United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA): September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51

20131021-200529.jpg

20131021-200553.jpg
[1] – September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
======================================
BB – Bob Blaskiewicz
——————————————————————
DJT – Didymus Judas Thomas
======================================
0:47:00
——————————————————————
BB“Ummm, o-kay”

“Uh, I want to turn this over to the people who are watching”

“Um, I want to give them a a chance to address you as well”

“Uhmmm, hi everyone”
——————————————————————
0:48:00
——————————————————————
0:53:00
——————————————————————
BB“A every time that I and and and and, and David (James @StortSkeptic the Skeptic Canary) points this out, that um, you you know you’re not going to speculate about the the FDA but then at every turn you’re invoking the FDA as being obstructionist
——————————————————————
0:54:02
——————————————————————
BB“I, I just find that to be contradictory and and self-defeating
======================================
DJT – Bob, exactly where did I invoke “the FDA as being obstructionist” ?
======================================
1:02:00
——————————————————————
BB“Um, it’s it’s it’s not the FDA’s, but you understand it’s not the FDA’s job to tell someone that their drug doesn’t work
——————————————————————
1:03:00
——————————————————————
BB“it’s it’s it’s up to Burzynski

“It’s up to Burzynski to show that his drug does work”

“And it’s always been his burden of proof

“He’s the one that’s been claiming this miracle cancer cure, forever”
======================================
DJT – Bob, Burzynski showed and proved what he needed to prove to the FDA in order to do phase 2 clinical trials, 9/3/2004 – FDA granted “orphan drug designation” (“ODD”) for Antineoplastons (A10 & AS2-1 Antineoplaston) for treatment of patients with brain stem glioma, .10/30/2008 – FDA granted “orphan drug designation” (“ODD”) for Antineoplastons (A10 and AS2-1 Antineoplaston) for treatment of gliomas, and FDA approved phase 3 [1-2]

Oh, and Bob, exactly when did Burzynski 1st claim “this miracle cancer cure” ?
======================================
1:04:02
——————————————————————
BB“Um, that we’d love to see, however we can’t see, however we can’t see it because of proti protri proprietary uh protections that the FDA is giving to Burzynski, right ?”

They’re not sharing his trial designs because they are his trial designs, right ?”

“That the makeup of his drug that he’s distributing are his, uh design, and his intellectual property

“So the FDA is protecting him, uh from outside scrutiny
======================================
DJT – Bob, you make it sound like it’s part of some grand “conspiracy” between Burzynski and the FDA to keep information from “The Skeptics™” [3]
——————————————————————
21CFR601

Subpart F–Confidentiality of Information

Sec. 601.50

Confidentiality of data and information in an investigational new drug notice for a biological product

(a) The existence of an IND notice for a biological product will not be disclosed by the Food and Drug Administration unless it has previously been publicly disclosed or acknowledged
======================================
BB“While you may imagine that that, that that the FDA is is somehow antagonistic toward him

“They’ve given him every opportunity, over 60 opportunities to prove himself worth uh their confidence and hasn’t
======================================
DJT – Bob, that certainly explains the 9/3/2004 and .10/30/2008 ODD’s and phase 3 clinical trial approvals by the FDA – NOT [1-2]
======================================
1:05:00
——————————————————————
1:42:00
——————————————————————
BB“I don’t, the thing is though that, that that’s a inver, shifting the burden of proof off of Burzynski”

“Burzynski has to prove them wrong, has to prove him right”

“The FDA is not there to say this doesn’t work”
======================================
DJT – Bob, who initiated and put into place the clinical trial hold ?

Burzynski ?

FDA ?

Both ?
======================================
1:43:30
——————————————————————
BB“So, I mean, honestly, um, saying “Well, when the F, FDA tells you that it doesn’t work, the FDA’s never gonna say that because that’s not their job
——————————————————————
1:44:00
——————————————————————
BB“That’s not an option, because they’re never gonna do it

“They relinquish, a lot of authority, over to Burzynski, and his Institutional Review Board, which, I would mention, has failed 3 reviews in a row”
======================================
Bob, where are the “final reports” for those “3 reviews” ?
======================================
BB“Right ?”

“It is Burzynski’s job to be convincing”

“It is not our uh, uh, it it it he hasn’t produced in decades

“In decades”

“In hundreds and hundreds of patients, who’ve payed to be on this”

“Hell, we’d we’d we’d like a prelim, well when you’re talking about something that is so difficult as brainstem glioma, that type of thing gets, really does in the publishing stream get fast-tracked there”
======================================
DJT – Bob, Burzynski has provided numerous phase 2 clinical trial preliminary reports, which our #fave oncologist has chosen to ignore [4]
======================================
BB“they test it”

“Yeah, and they they they want uh, that was evidence of fast-tracking is what, that rejection was uh e was very quickly
======================================
DJT – Bob, have you checked The Lancet Oncology [5] to see what was so much more important than Burzynski’s “phase 2 clinical trial Progression-Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS) re patients 8 – 16 years after diagnosis, results” [6] and the Japanese antineoplaston study ? [7]
======================================
BB“So, how long will it be before Burzynski doesn’t publish, that you decide that uh perhaps he’s he‘s, doesn’t have the goods ?

“Um, so, uh, uh again, the FDA is not the arbiter of this

“It’s ultimately Burzynski”

“You’ve been speculating about what the FDA’s motivation are like crazy”

“Why not speculate about Burzynski a little bit”
======================================
DJT – Well, how have I been speculating ?
======================================
1:46:00
——————————————————————
BB“Well actually I’m not even asking you to speculate about Burzynski, I’m only asking you to tell me, how long would it take, uh how, for him to go unpublished like this, um, for this long, before you would doubt it ?”
======================================
DJT – Note how, above, without proving it, Bob claimed “at every turn you’re invoking the FDA as being obstructionist”, and now, directly above, again, without proving it, Bob claims “You’ve been speculating about what the FDA’s motivation are like crazy”
——————————————————————
DJT – what the journals keep saying, in response
======================================
BB“What ?”
======================================
DJT – You know, are they going to give The Lancet response, like they did in 2 hours and such, saying, “Well, we think your message would be best heard elsewhere,” or they gonna gonna give The Lancet response of, “Well, we don’t have room in our publication this time, well, because we’re full up, so, try and pick another place” ?
======================================
BB“But these but but but that doesn’t have any bearing on

“That doesn’t”

“Oh I’m not asking you how long, how long, would it take you for you to start doubting whether or not he has the goods ?

“How long would it take ?”

“It’s a it’s a it’s a question that should be answered by a number uh uh months ?

“Years ?”

“How long ?”

“It’s been 15 years already”
======================================
DJT – Well, you like to jump up and down with the “15 year” quote, but then again I always get back to, Hey, it’s when, when the report, when the clinical trial is done
——————————————————————
1:47:06
——————————————————————
DJT – Not that he’s been practicing medicine medicine for 36 years, or whatever, it’s when the clin, clinical trial was done
======================================
BB – “I could push it back to 36 years”

“He hasn’t shown that it works for 36 years”

“I can do that”

“I was being nice”
======================================
DJT – Note how Bob acts like he’s been hit with “The Stupid Stick”

If he wants to go back “36 years”, I can refer back to 1991 (11/15/1991) – Michael J. Hawkins, M.D., Chief, Investigational Drug Branch, Department of Health &Human Services (HHS), Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Cancer Institute (NCI), sent a 1 page Memorandum Re:
Antineoplaston
to Decision Network, which advised, in part:

It was the opinion of the site visit team that antitumor activity was documented in this best case series and that the conduct of Phase II trials was indicated to determine the response rate” [8]
——————————————————————
DJT – The FDA A believes there is evidence of efficacy
======================================
BB – “Perhaps based on bad phase 2”
======================================
DJT – Well, we don’t know that

We don’t have the Freedom of Information Act information
——————————————————————
DJT – Remember, Bob is the one who told me during the 9/28/2013 Google+ Burzynski Discussion Hangout:

“You’re you’re you’re assuming”

“You’re you’re you’re assuming that”

“You’re assuming that”

“Um, I’m not assuming that”

“There is a correct answer here”

“You don’t know”

“You don’t know”

“You need to look into it”

“Alright ?”

“Before you dismiss it you have to look into it”

“Everytime somebody throws uh uh something to me,
I have to look into it”

“That’s just, it’s my responsibility as a reader”

“T t and what I would honestly expect and hope, is that you would be honest about this, to yourself, and and and that’s the thing we don’t, we often don’t realize that we’re not being honest with ourself

“I try to fight against it, constantly”

Bob just ASSUMED that the FDA approved phase 3 clinical trials for Burzynski “Perhaps based on bad phase 2”, but tells me NOT to ASSUME ?
======================================
BB“He withdrew”

“He withdrew the the phase 3 clinical trial”

“I that before recruiting,
although I’ve seen lots of people say they were on a phase 3 clinical trial

“I wonder how that happened”
======================================
DJT – Well, we know what happened in the movie because Eric particularly covered that when they tried to get what, what, was it 200 or 300 something institutions to take on a phase 3, and they refused
======================================
1:48:01
——————————————————————
BB“Uh did do do you think that if they thought that he was a real doctor that they all would have refused like that ?
======================================
DJT – Well, Eric gave the reasons that they said they would not take a particular uh phase 3

And so using that excuse that you you just gave there, I’m not even gonna buy that one, because that’s not one of the reasons
——————————————————————
Note how Bob pulls out the old “if they thought that he was a real doctor” line ?

Is Bob now claiming that Burzynski is NOT even a “real doctor” ?
======================================
BB – “He’s changed things”
======================================
DJT – Eric said they gave
======================================
BB“That The Lancet is a top-tier journal like New England Journal of Medicine

“It’s basically be, besieged by uh 100′s of people submitting their, their, their reports”

“Um, it’s just, you know, let’s say he, someone has such a thin publishing record as Burzynski does, do you think that it’s likely that he will ever get in a top-tier journal ?

“What about the the Public Library of Science?”

“It’s not the only journal there”

“What about BMC Cancer ?”

“There’s lots of places that he can go”
======================================
DJT – We’ll I’m
======================================
BB“Um, and he doesn’t seem to to have evailed himself of that, as far as I can tell

“And I would know because he’d get rejected, or he’d be crowing, you know”
——————————————————————
1:49:02
——————————————————————
BB – “Either way, he’s gonna tell us what happens”

He told us what happened with The Lancet, you know”

“I don’t have any evidence that suggests to me that he’s even trying”
======================================
Note how Bob refers to Burzynski’s numerous publications as “such a thin publishing record”

Bob, do I need to count all of these for you ? [9]
——————————————————————
DJT – Well, I’m, I’m sure that they’re going to keep you appraised just like they have in the past, just like Eric has done in the past

So

I mean, we’ll see what happens with the Japanese study [7]
======================================
BB – “So let’s go back to this”

“How long will it take ?”

“How long will it take before you, the Japanese study’s interesting too because we should be able to find that in the Japanese science databases, and we can find, we can’t find it at all

“We can’t find it anywhere”

“And, and those are in English, so it’s not a language problem

“We can’t find that anywhere”

“We’ve asked”

“We asked Rick Schiff, for, for that study”

“And, and it hasn’t come to us

“He is now I believe on the Board of Directors, over there”
——————————————————————
1:50:00
——————————————————————
BB – “He should have access to this”

“We can’t get it”
======================================
Bob, did you ask:

1. Annals of Oncology 2010;21:viii221 ?

2. European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), Colorectal cancer, Abstract: 3558, May 17, 2010 ?

3. Colorectal Cancer Association of Canada, COLORECTAL CANCER RESEARCH, Month Ending June 19, 2009
11. Antineoplaston Therapy Doubles 5-Year Survival Rate Following Curative Resection of Hepatic Mets (May 27/09) pg. 5 of 20 ?

4. Kurume University School of Medicine (Japan) Department of Surgery ?

5. Hideaki Tsuda ? [7]
======================================
BB – “How how long will it take before you recognize that, nothing is forthcoming ?”

“How long would that take ?”
======================================
DJT – Well that’s like me asking “How long is it going to take for y’all’s, y’all‘s Skeptics to respond to my questions ?”

Because y’all haven’t been forthcoming
======================================
BB“Well, I mean, were talking about a blog here

“We’re talking about life”

“No, we’re talking about a blogger’s feelings in that case

“In in this case we’re talking about, 1,000′s of patients, over the course of of of generations, you know”

“This is important stuff”

“This is not eh eh equating what’s happening to to patients with what’s happening to you is is completely off-kilter as far as I can tell

“It’s nothing”

“It’s nothing like you not getting to say something on my web-site”

“You know”

“This is they they have thrown in with Burzynski, and they’ve trusted him, and he’s produced nothing

“Nothing of substance”
——————————————————————
1:51:00
——————————————————————
BB – “Nothing that that has made all of that um, uh, n nothing th th th that uh his peers would take seriously”

“The other thing that that that strikes me now is that, you know, you you you you keep saying that, well Eric is going to to share things with you”

“Does it ever concern you eh uh eh occur to you that Eric might not be reliable ?”
======================================
Bob, do you want to have a contest to determine which of you is more “reliable” ?
======================================
DJT – Well, he gave you The Lancet information and he posted the e-mail in the movie, and Josephine Jones posted a copy of it [6]
======================================
BB“He then, and then he”

“And then he he, you know, the the the the dialogue that sprung up around that was, well see, he’s never going to get to get published”

“Well you’re just setting yourself up for wish fulfillment”

“You want him to be, persecuted, so you are ecstatic when he doesn’t get to publish, which is unfortunate for all the cancer patients, who really thought that one day, all the studies were going to be published”
——————————————————————
1:52:00
======================================
DJT – Well, y’all are free to, you know, claim that all you want, because I don’t always agree with Eric, and uh, he’s free to express his opinion
======================================
BB – “Where has Eric been wrong ?”
======================================
DJT – Well I don’t necessarily believe, what Eric would say about, you know, The Lancet that refused to publish the 2nd one, for the reasons he stated, and which y’all have commented on, including Gorski

You know, I don’t necessarily agree with that

I am more agreeable to y’all, saying that, you know, they’re busy, they’ve got other things to do, but I’m kind of still laughing at their 1st response which he showed in the movie about how they felt about, you know his results would be better in some other publication

I thought that was kind of a ridiculous response to give someone
======================================
BB“It’s it’s it’s it’s a form letter

“You know”

“They’re just saying, “No thanks””

““Thanks, but no thanks” is what they were saying, in the most generic way possible”

“Like I said, they’re besieged by researchers trying to publish
——————————————————————
1:53:05
======================================
DJT – Well you would think that if its a form letter they would use the same form that they used the 2nd time

You know, they didn’t use the same wording that they used the 1st time

I would have think that, you know, their 2nd comment
======================================
BB“So, so, possibly”

“So possibly what you are saying is that they in fact have read it, and after having read it they’ve rejected it”

“Is that what you’re saying ?”

“Because that’s what peer-review is”
======================================
DJT – Nah, I’m not saying that they did that all

I’m just sayin’, you know, that they gave, 2 different responses, and I would think that the 2nd one they gave
======================================
BB – “Do you know it was the same editor, that it came from the same desk ?”

“You can’t make that assumption that that the form letter will be the same form letter every time”

“I mean you just can’t

“I mean in in some ways we have a lot of non-information that you’re filling in, with what you expect, as as opposed to what’s actually really there, and I I I just think you’re putting too much uh stock in one uh, uh, in in in in this uh the publication kerfuffle
——————————————————————
1:54:16
——————————————————————
BB“Um”
======================================
DJT – Well I find it funny, something along the lines of, you know, “We believe your message would be received better elsewhere, you know

I don’t see that as a normal response, a scientific publication would send to someone trying to publish something

I mean, to me that sounds, like, if you’re doing that, and you’re The Lancet Oncology, maybe you need to set some different procedures in place, ‘cuz you would think that with such a great scientific peer-reviewed magazine, that they would have structured things in as far as how they do their operations
======================================
BB“Well, not necessarily

“I’ve been in any # of professional groups where the organization is just not optimal, and publications certainly th there are all sorts of pressures from all sorts of different places”
——————————————————————
1:55:08
——————————————————————
BB“I I have no problems whatsoever with seeing that this might not be completely uh um uh streamlining uniform processes as possible

“The fact that it’s not uniform, doesn’t have anything to do with Burzynski not publishing, not producing good data”

“Not just going to a, you know, god, even if, even if, let’s put it this way, even if he went to a pay to play type publication where you have to pay in order to get your manuscript accepted; and he has the money to do this, it wouldn’t take that much, and he were to put out a good protocol, and he were to show us his data, and he would make his, his his stuff accessible to us, then we could validate it, then we could look at it and say, “Yeah, this is good,” or “No, this is the problem, you have to go back and you have to fix this””

“Right ?”

“So we really, every time we talk about the letter that he got, yeah that doesn’t have much to do with anything, really”
——————————————————————
1:56:02
——————————————————————
BB – “We wanna see the frickin’ data”

“And if he had a cure for some cancers that otherwise don’t have reliable treatments, he has an obligation to get that out there anyway he can

“And if if peer-review doesn’t, you know, play a, if peer-review can’t do it, you know, isn’t fast enough for him, then he should take it to the web, and he should send copies out to every pediatric, uh, you know, oncologist that there is

“That’s the way to do it”
======================================
DJT – Well, I’m sure, I’m sure Gorski would have a comment about that, as he’s commented previously about how he thinks uh Burzynskishould publish
======================================
1:57:10
——————————————————————
BB“It’s the, it’s the data itself

“If if Burzynski is is, is confident in his data, he will put it out there

“Right ?”

“One way or the other”
======================================
DJT – Like I said before

Like I said before on my blog, you know, even if Burzynski publishes his phase 2 information, Gorski can just jump up and down and say, “Well, that just shows evidence of efficacy, you know, it’s not phase 3,
so it doesn’t really prove it”

——————————————————————
1:58:04
——————————————————————
DJT – So then he can go on, you know, for however many years he wants to
======================================
2:01:00
——————————————————————
BB“Um, almost no treatment goes out without trials

“Massive amounts of data are required”
======================================
Bob, do you think that’s the 2.5 million pages of clinical trial data that Fabio said Burzynski sent to the FDA ? [10]
======================================
2:02:00
——————————————————————
BB“Uh, in in in that sense, you know, uh all the the the, you know, kind of back-peddling and and and trying to defend him is is going to, not going to help his case at all
======================================
Bob, exactly where did I exhibit any “kind of back-peddling” ?
======================================
2:03:03
——————————————————————
BB
“You are, honestly as far as I can tell you are doing the um, you know, you’re you’re ah throwing up uh, uh, uh, you’re giving me another uh invisible dragon in the garage, um”
======================================
DJT – Well y’all, y’all can call things what y’all want

I mean, y’all can give these, fallacy arguments and all that garbage that y’all like, because that’s what y’all like to talk about instead of dealing with the issues

I mean, Gorski doesn’t want to deal with the issues
======================================
2:04:11
——————————————————————
BB“Okay, so”

“What you’re telling me is that you trust the FDA to to be able to tell you when he’s not doing, good science, but also that you don’t trust the FDA”

“Do you see an inherent conflict there ?”
======================================
DJT – How did I say I, I didn’t trust them ?
======================================
BB“Well, when I, whenever I would ask about, like, why would these trials aren’t happening uh and, you know, you say well the the FDA’s arranged it

“The FDA’s in control”

“They sign off on these things”

“But they’re they’re they’re they’re at the same that they’re, they’re trustworthy they’re also not trustworthy depending on what you need for the particular argument at the time
——————————————————————
2:05:12
——————————————————————
BB – “You’re suggesting that they’re untrustworthy”
======================================
DJT – No, I’m just sayin’ that I’ve raised questions and none of The Skeptics wanna to uh talk about ‘em [11]
======================================
BB“Do you know that the FDA pulled out of the prosecution ?”

“Did you know that the FDA pulled out of the prosecution um of his criminal case, because they were backing a researcher ?”
======================================
Bob, would that “researcher” be Dvorit D. Samid, who was in Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business (Part I) ?
——————————————————————
DJT – Well, we know a lot stuff they did, but that still doesn’t impress me that they pulled out of the prosecution

I mean
======================================
BB“Yeah, the the the it wasn’t the FDA who was pressing charges, it was a Federal prosecutor
======================================
DJT – Right
======================================
BB“Right”

“And and, they declined to provide information that the prosecution needed

“That’s important”

“That that that’s really important

“That he has been given the benefit of the doubt, and he has come up wanting, for decades now”
======================================
DJT – Well I find it interesting a lot of this uh, a lot of these letters that were provided between, you know, the government and Burzynski, when the uh phase 2 study was going on, at the behest of the NCI

You know, anybody who reads that stuff knows, that when you just ignore the person that’s been doing, do treating their patients for 20 something years, or close to 20 years, and you change the protocol without his approval, and you don’t use the drugs in the manner that he knows works
======================================
2:10:15
——————————————————————
BB“One of the interesting things about Doubting Thomas that I think you should definitely consider for yourself, is that at some point, when faced with the real opportunity to prove or disprove his assertions, he doubted himself”

“And that’s important”

“And that’s where you’re falling short in the analogy”
======================================
DJT – Well, I think The Skeptics, Skeptics are falling short because, you know, they don’t own up to
======================================
BB – “I’ve laid out exactly what it would take for me to turn on a fucking dime”

“I have, I have made it abundantly clear what I need

“Gorski has made it abundantly clear”

“Everybody else, Guy, and David, and Josephine Jones, uh, the Morgans, all of them have made it abundantly clear, what it would take to change our minds, and you’ve never done that”
——————————————————————
2:11:02
——————————————————————
BB“And even in this, this was an opportunity to do that

“To come up with a basis for understanding, where it’s like, you know what, If we can show this, you know, if we can show a this guy, that, that, there, that his standards are not being met, then, you know, we could possibly have some sort of ongoing dialogue after this”
======================================
DJT – So I can say that since the Mayo Clinic (Correction: M.D. Anderson) finished their study in 2006, and it took them until 2013, to actually publish it, then I can say, well, Burzynski finished his in 2009, which was 3 years later, which would give Burzynski until 2016
======================================
BB“Why wasn’t that study”
======================================
DJT – for me to make up my mind (laughing)
======================================
BB“Why wasn’t that, that that that, still . . again, it it doesn’t seem really to to approach the the the, main question here

“You know, um . . what are the standards that you have that it isn’t, what are your standards to show that it isn’t efficacious ?
——————————————————————
2:12:05
======================================
DJT – Well I can say, well I’m going to have to wait, the same amount of time I had to wait for Mayo (Correction: M.D. Anderson) to publish their study; which was from 2006 to 2013
======================================
BB“Why was the Mayo”

“Why was the Mayo (Correction: M.D. Anderson) study delayed ?”
======================================
Note how Bob ASSUMES that the publishing of the final results of the M.D. Anderson study were delayed
——————————————————————
DJT – How do you know it was delayed ?
======================================
BB“Well you said you had so many years before you finish it and go in”
======================================
DJT – I mean, has anybody
======================================
BB“Why, why did it take so long ?
======================================
DJT – done a review of when a clinical trial is studied, and completed, and how long it took the people to publish it ?

You know

If they could point to me a study that’s done that, and say, well here’s the high end, here’s the low end of the spectrum, here’s the middle
======================================
BB“I have something for you, okay ?”

“Send me that”

“Could you send me that study the way that it was published because um, just just send me the final study, um, to my e-mail address”
======================================
DJT – Sure
======================================
BB“Um, because, I can ask that question of those researchers, why was this study in this time, and what happened in-between”
——————————————————————
2:13:03
——————————————————————
BB – “Why did it take so long for it, for it to come out”
======================================
DJT – Sure, but that’s not gonna, you know like, answer an overall question of, you know, somebody did a comparative study of all clinical trials, and, when they were finished, and at, and when the study was actually published afterwards

You know, that’s only gonna be one, particular clinical study
======================================
BB“Right”

“Um, but it it would, perhaps, answer the question; because you’re using it as an example on the basis of which to dismiss criticism, whether or not, uh, it is the standard, and therefor you’re allowed to accept that Burzynski hasn’t published until 2016, or, um, it’s an anomaly, which is also a possibility, that most stuff comes out more quickly
======================================
DJT – Well, we know that the Declaration of Helsinki doesn’t even give a standard saying, You must publish within x amount of years,” you know ?

So, I’ve yet to find a Skeptic who posted something that said, “Here are the standards, published here”
======================================
2:14:07
——————————————————————
BB“I I, yeah, the other thing that David James points out is you know, why 2016 when he’s had 36 years already ?
======================================
DJT – Again, we get back to, when the clinical trial is finished, not when Burzynski started
======================================
BB“Treating people”
======================================
DJT – I mean, you would expect to find a results to be published after, the final results are in
======================================
BB – “You would expect the Burzynski Patient Group to be a lot bigger after 36 years, and in fact is
======================================
DJT – You would expect some people would want to have confidentiality, and maybe not want to be included
======================================
BB – “So, if you’re unsure about this stuff, if you’re unsure about the the time to publication, why are you defending it so hard, other than saying, “I don’t know, I really need to”
======================================
DJT – Why am I unsure ?
======================================
BB“Uh about the
======================================
DJT – (laughing) I just gave you an example
======================================
BB“The reasons, the reasons for which that he’s, no, why are you defending him so hard, when you’re unsure ?
——————————————————————
2:15:02
======================================
DJT – Oh, who said I was unsure ?

I just gave you an example
——————————————————————
Note how Bob ASSUMES that I’m “unsure” when I had the same answer since 0:32:07 [12]

Bob, who approves “Accelerated Approval” ?

1. FDA ?

2. A peer-reviewed scientific journal ?

3. The Skeptics™ ?

Bob, It’s your unlucky [13]
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/04/september-28-2013-the-skeptics-burzynski-discussion-by-bob-blaskiewicz-21951/
======================================
[2] – FDA grants Orphan Drug Designation (ODD) for A10 and AS2-1:
——————————————————————
http://www.burzynskiresearch.com/assets/PressRelease_12022008_BZYR(2).pdf
——————————————————————
josephinejones (@_JosephineJones), D Nile ist http://josephinejones.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/happy-birthday-dr-burzynski-and-goodbye-antineoplastons/comment-page-1/#comment-8921
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/23/josephinejones-_josephinejones-d-nile-ist-httpjosephinejones-wordpress-com20130123happy-birthday-dr-burzynski-and-goodbye-antineoplastonscomment-page-1comment-8921/
======================================
[3] – The Skeptics @Majikthyse reveals madjik research skilz:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/26/the-skeptics-majikthyse-reveals-madjik-research-skilz/
======================================
[4] – Critiquing David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/critiquing-david-h-gorski-md-phd-facs-www-sciencebasedmedicine-orgeditorial-staffdavid-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
======================================
[5] – The Lancet Oncology
——————————————————————
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/onlinefirst
——————————————————————
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/issue/current
======================================
[6] – FINALLY, one of “The Skeptics™” has the “Balls” to do what even Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski would NOT do:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/12/finally-one-of-the-skeptics-has-the-balls-to-do-what-even-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-would-not-do/
======================================
[7] – Burzynski – The Antineoplaston Randomized Japan Phase II Clinical Trial Study:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/burzynski-the-antineoplaston-randomized-japan-phase-ii-clinical-trial-study/
======================================
[8] – Critiquing: National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) CancerNet “fact sheet”:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/critiquing-national-cancer-institute-nci-at-the-national-institutes-of-health-nih-cancernet/
======================================
[9] – Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski Publications:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/stanislaw-rajmund-burzynski-publications/
======================================
[10] – 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/
======================================
[11] – QUESTIONS the Critics and Cynics, “The Skeptics™” do NOT want to ANSWER:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/23/questions-the-critics-and-cynics-the-skeptics-do-not-want-to-answer/
======================================
[12] – The Biggest Loser: “The Skeptics™” Guy Chapman (guychapman @vGuyUK @SceptiGuy) http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg/ – September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/the-biggest-loser-the-skeptics-guy-chapman-guychapman-vguyuk-sceptiguy-httpwww-chapmancentral-co-ukblahg-september-28-2013-the-skeptics/
======================================
[13] – Burzynski: Why has the FDA NOT granted Accelerated Approval for Antineoplastons A10 (Atengenal) and AS2-1 (Astugenal) ?:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/burzynski-why-has-the-fda-not-granted-accelerated-approval-for-antineoplastons-a10-astengenal-and-as2-1-astugenal/
======================================

Advertisements

Critiquing: National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) CancerNet “fact sheet”

[1] – 1995 (10/1995) – The National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) issued its CancerNet “fact sheet”

The problem is that there were “factual issues” with the CancerNet “fact sheet”
——————————————————————
[0] – All Americans are “presumed to know the law:”

Title 18, Part I, Chapter 47, § 1001

18 USC § 1001 – Statements or entries generally

(3) “makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry”
——————————————————————
Below is how the “fact sheet” looked before and after the “fact sheet’s” “factual issues” were fixed
======================================
BOLD = changes
======================================
[1] – 10/1995 – CancerNet from the National Cancer Institute

CANCER FACTS

National Cancer Institute
National Institutes of Health
——————————————————————
[2] – 5/20/2002 – CANCER FACTS

National Cancer Institute • National Institutes of Health Department of Health and Human Services
======================================
[1] – 10/1995 – National Cancer Institute-Sponsored Clinical Trials of Antineoplastons

Antineoplastons are a group of compounds originally isolated from urine by Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, who claims that they inhibit cancer cell growth
——————————————————————
[2] – 5/20/2002 – Antineoplastons

Antineoplastons are a group of synthetic compounds that were originally isolated from human blood and urine by Stanislaw Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D., in Houston, Texas
======================================
[1] – 10/1995 – Dr. Burzynski has used these compounds to treat patients with various cancers
——————————————————————
[2] – 5/20/2002 – Dr. Burzynski has used antineoplastons to treat patients with a variety of cancers
======================================
[1] – 10/1995 – In 1991, a “best case series” review was conducted by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) to evaluate clinical responses in a group of patients treated at Dr. Burzynski’s Houston facility
——————————————————————
[2] – 5/20/2002 – In 1991, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) conducted a review to evaluate the clinical responses in a group of patients treated with antineoplastons at the Burzynski Research Institute in Houston
======================================
[1] – 10/1995 – For this review, Dr. Burzynski selected from his entire clinical experience seven brain tumor patients whom he felt had a beneficial effect from antineoplastons
——————————————————————
[2] – 5/20/2002 – The medical records of seven brain tumor patients who were thought to have benefited from treatment with antineoplastons were reviewed by NCI
——————————————————————
[3] – 10/27/1995 – Burzynski objected to [1] in a 7 page letter to Richard Klausner, M.D., Director, National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), on page 1:

[A] – Gives the reader the impression that in his entire clinical experience he had only 7 patients who benefitted from antineoplaston treatment

[B] – He prepared not 7, but dozens of cases for the NCI reviewers

[C] – The reviewers were able to spend just one day at the clinic–enough time to review only 7 cases

(averaging one case per hour)
======================================
[1] – 10/1995 – This series did not constitute a formal clinical trial, since it was a retrospective review of medical records, did not include all available patient information, and included only cases selected by Dr. Burzynski
——————————————————————
[2] – 5/20/2002 – This did not constitute a clinical trial but, rather, was a retrospective review of medical records, called a “best case series.”
——————————————————————
[3] – 10/27/1995 – Burzynski objected to [1] in a 7 page letter to Richard Klausner, M.D., Director, National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), on page 1:

[D] – The patient medical records that NCI scientists reviewed were exhaustive and did contain “all available patient information.”

[E] – Michael Hawkins, M.D., leader of the site visit team, specifically complimented him on how complete and well-organized they were

[F] – 1991 (11/15/1991) – Michael J. Hawkins, M.D., Chief, Investigational Drug Branch, Department of Health &Human Services (HHS), Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Cancer Institute (NCI) sent a 1 page Memorandum Re:
Antineoplaston
to Decision Network:, which advised, in part:

“Seven patient cases were presented at the site visit and the records, pathology slides and scans documenting response were reviewed”
======================================
[1] – 10/1995 – The reviewers of this series determined that there was presumptive evidence of antitumor activity and NCI then proposed that Phase II clinical trials be conducted to evaluate more definitively the response rate and toxicity of antineoplastons in adult patients with refractory brain tumors
——————————————————————
[2] – 5/20/2002 – The reviewers of this series found evidence of antitumor activity, and NCI proposed that formal clinical trials be conducted to further evaluate the response rate and toxicity of antineoplastons in adults with advanced brain tumors
——————————————————————
[F] – 1991 (11/15/1991) – Michael J. Hawkins, M.D., Chief, Investigational Drug Branch, Department of Health &Human Services (HHS), Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Cancer Institute (NCI)
sent a 1 page Memorandum Re:
Antineoplaston
to Decision Network:, which advised, in part:

“It was the opinion of the site visit team that antitumor activity was documented in this best case series and that the conduct of Phase II trials was indicated to determine the response rate”

[3] – 10/27/1995 – Burzynski objected to [1] in a 7 page letter to Richard Klausner, M.D., Director, National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), on page 1:

[G] – The statement of the NCI scientists who actually reviewed patient records was quite different from the above

Their report stated:

“The site visit team determined that antitumor activity was documented in the best case series and that the conduct of Phase II trials was indicated to determine the response rate

(minutes of Decision Network committee meeting)
======================================
[1] – 10/1995 – The decision by NCI to sponsor the study of an agent in a clinical trial does not indicate that the agent is or will be useful in the treatment of cancer patients, only that it merits further evaluation in a research setting

Efforts to study antineoplastons in a scientifically rigorous manner have required complex interactions among NCI, clinical investigators, the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) Office of Alternative Medicine, the Food and Drug Administration, advocates from the alternative medicine community, and Dr. Burzynski
======================================
[1] – 10/1995 – Two protocols were developed by the participating Cancer Center investigators with extensive review and input from NCI and Dr. Burzynski
——————————————————————
[2] – 5/20/2002 – Investigators at several cancer centers developed protocols for two phase II clinical trials with review and input from NCI and Dr. Burzynski
======================================
[1] – 10/1995 – These studies began in 1993 at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Mayo Clinic, and the NIH Clinical Center
——————————————————————
[2] – 5/20/2002 – These NCI-sponsored studies began in 1993 at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, the Mayo Clinic, and the Warren Grant Magnuson Clinical Center at the National Institutes of Health
======================================
[1] – 10/1995 – However, accrual to these studies was very slow and only nine patients were enrolled
——————————————————————
[2] – 5/20/2002 – Patient enrollment in these studies was slow, and by August 1995 only nine patients had entered the trials
======================================
[1] – 10/1995 – On 8/18/1995, the studies were closed because a consensus could not be reached with Dr. Burzynski on the proposed changes in the protocol to increase accrual, and there was no hope of completing the studies in a timely manner
——————————————————————
[2] – 5/20/2002 – Attempts to reach a consensus on proposed changes to increase accrual could not be reached by Dr. Burzynski , NCI staff, and investigators, and on 8/18/1995, the studies were closed prior to completion
——————————————————————
[3] – 10/27/1995 – Burzynski objected to [1] in a 7 page letter to Richard Klausner, M.D., Director, National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), on page 1:

[H] – The only reason the clinical trials of antineoplastons were stopped is that NCI would not conduct them as per our written agreement

[I] – Even the NCI’s own previous “fact sheet” on antineoplastons, dated 2/17/1994, states that

“The NCI reviewed 7 cases of patients with primary brain tumors that were treated by Dr. Burzynski with antineoplastons and concluded that antitumor responses occurred

[J] – The NCI never made any effort to “reach a consensus.”

[K] – It simply violated the written protocol we had agreed upon

[L] – Without informing me, NCI changed the rules to allow patients with any size or number of tumors, low performance scores, and spinal cord metastases

[M] – When I found out and insisted that NCI either conduct the study as agreed or inform patients that I felt it was conducting the study improperly, NCI cancelled it
======================================
[1] – 10/1995 – Because these studies were closed prior to completion, no conclusions can be made about the effectiveness or toxicity of antineoplastons
——————————————————————
[2] – 5/20/2002 – Because of the small number of patients in these trials, no definitive conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of treatment with antineoplastons
======================================
[1] – 10/1995 – It is rare that this kind of NCI-sponsored clinical study cannot be successfully completed

The NCI is disappointed by this outcome but is continuing to evaluate related compounds in clinical trials in order to determine if they may be of benefit in the treatment of patients with cancer
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – Date Last Modified 10/1995
——————————————————————
CancerNet from the National Cancer Institute

CANCER FACTS

National Cancer Institute
National Institutes of Health

National Cancer Institute-Sponsored Clinical Trials of Antineoplastons

Antineoplastons are a group of compounds originally isolated from urine by Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, who claims that they inhibit cancer cell growth

Dr. Burzynski has used these compounds to treat patients with various cancers

In 1991, a “best case series” review was conducted by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) to evaluate clinical responses in a group of patients treated at Dr. Burzynski’s Houston facility

For this review, Dr. Burzynski selected from his entire clinical experience seven brain tumor patients whom he felt had a beneficial effect from antineoplastons

This series did not constitute a formal clinical trial, since it was a retrospective review of medical records, did not include all available patient information, and included only cases selected by Dr. Burzynski

The reviewers of this series determined that there was presumptive evidence of antitumor activity and NCI then proposed that Phase II clinical trials be conducted to evaluate more definitively the response rate and toxicity of antineoplastons in adult patients with refractory brain tumors

The decision by NCI to sponsor the study of an agent in a clinical trial does not indicate that the agent is or will be useful in the treatment of cancer patients, only that it merits further evaluation in a research setting

Efforts to study antineoplastons in a scientifically rigorous manner have required complex interactions among NCI, clinical investigators, the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) Office of Alternative Medicine, the Food and Drug Administration, advocates from the alternative medicine community, and Dr. Burzynski

Two protocols were developed by the participating Cancer Center investigators with extensive review and input from NCI and Dr. Burzynski

These studies began in 1993 at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Mayo Clinic, and the NIH Clinical Center

However, accrual to these studies was very slow and only nine patients were enrolled

On 8/18/1995, the studies were closed because a consensus could not be reached with Dr. Burzynski on the proposed changes in the protocol to increase accrual, and there was no hope of completing the studies in a timely manner

Because these studies were closed prior to completion, no conclusions can be made about the effectiveness or toxicity of antineoplastons

It is rare that this kind of NCI-sponsored clinical study cannot be successfully completed

The NCI is disappointed by this outcome but is continuing to evaluate related compounds in clinical trials in order to determine if they may be of benefit in the treatment of patients with cancer
======================================
[2] – This fact sheet was reviewed on 7/13/01

Editorial changes were made on 5/20/02
——————————————————————
CANCER FACTS

National Cancer Institute • National Institutes of Health Department of Health and Human Services

Antineoplastons

Antineoplastons are a group of synthetic compounds that were originally isolated from human blood and urine by Stanislaw Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D., in Houston, Texas

Dr. Burzynski has used antineoplastons to treat patients with a variety of cancers

In 1991, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) conducted a review to evaluate the clinical responses in a group of patients treated with antineoplastons at the Burzynski Research Institute in Houston

The medical records of seven brain tumor patients who were thought to have benefited from treatment with antineoplastons were reviewed by NCI

This did not constitute a clinical trial but, rather, was a retrospective review of medical records, called a “best case series.”

The reviewers of this series found evidence of antitumor activity, and NCI proposed that formal clinical trials be conducted to further evaluate the response rate and toxicity of antineoplastons in adults with advanced brain tumors

Investigators at several cancer centers developed protocols for two phase II clinical trials with review and input from NCI and Dr. Burzynski

These NCI-sponsored studies began in 1993 at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, the Mayo Clinic, and the Warren Grant Magnuson Clinical Center at the National Institutes of Health

Patient enrollment in these studies was slow, and by August 1995 only nine patients had entered the trials

Attempts to reach a consensus on proposed changes to increase accrual could not be reached by Dr. Burzynski , NCI staff, and investigators, and on 8/18/1995, the studies were closed prior to completion

A paper describing this research, “Phase II Study of Antineoplastons A10 (NSC 648539) and AS2-1 (NSC 620261) in Patients With Recurrent Glioma,” appears in Mayo Clinic Proceedings 1999, 74:137–145

Because of the small number of patients in these trials, no definitive conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of treatment with antineoplastons

At present, the Burzynski Research Institute is conducting trials using antineoplastons for a variety of cancers
======================================
[1] – Date Last Modified 10/1995
——————————————————————

20130919-152521.jpg

20130919-152702.jpg
======================================
[2] – This fact sheet was reviewed on 7/13/2001

Editorial changes were made on 5/20/2002
——————————————————————

20130919-174650.jpg

20130919-174914.jpg
——————————————————————
[2]
——————————————————————
http://www.emory.edu/KomenEd/PDF/Treatment/Antineoplastons.pdf
======================================
[3] – 10/27/1995 – Burzynski sent a 7 page letter to Richard Klausner, M.D., Director, National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH)
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/18/24-1995-10271995-burzynski-to-dr-richard-klausner-7-pgs/
======================================
[0] – Title 18, Part I, Chapter 47, § 1001
——————————————————————
18 USC § 1001 – Statements or entries generally
——————————————————————
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001
======================================
[F] – 1991 (11/15/1991) – Michael J. Hawkins, M.D., Chief, Investigational Drug Branch, Department of Health &Human Services (HHS), Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Cancer Institute (NCI) sent a 1 page Memorandum Re:
Antineoplaston
to Decision Network
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/17/5-1991-11151991-dr-michael-j-hawkins-to-decision-network/
======================================
[G] – 1991 (12/2/1991) – NCI Decision Network Report on Antineoplastons:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/17/6-1991-12291-nci-decision-network-report-on-antineoplastons/
======================================
Critiquing: Dr. Michael A. Friedman, Dr. Mario Sznol, Robert B. Lanman,
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Mayo Clinic, Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), Public Health Service, Quality Assurance and Compliance Section, Regulatory Affairs Branch (RAB), Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP), Division of Cancer Treatment (DCT), National Cancer Center (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Stanislaw Burzynski: On the arrogance of ignorance about cancer and targeted therapies:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/critiquing-stanislaw-burzynski-on-the-arrogance-of-ignorance-about-cancer-and-targeted-therapies/
======================================

[24] – 1995 (10/27/1995) – Burzynski to Dr. Richard Klausner (7 pgs.)

This page is linked to:
=====================================
Critiquing: Dr. Michael A. Friedman, Dr. Mark G. Malkin, Dr. Mario Sznol, Robert B. Lanman, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Mayo Clinic, Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), Public Health Service, Quality Assurance and Compliance Section, Regulatory Affairs Branch (RAB), Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP), Division of Cancer Treatment (DCT), National Cancer Center (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Stanislaw Burzynski: On the arrogance of ignorance about cancer and targeted therapies
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/critiquing-stanislaw-burzynski-on-the-arrogance-of-ignorance-about-cancer-and-targeted-therapies/
======================================
[24] – 1995 (10/27/1995) – Burzynski 7 page letter to Richard Klausner, M.D., Director, National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH)

I was shocked to read the Cancernet “fact sheet” the NCI has been distributing about the cancellation of the clinical trials of antineoplastons, the anti-cancer drugs I discovered and developed

I find it scandalous that a government agency is putting out a public document containing such blatantly false information

Let me remind you that the only reason the clinical trials of antineoplastons were stopped is that NCI would not conduct them as per our written agreement

NCI’s “fact sheet” tries to obscure that simple fact with misinformation such as the following:

“In 1991, a “best case series” review was conducted by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) to evaluate clinical response in a group of patients treated at Dr. Burzynski’s Houston facility

For this review, Dr. Burzynski selected from his entire clinical experience 7 brain tumor patients whom he felt had a beneficial effect from antineoplastons.”

This misstatement is obviously calculated to make the reader think that in my entire clinical experience I have had only 7 patients who benefitted from antineoplaston treatment, which is wildly untrue

In fact, I prepared not 7, but dozens of cases for the NCI reviewers

As you must know, the reviewers were able to spend just one day at the clinic–enough time to review only 7 cases

Cancernet then compounds that misstatement with the following:

“This series did not constitute a formal clinical trial, since it was a retrospective review of medical records, did not include all available information, and included only cases selected by Dr. Burzynski” (my italics)

To the contrary, the patient medical records that NCI scientists reviewed were exhaustive and did contain “all available patient information.”

In fact, Michael Hawkins, M.D., leader of the site visit team, specifically complimented me on how complete and well-organized they were

The next misstatement is the following:

“The reviewers of this series determined that there was presumptive evidence of antitumor activity . . .”

Pg. 2

Now that the NCI’s Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) is under fire for misconduct in these clinical trials, it is rewriting history

The statement of the NCI scientists who actually reviewed patient records was quite different from the above

Their report (minutes of Decision Network committee meeting enclosed) stated that “The site visit team determined that antitumor activity was documented in the best case series and that the conduct of Phase II trials was indicated to determine the response rate” (my italics)

In other words, according to the site visit team, there was no question that the treatment worked in the cases reviewed

All that remained to be determined were the numerator and the denominator

Even the NCI’s own previous “fact sheet” on antineoplastons, dated 2/17/1994, (enclosed), states that

“The NCI reviewed 7 cases of patients with primary brain tumors that were treated by Dr. Burzynski with antineoplastons and concluded that antitumor responses occurred” (my italics)

But by far the most outrageous misstatement is the following:

“On 8/18/1995, the studies were closed because a consensus could not be reached with Dr. Burzynski on the proposed changes to the protocol to increase accrual, and there was no hope of completing the studies in a timely manner.”

The NCI never made any effort to “reach a consensus.”

Instead, it simply violated the written protocol we had agreed upon

Without informing me, NCI changed the rules to allow patients with any size or number of tumors, low performance scores, and spinal cord metastases

in other words, NCI was accepting patients whose brains and spinal cords were literally consumed by large malignant tumors–patients so advanced as to have no chance whatsoever

When I found out and insisted that NCI either conduct the study as agreed or inform patients that I felt it was conducting the study improperly, NCI cancelled it

The above is all well documented

While we were still in the negotiating stages, Michael Friedman, M.D. of the NCI wrote me a letter dated 11/2/1993 (enclosed) “. . . we will accede to all the modifications that you have stipulated.”

Dr. Friedman specifically agreed to exclude patients with:

* tumors larger than 5 cm (2 inches)
* multiple tumors
* metastases to spinal cord
* Karnofsky performance scores less than 70%

Based on Dr. Friedman’s written assurance that NCI would honor this exclusion criteria, I provided NCI with a large quantity of antineoplastons, and the clinical trial began

on 3/23/1994, Mario Sznol, M.D., of NCI wrote me proposing that NCI drop the exclusion for multiple tumors and spinal cord metastases, increase the maximum tumor size from 5 cm to 8 cm, and lower the Karnofsky score from 70 to 60 (enclosed)

in a response dated 4/19/1994 (enclosed), I wrote back that I would be glad to help NCI design a separate trial for such advanced patients, using a more aggressive dosage schedule

But I made it clear that it would be unethical to use the current dosage schedule on such patients since my experience had shown that such patients do not respond well to it

Pg. 3

As proof , I pointed out that in the NCI’s own review of patients treated with antineoplastons, the only ones who had less than 50% tumor shrinkage were exactly those with tumors greater than 5 cm

I did not hear back from NCI and assumed the matter had been dropped

Nearly one year later–in 3/1995–I learned that NCI had made all the changes to which I had objected

In fact, NCI went even further

Rather than raising the maximum tumor size from 5 to 8 cm as the NCI earlier suggested, it began accepting patients with any size tumor

I insisted that NCI either honor our agreement or change the Informed Consent statement (which patients must read and sign) to reflect the fact that I, the drug’s discoverer and developer, felt that the treatment was unlikely to be effective in such advanced patients in the doses being used

Rather than honor it’s commitment to conduct the study as agreed, NCI cancelled it

I find it particularly curious that now neither NCI nor Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSK) will take responsibility for changing the exclusion criteria, and are instead pointing fingers at each other

in his letter of 4/3/1995 (enclosed), Dr. Sznol repeatedly refers to the “revised” eligibility criteria proposed by the [Memorial Sloan-Kettering] investigators” (my italics)

But, in a letter to John Lewis, M.D., of Memorial Sloan-Kettering’s Institutional Review Board dated 1/31/1995 (enclosed), the Chief Investigator, MSK’s Mark Malkin, M.D., writes that

“Further amendments, as described below, have been made at the request of NCI” (my italics)

If the changes to the protocol are as the NCI would have the world believe, why is everyone connected to them scurrying to disavow responsibility?

An even more serious matter is what appears to be the investigator’s relentless violations of the treatment protocol

Looking at the treatment summaries compiled by Theradex Corporation, the medical reporting company hired by NCI to compile and tabulate patient treatment data, it would appear that investigators violated the agreed-upon protocol in every patient treated

Apparent violations include the removal of patients from treatment who had no tumor growth (including one patient who, during subsequent surgery, was found to have no cancer cells remaining), and the removal of a patient for “skin reactions” caused not by antineoplastons, but by another drug patient was receiving, DPH

This is clear due to the fact that the patient’s skin condition worsened when he was taken off antineoplastons

It improved only after DPH was discontinued

The summaries provided by Theradex are somewhat sketchy, so I asked to review the complete records of patients tested–which Dr. Friedman had specifically promised to provide

NIH lawyer Robert Lanman replied in a letter dated 8/23/1995 (enclosed) that the NCI did not have any such records

In fact, several patients were treated at NCI and of course NCI has their complete medical records

When I demonstrated this by sending Mr. Lanman copies of patient records obtained by a patient’s family from NCI, he admitted in fact NCI does have patient records, but refused to release them

And he disregarded his own misstatements of fact by saying that

“Given that you apparently have already obtained at least one of the patient’s records, we fail to understand why you are perusing this matter” (letter from Robert Lanman dated 10/5/1995 enclosed)

Mr. Lanman also claims that NCI has “no such commitment” to release medical records of patients treated with antineoplastons

And Dr. Friedman, in a letter dated 9/19/1995 (enclosed), writes that Dr. Burzynski’s request for “detailed records” has been satisfied by the sketchy Theradex treatment summaries

Pg. 4

Both these statements directly contradict Dr. Friedman’s letter of 11/2/1993 (enclosed), in which he promises that

“In accordance with your letter, we will arrange a review of data after accrual of the 1st 5-6 patients, which should occur 6 months after the study has been initiated

This should be sufficient to assure that the conduct of the study is satisfactory

The Theradex database is also available . . .” (my italics)

In other words, Dr. Friedman promised to provide me with patient medical records, recognizing that the Theradex summaries are something quite separate

In that same 9/19/1995 letter, Dr. Friedman writes that

“We have no individual patient records in our possession in addition to the Theradex reports.”

Either he is deliberately misstating the facts, or he is out of touch with the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program that he runs

Dr. Klausner, I request that you immediately withdraw the “fact sheet” the NCI is distributing which contains numerous and outrageous misstatements and distortion of fact

Thank you for your attention to this matter

SRB/cf

cc:

3+ pgs cc:
——————————————————————

20130920-130106.jpg

20130920-130305.jpg

20130920-130429.jpg

20130920-130547.jpg
======================================
1993 (11/2/1993) – Dr. Michael Friedman to Burzynski
1994 (2/17/1994) – NCI “fact sheet”
1994 (3/23/1994) – Dr. Mario Sznol to Burzynski
1994 (4/19/1994) – Burzynski to Dr. Mario Sznol
1995 (1/31/1995) – Dr. John L. Lewis
1995 (4/3/1995) – Dr. Mario Sznol to Burzynski
1995 (8/18/1995) –
1995 (8/23/1995) – Robert B. Lanman to Burzynski
1995 (9/19/1995) – Dr. Michael A. Friedman to Burzynski
1995 (10/5/1995) – Robert B. Lanman to Burzynski
======================================

[7] – 1993 (10/20/1993) – Dr. Michael A. Friedman to Burzynski (4 pgs.)

This page is linked to:
=====================================
Critiquing: Dr. Michael A. Friedman, Dr. Mark G. Malkin, Dr. Mario Sznol, Robert B. Lanman, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Mayo Clinic, Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), Public Health Service, Quality Assurance and Compliance Section, Regulatory Affairs Branch (RAB), Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP), Division of Cancer Treatment (DCT), National Cancer Center (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Stanislaw Burzynski: On the arrogance of ignorance about cancer and targeted therapies
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/critiquing-stanislaw-burzynski-on-the-arrogance-of-ignorance-about-cancer-and-targeted-therapies/
======================================
[7] – 1993 (10/20/1993) – Dr. Michael A. Friedman to Burzynski (4 pgs.)

Michael A. Friedman, M.D., Associate Director, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP), Division of Cancer Treatment, National Cancer Institute (NCI), Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH) letter to Burzynski [4 Pgs.]

Dear Dr. Burzynski:

This letter is in response to your correspondence of 10/11/1993

(addressed to Dr. Sznol)

and of 10/13/1993

(to Dr. Greenblatt)

Your most recent comments regarding the approved study of antineoplastons in adults brain tumor patients, faxed to Dr. Greenblatt on 10/13/1993, come as quite a surprise

Particularly confusing are your comments regarding dose and schedule of antineoplastons proposed in that study (your comment #1)

Originally the dosage and schedule for this study was based on your protocol BT4

This version of BT4 was entitled,
“Therapy of high-grade glioma with continuous infusions of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1”,
and was accompanied by 12 case histories

(patients with either anaplastic astrocytoma or glioblastoma multiforme treated apparently according to BT4)

In your letter of 4/26/1993, however you stated that protocol BT4 was only for low-grade gliomas

Furthermore, you noted that protocols BT5 or BT6 should be used for patients with anaplastic astrocytoma and gliobastoma multiforme

In that same letter (4/20/1993), you noted that AS 2-1 was tolerated well at doses of .5 gm/kg/24h by adult patients when administered in intermittent injections (this is method of administration in BT6 and in the IND study)

You stated that if given by continuous infusion, adults would experience increased sleepiness and tiredness, and specifically stated that the dosage of AS2-1 by continuous infusion for low-grade gliomas should be reduced to 0.4 g/kg/24h

You did not provide data to support these assertions, nevertheless, based on these comments and our review of the protocols BT4, BT5, BT6, we instructed the investigators to revise their protocol in accordance with your instructions

In the Consensus Review sent 5/5/1993, we instructed the Memorial Sloan Kettering investigators to pattern their protocol according to BT5, which was written for both children and adults
We specifically pointed out that BT6 was written for children

In your letter of 6/9/1993, regarding our Consensus Review, you specifically asked that the investigators use the treatment program according to BT6, knowing that the Memorial protocol was for adults with AA and/or GM

You did not at any time mention that dose escalation should be modified for adults, or mention any dose limitation for adults given the intermittent as specified in the BT6 protocol

Page 2

Your concerns regarding dose limitation in the previous letter appeared to be related to continuous infusion administration

The letter of 6/9/1993, contained only 4 comments and at that time you had both the protocol and Consensus Review in your possession

We transmitted your letter of 6/9 directly to the investigators, and all your requested changes were made

Our sincere efforts to attempt to duplicate your findings and follow your recommendations are frustrated by receiving contradictory, incomplete, and inconsistent information from you

We have, at multiple points in the protocol development, solicited your input and followed your guidance in getting recommended dose escalation and modification guidelines for adults

Please note that, one last time, we will ask the investigator to revise the protocol with regard to dose and schedule in compliance with your latest letter

However, we plan that the study will begin immediately and this will be the last such modification

Although you have not provided data to support each of your specific recommendation, we have incorporated them

With regard to comment #2 of your Fax of 10/13/1993, you have misinterpreted the protocol

The total number of potential patients is 35/stratum, (ie a total of 70 patients) allowing for an adequate Phase II evaluation of each group of patients

With regard to the statistical section, your #3 comment, there is little reason to assume that the modified Fleming design currently used in the protocol for the first stage of accrual is less appropriate than a design using 15 patients in the first stage

If the true response rate of the antineoplastons is 20% (standard criteria for activity in all our phase II trials considered worthy of further study), the chance of proceeding to the second stage of accrual with the current design is 93.1%

The chance of proceeding to the second stage using 15 patients in the first stage of accrual is 96.5%

These differences are not considered meaningful

With regard to your comment #4, we wish to maintain the standard clinical trials methodology used to evaluate new agents

We know of no evidence that obtaining a brain scan within 7 days of treatment versus within 14 days of treatment will in any way affect the evaluation of activity of a drug in this disease

The protocol clearly states that scans must be obtained within 2 weeks of study entry

Please also note that the practical difficulties in scheduling scans and completing the pretreatment work-up in just one week; the costs of repeating tests simply to meet this artificial deadline could not be justified and probably would not be covered by insurance companies

With regard to your point #5, (performance status) your own protocols allow patients with Karnofsky performance status of 60

We see no reason to demand a more stringent entry criteria for performance status than you have employed for your own patients

Page 3

With regard to your point #6, the use of neurologic status as well as CT scans/MRI findings to determine response, this was suggested to the investigators in our Consensus Review of 5/5/1993

You made no comment regarding this in your letter of 6/9/1993

This use of neurologic function as an additional criteria to determine response is an objective measurement and is standard among protocols we sponsor for glioma patients . .

It is scientifically acceptable to include the criteria for response as currently written in the protocol

At analysis, both scan data and objective neurologic assessment can be described

With regard to your letter of 10/11/1993, concerning data reviews, we are satisfied that reviewing the data after accrual of the first 14 patients/stratum is sufficient

We share your concerns about patient safety but believe that these investigators have extensive experience treating glioma patients, are superb and careful physicians, and have extensive experience administrating a range of investigational agents to these patients

Furthermore, the patients will be followed carefully, and dose reductions for expected toxicities will be carried out as specified in the protocol

Nevertheless, your experience with the agents is valuable and the availability of your guidance is much appreciated

If necessary, we will arrange a conference call at the end of treatment of the first 5 patients, or sooner if problems occur

Your participation in such a conference call, if necessary, would be welcome

We will provide the Theradex (CTMS) printout to you on a monthly basis as we receive it

We do not believe it is practical or necessary to supply data on an every 2 week basis

The most important unresolved issue at this time is that we are still waiting to receive the promised supply of antineoplastons to conduct these studies

Your letter of 11/5/1992, guaranteed a supply of the antineoplastons by 3/31/1993

(see attached)

As of today we still have not received it

Believing that you would be shipping drug to the NCI, and since the protocol is approved at Memorial Sloan Kettering, recruitment of patients has begun

As you point out, these patients have aggressive disease, and cannot afford to wait to begin treatment

We are prepared to try to assist you in meeting this commitment, but we know of no obstacle here at NCI

We urgently request, again, that you ship the drug immediately

Please be aware that our mission is to find and develop better therapies for cancer patients, and our only obligation is to those patients

Our agreement to pursue these studies with antineoplastons was based on suggestive evidence

Page 4

of activity noted in your best case studies

If you are unable or unwilling to provide the antineoplastons in the near future, we will pursue alternative sources to procure the drug or its active components, and will proceed with a clinical development plan to determine whether these chemicals have activity and are beneficial for patients

Michael A. Friedman, M.D., Associate Director, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Division of Cancer Treatment, NCI, Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health

cc:

Dr. Samuel Broder
Dr. Jan Buckner
Dr. Bruce Chabner
Dr. Jay Grabnett
Dr. Joseph Jacobs
Dr. Mark Malkin
Ms. Mary McCabe
Dr. David Parkinson
Dr. Mario Sznol
Ms. Dorothy Tisevich
——————————————————————

======================================
1993 (10/20/1993) – Dr. Michael A. Friedman to Burzynski [8]
1992 (11/5/1992) – Burzynski ANP 3/31/1993
1993 (4/20/1993) – Burzynski (4/26/1993)? in that same letter
1993 (4/26/1993) – Burzynski
1993 (5/5/1993) – Consensus Review
1993 (6/9/1993) – Burzynski re Consensus Review
1993 (10/11/1993) – Burzynski to Dr. Mario Sznol
1993 (10/13/1993) – Burzynski fax to Dr. Jay Greenblatt
======================================

[6] – 1991 (12/2/1991) – NCI Decision Network Report on Antineoplastons

This page is linked to:
=====================================
Critiquing: Dr. Michael A. Friedman, Dr. Mark G. Malkin, Dr. Mario Sznol, Robert B. Lanman, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Mayo Clinic, Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), Public Health Service, Quality Assurance and Compliance Section, Regulatory Affairs Branch (RAB), Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP), Division of Cancer Treatment (DCT), National Cancer Center (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Stanislaw Burzynski: On the arrogance of ignorance about cancer and targeted therapies
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/critiquing-stanislaw-burzynski-on-the-arrogance-of-ignorance-about-cancer-and-targeted-therapies/
======================================
[6] – 1991 (12/2/91) – NCI Decision Network Report on Antineoplastons [5 pgs. – Pg. 11] guidelines of the NCI’s Decision Network
——————————————————————
Minutes of the Meeting of the NCI’s Decision Network Regarding Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 12/2/1991

Pg. 11 (2nd pg.)

B. Candidates for DN Stage IV
Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1, NSCs 648539D and 620261/#2

The antineoplastons have been considered as unconventional manner of cancer treatment because there have been very few independent interpretable scientific data on their potential clinical efficacy

Based on a recent report of observed responses in brain cancer patients treated with antineoplastons at the Burzynski Research Institute (founded by Dr. S.R. Burzynski) in Houston, Texas, the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) conducted a site visit to review a “best case” series of clinical responses to antineoplastons in the treatment of brain tumors at the Institute

This case series does not constitute a clinical trial; the cases were selected on the basis of positive response from many different studies of antineoplaston treatment at the Institute

The site visit team determined that antitumor activity was documented in this best case series and that the conduct of Phase II trials were indicated to determine the response rate

The antineoplastons were presented as DN Stage IV candidates for the conduct of Phase II trials in glioblastoma multiforme, anaplastic astrocytoma, pediatric brain tumors, and low-grade gliomas, to confirm the observation of brain tumors at the Burzynski Institute

It was proposed that the same treatment regimen as that used at the Institute would be used in the Phase II trials

A decision regarding subsequent trials (e.g., other tumors, additional Phase I development, Phase III trials in brain tumors) would be deferred until the results of these initial trials were known

If the antineoplastons are approved for Phase II study, Dr. Burzynski will provide supplies of the materials for the clinical trials to the NCI free of charge

Dr. Burzynski presented background on antineoplaston research

His research is based on the hypothesis that antineoplastons are components of a biochemical defense system against cancer

The antineoplastons are medium and small peptides and amino acid derivatives that form the defense against cancer by inducing differentiation in neoplastic cells
Initial study on antineoplastons was concentrated on isolation of peptides in blood and urine of healthy people

Pg. 12 (2nd pg.)

Two main groups of antineoplastons have been isolated

Pg. 13 (3rd pg.)
Pg. 14 (4th pg.)

Decision: Antineoplastons A10 (NSC 648539D) and AS2-1 (NSC 620261/#2) passed DN Stage IV

20130913-093322.jpg

20130913-093759.jpg

20130913-094108.jpg

20130913-094108.jpg

20130913-094108.jpg

20130913-094616.jpg
=====================================
1991 (12/2/1991) – guidelines of the NCI’s Decision Network [5 pgs.] [8]
=====================================

[5] – 1991 (11/15/1991) – Dr. Michael J. Hawkins to Decision Network

This page is linked to:
=====================================
Critiquing: Dr. Michael A. Friedman, Dr. Mark G. Malkin, Dr. Mario Sznol, Robert B. Lanman, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Mayo Clinic, Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), Public Health Service, Quality Assurance and Compliance Section, Regulatory Affairs Branch (RAB), Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP), Division of Cancer Treatment (DCT), National Cancer Center (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Stanislaw Burzynski: On the arrogance of ignorance about cancer and targeted therapies
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/critiquing-stanislaw-burzynski-on-the-arrogance-of-ignorance-about-cancer-and-targeted-therapies/
======================================
[5] – 1991 (11/15/1991) – Dr. Michael J. Hawkins to Decision Network
——————————————————————
Michael J. Hawkins, M.D., Chief, Investigational Drug Branch, Department of Health &Human Services (HHS), Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Re: Antineoplaston

[7 pgs. – 1 pg.]

To: Decision Network

Attached is a summary of a review of a best case series of antineoplastons in the treatment of brain tumors which was conducted by CTEP at the Burzynski Research Institute and some background information on antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1

7 patient cases were presented at the site visit and the records, pathology slides and scans documenting response were reviewed

It was the opinion of the site visit team that antitumor activity was documented in this best case series and that the conduct of Phase II trials was indicated to determine the response rate

At the DN meeting, Dr. Burzynski will present some brief background data on antineoplastons and Dr. Nicholas Patronas, a neuroradiologist from the Clinical Center who was on the site visit team, will review the radiologic findings for the committee

Antineoplastons are being proposed for DN IV (Phase II trials)

We feel the 1st step is to confirm the observations of Dr. Burzynski in brain tumors

Initially 3 or 4 Phase II trials would be conducted (one trial in each of the following diseases: glioblastoma multiforme, anaplastic astrocytoma, pediatric brain tumors and possibly low grade astrocytomas) using antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in exactly the same manner Dr. Burzynski gave them in the cases we reviewed

A decision regarding subsequent trials (e.g.–other tumors, additional Phase I development, Phase III trials in brain tumors, etc) would be deferred until the results of these initial trials were known

Dr. Burzynski is willing to provide sufficient antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 for these studies

The only impact on DCT would be the IND filing and the use of our clinical trials resources

cc: Dr. Burzynski

20130920-143047.jpg
======================================