
“Also, STABLE DISEASE can be more accurately assessed by TTP or PFS analysis (see below)”
(Pg. 11 of 22 = actual pg. 8 of PDF)
“Time to Progression and Progression-Free Survival”
“TTP – Time to Progression”
“PFS – Progression-Free Survival”
“TTP and PFS have served as primary endpoints for drug approval”
(Pg. 11 of 22 = actual pg. 8 of PDF)

Click to access ucm071590.pdf

And in addition, the below 2005 non-Burzynski study also uses “STABLE DISEASE?”
Role of temozolomide after radiotherapy for newly diagnosed diffuse brainstem glioma in children
Results of a multiinstitutional study (SJHG-98)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15565574
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 51 minutes ago
Mr. Chapman, where does the Declaration of Helsinki indicate WHEN human clinical trials results MUST be published?
I do NOT see it listed on the National Institutes of Health, Helsinki document:

Click to access helsinki.pdf

Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 30 minutes ago
Mr. Morgan, is this the Kurume Japanese case study you are referring to?
RANDOMIZED PHASE II STUDY of Hepatic Arterial Infusion with or without ANTINEOPLASTONS as Adjuvant Therapy after Hepatectomy for liver Metastases from Colorectal Cancer

Click to access CCAC_Research_June_19_2009.pdf

Annals of Oncology 2010;21:viii221
Game Over?
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 3 minutes ago
Mr. Ogon, you commented:
“You are right now having a live “debate” in front of more than 10,000 people … ”
I checked the “
views” of this article and it was only 2,420 views
Please advise when the “live “debate” in front of more than 10,000 people,” will occur
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Comments
Called-Out
Expand All Comments
– collapse comments

Didymus Thomas 1 hour ago
Mr. Ogon, you commented:
“One further has to take into account the fact that Scamley has been known to employ idiosyncratic definitions, such as classifying tumor *growth* as “STABLE DISEASE” for “less than 50% reduction in size but no more than 50% increase in size of the tumor mass, lasting for at least twelve weeks.””
Why should anyone care about your comment re “STABLE DISEASE,” when the FDA has advised:
5/2007 – “Guidance for Industry – Food and Drug Administration”
“Clinical Trial Endpoints for the Approval of Cancer Drugs and Biologics”
“”STABLE DISEASE should not be a component of ORR”
“STABLE DISEASE can reflect the natural history of disease””
(Pg. 10 of 22 = actual pg. 7 of PDF)
“…STABLE DISEASE can be more accurately assessed by TTP or PFS analysis (see below)”
“Also, STABLE DISEASE can be more accurately assessed by TTP or PFS analysis (see below)”
(Pg. 11 of 22 = actual pg. 8 of PDF)
“Time to Progression and Progression-Free Survival”
“TTP – Time to Progression”
“PFS – Progression-Free Survival”
“TTP and PFS have served as primary endpoints for drug approval”
(Pg. 11 of 22 = actual pg. 8 of PDF)

Click to access ucm071590.pdf

And in addition, the below 2005 non-Burzynski study also uses “STABLE DISEASE?”
Role of temozolomide after radiotherapy for newly diagnosed diffuse brainstem glioma in children
Results of a multiinstitutional study (SJHG-98)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15565574
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Didymus Thomas 1 hour ago
Mr. Chapman, where does the Declaration of Helsinki indicate WHEN human clinical trials results MUST be published?
I do NOT see it listed on the National Institutes of Health, Helsinki document:

Click to access helsinki.pdf

Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Didymus Thomas 45 minutes ago
Mr. Morgan, is this the Kurume Japanese case study you are referring to?
RANDOMIZED PHASE II STUDY of Hepatic Arterial Infusion with or without ANTINEOPLASTONS as Adjuvant Therapy after Hepatectomy for liver Metastases from Colorectal Cancer

Click to access CCAC_Research_June_19_2009.pdf

Annals of Oncology 2010;21:viii221
Game Over?
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Didymus Thomas 18 minutes ago
Mr. Ogon, you commented:
“You are right now having a live “debate” in front of more than 10,000 people … ”
I checked the “
views” of this article and it was only 2,420 views
Please advise when the “live “debate” in front of more than 10,000 people,” will occur
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

Mr. Ogon, you made various comments re clinical trials, impact factors, etc.
Why should anyone care about your comments when the “National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Cancer Clinical Trials, 15. What happens when a clinical trial is over?,” advises:
“The results of clinical trials are OFTEN published in peer-reviewed scientific journals”
” … WHETHER OR NOT the results are published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal … ”
This makes it clear that clinical trial results “are OFTEN” published, but sometimes they are “NOT” published “in a peer-reviewed scientific journal”
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Submit Comment
Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You’ll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments
Called-Out
EXPAND ALL COMMENTS
– collapse comments

Didymus Thomas 3 hours ago
Mr. Ogon, you commented:
“One further has to take into account the fact that Scamley has been known to employ idiosyncratic definitions, such as classifying tumor *growth* as “STABLE DISEASE” for “less than 50% reduction in size but no more than 50% increase in size of the tumor mass, lasting for at least twelve weeks.””
Why should anyone care about your comment re “STABLE DISEASE,” when the FDA has advised:
5/2007 – “Guidance for Industry – Food and Drug Administration”
“Clinical Trial Endpoints for the Approval of Cancer Drugs and Biologics”
“”STABLE DISEASE should not be a component of ORR”
“STABLE DISEASE can reflect the natural history of disease””
(Pg. 10 of 22 = actual pg. 7 of PDF)
“…STABLE DISEASE can be more accurately assessed by TTP or PFS analysis (see below)”
“Also, STABLE DISEASE can be more accurately assessed by TTP or PFS analysis (see below)”
(Pg. 11 of 22 = actual pg. 8 of PDF)
“Time to Progression and Progression-Free Survival”
“TTP – Time to Progression”
“PFS – Progression-Free Survival”
“TTP and PFS have served as primary endpoints for drug approval”
(Pg. 11 of 22 = actual pg. 8 of PDF)

Click to access ucm071590.pdf

And in addition, the below 2005 non-Burzynski study also uses “STABLE DISEASE?”
Role of temozolomide after radiotherapy for newly diagnosed diffuse brainstem glioma in children
Results of a multiinstitutional study (SJHG-98)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15565574
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 2 hours ago
Mr. Chapman, where does the Declaration of Helsinki indicate WHEN human clinical trials results MUST be published?
I do NOT see it listed on the National Institutes of Health, Helsinki document:

Click to access helsinki.pdf

Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 2 hours ago
Mr. Morgan, is this the Kurume Japanese case study you are referring to?
RANDOMIZED PHASE II STUDY of Hepatic Arterial Infusion with or without ANTINEOPLASTONS as Adjuvant Therapy after Hepatectomy for liver Metastases from Colorectal Cancer

Click to access CCAC_Research_June_19_2009.pdf

Annals of Oncology 2010;21:viii221
Game Over?
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 1 hour ago
Mr. Ogon, you commented:
“You are right now having a live “debate” in front of more than 10,000 people … ”
I checked the “
views” of this article and it was only 2,420 views
Please advise when the “live “debate” in front of more than 10,000 people,” will occur
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 1 minute ago
Mr. Ogon, you made various comments re clinical trials, impact factors, etc.
Why should anyone care about your comments when the “National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Cancer Clinical Trials, 15. What happens when a clinical trial is over?,” advises:
“The results of clinical trials are OFTEN published in peer-reviewed scientific journals”
” … WHETHER OR NOT the results are published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal … ”
This makes it clear that clinical trial results “
are OFTEN” published, but sometimes they are “NOT” published “in a peer-reviewed scientific journal”
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

Mr. Chapman, you commented:
” … the failure to publish any usable results from any single trial is grossly unethical”
“The FDA’s Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective” advises:
“[T]he emphasis in Phase 2 is on EFFECTIVENESS”
“This phase aims to obtain PRELIMINARY DATA on whether the drug works in people who have a certain disease or condition”
“Phase 3 studies begin if EVIDENCE of EFFECTIVENESS is shown in Phase 2″
“These studies gather more information about safety and EFFECTIVENESS, studying different populations and different dosages and using the drug in combination with other drugs”
I have already previously addressed the issue of publication re comments made by Mr. Ogon, before you made your most recent comment concerning the same subject.
Please see my reply to him.
Once you have done that, please advise how your ” … the failure to publish any usable results from any single trial is grossly unethical,” comment is relevant.
What is the relevance of publishing results of phase 2 clinical trials if it is only “PRELIMINARY DATA,” and NOT waiting until phase 3 study which would “gather more information about safety and EFFECTIVENESS”?

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

Mr. Ogon, you commented:
“One further has to take into account the fact that Scamley has been known to employ idiosyncratic definitions, such as classifying tumor *growth* as “STABLE DISEASE” for “less than 50% reduction in size but no more than 50% increase in size of the tumor mass, lasting for at least twelve weeks.””
Why should anyone care about your comment re “STABLE DISEASE,” when the FDA has advised:
5/2007 – “Guidance for Industry – Food and Drug Administration”
“Clinical Trial Endpoints for the Approval of Cancer Drugs and Biologics”
“”STABLE DISEASE should not be a component of ORR”
“STABLE DISEASE can reflect the natural history of disease””
(Pg. 10 of 22 = actual pg. 7 of PDF)
“…STABLE DISEASE can be more accurately assessed by TTP or PFS analysis (see below)”
“Also, STABLE DISEASE can be more accurately assessed by TTP or PFS analysis (see below)”
(Pg. 11 of 22 = actual pg. 8 of PDF)
“Time to Progression and Progression-Free Survival”
“TTP – Time to Progression”
“PFS – Progression-Free Survival”
“TTP and PFS have served as primary endpoints for drug approval”
(Pg. 11 of 22 = actual pg. 8 of PDF)

Click to access ucm071590.pdf

And in addition, the below 2005 non-Burzynski study also uses “STABLE DISEASE?”
Role of temozolomide after radiotherapy for newly diagnosed diffuse brainstem glioma in children
Results of a multiinstitutional study (SJHG-98)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15565574
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 2 hours ago
Mr. Chapman, where does the Declaration of Helsinki indicate WHEN human clinical trials results MUST be published?
I do NOT see it listed on the National Institutes of Health, Helsinki document:

Click to access helsinki.pdf

Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 2 hours ago
Mr. Morgan, is this the Kurume Japanese case study you are referring to?
RANDOMIZED PHASE II STUDY of Hepatic Arterial Infusion with or without ANTINEOPLASTONS as Adjuvant Therapy after Hepatectomy for liver Metastases from Colorectal Cancer

Click to access CCAC_Research_June_19_2009.pdf

Annals of Oncology 2010;21:viii221
Game Over?
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 1 hour ago
Mr. Ogon, you commented:
“You are right now having a live “debate” in front of more than 10,000 people … ”
I checked the “
views” of this article and it was only 2,420 views
Please advise when the “live “debate” in front of more than 10,000 people,” will occur
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 13 minutes ago
Mr. Ogon, you made various comments re clinical trials, impact factors, etc.
Why should anyone care about your comments when the “National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Cancer Clinical Trials, 15. What happens when a clinical trial is over?,” advises:
“The results of clinical trials are OFTEN published in peer-reviewed scientific journals”
” … WHETHER OR NOT the results are published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal … ”
This makes it clear that clinical trial results “
are OFTEN” published, but sometimes they are “NOT” published “in a peer-reviewed scientific journal”
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 1 minute ago
Mr. Chapman, you commented:
” … the failure to publish any usable results from any single trial is grossly unethical”
“ The FDA’s Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective” advises:
“[T]he emphasis in Phase 2 is on EFFECTIVENESS”
“This phase aims to obtain PRELIMINARY DATA on whether the drug works in people who have a certain disease or condition”
“Phase 3 studies begin if EVIDENCE of EFFECTIVENESS is shown in Phase 2″
“These studies gather more information about safety and EFFECTIVENESS, studying different populations and different dosages and using the drug in combination with other drugs”
I have already previously addressed the issue of publication re comments made by Mr. Ogon, before you made your most recent comment concerning the same subject.
Please see my reply to him.
Once you have done that, please advise how your ” … the failure to publish any usable results from any single trial is grossly unethical,” comment is relevant.
What is the relevance of publishing results of phase 2 clinical trials if it is only “ PRELIMINARY DATA,” and NOT waiting until phase 3 study which would “gather more information about safety and EFFECTIVENESS”?
Reply

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

Mr. Morgan, your clinical trial data for Burzynski differs from what the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has when you follow the links on ClinicalTrials . gov, which is supposedly sourced from the NCI:
61 TOTAL
1 – Not Yet Recruiting (Open)(Phase 3)
1 – Closed
2 – Terminated (Withdrawn due to slow enrollment)
7 – Withdrawn (This study has been withdrawn prior to enrollment)
10 – Recruiting (Open)
11 – Open (1 Not Yet Recruiting / 10 Recruiting)
40 – Active, not recruiting (Closed)
With the data being different between the 2 sources, how are we supposed to know what is correct?

Didymus Thomas 3 hours ago
Mr. Ogon, you commented:
“One further has to take into account the fact that Scamley has been known to employ idiosyncratic definitions, such as classifying tumor *growth* as “STABLE DISEASE” for “less than 50% reduction in size but no more than 50% increase in size of the tumor mass, lasting for at least twelve weeks.””
Why should anyone care about your comment re “STABLE DISEASE,” when the FDA has advised:
5/2007 – “Guidance for Industry – Food and Drug Administration”
“Clinical Trial Endpoints for the Approval of Cancer Drugs and Biologics”
“”STABLE DISEASE should not be a component of ORR”
“STABLE DISEASE can reflect the natural history of disease””
(Pg. 10 of 22 = actual pg. 7 of PDF)
“…STABLE DISEASE can be more accurately assessed by TTP or PFS analysis (see below)”
“Also, STABLE DISEASE can be more accurately assessed by TTP or PFS analysis (see below)”
(Pg. 11 of 22 = actual pg. 8 of PDF)
“Time to Progression and Progression-Free Survival”
“TTP – Time to Progression”
“PFS – Progression-Free Survival”
“TTP and PFS have served as primary endpoints for drug approval”
(Pg. 11 of 22 = actual pg. 8 of PDF)

Click to access ucm071590.pdf

And in addition, the below 2005 non-Burzynski study also uses “STABLE DISEASE?”
Role of temozolomide after radiotherapy for newly diagnosed diffuse brainstem glioma in children
Results of a multiinstitutional study (SJHG-98)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15565574
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 2 hours ago
Mr. Chapman, where does the Declaration of Helsinki indicate WHEN human clinical trials results MUST be published?
I do NOT see it listed on the National Institutes of Health, Helsinki document:

Click to access helsinki.pdf

Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 2 hours ago
Mr. Morgan, is this the Kurume Japanese case study you are referring to?
RANDOMIZED PHASE II STUDY of Hepatic Arterial Infusion with or without ANTINEOPLASTONS as Adjuvant Therapy after Hepatectomy for liver Metastases from Colorectal Cancer

Click to access CCAC_Research_June_19_2009.pdf

Annals of Oncology 2010;21:viii221
Game Over?
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 2 hours ago
Mr. Ogon, you commented:
“You are right now having a live “debate” in front of more than 10,000 people … ”
I checked the “
views” of this article and it was only 2,420 views
Please advise when the “live “debate” in front of more than 10,000 people,” will occur
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 27 minutes ago
Mr. Ogon, you made various comments re clinical trials, impact factors, etc.
Why should anyone care about your comments when the “National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Cancer Clinical Trials, 15. What happens when a clinical trial is over?,” advises:
“The results of clinical trials are OFTEN published in peer-reviewed scientific journals”
” … WHETHER OR NOT the results are published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal … ”
This makes it clear that clinical trial results “
are OFTEN” published, but sometimes they are “NOT” published “in a peer-reviewed scientific journal”
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 15 minutes ago
Mr. Chapman, you commented:
” … the failure to publish any usable results from any single trial is grossly unethical”
“ The FDA’s Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective” advises:
“[T]he emphasis in Phase 2 is on EFFECTIVENESS”
“This phase aims to obtain PRELIMINARY DATA on whether the drug works in people who have a certain disease or condition”
“Phase 3 studies begin if EVIDENCE of EFFECTIVENESS is shown in Phase 2″
“These studies gather more information about safety and EFFECTIVENESS, studying different populations and different dosages and using the drug in combination with other drugs”
I have already previously addressed the issue of publication re comments made by Mr. Ogon, before you made your most recent comment concerning the same subject.
Please see my reply to him.
Once you have done that, please advise how your ” … the failure to publish any usable results from any single trial is grossly unethical,” comment is relevant.
What is the relevance of publishing results of phase 2 clinical trials if it is only “ PRELIMINARY DATA,” and NOT waiting until phase 3 study which would “gather more information about safety and EFFECTIVENESS”?
Reply

Didymus Thomas 2 minutes ago
Mr. Morgan, your clinical trial data for Burzynski differs from what the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has when you follow the links on ClinicalTrials . gov, which is supposedly sourced from the NCI:
61 TOTAL
1 – Not Yet Recruiting (Open)(Phase 3)
1 – Closed
2 – Terminated (Withdrawn due to slow enrollment)
7 – Withdrawn (This study has been withdrawn prior to enrollment)
10 – Recruiting (Open)
11 – Open (1 Not Yet Recruiting / 10 Recruiting)
40 – Active, not recruiting (Closed)
With the data being different between the 2 sources, how are we supposed to know what is correct?
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

Mr. Ogon, I’m not exactly who you were replying to, but you refer to a “25% cure rate,” and in the below 2 studies, neither one mentions a “25% cure rate” in it:
“You mean PMIDs” re Drugs R D. 2003;4(2):91-101 “and ” Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Mar;5(1):40-7? “(These, at least, are the ones that Merola cites, which I assume is the sum total of your “fact checking.”)”
You then go on to comment:
“(2) it’s essentially the same group in both”
However, the dosages in the 2 studies are different, so I am not certain how you came to the above conclusion
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

Didymus Thomas 3 hours ago
Mr. Ogon, you commented:
“One further has to take into account the fact that Scamley has been known to employ idiosyncratic definitions, such as classifying tumor *growth* as “STABLE DISEASE” for “less than 50% reduction in size but no more than 50% increase in size of the tumor mass, lasting for at least twelve weeks.””
Why should anyone care about your comment re “STABLE DISEASE,” when the FDA has advised:
5/2007 – “Guidance for Industry – Food and Drug Administration”
“Clinical Trial Endpoints for the Approval of Cancer Drugs and Biologics”
“”STABLE DISEASE should not be a component of ORR”
“STABLE DISEASE can reflect the natural history of disease””
(Pg. 10 of 22 = actual pg. 7 of PDF)
“…STABLE DISEASE can be more accurately assessed by TTP or PFS analysis (see below)”
“Also, STABLE DISEASE can be more accurately assessed by TTP or PFS analysis (see below)”
(Pg. 11 of 22 = actual pg. 8 of PDF)
“Time to Progression and Progression-Free Survival”
“TTP – Time to Progression”
“PFS – Progression-Free Survival”
“TTP and PFS have served as primary endpoints for drug approval”
(Pg. 11 of 22 = actual pg. 8 of PDF)

Click to access ucm071590.pdf

And in addition, the below 2005 non-Burzynski study also uses “STABLE DISEASE?”
Role of temozolomide after radiotherapy for newly diagnosed diffuse brainstem glioma in children
Results of a multiinstitutional study (SJHG-98)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15565574
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Didymus Thomas 3 hours ago
Mr. Chapman, where does the Declaration of Helsinki indicate WHEN human clinical trials results MUST be published?
I do NOT see it listed on the National Institutes of Health, Helsinki document:

Click to access helsinki.pdf

Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Didymus Thomas 2 hours ago
Mr. Morgan, is this the Kurume Japanese case study you are referring to?
RANDOMIZED PHASE II STUDY of Hepatic Arterial Infusion with or without ANTINEOPLASTONS as Adjuvant Therapy after Hepatectomy for liver Metastases from Colorectal Cancer

Click to access CCAC_Research_June_19_2009.pdf

Annals of Oncology 2010;21:viii221
Game Over?
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Didymus Thomas 2 hours ago
Mr. Ogon, you commented:
“You are right now having a live “debate” in front of more than 10,000 people … ”
I checked the “
views” of this article and it was only 2,420 views
Please advise when the “live “debate” in front of more than 10,000 people,” will occur
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Didymus Thomas 44 minutes ago
Mr. Ogon, you made various comments re clinical trials, impact factors, etc.
Why should anyone care about your comments when the “National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Cancer Clinical Trials, 15. What happens when a clinical trial is over?,” advises:
“The results of clinical trials are OFTEN published in peer-reviewed scientific journals”
” … WHETHER OR NOT the results are published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal … ”
This makes it clear that clinical trial results “
are OFTEN” published, but sometimes they are “NOT” published “in a peer-reviewed scientific journal”
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Didymus Thomas 33 minutes ago
Mr. Chapman, you commented:
” … the failure to publish any usable results from any single trial is grossly unethical”
“ The FDA’s Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective” advises:
“[T]he emphasis in Phase 2 is on EFFECTIVENESS”
“This phase aims to obtain PRELIMINARY DATA on whether the drug works in people who have a certain disease or condition”
“Phase 3 studies begin if EVIDENCE of EFFECTIVENESS is shown in Phase 2″
“These studies gather more information about safety and EFFECTIVENESS, studying different populations and different dosages and using the drug in combination with other drugs”
I have already previously addressed the issue of publication re comments made by Mr. Ogon, before you made your most recent comment concerning the same subject.
Please see my reply to him.
Once you have done that, please advise how your ” … the failure to publish any usable results from any single trial is grossly unethical,” comment is relevant.
What is the relevance of publishing results of phase 2 clinical trials if it is only “ PRELIMINARY DATA,” and NOT waiting until phase 3 study which would “gather more information about safety and EFFECTIVENESS”?

Didymus Thomas 19 minutes ago
Mr. Morgan, your clinical trial data for Burzynski differs from what the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has when you follow the links on ClinicalTrials . gov, which is supposedly sourced from the NCI:
61 TOTAL
1 – Not Yet Recruiting (Open)(Phase 3)
1 – Closed
2 – Terminated (Withdrawn due to slow enrollment)
7 – Withdrawn (This study has been withdrawn prior to enrollment)
10 – Recruiting (Open)
11 – Open (1 Not Yet Recruiting / 10 Recruiting)
40 – Active, not recruiting (Closed)
With the data being different between the 2 sources, how are we supposed to know what is correct?
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Didymus Thomas 3 minutes ago
Mr. Ogon, I’m not exactly who you were replying to, but you refer to a “25% cure rate,” and in the below 2 studies, neither one mentions a “25% cure rate” in it:
“You mean PMIDs” re Drugs R D. 2003;4(2):91-101 “and ” Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Mar;5(1):40-7? “ (These, at least, are the ones that Merola cites, which I assume is the sum total of your “fact checking.”)”
You then go on to comment:
“(2) it’s essentially the same group in both”
However, the dosages in the 2 studies are different, so I am not certain how you came to the above conclusion
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Mr. Ogon, why is “HYPERNATREMIA” and “SEIZURES” NOT listed on the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) list of ADVERSE EFFECTS for antineoplastons?
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

Mr. Ogon, why is “HYPERNATREMIA” and “SEIZURES” NOT listed on the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) list of ADVERSE EFFECTS for antineoplastons?
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

Didymus Thomas 4 hours ago
Mr. Ogon, you commented:
“One further has to take into account the fact that Scamley has been known to employ idiosyncratic definitions, such as classifying tumor *growth* as “STABLE DISEASE” for “less than 50% reduction in size but no more than 50% increase in size of the tumor mass, lasting for at least twelve weeks.””
Why should anyone care about your comment re “STABLE DISEASE,” when the FDA has advised:
5/2007 – “Guidance for Industry – Food and Drug Administration”
“Clinical Trial Endpoints for the Approval of Cancer Drugs and Biologics”
“”STABLE DISEASE should not be a component of ORR”
“STABLE DISEASE can reflect the natural history of disease””
(Pg. 10 of 22 = actual pg. 7 of PDF)
“…STABLE DISEASE can be more accurately assessed by TTP or PFS analysis (see below)”
“Also, STABLE DISEASE can be more accurately assessed by TTP or PFS analysis (see below)”
(Pg. 11 of 22 = actual pg. 8 of PDF)
“Time to Progression and Progression-Free Survival”
“TTP – Time to Progression”
“PFS – Progression-Free Survival”
“TTP and PFS have served as primary endpoints for drug approval”
(Pg. 11 of 22 = actual pg. 8 of PDF)

Click to access ucm071590.pdf

And in addition, the below 2005 non-Burzynski study also uses “STABLE DISEASE?”
Role of temozolomide after radiotherapy for newly diagnosed diffuse brainstem glioma in children
Results of a multiinstitutional study (SJHG-98)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15565574
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 3 hours ago
Mr. Chapman, where does the Declaration of Helsinki indicate WHEN human clinical trials results MUST be published?
I do NOT see it listed on the National Institutes of Health, Helsinki document:

Click to access helsinki.pdf

Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 3 hours ago
Mr. Morgan, is this the Kurume Japanese case study you are referring to?
RANDOMIZED PHASE II STUDY of Hepatic Arterial Infusion with or without ANTINEOPLASTONS as Adjuvant Therapy after Hepatectomy for liver Metastases from Colorectal Cancer

Click to access CCAC_Research_June_19_2009.pdf

Annals of Oncology 2010;21:viii221
Game Over?
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 2 hours ago
Mr. Ogon, you commented:
“You are right now having a live “debate” in front of more than 10,000 people … ”
I checked the “
views” of this article and it was only 2,420 views
Please advise when the “live “debate” in front of more than 10,000 people,” will occur
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 1 hour ago
Mr. Ogon, you made various comments re clinical trials, impact factors, etc.
Why should anyone care about your comments when the “National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Cancer Clinical Trials, 15. What happens when a clinical trial is over?,” advises:
“The results of clinical trials are OFTEN published in peer-reviewed scientific journals”
” … WHETHER OR NOT the results are published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal … ”
This makes it clear that clinical trial results “
are OFTEN” published, but sometimes they are “NOT” published “in a peer-reviewed scientific journal”
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 1 hour ago
Mr. Chapman, you commented:
” … the failure to publish any usable results from any single trial is grossly unethical”
“ The FDA’s Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective” advises:
“[T]he emphasis in Phase 2 is on EFFECTIVENESS”
“This phase aims to obtain PRELIMINARY DATA on whether the drug works in people who have a certain disease or condition”
“Phase 3 studies begin if EVIDENCE of EFFECTIVENESS is shown in Phase 2″
“These studies gather more information about safety and EFFECTIVENESS, studying different populations and different dosages and using the drug in combination with other drugs”
I have already previously addressed the issue of publication re comments made by Mr. Ogon, before you made your most recent comment concerning the same subject.
Please see my reply to him.
Once you have done that, please advise how your ” … the failure to publish any usable results from any single trial is grossly unethical,” comment is relevant.
What is the relevance of publishing results of phase 2 clinical trials if it is only “ PRELIMINARY DATA,” and NOT waiting until phase 3 study which would “gather more information about safety and EFFECTIVENESS”?
Reply

Didymus Thomas 49 minutes ago
Mr. Morgan, your clinical trial data for Burzynski differs from what the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has when you follow the links on ClinicalTrials . gov, which is supposedly sourced from the NCI:
61 TOTAL
1 – Not Yet Recruiting (Open)(Phase 3)
1 – Closed
2 – Terminated (Withdrawn due to slow enrollment)
7 – Withdrawn (This study has been withdrawn prior to enrollment)
10 – Recruiting (Open)
11 – Open (1 Not Yet Recruiting / 10 Recruiting)
40 – Active, not recruiting (Closed)
With the data being different between the 2 sources, how are we supposed to know what is correct?
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 33 minutes ago
Mr. Ogon, I’m not exactly who you were replying to, but you refer to a “25% cure rate,” and in the below 2 studies, neither one mentions a “25% cure rate” in it:
“You mean PMIDs” re Drugs R D. 2003;4(2):91-101 “and ” Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Mar;5(1):40-7? “ (These, at least, are the ones that Merola cites, which I assume is the sum total of your “fact checking.”)”
You then go on to comment:
“(2) it’s essentially the same group in both”
However, the dosages in the 2 studies are different, so I am not certain how you came to the above conclusion
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 3 minutes ago
Mr. Ogon, why is “HYPERNATREMIA” and “SEIZURES” NOT listed on the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) list of ADVERSE EFFECTS for
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

FW, you commented re Burzynski’s Phase 3 clinical trial:
“Unfortunately it backfired, because he seems quite happy to never start this trial, instead using it as a marketing tool, in the same way as he is happy to use individual patients”
Burzynski’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended 5/31/2010 states:
1/13/2009 Company announced Company had reached an agreement with FDA for Company to move forward with pivotal Phase III clinical trial of combination Antineoplaston therapy plus radiation therapy in patients with newly diagnosed, diffuse, intrinsic brainstem gliomas (DBSG)
Agreement was made under FDA’s Special Protocol Assessment procedure, meaning design and planned analysis of Phase III study is acceptable to support regulatory submission seeking new drug approval
2/1/2010 Company entered into agreement with Cycle Solutions, Inc., dba ResearchPoint to initiate and manage pivotal Phase III clinical trial of combination Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 plus radiation therapy (RT) in patients with newly-diagnosed, diffuse, intrinsic brainstem glioma
ResearchPoint is currently conducting feasibility assessment
ResearchPoint has secured interest and commitment from number of sites selected
Upon completion of assessment, randomized, international phase III study will commence
Study’s objective is to compare overall survival of children with newly-diagnosed DBSG who receive combination Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 plus RT versus RT alone
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

Didymus Thomas 4 hours ago
Mr. Ogon, you commented:
“One further has to take into account the fact that Scamley has been known to employ idiosyncratic definitions, such as classifying tumor *growth* as “STABLE DISEASE” for “less than 50% reduction in size but no more than 50% increase in size of the tumor mass, lasting for at least twelve weeks.””
Why should anyone care about your comment re “STABLE DISEASE,” when the FDA has advised:
5/2007 – “Guidance for Industry – Food and Drug Administration”
“Clinical Trial Endpoints for the Approval of Cancer Drugs and Biologics”
“”STABLE DISEASE should not be a component of ORR”
“STABLE DISEASE can reflect the natural history of disease””
(Pg. 10 of 22 = actual pg. 7 of PDF)
“…STABLE DISEASE can be more accurately assessed by TTP or PFS analysis (see below)”
“Also, STABLE DISEASE can be more accurately assessed by TTP or PFS analysis (see below)”
(Pg. 11 of 22 = actual pg. 8 of PDF)
“Time to Progression and Progression-Free Survival”
“TTP – Time to Progression”
“PFS – Progression-Free Survival”
“TTP and PFS have served as primary endpoints for drug approval”
(Pg. 11 of 22 = actual pg. 8 of PDF)

Click to access ucm071590.pdf

And in addition, the below 2005 non-Burzynski study also uses “STABLE DISEASE?”
Role of temozolomide after radiotherapy for newly diagnosed diffuse brainstem glioma in children
Results of a multiinstitutional study (SJHG-98)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15565574
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 4 hours ago
Mr. Chapman, where does the Declaration of Helsinki indicate WHEN human clinical trials results MUST be published?
I do NOT see it listed on the National Institutes of Health, Helsinki document:

Click to access helsinki.pdf

Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 4 hours ago
Mr. Morgan, is this the Kurume Japanese case study you are referring to?
RANDOMIZED PHASE II STUDY of Hepatic Arterial Infusion with or without ANTINEOPLASTONS as Adjuvant Therapy after Hepatectomy for liver Metastases from Colorectal Cancer

Click to access CCAC_Research_June_19_2009.pdf

Annals of Oncology 2010;21:viii221
Game Over?
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 3 hours ago
Mr. Ogon, you commented:
“You are right now having a live “debate” in front of more than 10,000 people … ”
I checked the “
views” of this article and it was only 2,420 views
Please advise when the “live “debate” in front of more than 10,000 people,” will occur
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 1 hour ago
Mr. Ogon, you made various comments re clinical trials, impact factors, etc.
Why should anyone care about your comments when the “National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Cancer Clinical Trials, 15. What happens when a clinical trial is over?,” advises:
“The results of clinical trials are OFTEN published in peer-reviewed scientific journals”
” … WHETHER OR NOT the results are published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal … ”
This makes it clear that clinical trial results “
are OFTEN” published, but sometimes they are “NOT” published “in a peer-reviewed scientific journal”
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 1 hour ago
Mr. Chapman, you commented:
” … the failure to publish any usable results from any single trial is grossly unethical”
“ The FDA’s Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective” advises:
“[T]he emphasis in Phase 2 is on EFFECTIVENESS”
“This phase aims to obtain PRELIMINARY DATA on whether the drug works in people who have a certain disease or condition”
“Phase 3 studies begin if EVIDENCE of EFFECTIVENESS is shown in Phase 2″
“These studies gather more information about safety and EFFECTIVENESS, studying different populations and different dosages and using the drug in combination with other drugs”
I have already previously addressed the issue of publication re comments made by Mr. Ogon, before you made your most recent comment concerning the same subject.
Please see my reply to him.
Once you have done that, please advise how your ” … the failure to publish any usable results from any single trial is grossly unethical,” comment is relevant.
What is the relevance of publishing results of phase 2 clinical trials if it is only “ PRELIMINARY DATA,” and NOT waiting until phase 3 study which would “gather more information about safety and EFFECTIVENESS”?
Reply

Didymus Thomas 1 hour ago
Mr. Morgan, your clinical trial data for Burzynski differs from what the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has when you follow the links on ClinicalTrials . gov, which is supposedly sourced from the NCI:
61 TOTAL
1 – Not Yet Recruiting (Open)(Phase 3)
1 – Closed
2 – Terminated (Withdrawn due to slow enrollment)
7 – Withdrawn (This study has been withdrawn prior to enrollment)
10 – Recruiting (Open)
11 – Open (1 Not Yet Recruiting / 10 Recruiting)
40 – Active, not recruiting (Closed)
With the data being different between the 2 sources, how are we supposed to know what is correct?
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 1 hour ago
Mr. Ogon, I’m not exactly who you were replying to, but you refer to a “25% cure rate,” and in the below 2 studies, neither one mentions a “25% cure rate” in it:
“You mean PMIDs” re Drugs R D. 2003;4(2):91-101 “and ” Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Mar;5(1):40-7? “ (These, at least, are the ones that Merola cites, which I assume is the sum total of your “fact checking.”)”
You then go on to comment:
“(2) it’s essentially the same group in both”
However, the dosages in the 2 studies are different, so I am not certain how you came to the above conclusion
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 43 minutes ago
Mr. Ogon, why is “HYPERNATREMIA” and “SEIZURES” NOT listed on the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) list of ADVERSE EFFECTS for antineoplastons?
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 8 minutes ago
FW, you commented re Burzynski’s Phase 3 clinical trial:
“Unfortunately it backfired, because he seems quite happy to never start this trial, instead using it as a marketing tool, in the same way as he is happy to use individual patients”
Burzynski’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended 5/31/2010 states:
1/13/2009 Company announced Company had reached an agreement with FDA for Company to move forward with pivotal Phase III clinical trial of combination Antineoplaston therapy plus radiation therapy in patients with newly diagnosed, diffuse, intrinsic brainstem gliomas (DBSG)
Agreement was made under FDA’s Special Protocol Assessment procedure, meaning design and planned analysis of Phase III study is acceptable to support regulatory submission seeking new drug approval
2/1/2010 Company entered into agreement with Cycle Solutions, Inc., dba ResearchPoint to initiate and manage pivotal Phase III clinical trial of combination Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 plus radiation therapy (RT) in patients with newly-diagnosed, diffuse, intrinsic brainstem glioma
ResearchPoint is currently conducting feasibility assessment
ResearchPoint has secured interest and commitment from number of sites selected
Upon completion of assessment, randomized, international phase III study will commence
Study’s objective is to compare overall survival of children with newly-diagnosed DBSG who receive combination Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 plus RT versus RT alone
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

Mr. Ogon, you missed these 2 Burzynski 2004 and 2005 phase 2 clinical trial publications:
Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in children with recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma : a preliminary report
Drugs R D. 2004;5(6):315-26
Long-term survival of high-risk pediatric patients with primitive neuroectodermal tumors treated with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1
Integr Cancer Ther. 2005 Jun;4(2):168-77
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

Didymus Thomas 4 minutes ago
Mr. Ogon, you missed these 2 Burzynski 2004 and 2005 phase 2 clinical trial publications:
Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in children with recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma : a preliminary report
Drugs R D. 2004;5(6):315-26
Long-term survival of high-risk pediatric patients with primitive neuroectodermal tumors treated with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1
Integr Cancer Ther. 2005 Jun;4(2):168-77
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

FW, you commented:
The FDA was ordered by a scientifically illiterate judge to allow these trials, they had no choice”
Where is the reference, citation, or link for this remarkable claim?
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Share your comment:

Didymus Thomas 11 minutes ago
Mr. Ogon, you missed these 2 Burzynski 2004 and 2005 phase 2 clinical trial publications:
Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in children with recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma : a preliminary report
Drugs R D. 2004;5(6):315-26
Long-term survival of high-risk pediatric patients with primitive neuroectodermal tumors treated with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1
Integr Cancer Ther. 2005 Jun;4(2):168-77
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 1 minute ago
FW, you commented:
The FDA was ordered by a scientifically illiterate judge to allow these trials, they had no choice”
Where is the reference, citation, or link for this remarkable claim?
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

Mr. Ogon, you commented:
“I take it that by “not harmful” you mean “aside from the possibly life-threatening HYPERNATREMIA …”
Did you know these FACTS re HYPERNATREMIA?
The frequency, cost, and clinical outcomes of HYPERNATREMIA in patients hospitalized to a comprehensive CANCER center
Over 3 month period in 2006 re 3,446 patients, most of the HYPERNATREMIA (90 %) was acquired during hospital stay
Support Care Cancer. 2013 Feb 13
DOI
10.1007/s00520-013-1734-6
HYPERNATREMIA in the U.S.:
“HYPERNATREMIA is the most common electrolyte disorder in the United States”
“In some cases, cancer may cause the condition …”
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000394.htm
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM |2,516 views
A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics
106 comments, 4 called-out
Comment Now

Didymus Thomas 34 minutes ago
Mr. Ogon, you missed these 2 Burzynski 2004 and 2005 phase 2 clinical trial publications:
Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in children with recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma : a preliminary report
Drugs R D. 2004;5(6):315-26
Long-term survival of high-risk pediatric patients with primitive neuroectodermal tumors treated with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1
Integr Cancer Ther. 2005 Jun;4(2):168-77
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 25 minutes ago
FW, you commented:
The FDA was ordered by a scientifically illiterate judge to allow these trials, they had no choice”
Where is the reference, citation, or link for this remarkable claim?
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 2 minutes ago
Mr. Ogon, you commented:
“I take it that by “not harmful” you mean “aside from the possibly life-threatening HYPERNATREMIA …”
Did you know these FACTS re HYPERNATREMIA?
The frequency, cost, and clinical outcomes of HYPERNATREMIA in patients hospitalized to a comprehensive CANCER center
Over 3 month period in 2006 re 3,446 patients, most of the HYPERNATREMIA (90 %) was acquired during hospital stay
Support Care Cancer. 2013 Feb 13
DOI
10.1007/s00520-013-1734-6
HYPERNATREMIA in the U.S.:
“HYPERNATREMIA is the most common electrolyte disorder in the United States”
“In some cases, cancer may cause the condition …”
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000394.htm
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

Please note that the above study took place in 2006 and the results were just published in 2013
That’s around 7 to 8 years from the study end to when it was finally published
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

Didymus Thomas 49 minutes ago
Mr. Ogon, you missed these 2 Burzynski 2004 and 2005 phase 2 clinical trial publications:
Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in children with recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma : a preliminary report
Drugs R D. 2004;5(6):315-26
Long-term survival of high-risk pediatric patients with primitive neuroectodermal tumors treated with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1
Integr Cancer Ther. 2005 Jun;4(2):168-77
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 40 minutes ago
FW, you commented:
The FDA was ordered by a scientifically illiterate judge to allow these trials, they had no choice”
Where is the reference, citation, or link for this remarkable claim?
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 17 minutes ago
Mr. Ogon, you commented:
“I take it that by “not harmful” you mean “aside from the possibly life-threatening HYPERNATREMIA …”
Did you know these FACTS re HYPERNATREMIA?
The frequency, cost, and clinical outcomes of HYPERNATREMIA in patients hospitalized to a comprehensive CANCER center
Over 3 month period in 2006 re 3,446 patients, most of the HYPERNATREMIA (90 %) was acquired during hospital stay
Support Care Cancer. 2013 Feb 13
DOI
10.1007/s00520-013-1734-6
HYPERNATREMIA in the U.S.:
“HYPERNATREMIA is the most common electrolyte disorder in the United States”
“In some cases, cancer may cause the condition …”
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000394.htm
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
Reply

Didymus Thomas 2 minutes ago
Please note that the above study took place in 2006 and the results were just published in 2013
That’s around 7 to 8 years from the study end to when it was finally published
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

TheSkeptiCritic (@TheSkeptiCritic) tweeted at 3:43pm – 22 Apr 13:
http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW
“@SceptiGuy: Relevant to #Burzynski ”
Posts►Peter Lipson #Forbes
17►Guy•How many you have to repost?
14►Me•Numerous!!
forbes.com/sites/peterlip…—
(@TheSkeptiCritic) April 22, 2013

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

Mr. Chapman, isn’t it problem that a number of the entities you list were engaged in this well documented “conspiracy”?

Click to access BurzynskiTriesToExposeNCI.pdf

Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

TheSkeptiCritic (@TheSkeptiCritic) tweeted at 5:57pm – 22 Apr 13:
http://t.co/8PjEPukjpP…

https://twitter.com/TheSkeptiCritic/status/326469754116247552

guychapman 2 hours ago

Reply

Didymus Thomas 2 minutes ago
Mr. Chapman, isn’t it problem that a number of the entities you list were engaged in this well documented “conspiracy”?

Click to access BurzynskiTriesToExposeNCI.pdf

Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech
Reply

Thank you for submitting your comment:

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

Burzynski provided Clinical Trial data in the Form 10-Q Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing For the fiscal year ended February 29, 2012
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

guychapman 3 hours ago

Reply

Didymus Thomas 1 hour ago
Mr. Chapman, isn’t it problem that a number of the entities you list were engaged in this well documented “conspiracy”?

Click to access BurzynskiTriesToExposeNCI.pdf

Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech
Reply

Didymus Thomas 2 minutes ago
Burzynski provided Clinical Trial data in the Form 10-Q Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing For the fiscal year ended February 29, 2012
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech
Reply

Thank you for submitting your comment:

guychapman 7 hours ago

Reply

Didymus Thomas 4 hours ago
Mr. Chapman, isn’t it problem that a number of the entities you list were engaged in this well documented “conspiracy”?

Click to access BurzynskiTriesToExposeNCI.pdf

Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech
Reply

Didymus Thomas 3 hours ago
Burzynski provided Clinical Trial data in the Form 10-Q Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing For the fiscal year ended February 29, 2012
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech
Reply

Didymus Thomas 8 minutes ago
Enter Your CommentMr. Chapman, you employ a favorite tactic of critics like you.
It seems you are more interested in addressing form (CAPITALIZATION) over substance (the real issues).
Maybe you think that your verbosity (17 posts) will somehow lend credibility to your 3 comments re the Declaration of Helsinki; which does NOT state WHEN human clinical trial results MUST be published, and even though you have repeatedly proclaimed that Burzynski has NOT published the FINAL results of any of his phase 2 clinical trials, you have NOT provided any indication as to WHEN any of those trials were completed so that they can be compared to the 2006 study I cited whose results were published in 2013.
You also commented:
“In order to claim that he can cure incurable tumours, he needs to publish high quality clinical trial evidence in peer-reviewed journals,” yet you do NOT provide any citation, reference, or link that overrides the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) information re publication which I have commented on previously.
It is apropo you commented:
“Watergate only involved a handful of people and it was busted almost immediately,” since President Nixon is credited with starting the “War on Cancer,” and when Watergate occurred he was told that there was a cancer on the Presidency” but Watergate occurred in 1972 and Nixon didn’t resign until 2 years later, in 1974.
It is also appropriate that you mention oncologist David Gorski; who disclosed on social media that Peter Lipson is his “pal”
Did you review Burzynski’s 2003-2006 phase 2 clinical trials preliminary reports to see if any of the authors listed on them is an oncologist? No? That’s why your observation that Burzynski (a biochemist) is NOT an oncologist, is irrelevant.
Do you have any proof to back up your remarkable claim:
“Against that we have an anonymous shill who takes every word of the Burzynski clinic and its supporters as Revealed Truth”?
No? That’s because you’re wrong about that just like the other issues I’ve listed above.
Mr. Chapman, you attempts at obfuscation of the issues, does not impress.
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

New comments typically appear within 30 seconds.

Enter Your CommentMr. Chapman, you employ a favorite tactic of critics like you.
It seems you are more interested in addressing form (CAPITALIZATION) over substance (the real issues).
Maybe you think that your verbosity (17 posts) will somehow lend credibility to your 3 comments re the Declaration of Helsinki; which does NOT state WHEN human clinical trial results MUST be published, and even though you have repeatedly proclaimed that Burzynski has NOT published the FINAL results of any of his phase 2 clinical trials, you have NOT provided any indication as to WHEN any of those trials were completed so that they can be compared to the 2006 study I cited whose results were published in 2013.
You also commented:
“In order to claim that he can cure incurable tumours, he needs to publish high quality clinical trial evidence in peer-reviewed journals,” yet you do NOT provide any citation, reference, or link that overrides the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) information re publication which I have commented on previously.
It is apropo you commented:
“Watergate only involved a handful of people and it was busted almost immediately,” since President Nixon is credited with starting the “War on Cancer,” and when Watergate occurred he was told that there was a cancer on the Presidency” but Watergate occurred in 1972 and Nixon didn’t resign until 2 years later, in 1974.
It is also appropriate that you mention oncologist David Gorski; who disclosed on social media that Peter Lipson is his “pal”
Did you review Burzynski’s 2003-2006 phase 2 clinical trials preliminary reports to see if any of the authors listed on them is an oncologist? No? That’s why your observation that Burzynski (a biochemist) is NOT an oncologist, is irrelevant.
Do you have any proof to back up your remarkable claim:
“Against that we have an anonymous shill who takes every word of the Burzynski clinic and its supporters as Revealed Truth”?
No? That’s because you’re wrong about that just like the other issues I’ve listed above.
Mr. Chapman, you attempts at obfuscation of the issues, does not impress.
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”

Share your comment:
facebook
linkedin
twitter

America, Land of the “Free Speech” and Home of the Brave; well, unless your #Forbes?

TheSkeptiCritic (@TheSkeptiCritic) tweeted at 6:29pm – 22 Apr 13:
http://t.co/8PjEPukjpP…
“@drpaulmorgan: @JamesBrewer @charlottechurch There will soon be a @BBCPanorama
#Burzynski
•
Or you can join in here
forbes.com/sites/peterlip…—
(@TheSkeptiCritic) April 22, 2013

TheSkeptiCritic (@TheSkeptiCritic) tweeted at 11:54pm – 22 Apr 13:
http://t.co/8PjEPukjpP
“@robertquickert: I wonder how many scientists consider SEC filings as proof” #Burzynski
•
You miss the point #Forbes
forbes.com/sites/peterlip—
(@TheSkeptiCritic) April 23, 2013

TheSkeptiCritic (@TheSkeptiCritic) tweeted at 12:22am – 23 Apr 13:
#Forbes #Censors Lipson”Speech is best countered by more speech”posts after I post David H. Gorski posts Peter is his “pal”
#Burzynski
#EPIC—
(@TheSkeptiCritic) April 23, 2013

TheSkeptiCritic (@TheSkeptiCritic) tweeted at 12:27am – 23 Apr 13:
https://t.co/DttIrMVCzh
#Forbes #Censors Peter Lipson “Speech is best countered by more speech” #Burzynski
►Streisand Effect
@BurzynskiMovie
twitter.com/TheSkeptiCriti…—
(@TheSkeptiCritic) April 23, 2013
Censorship in America
Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II (Part 2)
Eric Merola
@BurzynskiMovie
#Burzynski
Burzynski Clinic
United States Supreme Court
First Amendment
http://my.billofrightsinstitute.org/page.aspx?pid=472

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

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

rjblaskiewicz:

@BurzynskiSaves @wellnessmw If his supporters are not a cult, I expect that many interesting and civil discussions will be had. Good.

— Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) March 10, 2013

Except YOU do NOT actually believe in

“interesting and civil discussions,”

do you, Bobby ?

rjblaskiewicz:

@PDJudasT Publishing is the first part of peer review. Then the peers review it. He's never been seen. Impact factors matter.

— Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) March 10, 2013

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

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

rjblaskiewicz

Odd how in the film the mention that we got Burzynski a "present" for his b-day, but they don't mention it was a donation of $15K to st jude

— Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) March 11, 2013

rjblaskiewicz:

Liked also how the "present" we delivered to Burzynski on his birthday was not mentioned: $14.5K for children's cancer research. Not a cult.

— Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) March 12, 2013

Do you mean THIS present ?

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

PZ Myers

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

“his snake oil”

“bilk people out of buckets of money”

“Crime does pay”

“This fraud”

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

“The lies”

“his quackery”

Do you mean THIS St. Jude ?
St. Jude:
http://www.stjude.org/stjude/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=403c6f9523e70110VgnVCM1000001e0215acRCRD

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

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

Tax-Exempt
Receives Federal Grants / Funds
http://www.stjude.org/stjude/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=b7e79bb8a0cf5110VgnVCM1000001e0215acRCRD&cpsextcurrchannel=1

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

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

Burzynski does NOT receive Federal Funds

Burzynski does NOT receive Federal Grants

Burzynski is NOT Tax-Exempt

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

rjblaskiewicz:

@Tazatator @DocSimpson @OnAwhimCindy Well, I'm not sure we got the whole story there. Actually his drug, PB, has been known since the '50s.

— Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) March 11, 2013

THIS Phenylbutyrate (PB) ?

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

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

surgery,

radiation therapy, and

chemotherapy

for treatment of individuals with

primary or recurrent malignant glioma

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

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

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

rjblaskiewicz:

@Tazatator B doesn't publish his trials. Here are 60 http://t.co/5SHt9HGbcv None published. Every (paying) volunteer betrayed for 30 years.

— Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) March 11, 2013

THESE trials ?

2003 – 2006 Phase II preliminary reports

2003 – Phase II

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

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

recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma

antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1

6 months median duration of treatment

of all 12 patients

2 years / 33.3% – Survival

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

from the start of treatment

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

Only mild and moderate toxicities were observed, which included

3 cases of skin allergy

2 cases of:
anaemia
fever
hypernatraemuia

single cases of:
agranulocytosis
hypoglycaemia
numbness
tiredness
myalgia
vomiting

2003 – Protocol – recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma
12 – Patients Accrued
10 – Evaluable Patients
2 / 20% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
3 / 30% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
3 / 30% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
2 / 20% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease

2004 – Phase II

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

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

incurable recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma

antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 (ANP)

9 – patients’ median age

6 patients were diagnosed with pilocytic astrocytoma

4 with low-grade astrocytoma
1 with astrocytoma grade 2

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

16 months – The average duration of intravenous ANP therapy

19 months – The average duration of oral ANP

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

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

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

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

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

2005 – Phase II

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

13 children with recurrent disease or high risk

6 (46%) survived more than 5 years

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

2006 – Phase II

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

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

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

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

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

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

17+ years maximum survival for a patient with anaplastic astrocytoma

5+ years for a patient with glioblastoma

39% – Progression-free survival at 6 months

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

18 – evaluable
4 – glioblastomas
14 – anaplastic HBSG

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

Antineoplastons, A10 (A10I) and AS2-1 injections

5 months median duration

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

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

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

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

rjblaskiewicz:

Gorski gets it right. http://t.co/UcHEw0FqhK Also, WHEN DOES HE SLEEP!?!?!

— Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) March 11, 2013

Bobby, oh REALLY ?

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

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

rjblaskiewicz:

♫ I know something you don't know. ♫ #Burzynski Movie MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

— Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) March 12, 2013

No Bobby, you did NOT

rjblaskiewicz:

@MOTU_Management @BaldBryan Burzynski is a quack and vampire of epic proportions. Avoid. Run away. Flee. That is all.

— Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) March 12, 2013

“VAMPIRE” ?

rjblaskiewicz:

At the Q&A at his movie's premiere, Eric Merola claimed that skeptics "hide behind their BS free speech." #NotACult

— Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) March 12, 2013

Bobby, like THIS ?

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

“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting ‘fire’ in a theater and causing a panic.”
United States Supreme Court ruled 3/3/1919
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/stanislaw-rajmund-burzynski-m-d-ph-d-and-freedom-of-speech

rjblaskiewicz:

@Malboury @SceptiGuy I would say, however, my understanding of cults is that members are victims, not dupes or evil. Anyone can be in a cult

— Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) March 13, 2013

Bobby, like THIS ?

David H. Gorski and the Cult of “MISINFORMATION”

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

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

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

Josephine Jones and the Cult of Misinformation

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

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

The Cult of “Misinformation”

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

The cult of “Misinformation” continued

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

rjblaskiewicz:

Antineoplastons were originally distilled from unicorn urine. #TrueFact #Burzynski

— Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) March 13, 2013

Bobby, where’s your

Citation(s),

Reference(s), and / or

Link(s) ?

rjblaskiewicz:

Burzynski Q&A | Dianthus Medical http://t.co/G8SFipjHKr

— Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) March 13, 2013

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

rjblaskiewicz:

Tonight on the Virtual Skeptics, join a shadowy cabal of cancer patient hating skeptics as they crack wise about Burzynski's mama. 8PM EST

— Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) March 13, 2013

Well, Bobby

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

rjblaskiewicz:

@endless_psych @dianthusmed Was it in the PBS broadcast that Merola said that he had to convince Burzynski that he wasn't going to attack?

— Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) March 14, 2013

Bobby, maybe you should have actually watched THIS:

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

rjblaskiewicz:

@gorskon so, he had to convince burzynski that he was a bootlicker. Niiiiice.

— Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) March 14, 2013

Bobby, maybe you should ACTUALLY listen to it

rjblaskiewicz:

Good morning. I wake to see @BurzynskiMovie made actionably libelous statements about @gorskon. *munches popcorn* Great catch, @JimFriedman!

— Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) March 14, 2013

Yeah, riiiiiiiiight, Bobby

rjblaskiewicz:

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

Skeptical Humanities
Learning is Cool

Response to the release of Burzynski 2, Havanna Nights

Posted by Bob

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

The text of my segment follows the episode

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“skeptics are hiding behind their BS free speech.”

(Yep, TRUE)

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

We are wiggly little scumbags who are hateful and slimy

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

We ridicule the desperate and dying

Some of us are paid by big pharma

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fine

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

I fully expect it to happen in the future

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

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

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

No real identifying information

Which, you know, I’m OK with

However, there are some problems here

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

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

2) Someone asked me about a quote,

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

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

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

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

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

And this leads me to another thing that Brian mentioned

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

“skeptical teleconference”

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

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

Um….we publicize our show constantly?

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

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

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

Could you do that more?”

Really, Eric?

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

Bob Blaskiewicz

Yeah, I have a feeling it’s Merola

That’s just me though

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

Do you think I’m two years old?

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

I am interested in ultimately seeing it

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

(As if jref is a “reliable source”)

Or you could screen it in Minneapolis

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

Another thing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No messiah should need such fudging

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

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

References:

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

The Virtual Skeptics episode that appears in the movie:

RJB

rjblaskiewicz:
http://t.co/F79zndTjuZ

Text of my updated response to Captain Butthurt's Burzynski 2: This Time It's Children: http://t.co/F79zndTjuZ

— Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) March 14, 2013

Bob Blaskiewicz retweeted

Another great article about the new Burzynski film, this one from Science-Based Medicine's Dr. David Gorski. http://t.co/3dG65KAz3K

— Randi Foundation (@jref) March 14, 2013

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

Did you post something about “FREE SPEECH” ?

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

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

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

rjblaskiewicz:

New Burzynski project coming up. Why? Because I can. #DontPissOffEnglishMajors

— Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) March 16, 2013

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

rjblaskiewicz:

Test. #burzynski

— Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) March 18, 2013

Bobby, it did NOT help

rjblaskiewicz:

I just watched something that … changes everything. #Burzynski

— Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) March 18, 2013

rjblaskiewicz:

Not really. 🙂

@medtek Not really. 🙂

— Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) March 18, 2013

That’s what I thought, Bobby

rjblaskiewicz:

@PDJudasT @robertquickert Hey, Judas. I have no respect for you as a person. Never address me.

— Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) March 18, 2013

rjblaskiewicz:

@PDJudasT Judas, I have no respect for you as a person. Never address me.

— Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) March 18, 2013

rjblaskiewicz:

@BurzynskiSaves @wellnessmw If his supporters are not a cult, I expect that many interesting and civil discussions will be had. Good.

— Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) March 10, 2013

Bobby, what was that about

“many interesting and civil discussions” ?

Bobby, you can’t always get what you want

But if you try sometime, you just might find

you get what you need

rjblaskiewicz:

@Data_Dreamer He IS big pharma: He uses the same legal loopholes available to drug companies, only HE demonizes competition. Quack.

— Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) March 19, 2013

Bobby, let me guess

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

You do know FDA required ?

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

chemotherapy,

gene targeted therapy,

immunotherapy and

hormonal therapy

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

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

rjblaskiewicz:

Comes with the territory! 🙂

@JimFriedman Comes with the territory! 🙂

— Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) March 24, 2013

Yes it does, Bobby

You’ve just been Insolently pwned