Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski, Stanislaw R. Burzynski, Stanislaw Burzynski, Stan R. Burzynski, Stan Burzynski, S. R. BURZYNSKI, S. Burzynski, Arthur Burzynski, Hippocrates Hypocrite Hypocrites Critic Critics Critical HipoCritical
6/5/2013 – This article was published By Getreading [1]
“A family who sent their terminally ill daughter to the US for experimental treatment said the clinic misled them about her chances of survival“
“The parents of Pride of Reading Child of Courage winner, four-year-old Amelia Saunders who died in January, say they were told she had a 54 per cent chance of survival with the clinical trial in Houston, Texas“
“However mum Chantal Saunders, 36, believes the actual figure was just one per cent“
—————————————————————— Based on what ?
—————————————————————— “A BBC Panorama investigation shown on Monday questioned whether the Burzynski Clinic was “selling hope” to families“
—————————————————————— Aren’t all cancer treatments “selling hope” ?
—————————————————————— “In it, Mrs Saunders said:”
“I think that’s wrong” [54 per cent figure]
“I think that’s a complete lie”
“I think one per cent is a more accurate figure.”
—————————————————————— Based on what ?
——————————————————————
“Dad Richard, 35, says he has only found two patients of Dr Stanislaw Burzynski with the same rare brain tumour as Amelia who survived long-term”
“Mr Saunders, from Lower Earley, said:”
“It didn’t work for Amelia but we absolutely know it works for other people.”
“It’s hard to believe it works for Amelia’s tumour type and that’s what we have found tricky”
“I’ve had all sorts of excuses from them as to why they won’t release data on how many patients they treat and the outcomes”
“I think the figures Panorama were given show there was 700-odd patients they treated and something like 15 per cent survived over five years“
—————————————————————— Panorama’s figures were:
“They say 776 patients with brain tumours were treated in trials before 2008.”
“And that 15.5% had survived more than five years, which compares favourably to other treatments.”[2]
—————————————————————— “If you look at all brain tumours that’s almost identical to any other treatment”
—————————————————————— Based on what ?
—————————————————————— “If you look at Amelia’s tumour alone you’re looking at almost zero per cent.”
“Amelia was diagnosed with a rare tumour on her brain stem in February last year“
“Her devastated family was told by doctors there was no treatment available in Britain”
“After finding out about Burzynski’s clinical trial, which has been running for 20 years, Amelia’s family decided to raise the money needed for the ‘antineoplaston’ treatment – a staggering £250,000 – in just a few weeks through donations”
“Mrs Saunders, who also has two-year-old daughter Charlotte, said:”
“He was giving us more hope than I think realistically there was”
—————————————————————— Based on what ?
——————————————————————
“Mr Saunders added:”
“We find it very hard to believe the treatment did nothing”
“We did no chemotherapy with her”
“To keep it stable for 11 months is incredible in itself, but how do we prove that?”
“We can’t.”
—————————————————————— Why not ?
Were there not scans ?
—————————————————————— “In November last year Dr Burzynski told the family a new scan showed Amelia’s tumour was breaking down“
“UK doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital in London said it actually showed the tumour was continuing to grow“
—————————————————————— Based on what ?
Great Ormond Street Hospital having 36 years of experience treating patients with antineoplastons ?
—————————————————————— “The family decided to stop the Burzynski treatment a few weeks later”
—————————————————————— Based on what ?
—————————————————————— “Although the family now has doubts over Burzynski’s success rate, Richard says they have spoken to others who have been helped by the drug”
—————————————————————— “The family now has doubts over Burzynski’s success rate” ?
What was all this, then ?
a)“A family who sent their terminally ill daughter to the US for experimental treatment said the clinic misled them about her chances of survival“
b)“However mum Chantal Saunders, 36, believes the actual figure was just one per cent“
c) “I think that’s wrong” [54 per cent figure]
“I think that’s a complete lie”
d) “I think one per cent is a more accurate figure.”
e) “He was giving us more hope than I think realistically there was”
—————————————————————— “He said:”
“We asked repeatedly throughout the time Amelia was under treatment for evidence to back up his claims, and he at no point produced this”
“We found patients ourselves through Facebook, forums, email and word of mouth”
“We want everyone to know that there are people who are living proof that the treatment works – but it just didn’t for our little girl”
“We just wish Dr Burzynski would speak the truth, and release proper, tangible results.”
——————————————————————
So, you wanted him to “release proper, tangible results” before the clinical trials were finished ?
—————————————————————— “The Saunders family have donated the rest of the money raised for Amelia to cancer research and other charities”
“This included £50,000 to a cancer treatment research team at the University of Nottingham“
“Its Professor Richard Grundy said it was “unethical” for Dr Burzynski not to publish results from his trial“
——————————————————————
So, you wanted him to “publish results from his trial” before the clinical trial was finished ?
—————————————————————— “Unfortunately the results from Dr Burzynski’s clinic are not published in any form that’s acceptable to the scientific community,” he said”
——————————————————————
So a donation of £50,000 was made, which included to a cancer treatment research team at the University of Nottingham, where Professor Richard Grundy; who exhibits NO knowledge of antineoplastons in this article, is
How “convenient” for him and the University
In my ‘opinion,’ it is “unethical” for Professor Grundy to NOT share his findings re Dr. Burzynski’s 2003-2010 phase 2 clinical trial preliminary reports [3]
He reminds of the situation that Burzynski found himself in when he relates that clinical investigators decided to change the protocol without his approval on a clinical trial of antineoplastons
6/7/2013 the Watford Observer published this article By Kathryn Snowdon [1]
“The mother of Luna Petagine has cast doubt on the expensive treatment the family sought in America during the Oxhey girl’s four-year battle with cancer“
—————————————————————— “Expensive treatment,”based on what objective criteria ? [2]
—————————————————————— “BBC Panorama this week aired an investigation into Doctor Stanislaw Burzynski’s cancer clinic in Texas, where hundreds of children – normally terminally ill – go and seek treatment”
“Luna, who was five-years-old when she died last year, was a patient at The Burzynski Clinic after her parents were told the physician could cure their daughter, despite Great Ormond Street Hospital doctors saying little more could be done for her”
—————————————————————— Why the conflicting statements ?
a)“her parents were told the physician could cure their daughter”
b)“The NHS are telling me my daughter’s going to die and this man is telling me that he thinks he can cure her.”
c)“He said he hoped to cure my daughter“
d)“The plan was to try and cure Luna.”
—————————————————————— “Luna’s mother, Lucy Petagine, of Raglan Gardens, said there was no doubt in her mind she was going to send her daughter to Dr Burzynski“
“Mrs Petagine said:”
“Of course I’m going to go with him
If anyone had knocked on my door and said
‘here if you try this it will work’
“then yeah I would have tried it because I was in desperation”
“The NHS are telling me my daughter’s going to die and this man is telling me that he thinks he can cure her.”
“Mrs Petagine added:”
“It was all about hope
He said he hoped to cure my daughter
The plan was to try and cure Luna.”
“In order to finance the treatment, which the family believed could be life-saving, more than £100,000 was raised and in September 2011 they travelled to America”
“However, Mrs Petagine said the treatment at The Burzynski Clinic was actually killing her daughter“
“She added:”
“The treatment was – what was happening – was actually killing Luna because it put this pressure on her brain stem.”
—————————————————————— Why did Mrs Petagine say that “the treatment at The Burzynski Clinic” … “was actually killing Luna” ?
Did someone tell her this, or was this her personal opinion ?
We know from Burzynski’s 3/2004 publication that:
“The reason for 50% Progressive Disease (PD) in studies is long dose-escalation process, which extends to more than a month’s time period, before the optimal dosage is reached” [3]
—————————————————————— “In response to Panorama’s questioning and claims that he was merely selling hope to vulnerable families, Dr Burzynski said:”
“Can you imagine that the US government… they would allow me to be here if I just sell hope?”
——————————————————————
Isn’t every cancer treatment “selling hope to vulnerable families”?
Isn’t every cancer clinical trial “selling hope to vulnerable families” ?
—————————————————————— “The treatment has not been approved by the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA)“
—————————————————————— 12/2008 – Burzynski’s publication advised:
“In 2004 the FDA granted orphan drug designation for antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 for the treatment of brainstem glioma” [4]
9/2012 – “The FDA granted Orphan Drug designation for Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 for the treatment of gliomas, in 2009″ [5]
—————————————————————— “A month into Luna’s therapy, an MRI revealed the tumour had grown, pressing on Luna’s brain stem and causing her breathing problems and facial palsy”
“Mrs Petagine said:”
“They said the tumour’s grown and we were like ‘how could it have grown this quickly, this doesn’t make sense’.”
——————————————————————
What does Mrs Petagine mean when she said:
‘how could it have grown this quickly, this doesn’t make sense’ ?
We know from [3] above, that the tumor is likely to grow before the medicine has reached it’s optimal dosage, and the tumor starts to decrease in size
—————————————————————— “Luna had to be admitted to intensive care in Texas Children’s Hospital“
“Mrs Petagine said:”
“Texas Children’s hate The Burzynski Clinic
“They said they have to clean up all his mess”
“The second you walk in the door they look at your child and they did actually say to us ‘are you a Burzynski family?’”
——————————————————————
If Texas Children’s actually does that with every child patient that comes in the door, that would be a really stupid bias to foist on some unsuspecting parent
—————————————————————— “Luna died in August last year”
——————————————————————
Unfortunately, the article does not tell the reader what happened ?
For years, Gorski has been able to comment on Burzynski’s “personalized gene targeted therapy” with impunity
It’s about time he received some personal attention, leading to heapin’ helpings of not-so-Respectful Insolence
All of the below articles by Gorski were tagged as having to do with:
personalized gene targeted cancer therapy, or mention it
—————————————————————— http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/tag/personalized-gene-targeted-cancer-therapy/
—————————————————————— I AM ADDING TO THIS AS I GO ALONG
====================================== [1] – 6/5/2013 – ” … in January the Burzynski Clinic removed all references to antineoplaston therapy on its website … “
—————————————————————— [2] – 8/4/2013 – I proved Gorski wrong since Burzynski’s scientific publications regarding antineoplaston therapy are on the Burzynski website
====================================== [1] – 6/5/2013 – “Three years should be plenty of time to line up clinical sites for a phase III trial”
“Of course, given that after three years the clinical trial hasn’t been opened, more than likely no reputable institution wants to partner with the Burzynski Research Institute, and ResearchPoint collected its checks”
—————————————————————— [3] – 7/18/2013 – This statement by Gorski is disingenuous since 6/3/2013 he reviewed Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II where this issue was addressed, and he made NO COMMENT about it in his review
Gorski can distort, exaggerate, and even lie to the public
====================================== [1] – 6/5/2013 – “Another interesting tidbit in the SEC filing is Burzynski’s report of the results of several of his clinical trials”
“They aren’t really “results’ per se, in that the information presented really isn’t provided in a form that really allows other investigators to evaluate it and potentially replicate it”
“Basically it’s a big table listing Burzynski Research Institute clinical trials”
“Of course, I realize that this is an SEC filing, not a scientific paper in the peer-reviewed literature, but if Burzynski has all this data to produce this table it boggles the mind that, given at least a decade and a half since these trials began, he hasn’t been able to publish any meaningful data thus far”
“That he hasn’t been able to do so is also a big red flag”
—————————————————————— [5] – 8/21/2013 – That Gorski has NOT been able to prove that the 4 Burzynski publications I refer to are NOT “meaningful data” is a big red flag
====================================== [6] – 6/4/2013 – “It’s a theme that is repeated throughout the report but that ignores the astounding level of sheer deception that goes on at the Burzynski Clinic, the allegations of overfilling, and how Burzynski has abused the clinical trial process to keep treating patients with antineoplastons without actually having to do the science that any other doctor would be required to do to validate a new treatment”
—————————————————————— [7] – 6/23/2013 – This is the 1st time I’ve seen Gorski allege “overfilling,” and I sure have NOT seen him provide any proof of that or that Burzynski is NOT doing “the science that any other doctor would be required to do to validate a new treatment”
If anyone is being “deceptive,” it seems to be Gorski
====================================== [6] – 6/4/2013 – Dr. Elloise Garside, a research scientists, echoes a lot of the questions I have, such as how Burzynski never explains which genes are targeted by antineoplastons, … “
—————————————————————— [8] – 8/7/2013 – Gorski has NO response for where I list where Burzynski “explains which genes are targeted by antineoplastons”
====================================== [6] – 6/4/2013 – ” … what the preclinical evidence supporting their efficacy are … “
—————————————————————— [9] – 3/16/2013 – Gorski does NOT mention where he’s reviewed “the preclinical evidence supporting their efficacy”
====================================== [6] – 6/4/2013 – ” … or what the scientific rationale is to expect that they might have antitumor activity”
—————————————————————— [10] – 8/8/2013 – Gorski reviewed “Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business” (Part I), but acts as if Dvorit D. Samid was NOT mentioned, and that he is NOT aware that the BurzynskiMovie website contains supporting documentation
I can’t let such statements go unchallenged
It means NadaZeroZip
====================================== [6] – 6/4/2013 – “In science, all that matters is what you publish, and Burzynski hasn’t published anything other than case reports, tiny case series, and unconvincing studies, mostly (at least over the last decade or so) in crappy journals not even indexed on PubMed”
—————————————————————— [5] – 8/21/2013 – I remain unimpressed that Gorski has NOT written a review of Burzynski’s 2003-2010 phase II clinical trial preliminary reports
====================================== [6] – 6/4/2013 – “Without a doubt, the most effective part of the story is the segment in which Dr. Jeanine Graf of the Texas Children’s Hospital is introduced”
“Dr. Graf is the director of the pediatric intensive care unit there and has taken care of lots of Burzynski patients, as her hospital is “just down the road” from the Burzynski Clinic and these unfortunate children are brought to her hospital when they decompensate”
“Indeed, coupled with this segment is an interlude where Luna Petagine’s mother complains that the staff there know and recognize Burzynski patients (and, she notes, hate the Burzynski Clinic)”
“Particularly damning is how Ms. Petagine said that the Texas Children’s Hospital Staff “were always cleaning up Burzynski’s messes.””
“Luna was brought to the Texas Children’s Hospital during her time in Houston, and the staff there recognized right away that she was a Burzynski patient because they had seen so many similar patients suffering the same complications before”
“It was also clear how much contempt the staff there had for the Burzynski Clinic”
“If there’s one thing Panorama did right in this report, it’s showing how seeing so many already dying children show up in our ICU because of hypernatremia due to antineoplaston therapy will do that”
“Perhaps the most devastating part of this segment was seeing Dr. Graf stating, point blank, that she’s never seen a Burzynski patient survive”
“True, she does point out that patients don’t come to her until they are in extremis, but the fact remains that she’s never seen any of them live”
—————————————————————— [11] – 4/24/2013 – What is so ridiculous about this is that Richard Bilton wanted numbers from Burzynski, but then when it came to this part of the documentary, he somehow forgets how to ask how many patients this applies to, and Gorski compounds this by trying to blame hypernatremia on antineoplaston therapy, but he refuses to explain how it is that in this Division of Internal Medicine / Department of General Internal Medicine, University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA, cancer study, over a 3 month period in 2006 re 3,446 patients, most of the HYPERNATREMIA (90 %) was acquired during hospital stay, and these patients were NOT on antineoplaston therapy
Arrogance, dismissiveness, and condescension make him his own worst enemy
====================================== [6] – 6/4/2013 – “Burzynski also pulls out the old trope that, if the FDA has been letting him use antineoplastons for 20 years in clinical trials if they weren’t safe and potentially effective, that the FDA wouldn’t let him “sell hope without evidence.””
“(Those of us following Burzynski for a while know, unfortunately, that that isn’t necessarily true.)”
—————————————————————— [12] – 4/25/2013 – “The FDA’s Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective” advises:
“[T]he emphasis in Phase 2 is on EFFECTIVENESS”
“Phase 3 studies begin if EVIDENCE of EFFECTIVENESS is shown in Phase 2″
The FDA has approved Burzynski’s phase 3 clinical trials, which means that antineoplastons have shown evidence of effectiveness, whether Gorski likes it or NOT
====================================== [6] – 6/4/2013 – ” … he goes on to repeat the same refrain he’s been repeating for the last decade or so about how he’s on the verge of publishing all the results that will convince everyone”
“One notes that we’re still waiting”
—————————————————————— [13] – 7/25/2013 – Gorski provides NO citation to support his statement, and, he did a review of “Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II,” but conveniently does NOT comment in his review about the refusal e-mail shown in the film, and its suspect content
====================================== [6] – 6/4/2013 – “Burzynski needs to publish, but I highly doubt that he will, at least not in a form that is informative to real oncologists”
—————————————————————— [5] – 8/21/2013 – I’m waiting for Gorski to prove that the 4 Burzynski publications I refer to are “NOT in a form that is informative to real oncologists”
Why don’t YOU cite a phase 2 clinical trial final publication that has substantially more data fields than the 4 publications I mention ?
====================================== [4] – 6/3/2013 – “I refer you to the link for my discussion of many of the problems with the movie”
“Here I will concentrate mainly on issues that I haven’t discussed before, because actually seeing Burzynski II was a revelation”
“(Yes, I put that sentence there on purpose, Eric Merola; quote mine it if you have the cojones)”
—————————————————————— [3] – 7/18/2013 – Gorski, don’t wait for Eric Merola to quote you
I’ve quoted you
Now let’s see if YOU have the cajones
MY review of your “review” should be a revelation to YOU
====================================== [4] – 6/3/2013 – “I’m referring to Chris Onuekwusi, a man who was diagnosed with stage I colon cancer”
“Instead of undergoing straightforward surgery that we know to have a high probability of success (which, I’ll also point out, can be done these days through minimally invasive laparoscopic techniques), Onuekwusi balked, as described in more detail than in the movie in this article on the Burzynski Patient Group website”
“He had even gone for a second opinion at one of the leading cancer centers in the world, the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, where the surgeon told him the same thing”
“He needed surgery first”
—————————————————————— [3] – 7/18/2013 – Mr. Onuekwusi did NOT want surgery
====================================== [4] – 6/3/2013 – “So what did Burzynski recommend instead of surgery?”
“He recommended a cocktail of three drugs given off-label:”
“Zolinza, Xeloda, and Avastin”
“Zolinza is vorinostat, a histone deacetylase inhibitor; Xeloda is capecitabine, which is a prodrug for 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), a pyrimidine analog that inhibits the enzyme thymidylate synthetase and thereby inhibits DNA synthesis to toxic effect in rapidly dividing cells; and Avastin is bevacizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody directed against vascular endothelial growth factor-A (VEGF-A)”
“As I described in a previous post about Burzynski’s “personalized, gene-targeted cancer therapy,” apparently Burzynski sent Onuekwusi’s tumor to Caris for testing”
====================================== [14] – 3/2010 – Burzynski advised that a blood or pathology specimen can be used for testing, and that results from a blood test can be obtained within 2 days, and used and refined by a pathology specimen within 2 to 3 weeks
====================================== [4] – 6/3/2013 – “Caris generated a report, as it always does, and Burzynski came up with a witches’ brew of new expensive targeted agents, all said to be “off-label.””
====================================== [15] – 5/17/2011 – Well, not exactly
Burzynski made it clear in part 2 of this interview that there is constant searches of medical literature (phase 2 and phase 3 publications) to research the medications to be used based on the cancer genes involved, and that they have worked on software so oncologists can use it to choose the best medications instead of reinventing the wheel and having to review the medical literature again
So, he does NOT come up with a “witches’ brew”
====================================== [4] – 6/3/2013 – “One of these drugs is just an old chemotherapy drug in a new form”
“Xeloda is, in essence, 5-FU, a chemotherapeutic drug that has been used to treat colorectal cancer, both as adjuvant chemotherapy and first-line therapy for metastatic disease, for over 40 years”
“There’s nothing really “targeted” about the drug except that it inhibits an enzyme, the way that many drugs do and have been known to do for decades”
“The advantage of Xeloda is that it can be administered orally, which is a good thing”
====================================== [16] – What Gorski fails to mention is that Xeloda (Capecitabine) is approved to be used alone or with other drugs to treat:
Stage III colon cancer in patients who have had surgery to remove cancer
May also apply to unapproved uses being studied
—————————————————————— [17] – fluoropyrimidine carbamate belonging to class of antineoplastic agents called antimetabolites
As prodrug, capecitabine is selectively activated by tumor cells to cytotoxic moiety, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU); subsequently, 5-FU is metabolized to 2 active metabolites, 5-fluoro-2-deoxyuridine monophosphate (FdUMP) and 5-fluorouridine triphosphate (FUTP) by tumor cells and normal cells
FdUMP inhibits DNA synthesis and cell division by reducing normal thymidine production, while FUTP inhibits RNA and protein synthesis by competing with uridine triphosphate for incorporation into RNA strand
====================================== [4] – 6/3/2013 – “Similarly, Avastin, although relatively new, is also commonly used for colorectal cancer, albeit usually for metastatic disease and not as adjuvant chemotherapy”
====================================== [18] – What Gorski fails to mention is that Avastin (Bevacizumab) is approved to be used alone or with other drugs to treat:
Colorectal cancer that has metastasized (spread to other parts of body)
May also apply to unapproved uses being studied
—————————————————————— [19] – A recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody directed against the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), a pro-angiogenic cytokine
Bevacizumab binds to VEGF and inhibits VEGF receptor binding, thereby preventing the growth and maintenance of tumor blood vessels
====================================== [4] – 6/3/2013 – “That leaves Zolinza, which is an HDAC inhibitor used to treat cutaneous T cell lymphoma”
====================================== [20] – What Gorski fails to mention is that Zolinza (Vorinostat) is a histone deacetylase inhibitor, approved for treatment of cutaneous manifestations of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) in patients with progressive, persistent, or recurrent disease
May also apply to unapproved uses being studied
—————————————————————— [21] – A synthetic hydroxamic acid derivative with antineoplastic activity
Vorinostat, a 2nd generation polar-planar compound, binds to catalytic domain of histone deacetylases (HDACs)
Allows hydroxamic moiety to chelate zinc ion located in catalytic pockets of HDAC, thereby inhibiting deacetylation and leading to accumulation of both hyperacetylated histones and transcription factors
Hyperacetylation of histone proteins results in upregulation of cyclin-dependant kinase p21, followed by G1 arrest
Hyperacetylation of non-histone proteins such as tumor suppressor p53, alpha tubulin, and heat-shock protein 90 produces additional anti-proliferative effects
Agent induces apoptosis and sensitizes tumor cells to cell death processes
Vorinostat crosses blood-brain barrier
====================================== [4] – 6/3/2013 – “One wonders if Burzynski included a second HDAC inhibitor, his second favorite drug after antineoplastons, sodium phenylbutyrate”
====================================== [22] – 11/19/2012 – Gorski, if you had done “exhaustive research” on Burzynski and “Gene-Targeted Cancer Therapy,” you would have viewed this @youtube video:
Texas Med. Bd. v. Dr. Burzynski – Gene-Targeted Cancer Therapy – Case Dismissed 11/19/2012
BurzynskiMovie
and you would have heard Mr. Onuekwusi say at 3:45, that he took phenylbutyrate (PB)
====================================== [4] – 6/3/2013 – “So, by Merola’s own description, what Burzynski did was to administer a toxic form of treatment that was probably not needed (chemotherapy) using drugs that were not approved for that indication, and apparently didn’t insist that the patient needed surgery”
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – Gorski publishes so much garbage that he may have forgotten his article where he posted:
“Then, there is also this video, produced by the Burzynski clinic itself:”
“At around the three minute mark, the announcer states:”
“We combine gene-targeting drugs and low dose chemo, if needed”
====================================== [4] – 6/3/2013 – “Now, it’s possible that the combination of drugs did eliminate the tumor”
====================================== Gorski, do you think that’s because as mentioned in [15], above, Burzynski would review publications like this ?
[24] – 8/23/2011 – A randomized, phase III trial of capecitabine [Xeloda] plus bevacizumab [Avastin] (Cape-Bev) versus capecitabine plus irinotecan plus bevacizumab (CAPIRI-Bev) in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: the AIO KRK 0110 trial/ML22011 trial [1st-line treatment of patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)]
—————————————————————— [25] – 11/2/2010 – Vorinostat [Zolinza] synergises with capecitabine [Xeloda] through upregulation of thymidine phosphorylase
—————————————————————— [26] – 4/2012 – Phase I–II study of vorinostat [Zolinza] plus paclitaxel and bevacizumab [Avastin] in metastatic breast cancer: evidence for vorinostat-induced tubulin acetylation and Hsp90 inhibition in vivo
—————————————————————— [4] – 6/3/2013 – “In my opinion, Burzynski deserves to have his medical license taken away on the basis of how he treated Chris Onuekwusi alone, not even considering all the other dubious things he’s done”
====================================== [27] – 8/27/2013 – In my opinion, Gorski deserves to have his medical license taken away on the basis of how he has misinformed, disinformed, and lied about Burzynski, not even considering all the other dubious things he’s done
====================================== [4] – 6/3/2013 – “All I can say is that Merola and Burzynski must not have searched very hard, because I quickly found a few … “
“Truly, Merola’s “exhaustive” research skills need some upgrading”
“It took me two minutes to find those articles”
====================================== [22] – 11/19/2012 – All I can say is that Gorski must NOT have searched very hard, because I quickly found this @youtube video about Dr. Burzynski – Gene-Targeted Cancer Therapy, which includes a segment on Burzynski’s cancer gene testing at 2:45
Truly, Gorski’s “exhaustive” research skills need some upgrading, since nowhere does it indicate that Burzynski was involved with doing Merola’s research
It took me 2 minutes to find this out
Seeing is believing?
To me seeing is knowing just how intellectually dishonest David Gorski is
====================================== [4] – 6/3/2013 – Seeing The Skeptics
“Particularly seemingly damning are a series of Tweets flashed on the screen saying things like the Hope for Laura fund (the fund set up by Laura Hymas to pay for her treatment at the Burzynski Clinic) “appears to be just a money laundry for a lying quack fraud” and “when Laura dies #Burzynski will just move on to his next mark if she doesn’t run out of money first.””
“I think I know whose Tweets these were”
“In fact, I’m sure I know whose Tweets these were, and all I can say to that person is this:”
“Zip it”
“Stop it”
“Put a sock in it”
“In fact, if I’m correct about whose Tweets these are I think I have already done so on Twitter when I’ve seen this person getting too close to attacking cancer patients”
“Still, as utterly insensitive and “dickish” as those Tweets were, they do not represent the majority of skeptics, but rather a few jerks”
“However, we as skeptics need to remember that a few jerks perceived (or painted) as attacking cancer patients can do immeasurable damage to the cause of science-based medicine”
“So if you’re one of those skeptics making comments like that, knock it off”
“If I see you doing it again, next time I will call you out publicly”
====================================== [28] – 2/19/2013 – Like this ?
——————————————————————
Of course it's always possible that the money launderers are appearing as themselves in the #Burzynski advertisement.
——————————————————————
And this ?
——————————————————————
BurzynskiSaves (@BurzynskiSaves) tweeted at 7:42pm – 25 Dec 11:
“@RatbagsDotCom:They will be even more vulnerable when Laura dies and #Burzynski forgets her and moves on to the next mark” #unconscionable https://twitter.com/BurzynskiSaves/status/151115741888909312
—————————————————————— [29] – 8/1/2013 – And like you called this guy out ?
——————————————————————
David James (@StortSkeptic) tweeted at 7:08pm – 1 Aug 13:
The new Doctor Who will be Stanislaw #Burzynski. He manages to continually avoid getting cornered and he gets away with murder.
The new Doctor Who will be Stanislaw #Burzynski. He manages to continually avoid getting cornered and he gets away with murder.
====================================== [4] – 6/3/2013 – “Then, there was the kicker”
“Eric Merola and Laura Hymas’ fiancé Ben Hymas called me a liar”
“Ben Hymas is quite mistaken in saying about me,”
““He’s lying to them.””
“Moreover, if I had screwed up, I would have admitted it”
“Indeed, part of the reason I looked into this so closely was because I wondered if somehow Merola had actually found a mistake I had made”
“You know the saying about the proverbial blind squirrel occasionally managing to find a nut?”
“It’s possible, albeit unlikely, and in fact there was no mistake”
“There is nothing in deceptive to change my assessment of what happened in the case of or my opinion of Eric Merola”
====================================== [3] – 7/18/2013 – As I said before, Gorski’s research skills leave much to be desired
Gorski is a hack and is only funny by accident because he has no filters
If anything, having seen his “review” of Burzynski II, my opinion of Gorski has plummeted even further, something I had thought possible
Gorski, so you got lucky like a blind squirrel and found an error
However, this does NOT change the fact that you’ve been proven to be a liar
Do you want me to subtract one of your lies from the tally ?
====================================== [30] – 5/9/2013 – “On what basis is he “targeting” his therapy?”
“As I’ve recounted before, Burzynski usually sends off blood and tissue samples to Caris for testing”
“The Caris Target Now™ test, which since my discussion of Burzynski’s “personalized therapy” appears to have been renamed Caris Molecular Intelligence and is now available at more levels of service (although its reports look much the same to me), is nothing unique to the Burzynski Clinic”
“Anyone who is willing to pay for it can have it, and the report will be the same”
“In any event, there is as yet no convincing evidence that the Caris tests (or any of the other competing tests) result in better outcomes”
====================================== [31] – 5/28/2013 – A key pillar of Gorski’s position on Burzynski’s “personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy” is that he alleges that he is “someone relatively knowledgeable about the state of personalized cancer therapy”
I can’t help but wonder why it is that he did NOT know the above information
Maybe he isn’t as knowledgeable about personalized cancer therapy and targeted therapies as he claims
(Oh, wait. He isn’t!)
That’s why when he wrote his “review” on Sheila Herron, he did NOT even refer to Burzynski’s publication:
—————————————————————— [32] – 8/2011 – Successful Treatment of Recurrent Triple-Negative Breast Cancer with Combination of Targeted Therapies
When it comes to Gorski’s “story writing” pal Robert J. “Bob” Blaskiewicz, I might allow for some leeway since he’s only a “Perfessor,” but with Gorski on the other hand, I’m not nearly so benevolent
In my ever-Insolent opinion, he and his propagandist are cynically using patients like human shields to deflect criticism
Activities I cannot countenance
====================================== [33] – 4/19/2013 – “I now think I probably know with around 95% certainty) and Didymus Judas Thomas (whose identity I’m probably about 75% sure of … also obsessively read anything posted about Eric Merola or Stanislaw Burzynski on any social media”
====================================== [34] – 4/19/2013 – Gorski has had over 4 months to say who he thinks I supposedly am, and so far he’s been a failure
But then again, as could be expected, he was wrong about his 2nd theory as well
Finally, I believe that people like Gorski are hypocrites, feeling free to paint Burzynski to their heart’s content (from what I’ve read about Burzynski on blogs, Twitterarticles, and elsewhere, posted by biased, disingenuous, “holier than thou” Skeptics, in them Burzynski is all but portrayed as Satan Incarnate) but running like whipped puppies to the Coward section when either they or Gorski are criticized, no matter how civil, reasonable, or science-based that criticism is (and my blog is all of the above)
The reason is, of course, clear
Having no convincing science, no convincing medicine, and no convincing evidence to support their hero’s antineoplastons hackery or “personalized MUD-targeted therapy for dummies,” they resort to Twitter thuggery
Same as it ever was
One more thing:
If Gorski and his crew of sycophants, toadies, and lackeys are offended by my opinion, my characterization of them that I have based on analyses of claims and observation of the behavior of them and their propagandist, they should try something different to shut me up
I have just the thing, too
Publishing the results of some of the responses to my blog for the scientific community comes to mind first
If Gorski really has the goods, as he and “The Skeptics” claim, then he can best shut me up by bringing the science—solid, convincing science, that is
I’ve said it before many times, and I’ll say it again:
I can be convinced by strong truthful and factual evidence
I have yet to see anything resembling strong evidence from Gorski
At least, if he has such evidence he hasn’t published it yet, preferring to publish a mixture of whiny blog articles where he takes a swipe at Burzynski, tiny-mind series, unimpressive basic science, and the like in bottom-feeding blog articles, some of which aren’t even indexed in PubMed
Nor is a conspiracy of cowardice—excuse me, “The Skeptics”—the reason why trying to ignore criticism will boomerang on “The Skeptics”
It’s all because of their own behavior and willingness to distort, misinform, and slime Burzynski
====================================== [35] – 1/14/2013 – “As you might recall, antineoplastons are chemicals that Burzynski found in the urine of cancer patients and that (or so he claims)”
====================================== [36] – 2/19/2013 – Seriously, Gorski ?
Where did you come up with that ?
After comparing the blood of healthy people to the blood of people with cancer, Dr. Burzynski found that people with cancer have lower amounts of a certain group of chemicals
====================================== [35] – 1/14/2013 – “None of this would have been too bad if only he had actually bothered to do the proper science and clinical trials to demonstrate that antineoplastons (1) have significant anti-cancer activity and (2) have acceptable levels of toxicity”
====================================== [10] – 8/8/2013 – Here’s (1)
—————————————————————— [37] – 2/19/2013 – And (2)
====================================== [35] – 1/14/2013 – “Oh, sure, he has a bunch of clinical trials listed on ClinicalTrials.gov, but virtually all of them are listed as having “unknown” status, and it’s unclear whether most, if any, of them are actually accruing”
====================================== [38] – 5/21/2011 – Cancer Breakthrough: 50-60% Success Rate, Cures the Incurable
May 21, 2011
12 phase 2 clinical trials have been successfully completed under supervision of FDA, and now conducting 3 phase 3 clinical trials
Or I can cite from Burzynski’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings re his phase 2 clinical trials like you did [1] – 6/5/2013
====================================== [35] – 1/14/2013 – “In any case, Merola named the sequel what he named it … along with a website full of a “sourced transcript” to be used by Burzynski minions and shills everywhere to attack any skeptic who dares to speak out”
====================================== [39] – Gorski, you should have used the “sourced transcript” so you didn’t end up embarrassing yourself as much as you have
Actually, no one who is an apologist for Dr. Gorski, a.k.a. “Orac,” who over years ago unleashed MUD-targeted therapy on unsuspecting cancer patients, much likes Burzynski
It’s not surprising
Basically, Gorski’s a hack
—————————————————————— [40] – Or, you can use this – Burzynski: The Movie — Illustrated Screenplay and Screencap Gallery (Nader Library):
====================================== [35] – 1/14/2013 – “Part of the reason that Eric Merola doesn’t like me, aside from the fact that I am willing to help publicize Bob Blaskiewicz’s present to Dr. Burzynski for his 70th birthday on January 23, is that I think that every so often I happen to run into stories about the bad science and unethical nature of Burzynski’s work, and I blog about it”
====================================== [41] – 3/26/2013 – Maybe Eric does NOT like you because part of that “present” was your “pal” saying:
“The Burzynski clinic is a place you go to die”
—————————————————————— [42] – 8/24/2013 – Gorski, where were you when these 374 children died of brain cancer in #ScienceBasedMedicine clinical trials ?
====================================== [35] – 1/14/2013 – “I also run into patient stories”
“Although I don’t cover them as systematically as Bob does, I like to think that what I lack in comprehensiveness of coverage I make up for with my in-depth knowledge of cancer science and treatment”
====================================== [43] – 8/31/2013 – Your “in-depth knowledge of cancer science and treatment” ?
You sure have NOT presented a very strong case for that
Is your “man-crush”, Robert J. “Bob” Blaskiewicz still adding false statements to his “stories” ?
====================================== [35] – 1/14/2013 – “There are a number of things about this documentary that one can learn if one is involved in caner care and knowledgeable about Stanislaw Burzynski”
“Indeed, he’s even taken credit for pioneering the concept of personalized cancer therapy based on genes and the concept that cancer is a genetic disease, claiming to have published a journal article about it 20 years ago, allegedly long before conventional scientists and oncologists even thought of it”
“The problem, of course, is that, as far as I can tell, he published no such paper and personalized therapy is a concept older than 20 years”
====================================== [44] – 7/26/2013 – Indeed, from my perspective Gorski’s an egomaniac, full of the arrogance of ignorance about things like Burzynski’s “personalized cancer therapy”, prone to contemptuously dismissing anyone who has the temerity to question the Great and Powerful “Orac” is god
Because I was able to find the publication with NO problem
“Orac’s” Oracolytes remind me of the “believer” who said:
“god said it, and I believe it, so that settles it”
Of course, “Orac” is Oz tends to clam up when questioned by people who are NOT likely to be sycophants, toadies, and lackeys
====================================== [35] – 1/14/2013 – “Given that these are all phase II studies, it’s hard to believe that the FDA would allow Burzynski to keep them open over 13 years, but apparently it has”
====================================== [45] – 7/26/2013 – Gorski, why don’t you ask the FDA?
3/29/1996 Then United States Food and Drug Administration Commissioner, David Kessler told the American people:
“The … FDA’s initiatives … will allow …the agency … to rely on smaller trials … fewer patients … if there is evidence … of partial response in clinical trials”
—————————————————————— [46] – 6/7/2013 – Then you could be like Blatherskitewicz and do this:
Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz)
6/3/13, 3:49 PM
@FauxSkeptic @bbc5live I believe he said, “Put up or shut up, you little bitch.” Something like that.
rjblaskiewicz: @bbc5live “I believe he said
“Put up or shut up
you little bitch”
BB: why not check with the @US_FDA
#Burzynski
BBC Panorama
====================================== [35] – 1/14/2013 – “Finally, why doesn’t Burzynski offer Seán his “personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy.””
“It probably wouldn’t be that big a deal to get the blocks of tissue from Seán’s biopsy and have them analyzed”
“Yes, inquiring minds do want to know”
====================================== [35] – 1/14/2013 – Gorski, why don’t you cite the applicable phase 2 and / or phase 3 clinical trial publications of FDA approved drugs for “inoperable brainstem glioma” ?
And while your at it, is the “girl from England” referred to in your article, the same one that is referred to in Burzynski 2 ?
====================================== [47] – 1/7/2013 – “That’s why I’m joining P.Z. Myers in asking you to help make Stanislaw Burzynski pay cold hard cash to a worthy cause
====================================== [41] – 3/26/2013 – Yes Gorski, your “pal” E.Z. P.Z. who wrote:
“The Burzynski clinic is a place you go to die”
He has no shame
But at least ya’ll raised money for a worthy cause while at the same time bringing attention to yourself and what I consider to be your incredibly unethical behavior
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – “In fact, from my perspective, it appears to me as though over the last few years Dr. Burzynski has pivoted”
“No longer are antineoplastons the center of attention at his clinic”
“Rather, these days, he appears to be selling something that he calls “personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy.””
====================================== [48] – 4/26/2013 – Gorski it’s great to see you’ve been paying attention
” … 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”
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – “Finally, around the 4:30 mark, we see Dr. Gregory Burzynski, Dr. Burzynski’s son, talking about genomic profiling of cancers and biomarkers in the blood and in circulating tumor cells. … plus a claim that surgery will no longer be necessary for surgery, what’s left over doesn’t sound too different from what quite a few “conventional” cancer researchers say about “personalized medicine.””
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – Gorski, “surgery will no longer be necessary for surgery” ?
Is this “attention to detail”” related to:
“because of the positions I hold at an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center” ?
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – “Clearly, the producer went to great lengths to make Burzynski’s lab look like any other molecular and cell biology lab–even like my lab”
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – Gorski, are you trying to suggest that the producer rented or bought equipment to produce this look ?
Do you know how ridiculous that sounds ?
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – “When we do this we have a very good chance to have positive results in most patients”
“SS: How many respond?”
“SB: About 85 per cent for whom we have the proper gene signature; about 15 percent do not respond”
“In our responders many of them have tumors which disappear completely and in others the tumors remain small”
“The problem is finding the genetic signature because for many of these different genetic signatures we don’t have blood tests…yet”
“Note that at the time this book was published, Dr. Burzynski was claiming that he could identify who would benefit from specific targeted therapies simply from blood tests”
“If he could do this for real, Burzynski could easily publish in high impact journals like Clinical Cancer Research, the Journal of Clinical Oncology, or another high impact clinical cancer journal”
“Heck, a result like that could probably make it into general medical journals, such as the New England Journal of Medicine or The Lancet, which have an even higher impact factor”
“If he were able to demonstrate that his method of testing tumors and picking targeted therapy could result in a complete response rate anywhere near 85% for breast cancer, even more so”
“If, as he claims later in the chapter, Dr. Burzynski has patients with pancreatic cancer and advanced liver cancer whose tumors have disappeared within two months after he began treatment, the same would be true”
“If, as Burzynski claims, he achieves a 50% complete response rate in advanced brain tumors, again, the same would be true”
“He doesn’t submit his results to these journals”
“Why not?”
====================================== [3] – 7/18/2013 – Gorski, why would Burzynski want to publish in The Lancet when you saw the lame excuse they gave in Burzynski 2 for NOT publishing Burzynski’s results; which YOU have refused to address ?
Maybe you could find out if you visited the Burzynski Clinic
Oh, wait
You’ve said that people do NOT need to go to the Clinic to learn things
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – “Gene-targeted cancer therapy is currently in its infancy and, except in rare situations outside of the existing currently validated biomarkers (such as HER2, ER, c-kit, and other genes for which targeted therapies exist) for the response of specific cancers, is not to be undertaken outside of the context of a clinical trial“
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – Gorski, that’s all well and good for you to write, but you provide NO citation, reference, or link in support of your statement, and you’ve proven that what you post can NOT be trusted
Try again
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – “Before discussing how the Burzynski Clinic does personalized cancer therapy, I think it’s worth looking at how real scientists do it right now”
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – Gorski, what are you implying ?
That Burzynski is NOT a “real scientist” ?
Because you stated:
“From the description above, it sounded very much to me as though Dr. Burzynski is combining various targeted agents with metronomic chemotherapy“
“I know a thing or two about metronomic chemotherapy, because I was involved in a project whose end result was to be the testing of metronomic chemotherapy against cancer and because the concept is a spinoff of the work of one of my scientific heros, the late Judah Folkman”
“Whether this is what Dr. Burzynski is doing or not with the chemotherapy part of his approach, I don’t know for sure, but it sure sounds like it“
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – “Now let’s take a look at how the Burzynski Clinic does it, at least as far as I can figure out from my various sources and from Ms. Trimble”
“In response to my query about personalized gene-targeted therapy offered by the Burzynski Clinic, Ms. Trimble stated that a gene expression analysis is performed, as well as mutational analysis, FISH, immunohistochemistry for selected genes and that a blood test is also performed to measure the “concentration of proteins which are products of most important oncogenes.””
“In addition, drugs are supposedly selected based on the patient’s clinical information, standard of care, FDA indication, data from phase II and III clinical trials“
====================================== [4] – 6/3/2013 – Gee Gorski
In your 6/3/2013 article you act as if you did NOT know this
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – “To support this claim, Ms. Trimble also sent me two papers from the Burzynski Clinic, both of which appeared in a journal I had never heard of before, the Journal of Cancer Therapy, which is clearly not indexed on PubMed because these papers never showed up when I searched PubMed for Burzynski”
“One described Burzynski’s approach for triple negative breast cancer (TNBC)”
====================================== [32] – 8/2011 – Gorski, why am I NOT surprised that you’re able to refer to this TNBC publication 12/13/2012, but when reviewing Sheila Herron’s TNBC case 5/28/2013, you completely ignored this publication, even though it specifically states:
“Here we report the successful treatment of metastatic TNBC with combination targeted therapy, and we discuss MDT for a group of 16 women including this patient, whose treatment was based on the same principle” (Pgs. 372-373)
How do you NOT provide a link to a previous article you wrote on the same subject, like you normally do ?
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – “It turns out that perhaps the best description of what “personalized” treatment means in Dr. Burzynski’s hands comes from the Texas Medical Board’s complaint against him, which can be found in over at the Ministry of Truth or at Casewatch”
“This complaint is based on the cases of two patients”
“First, here’s Patient A, who is described in the complaint thusly:”
“1. Patient A:”
“a. In approximately May of 2008, Patient A presented to Respondent with breast cancer that had metastasized to her brain, lung, and liver”
“b. Respondent prescribed a combination of five immunotherapy agents – phenylbutyrate, erlotinib, dasatinib, vorinostat, and sorafenib-which are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) for the treatment of breast cancer, and which do not meet the FDA’s regulations for the use of off-label drugs in breast cancer therapy”
“c. In combination with the five immunotherapy agents, Patient A was prescribed capecitabine, a chemotherapy agent”
“This is what’s known as “throwing everything but the kitchen sink” at the tumor without any thought of interactions, as most of these agents have no proven role in the treatment of breast cancer”
“For example, erlotinib (brand name: Tarceva) is used to treat pancreatic cancer and non-small cell lung cancer”
“It works by inhibiting the tyrosine kinase of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and is not FDA-approved for breast cancer”
“However, it’s not unreasonable to think that it could work in breast cancer, as EGFR is believed to be important in some breast cancers, which is why this is an area of active research”
“Dasatinib (trade name: Sprycel) is also a kinase inhibitor”
“It inhibits the Src family tyrosine kinase”
“Vorinostat is a histone deacetylase inhibitor approved for use against cutaneous T-cell lymphoma”
“Finally, Sorafenib is another tyrosine kinase inhibitor that inhibits the tyrosine kinases of different receptors, as well as raf kinases”
“The big problem with this sort of approach is that the more drugs you add, no matter how “targeted” they are, the more chance for interactions that increase toxicity, and throwing all these kinase inhibitors together in a cocktail with chemotherapy is a recipe for disaster, particularly because such cocktails haven’t been tested in proper phase I clinical trials to evaluate toxicity”
====================================== Gorski, you make it sound like you reviewed the medical literature and found NO phase I clinical trials were conducted, or NO combinations of some of these drugs were tested
But you do NOT reveal your research
I’m guessing you reviewed these pre 5/2008 publications, right ?
—————————————————————— [49] – 4/20/2007 – Phase III study:erlotinib in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer
—————————————————————— [50] – 5/2007 – randomized phase II study: sorafenib/erlotinib – advanced non-small-cell lung cancer
—————————————————————— [51] – 4/20/2006 – Phase II study: capecitabine and erlotinib
—————————————————————— [52] – 1/2008 – Phase II Clinical Trial: Sorafenib
—————————————————————— [53] – 4/2007 – Antitumor Activity: Sorafenib – 4 Phase I Trials: Advanced Refractory Solid Tumors
—————————————————————— [54] – 6/20/2007 – phase I study: vorinostat (VOR) in combination with capecitabine (CAP) – advanced solid tumors
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – “In any case, as we have seen, Dr. Burzynski does give chemotherapy”
“Lots of chemotherapy”
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – Gorski, what was the date of the video you quoted above, about low-dose chemotherapy ?
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – “Instead, skirting the line between science and pseudoscience, Dr. Burzynski gives every appearance of recklessly throwing together untested combinations of targeted agents willy-nilly to see if any of them stick but without having a systematic plan to determine when or if he has successfully matched therapy to genetic abnormality”
====================================== [15] – 5/17/2011 – That sure explains away the review of the medical literature (phase 2 and 3 clinical trials)
NOT
====================================== [55] – 12/12/2012 – “Note: Orac is away In the meantime, he is rerunning some of his favorite posts”
“Given that the blog seems to have been infiltrated with Burzynski trolls again now seems a perfect time to rerun a post of Orac’s from about a year ago”
====================================== [55] – 12/12/2012 – “Orac”, who’s the idiot who posted that “trolls” had taken over the blog, and who were these “alleged”“trolls” ?
Inquiring minds want to know
====================================== [55] – 12/12/2012 – “No one would ever confuse my reviews with those of Roger Ebert (mine tend to be a lot longer, for one thing, and concentrate on science much more than moviemaking), but I do sometimes subject myself to these movies when I can find a way to watch them online that doesn’t cost me any money”
====================================== [55] – 12/12/2012 – Gorski
“Concentrate on science” ?
really ?
Really ??
REALLY ???
Did you actually count how many characters and / or words you devoted to criticism instead of “science” ?
====================================== [55] – 12/12/2012 – “In the process, I might even look into a couple of Burzynski’s studies that I’ve read and found to be–well–lacking, to put it kindly”
====================================== [2] – 8/4/2013 – Gorski, why don’t you “look into” Burzynski’s 2003-2010 preliminary phase 2 clinical trial reports, and write a “review” ?
====================================== [55] – 12/12/2012 – “One part of the movie that truly insults the intelligence of anyone with a modicum of knowledge about drug therapy occurs near the beginning of the movie”
“It’s a part that, as a cancer surgeon who is interested in targeted therapies for breast cancer, I found particularly idiotic”
“First, there is a screen with this caption:”
“Antineoplastons target the specific genes that allow cancer to grow and flourish”
“A little later we see:”
“There are currently over 25 FDA-approved gene-targeted cancer drugs on the market today”
“Many of them can only target single genes”
“All of which is true but irrelevant if Burzynski is trying to sell antineoplastons as targeted therapy”
“Now here’s the kicker:”
“Antineoplastons work on close to one hundred different genes”
“You know what you call a drug that works on “close to 100 genes”?”
“I don’t know either, but you don’t call it a “targeted” therapy unless all those genes are genes affected by the single target being inhibited; i.e., are downstream targets of the gene targeted by antineoplastons”
====================================== [5] – 8/21/2013 – Gorski, how do you NOT know “the single target being inhibited … are downstream targets of the gene targeted by antineoplastons”, when you did NOT even know which of Burzynski’s publications discussed which genes are “targeted by antineoplastons” ?
====================================== [56] – 12/5/2012 – “In reality, oncologists shun Burzynski—and rightly so, given that he has yet to publish anything resembling a convincing result suggesting the efficacy of his antineoplastons against cancer”
“It’s painfully obvious from this paragraph that Burzynski doesn’t know academic oncologists”
“The reason oncologists don’t respect Burzynski is because of how he hasn’t show that his treatments work better than conventional treatments—or even that they work at all—and because of the way he abuses patients by charging them huge sums of money to participate in a clinical trial”
“Those are the reasons legitimate oncologists, at least those familiar with Burzynski, look askance at him”
“How could they do otherwise?”
“The ones who don’t take him seriously are the ones who know him best”
====================================== [57] – 4/24/2013 – Gorski, that certainly explains why this 2011 cancer study that references Burzynski:
Phase II trial of tipifarnib and radiation in children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas
University of California—San Francisco
Children’s Hospital Boston, Massachusetts
St Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee
Seattle Children’s Hospital, Seattle, Washington
Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Children’s National Medical Center, Washington, DC
Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Ohio
======================================
British Journal of Cancer (2010) 103, 1680–1691. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6605969
Published online 2 November 2010 http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v103/n11/full/6605969a.html
Experimental Pharmacology Unit, Department of Research, Istituto Nazionale Tumori, National Cancer Institute Fondazione G, Via.M Semmola, Pascale, Napoli, Italy
====================================== [26] – 4/2012
Phase I–II study of vorinostat plus paclitaxel and bevacizumab in metastatic breast cancer: evidence for vorinostat-induced tubulin acetylation and Hsp90 inhibition in vivo http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22200869/
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012 Apr;132(3):1063-72. doi: 10.1007/s10549-011-1928-x. Epub 2011 Dec 27 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22200869/
Breast Cancer Res Treat. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 April.1 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3486521/
Published in final edited form as:
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012 April; 132(3): 1063–1072
Get out the popcorn !!!
——————————————————————
Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski is a liar
Let me put that in bold for emphasis
Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski is a liar
Open wide and say ahhhhhhh …
DR. DAVID H. “ORAC” GORSKI IS A LIAR
——————————————————————
Much better !!!
Some things just look much better when they come in 3’s
And that must be what “Orac” is god thinks, since he seems to live by the the edict of the 3 wise monkeys:
—————————————————————— See No Evil
Hear No Evil
Speak No Evil
——————————————————————
Of course, to Gorski, Evil is any truth which he disagrees with, which he acts like does NOT exist, and obviously can NOT find on the Internet with his Commodore 64, or whatever piece of garbage he’s using, which he must have set to block any websites he wishes to NOT see
——————————————————————
Gorski, the Hypocrite, calls me a “CRANK”, which is especially hilarious, considering how much better my research is than his, without the bias
LIES
Misdirection
Disinformation
Misinformation
MisDisInformation
—————————————————————— David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 3:24am – 14 Jul 13:
@Funkmon @HoracioHornblow Ha ha. It’s the rather pathetic crank Didymus Judas Thomas. That guy couldn’t buy a clue. #Burzynski
——————————————————————
If I wanted to lower myself to Gorski’s level, I could delete comments from my blog
—————————————————————— 6/4/2013, Gorski must have evacuated this from deep within his bowels:
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Stanislaw Burzynski versus the BBC http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/04/stanislaw-burzynski-versus-the-bbc/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
I was busy at the time reviewing the British Broadcasting Corporation’s Panorama bit on Burzynski:
====================================== 6/4/2013
Since the dates involved are important in exposing Gorski’s LIES, Gorski states:
—————————————————————— “After yesterday’s epic deconstruction of the latest propaganda-fest from … Eric Merola, on his most admired subject, “brave maverick doctor” Stanislaw Burzynski”
—————————————————————— (6/3/2013) in relation to Gorski’s cherry-picked “review” which I critiqued:
====================================== 7/18/2013
Gorski advises:
—————————————————————— “I was interviewed over the phone by a producer of the show and exchanged e-mails to answer questions”
——————————————————————
I am NOT certain what qualifications BBC Panorama thought that Gorski has in order for him to be interviewed about Burzynski, unless they wanted the perspective of a LIAR
Gorski mentions “False balance”, which readers of his and / or my blog are all too familiar with when it comes to “Orac”
He whines that there is:
—————————————————————— ” … zero mention of how Burzynski recently managed to beat an effort by the Texas Medical Board to strip him of his medical license by throwing his employed doctors under the bus …”
——————————————————————
This seems to be:
1. NOT even in the USA during one of the patients care
2. there was no evidence that Burzynski met either patient
3. Burzynski was NOT the Doctor of Record for either patient
4. If the SOAH had an actual case, they could have gone after the actual Doctors of Record
What Gorski blogs is NOT worth the paper it is NOT written on
EVERYTHING Gorski blogs should be “Fact-Checked” for accuracy
He also ejects:
—————————————————————— ” … only the most superficial treatment of how in general it is considered unethical to demand payment from patients to participate in clinical trials”
——————————————————————
though he provides NO basis in FACT for this statement
He also laments:
—————————————————————— “No, and there isn’t any mention of how the Burzynski Clinic waged a campaign of harassment against bloggers who criticized Burzynski back in 2011”
——————————————————————
What Gorski does NOT mention is that:
there isn’t any mention of how the bloggers waged a campaign of harassment against Burzynski
with their:
LIES
Misdirection
Disinformation
Misinformation
====================================== I find Rhys Morgan abnormally prehensile: https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/i-find-rhys-morgan-abnormally-prehensile/
======================================
Gorski cries:
—————————————————————— “Indeed, one of the victims of that harassment, Rhys Morgan, was interviewed by the Panorama crew, but he was informed that his interview was cut from the final version because it didn’t fit the narrative”
——————————————————————
I thought it humorous when The Skeptics™ whined on Twitter that Rhys Morgan wasn’t going to make the cut
What was he going to say ?
How he copied all of his Burzynski blogsplats from other people’s blogs?
Gorski mentions:
—————————————————————— “All you have to do is to read Saul Green’s reports on Quackwatch and in The Cancer Letter from the 1990s”
——————————————————————
Of course, Gorski conveniently forgets to mention Green’s Confict-of-Interest, since Green was associated with a lawsuit against Burzynski
But then again, Gorski seems to have conveniently forgotten his own possible COI, which someone posted a link to on Twitter:
—————————————————————— David Gorski’s Financial PHARMA Ties What He Didn’t Tell You: http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/06/david-gorskis-financial-pharma-ties-what-he-didnt-tell-you.html
——————————————————————
Gorski fumes:
—————————————————————— “One of them reminded me very much of the conversation with her NHS oncologist that Laura Hymas recorded and allowed Eric Merola to include in his propaganda piece, except that in video it is so much more intense”
“In this scene, the oncologist tries to point out to Ms. Petagine that he doesn’t know what Burzynski is doing or how to take care of her daughter when she returns”
——————————————————————
I guess the National Heath Service oncologist is possibly like Gorski, and he doesn’t know what Burzynski is doing because he has NOT read Burzynski’s publications:
===================================== 7/22/2013
“Grundy points out that Burzynski has not published the complete results of any of his phase II clinical trials”
——————————————————————
What Gorski does NOT point out, is that for being a supposed “expert”, he sure does NOT give the impression that he’s taken the time to read Burzynski’s 2003-2010 phase II (2) clinical trials preliminary reports, in order to qualify as an “expert” on anything related to Burzynski
Gorski continues on as is his custom of being long-winded without much in the way of results:
—————————————————————— ” … how Burzynski has abused the clinical trial process to keep treating patients with antineoplastons without actually having to do the science that any other doctor would be required to do to validate a new treatment”
——————————————————————
However, Gorski FAILS to address these issues:
====================================== WHAT IS MISDIRECTION? Critiquing “Antineoplastons: Has the FDA kept its promise to the American people ?”: https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/what-is-misdirection-critiquing-antineoplastons-has-the-fda-kept-its-promise-to-the-american-people/
======================================
Gorski marches onward, jackbooted:
—————————————————————— “Dr. Elloise Garside, a research scientists, echoes a lot of the questions I have, such as how Burzynski never explains which genes are targeted by antineoplastons, what the preclinical evidence supporting their efficacy are, or what the scientific rationale is to expect that they might have antitumor activity”
“(Yes, we’re talking prior plausibility, baby!)”
——————————————————————
So, Gorski is saying that Dr. Elloise Garside has something in common with the “expert”, Professor Richard Grundy
Gorski rants on:
—————————————————————— “The preponderance of evidence supports the contention that they dont’ work, but there is uncertainty, which Burzynski exploits to the max”
—————————————————————— Amazing !!!
The United States Food and Drug Administration has authorized phase III (3) clinical trials, which means:
====================================== “[T]he emphasis in Phase 2 is on EFFECTIVENESS”
“Phase 3 studies begin if EVIDENCE of EFFECTIVENESS is shown in Phase 2″
====================================== Burzynski: The FDA’s Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective: https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-the-fdas-drug-review-process-ensuring-drugs-are-safe-and-effective/
======================================
Gorski then blesses us with:
—————————————————————— ” … the claims in some of the Q&A’s after screenings of Eric Merola’s most recent movie that Burzynski’s papers have been rejected without being sent out for peer review”
“Studies submitted to journals won’t be published without going out for peer-review”
“Maybe he’s referring to some of the papers we’ve heard about from Mr. Cohen and others that were editorially rejected and not even sent out for peer review because the editor either didn’t think them appropriate or didn’t want to waste the reviewers’ time”
——————————————————————
Gorski, who did a “review” of Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II (2), 6/3/2013, somehow magically “forgets” the very next day, that the documentary indicates that Burzynski submitted a phase II (2) clinical trial for publication, and was refused in 2 hours 8 minutes and 51 seconds, and Gorski is as silent as the dead about the lame reason given for NOT publishing it
======================================
See #12:
====================================== Critiquing: In which the latest movie about Stanislaw Burzynski “cancer cure” is reviewed…with Insolence: https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/critiquing-in-which-the-latest-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-cure-is-reviewed-with-insolence-2/
======================================
How disingenuous, Gorski
Your opinion should mean
Nada
Zip
Zero
“Orac,” the false god continues on his rampage:
—————————————————————— “In science, all that matters is what you publish, and Burzynski hasn’t published anything other than case reports, tiny case series, and unconvincing studies, mostly (at least over the last decade or so) in crappy journals not even indexed on PubMed”
——————————————————————
Gorski gives NO reason for NOT doing what I have done on my blog, or any relevance of a publication NOT being listed on PubMed:
====================================== The #Burzynski B.S. App: https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/06/the-burzynski-b-s-app-2/
======================================
Gorski comes to what he must think is his penultimate moment:
—————————————————————— “Without a doubt, the most effective part of the story is the segment in which Dr. Jeanine Graf of the Texas Children’s Hospital is introduced”
“Dr. Graf is the director of the pediatric intensive care unit there and has taken care of lots of Burzynski patients, as her hospital is “just down the road” from the Burzynski Clinic and these unfortunate children are brought to her hospital when they decompensate”
“Particularly damning is how Ms. Petagine said that the Texas Children’s Hospital Staff “were always cleaning up Burzynski’s messes.””
“If there’s one thing Panorama did right in this report, it’s showing how seeing so many already dying children show up in our ICU because of hypernatremia due to antineoplaston therapy will do that”
——————————————————————
Again, Gorski FAILS to discuss:
====================================== Burzynski: HYPERNATREMIA: https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/burzynski-hypernatremia/
======================================
And:
—————————————————————— “Perhaps the most devastating part of this segment was seeing Dr. Graf stating, point blank, that she’s never seen a Burzynski patient survive”
——————————————————————
What is REALLY“devastating” is that Gorski is NOT able to indicate exactly how MANY patients this allegedly applies to, because, whereas Gorski’s fave reporter, Richard Bilton, wants to know how many Burzynski patients were treated in the phase II (2) clinical trials, he acts like Gorski’s “bud”, Dr. Peter A. Lipson, who also has had “issues” with consistency
====================================== Dr. Peter A. Lipson (and / or his Censor(s)) is a Coward: Critiquing “A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics”: https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/dr-peter-a-lipson-and-or-his-censors-is-a-coward-critiquing-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/
======================================
Gorski then rattles off:
—————————————————————— “Burzynski smirks when asked how many patients he’s treated and how many have survived, dodging the question by saying that the FDA won’t let him until he’s published his results”
“Bilton tells him that’s not true; the FDA has told him that Burzynski can tell him as long as he doesn’t promote antineoplastons”
“Burzynski asks Bilton why he doesn’t have a letter from the FDA”
——————————————————————
If Gorski had bothered to read all the comments I posted on his blog re my Burzynski research, he would know that Burzynski has every right to be wary
But Gorski’s arrogance, dismissiveness, and condescension make him his own worst enemy
He then faceplants:
—————————————————————— “Burzynski then promises that antineoplastons will be approved “soon””
“(they almost certainly won’t)”
——————————————————————
I guess Gorski can now see the future, and is all-knowing and omnipotent
But then again, “Orac” is god
“god” goes on to say:
—————————————————————— “Ultimately, the Burzynski Clinic did release some results, stating that 776 patients with brain tumors were treated in trials and that 15.5% have survived five years”
“Of course, this is an utterly meaningless factoid”
“because we don’t know what kinds of tumors, what gradess, how they were treated beforehand, or any other confounding factors”
——————————————————————
But this is because Gorski prefers NOT to pay attention; welcome to “Short Attention Span Theatre”, or seeming to NOT read Burzynski’s publications:
====================================== Colorado Public Television – PBS: https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/09/colorado-public-television-pbs/
====================================== My Critique of Bob Blaskiewicz (Colorado Public Television – PBS CPT12): https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/my-critique-of-bob-blaskiewicz-colorado-public-television-pbs-cpt12/
======================================
Gorski posted comments on the Colorado Public Television (PBS) (CPT12) Facebook page where this was posted:
======================================
====================================== 6/5/2013 Gorski continued his blatherskite:
—————————————————————— Odds and ends left over after the Panorama Burzynski Clinic report: Burzynski versus his own SEC filing http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/05/odds-and-ends-about-burzynski-clinic/
——————————————————————
This is where I start leading to heapin’ helpings of not-so-Respectful Insolence
Gorski posts:
—————————————————————— “(stay classy, Stash, stay classy)”
——————————————————————
I am NOT positive as to why a LIAR would advise Burzynski to “stay classy” when he has absolutely NO moral or ethical standing to do so
The proverbial “pot calling the kettle, black”
Gorski blathers:
—————————————————————— ” … in January the Burzynski Clinic removed all references to antineoplaston therapy on its website … “
——————————————————————
As I stated up top, Gorski must have his computer set so that it will NOT access Burzynski’s website, since I posted this:
====================================== 3/12/2013
Perhaps this helps explain Gorski’s lack of knowledge re antineoplastons
Gorski admits:
—————————————————————— “Now I’m not a businessman, and I don’t understand anything but the very basics of business”
——————————————————————
But then goes on to claim:
—————————————————————— “but I do know cancer science”
——————————————————————
Gorski goes on to comment on material which I posted on his blog
Comment #128 Didymus Judas Thomas
At the Tu-Quack Center Correcting Orac’s EPIC & Legendary Research
February 2, 2013 http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/21/quoth-joe-mercola-i-love-me-some-burzynski-antineoplastons/ “Yet in the report, we read:”
—————————————————————— On February 23, 2010, the Company entered into an agreement with Cycle Solutions, Inc., dba ResearchPoint (“Research Point”) to initiate and manage a pivotal Phase III clinical trial of combination Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 plus radiation therapy (RT) in patients with newly-diagnosed, diffuse, intrinsic brainstem glioma”
——————————————————————
It’s good to see that in JUNE, Gorski is finally catching up to what I posted on his blog in FEBRUARY
Gorski goes on to comment:
—————————————————————— “Of course, given that after three years the clinical trial hasn’t been opened, more than likely no reputable institution wants to partner with the Burzynski Research Institute, and ResearchPoint collected its checks”
——————————————————————
This is the same Gorski who allegedly blogged about the documentary which covered this issue, which he “supposedly” did a“review” on
Gorski, who above claimed that he does NOT understand “business”, suddenly puts on his “lawyer” hat
—————————————————————— “There’s a lot of legalese and FDA bureau-speak, but the meaning should be fairly clear to a layperson”:
“Indeed, even the report seems to concede that antineoplastons will likely never be approved, even going so far to point out that “the Company cannot predict if and/or when it will submit an NDA [New Drug Application] to the FDA, nor can the Company estimate the number or type of additional trials the FDA may require.””
“Burzynski also warns that “there can be no assurance that an NDA for Antineoplastons, as a treatment for cancer, will ever be approved by the FDA.””
“That hardly sounds as though antineoplastons will be approved “soon.””
——————————————————————
I find it remarkable that Gorski, while admitting above that he does NOT understand “business”, seemingly expects the reader to believe that he understands “legalese”
Gorski bounds on in his new found knowledge as a “legal mastermind”:
—————————————————————— “Another interesting tidbit in the SEC filing is Burzynski’s report of the results of several of his clinical trials”
“They aren’t really “results’ per se, in that the information presented really isn’t provided in a form that really allows other investigators to evaluate it and potentially replicate it”
“Basically it’s a big table listing Burzynski Research Institute clinical trials and response rates reported”
“One thing that I noticed right away is that in most trials, the number of evaluable patients is smaller, sometimes much smaller, than the number of patients accrued”
“This is a huge red flag”
“For instance, in trial BT-20, there were 40 patients accrued by only 22 were evaluable”
“This sort of dropoout rate is a huge red flag”
“We don’t know the reasons for this dropout rate”
“It could certainly skew the results, but even that’s impossible to tell from just a table of response rates and no further information”
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
The ONLY“HUGE RED FLAG” is how inept Gorski is
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Gorski, you’re no Craig Masilow, but you are a LIAR
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � I’ve done the 1st one for you
======================================
======================================
And THIS is the Gorski who has claimed to have reviewed almost all of Burzynski’s antineoplaston publications
====================================== 11/2/2012
March 29, 1996
�
Then United States Food and Drug Administration Commissioner, David Kessler told the American people:
�
1. We will eliminate unnecessary paperwork … that used to delay or discourage … cancer research … by non-commercial clinical investigators
�
2. The … FDA’s initiatives … will allow …the agency … to rely on smaller trials … fewer patients … if there is evidence … of partial response in clinical trials
�
I don’t want to get into any particular … agent … except let me point out … that … the information needs to be part … of clinical trials
�
3. We will accept … less information … up front –
�
4. we’re going to require further study AFTER … approval … because the science … has matured
�
5. The important – point … is that information needs to be gathered … through scientific means … through clinical – trials … and I think – that’s … that’s very important uhh very … important point
�
You can’t … just … use an agent here – or there … you have to use it … as part of a clinical trial … so we can get information … on whether the drug works
�
6. The uhh agency has … many … trials … has has approved trials … for patients … with antineoplastons
�
7. We are committed to providing expanded access … availability … for American patients for any drug … there’s reason to believe … may work
—————————————————————— BOTTOM LINE:
—————————————————————— Everything else is MISDIRECTION
—————————————————————— https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/antineoplastons-has-the-fda-kept-its-promise-to-the-american-people
——————————————————————
A. What is the FDA’s definition of “unnecessary paperwork”?
�
B. What is the FDA’s definition of “smaller trials”?
�
C. What is the FDA’s definition of “fewer patients”?
�
D. What is the FDA’s definition of “evidence … of partial response“?
�
E. What is the FDA’s definition of “less information … up front”?
�
F. What is the FDA’s definition of “we’re going to require further study AFTER … approval”?
�
G. What is the FDA’s definition of “We are committed to providing expanded access … availability … for American patients for any drug … there’s reason to believe … may work”?
======================================
2003 – 2009 Phase II preliminary
——————————————————————
2003 – Phase II http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12718563
Drugs R D. 2003;4(2):91-101
(Drugs in R and D / Drugs in Research and Development)
�
2003: Protocol – recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma
�
12 – Patients Accrued
10 – Evaluable Patients
�
2 / 20% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response 3 / 30% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
3 / 30% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
2 / 20% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
====================================== http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/scientific-publications.html
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
1. 10/2003
�
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
�
Burzynski, S.R., Weaver, R.A., Bestak, M., Lewy, R.I., Janicki, T.J., Jurida, G.F., Paszkowiak, J.K., Szymkowski, B.G., Khan, M.I.
�
Phase II study of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in children with recurrent and progressive MULTICENTRIC GLIOMA
�
A preliminary report
Neuro-Oncology. 2003; 5: 358
Volume 5 Issue 4 October 2003
�
10/2003 – Protocol – MULTICENTRIC GLIOMA
�
12 – Children Patients Accrued
10 – Evaluable Patients
(9 months-17 years / 9 – median age)
�
4 / 33% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response 2 / 25% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
4 / 33% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
0 / 0% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
1 / 9% – # and % of Patients Nonevaluable due to only 4 weeks of treatment / lack of follow-up scans
======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
16. 2003
�
DRUGS IN R&D
Drugs in R and D
(Drugs in Research and Development)
� BT-11 BRAIN STEM GLIOMA
�
Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA:
�
a preliminary report. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12718563
Burzynski, S.R., Lewy, R.I., Weaver, R.A., Axler, M.L., Janicki, T.J., Jurida, G.F., Paszkowiak, J.K., Szymkowski, B.G., Khan, M.I., Bestak, M. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12718563
Drugs R D. 2003;4(2):91-101
Drugs in R&D 2003;4:91-101
Neuro-Oncology. 2004; 6: 384
Volume 6 Issue 4 October 2004
Abstracts from the Society for Neuro-Oncology Ninth Annual Meeting, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, November 18-21, 2004
�
Pg. 385
�
10/2004 – Protocol – glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) which recurred or progressed post surgery, radiation therapy, and / or chemotherapy
�
22 – Evaluable Patients
(6 men / 16 women / 27-63 /47 – median age)
�
1 / 4.5% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response 1 / 4.5% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
12 / 54.5% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
8 / 36.5% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
3. 10/2004 (DBSG)
�
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
�
Burzynski, S.R., Weaver, R. Bestak. M., Lewy, R.I., Janicki, T., Jurida, G., Szymkowski, B., Khan, M., Dolgopolov, V.
�
Long-term survivals in phase II studies of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in patients with diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA
Neuro-Oncology. 2004; 6: 386
Volume 6 Issue 4 October 2004
�
60 patients
(31 didn’t meet admission criteria to the study and were treated under Special Exception (SE))
�
10/2004 – Protocol – patients with diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (DBSG)
�
29 – Evaluable Patients
�
7 / 24% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response 6 / 21% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
6 / 21% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
10 / 34% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
——————————————————————
31 – Evaluable Patients: Special exception (SE)
�
5 / 16% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response 2 / 6% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
16 / 52% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
8 / 26% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
4. 10/2004 (AT/RT of CNS)
�
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
�
BT-14
�
CHILDREN WITH RHABDOID TUMOR OF THE CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM
�
Burzynski, S.R., Weaver, R. Bestak. M., Janicki, T., Jurida, G., Szymkowski, B., Khan, M., Dolgopolov, V.
�
Phase II studies of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in children with atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumors (AT/RT) of the central nervous system
�
A preliminary report
Neuro-Oncology. 2004; 6: 427
Volume 6 Issue 4 October 2004
Abstracts from the Eleventh International Symposium on Pediatric Neuro-Oncology, Boston, Massachusetts, June 13-16, 2004
�
10/2004 – Protocol – children with atypical teratoid / rhabdoid tumors (AT / RT) of the central nervous system
�
11 – Children Patients Accrued
8 – Evaluable Patients
(7 treated under Special Exception (SE))
�
2 / 25% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response 1 / 12.5% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
1 / 12.5% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
4 / 50% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
5. 10/2004
�
NEURO-ONCOLOGY
�
BT-12
�
CHILDREN WITH PRIMITIVE NEUROECTODERMAL TUMORS (PNET)
�
Burzynski, S.R., Weaver, R. Bestak. M., Janicki, T., Szymkowski, B., Jurida, G., Khan, M., Dolgopolov, V.
�
Treatment of PRIMITIVE NEUROECTODERMAL TUMORS (PNET) with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP)
�
Preliminary results of phase II studies
Neuro-Oncology. 2004; 6: 428
Volume 6 Issue 4 October 2004
Abstracts from the Eleventh International Symposium on Pediatric Neuro-Oncology
�
10/2004 – Protocol – PRIMITIVE NEUROECTODERMAL TUMORS (PNET)
�
17 – Patients Accrued
15 – Evaluable Patients
(12 months – 23 years / 6 – median age)
�
3 / 20% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response 2 / 13.4% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
5 / 33.3% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
5 / 33.3% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
�
17. 2004
�
DRUGS IN R&D
Drugs in R and D
(Drugs in Research and Development)
�
Burzynski, S.R., Weaver, R., Lewy, R., Janicki, T. Jurida, G., Szymkowski, B., Khan, M., Bestak, M.
�
Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in children with recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma.
�
A Preliminary Report. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15563234
Drugs R&D 2004;5(6):315-326. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15563234
Drugs R D. 2004;5(6):315-26
�
incurable recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma
�
Pg. 320
�
3 – treated under Special Exception (SE) granted by the US FDA
�
Pgs. 317 and 320
�
7/31/1996 – (7/31/1996 – 4/3/2002 as of 3/1/2004) Protocol – children with recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma (MCG)
�
Pg. 317
�
BT-13
�
children with low-grade astrocytoma
�
BT-23
�
children with visual pathway gliomas
�
Pgs. 317 and 320-321
�
12 – Children Patients Accrued (Pgs. 315-316)
(9 months – 17 years / 9- median age)
(6 – male / 6 – females)
10 – Evaluable Patients (Pg. 315)
�
4 / 33% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response 3 / 25% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
4 / 33% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
0 / 0% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
1 / 9% – # and % of Patients Non-evaluable
——————————————————————
Pg. 325
�
Compare: Chamberlain and Grafe. [38]
�
1995 – Protocol – solitary recurrent chiasmatic hypothalamic gliomas treated with oral etoposide
�
14 – Patients Accrued
14 – Evaluable Patients
�
1 / 7% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response 4 / 29% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
3 / 21% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
6 / 43% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
�
Pg. 326
�
38. Chamberlain MC, Grafe MR. Recurrent chiasmatic-hypothalamic glioma treated with oral etoposide. J Clin Oncol 1995; 13: 2072-6 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7636550/
J Clin Oncol. 1995 Aug;13(8):2072-6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7636550/
Department of Neurosciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, USA. http://m.jco.ascopubs.org/content/13/8/2072.long
Arch Neurol. 1995 May;52(5):509-13. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7733847/
Department of Neurosciences, University of California-San Diego, USA. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7733847/
Arch Neurol. 1995;52(5):509-513. doi:10.1001/archneur.1995.00540290099024. http://archneur.jamanetwork.com/Mobile/article.aspx?articleid=593460
——————————————————————
Compare: The Pediatric Oncology Group. [39]
�
10/2000 – Protocol – solitary progressive optic pathway tumors with carboplatin
�
50 – Patients Accrued
50 – Evaluable Patients
� 2 / 4% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
37 / 74% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
11 / 22% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
�
39. Mahoney DH, Cohen ME, Friedman HS, et al. Carboplatin is effective therapy for young children with progressive optic pathway tumors: a Pediatric Oncology Group phase II study. Neuro-oncol 2000; 2: 213-20 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11265230/
Neuro Oncol. 2000 Oct;2(4):213-20. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11265230/
Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1920597/
�
Volume 8 Issue 4 October 2006
Abstracts for the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO)
�
Brainstem gliomas and multicentric tumors (MBSG)
�
10/2006 – Protocol – Brainstem gliomas and multicentric tumors (MBSG)
�
19 – Evaluable Patients
3.9 – 40.8 years (9.2 – median age)
(90% less than 18 years old)
�
2 / 11% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response 1 / 5% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
7 / 37% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
9 / 47% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
======================================
2007
Volume 11 Issue 6 December 2009
Abstracts from the Third Quadrennial Meeting of the World Federation of Neuro-Oncology (WFNO) and the Sixth Meeting of the Asian Society for Neuro-Oncology (ASNO)
May 11-14, 2009
Yokohama, Japan
�
12/2009 – Protocol – BRAINSTEM GLIOMAs
�
40 – Patients Accrued
28 – Evaluable Patients
(23 children / 5 young adults)
�
5 / 18% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response 4 / 14% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
12 / 43% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
7 / 25% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
—————————————————————— Special exception (SE)
�
12/2009 – Protocol – BRAINSTEM GLIOMAs
�
52 – Evaluable Patients
(40 children / 12 young adults)
�
5 / 10% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response 2 / 4% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
28 / 54% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
17 / 32% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
——————————————————————
BT-11 and special exception (SE)
92% – diffuse intrinsic brainstem gliomas (DBSG)
�
Overall survival (OS) – 2 years:
42% – special exception (SE)
36% – BT-11
�
Overall survival (OS) – 5 years:
19% – special exception (SE)
25% – BT-11
======================================
Compare: standard radiation therapy in combination with chemotherapy (RAT) (Mandell et al. 1999)
�
2% – % of Patients Showing Complete Response 31% – % of Patients Showing Partial Response
�
Mandell LR, Kadota R, Freeman C, et al. There is no role for hyperfractionated radiotherapy in the management of children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic brain stem tumors: results of pediatric oncology group phase III trial comparing conventional vs. hyperfractionated radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;43:959-964. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10192340/
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999 Mar 15;43(5):959-64. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10192340/
International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
Volume 43, Issue 5, 15 March 1999, Pages 959–964 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036030169800501X
Department of Radiation Oncology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
6/1992 – 10/1997
�
Overall survival (OS):
7% – 2 years
0% – 5 years
=====================================
COMBINED:
——————————————————————
Overall survival (OS) – 2 years:
——————————————————————
42% – antineoplastons: special exception (SE)
�
36% – antineoplastons: BT-11
�
7% – standard radiation therapy in combination with chemotherapy (RAT)
——————————————————————
Overall survival (OS) – 5 years:
——————————————————————
25% – antineoplastons: BT-11
�
19% – antineoplastons: special exception (SE)
�
0% – standard radiation therapy in combination with chemotherapy (RAT)
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Break The Walls Down:
——————————————————————
And “THAT’s The BOTTOM LINE”
Because Stone Cold Said So
——————————————————————
IT’s GO TIME
Time To Play The Game:
Yes, Mr. and Mrs. America and all the Ships at SEA,
We were “blessed” with a visit from the “Bloody Well Right,” Panorama BBC http://t.co/nFpwlQg275
By Richard Bilton http://t.co/IY53fEpnBu
BBC Panorama
3 June 2013 Last updated at 00:03
As luck would have it, as I was researching my Critique for this article, BBC Panorama provided me with the title for it, in their YouTube Video:
“IT MAY NOT BE SCIENCE”
This was apropo since it quite possibly defines the entire Panorama article in a “nutshell’
The article states:
“But Dr Stanislaw Burzynski’s treatment has been dismissed by practitioners of mainstream medicine.”
From this, I take it that the viewer is supposed to conclude that the
“practitioners of mainstream medicine”
are:
1. Prof Richard Grundy
and
2. Dr Jeanine Graf
Let’s examine their claims, shall we?
1. Prof Richard Grundy
A. “He says it is “unethical” for Dr Burzynski not to share his findings:”
In my ‘opinion,’ it is “unethical” for Professor Grundy to throw MUD at Dr. Burzynski, when he has NOT shared his findings re Dr. Burzynski’s:
Drugs In R and D / Drugs in Research and Development:
“I was shown into the boardroom and, after 20 minutes waiting, the doctor was ready to see me.”
Mr. Bilton, I am sure that how long you had to spend waiting, might be important to you, but to the viewers:
Not So Much
This might be classified as a human interest story, but YOU are NOT the human whose story we are interested in
“He said the medical authorities in the US would not let him release this information:”
“Clinical trials, phase two clinical trials, were completed just a few months ago. I cannot release this information to you at this moment.”.
“But the FDA told us this was not true and he was allowed to share the results of his trials.”
I’m sure that after perusing the below, that you will be able to come to the conclusion that there are “trust” issues involved, so Dr. Burzynski is correct to be concerned
Panorama prog on #Burzynski is there for posterity on YouTube http://t.co/YOlSjCg1d0
BBC Panorama Burzynski investigation on Youtube http://t.co/6cDJapt6eM
THIS IS IT!
Our debut on the BBC’s Panorama. I hope this reaches millions!!! SO Burzynski will be deprived of… http://fb.me/LYCqmKrh “On Panorama tonight”
“the patients treated with antineoplastons do so as part of a clinical trial, so the drug does not need a licence.”
I am truly impressed, and mightily so
Who knew that if “BBC Panorama” had just investigated Dr. Burzynski, years ago, we could have gotten this all out of the way, long ago
Yes, Mr. and Mrs. America, and all the ships at sea, BBC Panorama has decided the question for us, once and for all
Clinical Trials-are, get ready for it, wait for it, “Legal loopholes“
WOW
I KNOW
Who woulda thunk THAT?
Thank goodness they couldn’t put the Concorde on their expense account
The British Are Coming
The British Are Coming
And Mumsie, can we keep them?
“These trials have been taking place for 20 years.”
It’s good to find out that someone can get close to “1994” when Dr. Burzynski’s Securities and Exchange (SEC) filings indicate 2 phase 2 clinical trials were in progress
Maybe some of “The Skeptics” are learning to read?
“Despite years of research, Dr Burzynski has never published full results.”
BBC Panorama (@BBCPanorama) would that be because the phase 2 clinical trials were NOT done?
Would “results” normally be published after the clinical trials are finished?
Brave Maverick Welsh Schoolboy frantically waves hand at back of classroom, as if to say: “Pick Me, … Pick Me”
All in all, it’s just another “Brick” in the Wall
“If he has discovered a breakthrough, he is not sharing it with the rest of the world.”
Perhaps that’s what those pesky phase 2 clinical trials preliminary reports from 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, etc., are all about, me little lad
“If you don’t eat your meat, you can’t have any pudding”
Yes
Laddie
“Divided doctors”
“Prof Richard Grundy treats children with cancer, and runs one of the UK’s biggest research projects into brain tumours.”
“He says it is “unethical” for Dr Burzynski not to share his findings:”
Does Professor Richard Grundy know what a phase 2 clinical trial preliminary report looks like, and does he know how to read?
“”I understand that that draw is very attractive.”
“Unfortunately the results from Dr Burzynski’s clinic are not published in any form that’s acceptable to the scientific community.””
Oh, my
I wish I could have been there in person to hear that
Did he have a British stiff upper lip when he said it?
Was one of his pinky fingers pointing straight up?
Do tell
Exactly what is:
“published in any form that’s acceptable to the scientific community“?
Cancer: Hope for Sale? will be broadcast on Monday, 3 June at 20:30 BST on BBC One
BBC One – Panorama, Cancer: Hope for Sale?
“From the start I had wanted to meet Dr Burzynski.”
“He rarely gives interviews nowadays and he refused our original requests, but while I was in Houston I was told he would meet me.”
“His clinic is a mirror-fronted office block in one of Houston’s better areas.”
I’m sure the Houston Tourism Board and Convention Center was ecstatic to hear this ….the part about Houston having “better areas,” that is
“Next some basic facts – how many patients has he treated with antineoplastons, and how many have survived?”
“He said the medical authorities in the US would not let him release this information:”
“”Clinical trials, phase two clinical trials, were completed just a few months ago.”
“I cannot release this information to you at this moment.””
“But the FDA told us this was not true and he was allowed to share the results of his trials.”
Really, old chap
And exactly who at the FDA told you that?
Or is it a secret, … secret secret?
“Dr Burzynski left the interview angry, apparently affronted that his great discovery was questioned.”
Dr. Burzynski seems to have some difficulties with “little men“
How tall are you?
And have you heard of one Craig Masilow and one Dr. David H. Gorski?
“They see him as a maverick, an outsider fighting the traditional medical establishment.”
He is a maverick in much the same was as Dr. David H. Gorski, and his revolutionary “glucose / sugar does NOT feed cancer” “Oracolytes“
“The American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Texas Medical Board have been battling Dr Burzynski for decades.”
Indeed
Do you have any idea of how many millions upon millions of United States Taxpayer Dollars were used to criminally pursue Dr. Burzynski, when they had a civil remedy available to them?
Do you think they put it on their resumes?
“The Burzynski clinic says it doesn’t claim it can cure all cancers and that no patients are promised a cure.”
“They say 776 patients with brain tumours were treated in trials before 2008.”
“And that 15.5% had survived more than five years, which compares favourably to other treatments.”
OH … MY … GOODNESS
Data
How did you get THAT?
Ask?
Or was it freely given?
“But it is harder to understand how Dr Burzynski has been able to sell his experimental treatment to the vulnerable for so many years.”
Did you ask your “chums,” the great people at the United States Food and Drug Administration?
Panorama, Cancer: Hope for Sale?, BBC One, Monday 3 June at 20:30 BST and then available in the UK on the BBC iPlayer.
Didymus Judas Thomas' Hipocritical Oath Blog 