Critiquing https://theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com

Critiquing https://theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com

Robert J. (Bob) Blaskiewicz operates The Other Burzynski Patient Group (TOBPG)

The problem is:

1. Bob Blaskiewicz Faux Skeptic Exposed! does NOT want to debate or want people to consider the failures of Science Based Medicine compared to Burzynski, because he has an agenda

2. @rjblaskiewicz is a known LIAR

Making unsubstantiated claims like this:

Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) tweeted at 9:45am – 25 Aug 13:

@dixon_frederick @AlaaTheWarrior Actually, he CLAIMS a success rate, but is unable to publish. Suspicious: clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?te…

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
374 – TOTAL CHILDREN DIED:
Science Based Medicine

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
[6] .9/15/1999 – 29 / 85% died
======================================
[9] .9/15/1994 – 51 / 88% – children died
======================================
[8] 1/1998 – 8 / 89% of 9 children died of their disease at median of 44 weeks
======================================
[5] .10/21/2002 – 12 / 100% – all children patients died
======================================
[2] 5/1/2010 – 18 – children patients have died from disease progression
======================================
[3] 2/2008 – All 30 / 100% – children have died
======================================
[4] 1/1/2005 – 33 / 100% – children died of disease progression
======================================
[1] 4/2011 – 63 / 100% – children died
======================================
[7] .3/15/1999 – 130 / 100% – children died
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
COMBINED:
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
[1] 4/2011 – children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG)
——————————————————————
[1] 4/2011 – children with DIPG
——————————————————————
[1] 5/1/2010 children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma
——————————————————————
[1] 5/1/2010 children with diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas (DIPGs)
——————————————————————
[1] 5/1/2010 Pediatric patients with newly diagnosed DIPGs
——————————————————————
[3] 2/2008 – children with diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma
——————————————————————
[3] 2/2008 – diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma
——————————————————————
[4] 1/1/2005 – newly diagnosed diffuse brainstem glioma in children
——————————————————————
[4] 1/1/2005 – children with newly diagnosed diffuse brainstem glioma
——————————————————————
[4] 1/1/2005 – newly diagnosed, diffuse, intrinsic brain stem glioma
——————————————————————
[5] .10/21/2002 – typical diffuse pontine glioma
or
histologically proven anaplastic astrocytoma/glioblastoma multiforme located in the pons

——————————————————————
[5] .10/21/2002 – pontine glioma patients
——————————————————————
[5] .10/21/2002 – paediatric patients with pontine gliomas
——————————————————————
[5] .10/21/2002
brain tumours
brain stem glioma

——————————————————————
[5] .10/21/2002
Histological diagnoses included

8 – glioblastoma multiforme
5 – no histology
3 – anaplastic astrocytoma
3 – astrocytoma with no other specification
1 – pilocytic astrocytoma

——————————————————————
[6] .9/15/1999 – Brainstem gliomas
——————————————————————
[6] .9/15/1999 – diffuse intrinsic pontine tumor
——————————————————————
[6] .9/15/1999 – high grade glioma was required for nonpontine brain stem tumors
——————————————————————
[7] .3/15/1999 children with newly diagnosed brainstem tumor
——————————————————————
[7] .3/15/1999 tumors arising in the pons
——————————————————————
[7] .3/15/1999 diffusely infiltrating pontine lesion
——————————————————————
[8] 1/1998 – children with diffuse pontine gliomas
——————————————————————
[8] 1/1998 – pediatric malignancies
——————————————————————
[8] 1/1998 – Diffuse pontine gliomas
——————————————————————
[9] .9/15/1994 – Brain stem gliomas
——————————————————————
[9] .9/15/1994 – childhood brain tumors
——————————————————————
[9] .9/15/1994 – children with brain stem gliomas
——————————————————————
[9] .9/15/1994 – patients with diffuse intrinsic brain stem gliomas
——————————————————————
[9] .9/15/1994 – children with diffuse intrinsic brain stem gliomas
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
# OF CHILDREN
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
[8] 1/1998 – 9 / 100% – consecutive children
——————————————————————
[5] .10/21/2002 – 20 – enrolled (9 male / 11 female)
——————————————————————
[2] 5/1/2010 – 20 – children accrued
——————————————————————
[3] 2/2008 – 31 – children enrolled
——————————————————————
[4] 1/1/2005 – 33 / 100% – patients enrolled
——————————————————————
[6] .9/15/1999 – 34 / 100% – patients enrolled
——————————————————————
[1] 4/2011 – 63 / 100% – children enrolled in study
——————————————————————
[9] .9/15/1994 – 66 children
——————————————————————
[7] .3/15/1999
130 – eligible patients
66 – arm 1
64 – arm 2
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
# OF EVALUABLE CHILDREN
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
[8] 1/1998 – 9 / 100% – consecutive children evaluable
——————————————————————
[5] .10/21/2002 – 12 – Evaluable patients
——————————————————————
[2] 5/1/2010 – 20 – children evaluable
——————————————————————
[3] 2/2008 – 30 – eligible and evaluable for survival and toxicity
——————————————————————
[4] 1/1/2005 – 33 / 100% – patients evaluable
——————————————————————
[6] .9/15/1999 – 34 / 100% – patients evaluable
——————————————————————
[9] .9/15/1994 – 58 / 100% – evaluable patients
——————————————————————
[1] 4/2011 – 63 / 100% – children evaluable
——————————————————————
[7] .3/15/1999
130 – evaluable patients
66 – arm 1
64 – arm 2
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
AGE RANGE OF CHILDREN
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
[5] .10/21/2002 – 3-17 years of age
——————————————————————
[6] .9/15/1999 – 3.6–15.4 years
——————————————————————
[3] 2/2008 – 3–21 – age children enrolled
——————————————————————
[4] 1/1/2005 – 3-21 years – eligible for current multiinstitutional study
——————————————————————
[7] .3/15/1999 3-21 years of age
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
MEDIAN AGE OF CHILDREN
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
[5] .10/21/2002 – 6 years – median age
——————————————————————
[4] 1/1/2005 – 6.4 years – Median age at diagnosis
——————————————————————
[9] .9/15/1994 – 7.5 years – mean age at diagnosis
——————————————————————
[6] .9/15/1999 – 7.8 years – median age of patients
——————————————————————
[3] 2/2008 – 8 – median age (3–14 years)
——————————————————————
[2] 5/1/2010 – 8.3 years – mean age
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
1 YEAR OR LESS SURVIVAL RATES
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
[1] 4/2011 – 9 / 14% – mean 1-year Event-Free Survival (EFS)
——————————————————————
[1] 4/2011 – 14 / 21.9% – no evidence produced 1-year Event-Free Survival (EFS) rate higher than
——————————————————————
10/2006..5 / 26% – 1 year: Burzynski Antineoplastons: Progression-Free Survival Rate (PFS): Protocol – BT-11 BRAINSTEM GLIOMAS and multicentric tumors (MBSG) (Pg. 466)
——————————————————————
[7] 3/15/1999 – 17 / 27.0% – ARM 2: 1 year Patients Surviving: Protocol – easier to treat cases of newly diagnosed BRAIN STEM (tumor) GLIOMA patients: radiation therapy and chemotherapy with cisplatin (Mandell et al.) (6/1992–10/1997) 2004 (Pg. 58)
——————————————————————
10/2004..9 / 29%Burzynski Antineoplastons: 1 year Progression-Free Survival (PFS): Protocol – patients with diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (DBSG): Special Exception (SE) (Pg. 386)
——————————————————————
[7] 3/15/1999 – 40 / 30.9% – ARM 1: 1 year Patients Surviving: Protocol – easier to treat cases of newly diagnosed BRAIN STEM (tumor) GLIOMA patients: radiation therapy and chemotherapy with cisplatin (Mandell et al.) (6/1992–10/1997) 2004 (Pg. 58)
——————————————————————
[9] .9/15/1994 – 20 / 35% – 1 year Overall Survival
——————————————————————
3/2006..39%Burzynski Antineoplastons Patients with high-grade, recurrent and progressive BRAINSTEM GLIOMAS: Progression-Free Survival (PFS) at 6 months: BRAINSTEM GLIOMA (BSG) (Pgs. 40 + 44-45)
——————————————————————
[1] 4/2011 – 25 / 40% – mean 1-year Overall Survival (OS)
——————————————————————
10/2004..12 / 41%Burzynski l: 1 year Progression-Free Survival (PFS): Protocol – patients with diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (DBSG) (Pg. 386)
——————————————————————
3/2004 – 43%Burzynski Antineoplastons – % of responding Patients didn’t develop Progression: 6/1/2003 Protocol – BT-11 – BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (Pg. 51)
——————————————————————
[4] 1/1/2005 – 16 / 48% – 1 year estimated Survival rate
——————————————————————
10/2006..10 / 53%Burzynski Antineoplastons 1 year Overall Survival Rate (OS): Protocol – BT-11 BRAINSTEM GLIOMAS and multicentric tumors (MBSG) (Pg. 466)
——————————————————————
3/2004 – 61%Burzynski Antineoplastons % of Objective Response (OR) Patients hadn’t had Progression: 6/1/2003 Protocol – HIGH-GRADE GLIOMA (Pg. 53)
——————————————————————
[3] 2/2008 – 27 / 90% – 1 year  - Overall survival
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
LESS THAN 1 YEAR SURVIVAL (MST)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
[7] 3/15/1999 – 5 months – ARM 2: Median time to Disease Progression: Protocol – easier to treat cases of newly diagnosed BRAIN STEM (tumor) GLIOMA patients: radiation therapy and chemotherapy with cisplatin (Mandell et al.) (6/1992–10/1997) 2004 (Pg. 58)
——————————————————————
3/2006.-.6 months – Patients with Recurrent Tumors Survive no more than, despite standard treatment: (Pgs. 40 + 45-46)
——————————————————————
[7] 3/15/1999 – 6 months – ARM 1: Median time to Disease Progression: Protocol – easier to treat cases of newly diagnosed BRAIN STEM (tumor) GLIOMA patients: radiation therapy and chemotherapy with cisplatin (Mandell et al.) (6/1992–10/1997) 2004 (Pg. 58)
——————————————————————
2003 – 6.4 monthsBurzynski Antineoplastons Median Survival: Protocol patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA: BT-11 Special Exception (SE) (Pg. 99)
——————————————————————
2003 – 7 monthsBurzynski Antineoplastons Median Survival: Protocol patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA: BT-11 (Pg. 99)
——————————————————————
3/2004 – 7 monthsBurzynski Antineoplastons – Progression-Free Survival (PFS): 6/1/2003 Protocol – BT-11 BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (Pg. 51)
——————————————————————
3/2004 – 7 monthsBurzynski Antineoplastons Progression-Free Survival (PFS): Protocol – subgroup very difficult to treat recurrent diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (Pg. 52)
——————————————————————
[7] 3/15/1999 – 8 months – ARM 2: Median time to Death: radiation therapy and chemotherapy with cisplatin (Mandell et al.) (6/1992 – 10/1997) 2004 (Pg. 58)
——————————————————————
[7] 3/15/1999 – 8 months – ARM 2: Median Overall Survival from Diagnosis (OSD): Median time to Death: Protocol – easier to treat cases of newly diagnosed BRAIN STEM (tumor) GLIOMA patients: radiation therapy and chemotherapy with cisplatin (Mandell et al.) (6/1992–10/1997) 2004 (Pg. 58)
——————————————————————
[7] 3/15/1999 – 8 months – ARM 2: Median Overall Survival from start of Treatment (OST): Median time to Death: Protocol – easier to treat cases of newly diagnosed BRAIN STEM (tumor) GLIOMA patients: radiation therapy and chemotherapy with cisplatin (Mandell et al.) (6/1992–10/1997) 2004 (Pg. 58)
——————————————————————
[7] 3/15/1999 – 8.5 months – Median Survival (MST): standard radiation therapy in combination with chemotherapy (RAT) (Mandell et al.) (6/1992–10/1997) children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM TUMORS: results of pediatric oncology group
——————————————————————
[7] 3/15/1999 – 8.5 months – ARM 1: Median Overall Survival from start of Treatment (OST): Median time to Death: Protocol – easier to treat cases of newly diagnosed BRAIN STEM (tumor) GLIOMA patients: radiation therapy and chemotherapy with cisplatin (Mandell et al.) (6/1992–10/1997) 2004 (Pg. 58)
——————————————————————
[7] 3/15/1999 – 8.5 months – ARM 1: Median time to Death: Median Overall Survival from Diagnosis (OSD): Protocol – easier to treat cases of newly diagnosed BRAIN STEM (tumor) GLIOMA patients: radiation therapy and chemotherapy with cisplatin (Mandell et al.) (6/1992–10/1997) 2004 (Pg. 58)
——————————————————————
3/2004 – 10.3 monthsBurzynski Antineoplastons – Median Overall Survival from start of Treatment (OST): 6/1/2003 Protocol – BT-11 BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (Pg. 51)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
1 YEAR SURVIVAL
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
3/2004 – 12 months (1 year)Burzynski Antineoplastons: Progression-Free Survival (PFS): 6/1/2003 Protocol – HIGH-GRADE GLIOMA (Pg. 53)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
1+ YEAR SURVIVAL
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
3/2004 – 13.7 months (1 year 1.7 months)Burzynski Antineoplastons: Median Overall Survival from Diagnosis (OSD): 6/1/2003 Protocol – BT-11 BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (Pg. 51)
——————————————————————
4/2007 – 16.4 months (1 year 4.4 months)Burzynski Antineoplastons(ANP): Median Survival (MST): Protocol – newly diagnosed diffuse, intrinsic BRAINSTEM GLIOMAs (NDBSG) BT-11 (Pg. 206)
——————————————————————
3/2004 – 17 months (1 year 5 months) – Median Survival without Treatment (Pg. 53)
——————————————————————
2006 – 19.9 months (1 year 7.9 months) – Median Survival Time (MST): next best traditional standard of care study (Pg. 172)
——————————————————————
2006 – 19.9 months (1 year 7.9 months)Burzynski Antineoplastons (ANP): Median Survival Time (MST): Treatments for Astrocytic Tumors – recurrent and progressive tumor: Treatment of diffuse, intrinsic BRAINSTEM GLIOMA in children (Pg. 172)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
2 YEAR SURVIVAL
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
3/2006 – 2 years – Most Patients with BRAINSTEM GLIOMA fail standard radiation therapy and chemotherapy and don’t survive longer: (Pgs. 40 + 45-46)
——————————————————————
[7] 3/15/1999 – 4 / 6.7% – ARM 2: 2 year Patients Surviving: Protocol – easier to treat cases of newly diagnosed BRAIN STEM (tumor) GLIOMA patients: radiation therapy and chemotherapy with cisplatin (Mandell et al.) (6/1992–10/1997) 2004 (Pg. 58)
——————————————————————
[7] 3/15/1999 – 7% – 2 year Overall Survival (OS): standard radiation therapy in combination with chemotherapy (RAT) (Mandell et al.) (6/1992–10/1997) children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM TUMORS: results of pediatric oncology group
——————————————————————
[7] 3/15/1999 – 9 / 7.1% – ARM 1: 2 year Patients Surviving: Protocol – easier to treat cases of newly diagnosed BRAIN STEM (tumor) GLIOMA patients: radiation therapy and chemotherapy with cisplatin (Mandell et al.) (6/1992–10/1997) 2004 (Pg. 58)
——————————————————————
Less than 10% – 2 year Survival: standard radiation therapy: for newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (DBSG)
——————————————————————
[3] 2/2008 – 3 / 10% – 2 years – Overall survival
——————————————————————
10/2006..3 / 16% – 2 years: Burzynski Antineoplastons: Progression-Free Survival Rate (PFS): Protocol – BT-11 BRAINSTEM GLIOMAS and multicentric tumors (MBSG) (Pg. 466)
——————————————————————
10/2006..6 / 32% – 2 year Overall Survival Rate (OS): Burzynski Antineoplastons: Protocol – BT-11 BRAINSTEM GLIOMAS and multicentric tumors (MBSG) (Pg. 466)
——————————————————————
2003 – 4 / 33.3% – 2 year Survival: Burzynski Antineoplastons Protocol patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA: BT-11 (Pgs. 91-92)
——————————————————————
3/2006 – 39% – 2 year Overall Survival: Burzynski Antineoplastons: Patients with high-grade, recurrent and progressive BRAINSTEM GLIOMAS (BSG) (Pgs. 40 + 44-45)
——————————————————————
4/2007 – 8 / 40% – 2 year Overall Survival (OS): Burzynski Antineoplastons (ANP): Protocol – newly diagnosed diffuse, intrinsic BRAINSTEM GLIOMAs (NDBSG) BT-11 (Pg. 206)
——————————————————————
2004 – 42% – 2 year Patients (Surviving) Survival: Burzynski Antineoplastons: 6/1/2003 Protocol – BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (Pgs. 52-53)
——————————————————————
10/2004..13 / 45% – 2 year Overall Survival (Survival: Special Exception (SE)) Burzynski Antineoplastons: Protocol – patients with diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (DBSG) (Pg. 386)
——————————————————————
2006 – 14 / 46.7% – 2 year Overall Survival (OS) (%) – Efficacy: Burzynski Antineoplastons (ANP): Treatments for Astrocytic Tumors – recurrent and progressive tumor: Treatment of diffuse, intrinsic BRAINSTEM GLIOMA in children (Pg. 172)
——————————————————————
2006 – 30 / 46.7% – 2 year Overall Survival (OS) (%) – Efficacy: next best traditional standard of care study (Pg. 172)
——————————————————————
7/2005 – 5 / 50% – 2 year Overall Survival: Burzynski Antineoplastons: children less than 4 years old with inoperable BRAIN STEM GLIOMAs (BSG) BT-11 (study and Special Exception (SE)) (Pg. 300)
——————————————————————
2006 – 6 / 60% – 2 year Overall Survival (OS) (%) – Efficacy: Burzynski Antineoplastons (ANP) – recurrent and progressive (RPS) tumors in children aged <4y: children less than 4 years old with inoperable BRAIN STEM GLIOMAS (Pg. 172) 2005
——————————————————————
2006 – 6 / 60% – 2-year Survival rate: Burzynski Antineoplastons (ANP) – children aged <4 years diagnosed with diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (DBSG) treated with ANP (Pg. 173) 2005
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
2+ YEARS PATIENTS SURVIVED
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
3/2006 – 2+ years – Most Patients with Newly Diagnosed High-Grade BRAIN STEM GLIOMAS (HBSG) don’t Survive more than: (Pgs. 40 + 45-46)
——————————————————————
2006 – 12 / >40% – 2+ year patients survived Burzynski Antineoplastons (ANP) recurrent and progressive diffuse intrinsic BRAINSTEM GLIOMA (DBSG) (Pg. 173)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
3 YEAR OVERALL SURVIVAL
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
[9] .9/15/1994 – 7 / 11% – 3 years Overall Survival
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
4+ YEARS FROM START OF TREATMENT
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
2003 – 4+ years – 1 alive – From start of Treatment: Burzynski Antineoplastons Protocol patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA: BT-11 (Pgs. 91-92)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
LONG TERM SURVIVORS
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
2003 – 5+ years – 1 alive – Burzynski Antineoplastons: From start of Treatment: Protocol patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA: BT-11 (Pgs. 91-92)
——————————————————————
[7] 3/15/1999 – 0% – 5 year Overall Survival (OS): standard radiation therapy in combination with chemotherapy (RAT) (Mandell et al.) (6/1992–10/1997) children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM TUMORS: results of pediatric oncology group
——————————————————————
[6] .9/15/1999 – 5 / 15% – long term survivors who remained in continuous remission after mean follow-up period of 79 months {6 years 7 months} (46–104 months [3 years 10 months – 8 years 8 months])
——————————————————————
10/2006..3 / 16% – 5 year Overall Survival Rate (OS): Burzynski Antineoplastons: Protocol – BT-11 BRAINSTEM GLIOMAS and multicentric tumors (MBSG) (Pg. 466)
——————————————————————
10/2004..5 / 16% – 5 years: Burzynski Antineoplastons: Overall Survival (Survival: Special Exception (SE)) Protocol – patients with diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (DBSG): Special Exception (SE) (Pg. 386)
——————————————————————
7/2005 – 2 / 20% – 5 year Overall Survival: Burzynski Antineoplastons: children less than 4 years old with inoperable BRAIN STEM GLIOMAs (BSG) BT-11 (study and Special Exception (SE)) (Pg. 300)
——————————————————————
2005 – 2 / 20% – 5 year Overall Survival (OS) (%) – Efficacy: Burzynski Antineoplastons (ANP) – recurrent and progressive (RPS) tumors in children aged <4y: children less than 4 years old with inoperable BRAIN STEM GLIOMAS 2006 (Pg. 172)
——————————————————————
2005 – 2 / 20% – 5-year Survival rate: 2006 Burzynski Antineoplastons (ANP) – children aged <4 years diagnosed with diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (DBSG) treated with ANP (Pg. 173)
——————————————————————
3/2006 – 22%Burzynski Antineoplastons 5 year Overall Survival: Patients with high-grade, recurrent and progressive BRAINSTEM GLIOMAS (BSG) (Pgs. 40 + 44-45)
——————————————————————
10/2004..7 / 24% – 5 years: Burzynski Antineoplastons: Overall Survival (Survival: Special Exception (SE)) Protocol – patients with diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (DBSG) (Pg. 386)
——————————————————————
4/2007 – 6 / 30% – 5 year Overall Survival (OS): Burzynski Antineoplastons ((ANP): Protocol – newly diagnosed diffuse, intrinsic BRAINSTEM GLIOMAs (NDBSG) BT-11 (Pg. 206)
——————————————————————
2005 – 9 / 30% – 5 year Overall Survival (OS) (%) – Efficacy: Burzynski Antineoplastons (ANP): Treatments for Astrocytic Tumors – recurrent and progressive tumor: Treatment of diffuse, intrinsic BRAINSTEM GLIOMA in children 2006 (Pg. 172)
——————————————————————
2005 – 9 / 30% – 5+ year patients survived Burzynski Antineoplastons (ANP) recurrent and progressive diffuse intrinsic BRAINSTEM GLIOMA (DBSG) 2006 (Pg. 173)
——————————————————————
2003 – 2 / 17% – 5+ years Alive and Tumor Free since Initial Diagnosis: Burzynski Antineoplastons: Protocol patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA: BT-11 (Pgs. 91-92)
——————————————————————
9 / 30% – 5+ year patients survived 2006 Burzynski Antineoplastons (ANP) recurrent and progressive diffuse intrinsic BRAINSTEM GLIOMA (DBSG) (Pgs. 172-173)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
SURVIVAL
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
[2] 5/1/2010 – 6.9 months – Progression-Free Survival (PFS)
——————————————————————
[5] .10/21/2002 – 8 months – Overall Median Survival
——————————————————————
[3] 2/2008 – 9 months (3–36 months [3 years]) – Median Survival (MS)
——————————————————————
[2] 5/1/2010 – 9.15 months – Median Overall Survival
——————————————————————
[1] 4/2011 – 9.6 months – Median Time to Death
——————————————————————
[4] 1/1/2005 – 12 months (1 year) – Median Survival (MS)
——————————————————————
[6] .9/15/1999 – 12 months (1 year) – Overall Survival (5–104+ months [5 months – 8 years 8+ months])
======================================
2 YEARS 2.3 MONTHS MEDIAN SURVIVAL TIME (MST)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
2006 – 26.3 months (2 years 2.3 months)Burzynski Antineoplastons (ANP) – Median Survival Time (MST): recurrent and progressive (RPS) tumors in children aged <4y: children less than 4 years old with inoperable BRAIN STEM GLIOMAS 2005 (Pg. 172)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
3 YEARS MEDIAN OVERALL SURVIVAL FROM DIAGNOSIS (OSD)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
2004 – 3 years – with treatment, may approach (Pg. 53)
——————————————————————
2004 – 3 years Burzynski Antineoplastons Median Overall Survival from Diagnosis (OSD): 6/1/2003 Protocol – HIGH-GRADE GLIOMA (Pg. 53)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
5+ YEARS SURVIVAL
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
3/2006 – 5+ yearsBurzynski Antineoplastons: Survival in recurrent diffuse intrinsic GLIOBLASTOMAS and anaplastic ASTROCYTOMAS of the BRAINSTEM in a small group of Patients: BRAINSTEM GLIOMA (BSG) Patient with GLIOBLASTOMA (Pgs. 40 + 44-45)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
6+ YEARS MAXIMUM SURVIVAL (MS)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
7/2005 – 6+ yearsBurzynski Antineoplastons: Maximum Survival (MS): children less than 4 years old with inoperable BRAIN STEM GLIOMAs (BSG) BT-11 (study and Special Exception (SE)) (Pg. 300)
——————————————————————
6+ yearsBurzynski Antineoplastons Patient with recurrent, diffuse, intrinsic GLIOBLASTOMA MULTIFORME (GBM)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
6.3 YEARS MEDIAN OVERALL SURVIVAL FROM DIAGNOSIS (OSD)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
2004 – 6.3 yearsBurzynski Antineoplastons: Median Overall Survival from Diagnosis (OSD): 6/1/2003 Protocols – LOW-GRADE GLIOMA IN CHILDREN (Pg. 50)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
7+ YEARS LONGEST / MAXIMUM SURVIVAL
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
3/2004 – 7+ yearsBurzynski Antineoplastons: Longest Survival (the Patients are currently alive): Protocol – subgroup very difficult to treat recurrent diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (Pg. 52)
——————————————————————
2006 – 7+ yearsBurzynski Antineoplastons (ANP) – Maximum Survival (MS): children aged <4 years diagnosed with diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (DBSG) treated with ANP (Pg. 173)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
7.5+ YEARS MAXIMUM SURVIVAL (MS)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
2004 – 7.5+ yearsBurzynski Antineoplastons Maximum Survival (MS): 6/1/2003 Protocol – BT-11 BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (Pg. 51)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
9+ YEARS MAXIMUM SURVIVAL (MS)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
10/2006 – 9+ yearsBurzynski Antineoplastons: Maximum Survival Rate: Protocol – BT-11 BRAINSTEM GLIOMAS and multicentric tumors (MBSG) (Pg. 466)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
11 YEARS MAXIMUM SURVIVAL (MS)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
10/2004..11 yearsBurzynski Antineoplastons: Maximum Survival: Protocol – patients with diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (DBSG): Special Exception (SE): (high-grade diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (DBSG) recurrent after radiation and chemotherapy) (Pg. 386)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
12.5+ YEARS MAXIMUM SURVIVAL (MS)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
2004 – 12.5+ yearsBurzynski Antineoplastons: Maximum Survival (MS): 6/1/2003 Protocol – HIGH-GRADE GLIOMA (Pg. 53)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
15.5+ YEARS MAXIMUM SURVIVAL (MS)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
10/2004 – 15.5+ yearsBurzynski Antineoplastons: Maximum Survival: Protocol – patients with diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (DBSG): (high-grade diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA (DBSG) recurrent after radiation and chemotherapy) (Pg. 386)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
17+ YEARS MAXIMUM SURVIVAL (MS)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
3/2006 – 17+ years (approaching 18 years)Burzynski Antineoplastons: BRAINSTEM GLIOMA (BSG) Maximum Survival for Patient with recurrent, diffuse, intrinsic anaplastic ASTROCYTOMA (Pgs. 40 + 44-45)
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
Burzynski: BRAINSTEM GLIOMAs (DBSG):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/31/burzynski-brainstem-gliomas-dbsg/
======================================
References:
======================================
[1] 4/2011 – children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas
======================================
Temozolomide in the treatment of children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas: a report from the Children’s Oncology Group
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21345842/
Neuro Oncol. 2011 Apr;13(4):410-6. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noq205. Epub 2011 Feb.22
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21345842/
Neuro-oncology 2011 Apr; 13(4):410-6
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3064697/
The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, USA
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3064697/pdf/noq205.pdf
the Children’s Oncology Group
http://m.neuro-oncology.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/4/410.long?view=long&pmid=21345842
open-label phase II study (ACNS0126)
7/6/2004-9/6/2005
======================================
[2] 5/1/2010 – Children With Newly Diagnosed Diffuse Intrinsic Pontine Glioma
======================================
Prospective Evaluation of Radiotherapy With Concurrent and Adjuvant Temozolomide in Children With Newly Diagnosed Diffuse Intrinsic Pontine Glioma
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19647954/
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 May 1;77(1):113-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.04.031. Epub 2009 Aug 3
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19647954/
International Journal of Radiation Oncology * Biology * Physics
Volume 77, Issue 1 , Pages 113-118, 1 May 2010
http://www.redjournal.org/article/S0360-3016(09)00597-5/abstract
published online 03 August 2009
Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India
Presented at the Eighth Congress of the European Association for Neuro-Oncology, Barcelona, Spain, September 12–14, 2008
3/2005-11/2006
======================================
[3] 2/2008 – children with diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma
======================================
Research Article
Treatment of children with diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma with radiotherapy, vincristine and oral VP-16: A Children’s Oncology Group phase II study
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17278121/
Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2008 Feb;50(2):227-30
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/17278121/
Pediatr Blood Cancer 2008;50:227–230
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pbc.21154/abstract
Pediatric Blood & Cancer
Volume 50, Issue 2, pages 227–230, February 2008
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pbc.21154/abstract;jsessionid=1C9E44F96D6558468F0D7EB45D50FE23.d04t03
Pediatric Blood & Cancer
Volume 50, Issue 2, Article first published online: 2 FEB 2007
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pbc.21154/full
The Pediatric Oncology Group (POG, now part of the Children’s Oncology Group)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pbc.21154/pdf
DOI 10.1002/pbc.21154
http://radonc.ucsd.edu/patient-info/treatment-options/cancer-types/pediatric-cancers/Documents/Pediatric-Paper-04.pdf
University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, USA
======================================
[4] 1/1/2005 – newly diagnosed diffuse brainstem glioma in children
======================================
Role of temozolomide after radiotherapy for newly diagnosed diffuse brainstem glioma in children:
results of a multiinstitutional study (SJHG-98)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15565574
Cancer. 2005 Jan 1;103(1):133-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15565574
Cancer 103, 133-139
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.20741/abstract;jsessionid=6717837591CCC8FCBD8E46163808E221.d03t01
Cancer
Volume 103, Issue 1, pages 133–139, 1 January 2005
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.20741/full
Article first published online: 24 NOV 2004
References:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.20741/references
Cited By:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.20741/citedby
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.20741
Department of Hematology-Oncology, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA
======================================
[5] .10/21/2002 – paediatric pontine glioma
======================================
Treatment of paediatric pontine glioma with oral trophosphamide and etoposide
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12434281/
Br J Cancer. 2002 Oct 21;87(9):945-9
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12434281/
British Journal of Cancer (2002) 87, 945–949. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6600552
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2364312/
Published online 21 October 2002
http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v87/n9/full/6600552a.html
St. Hedwigs Klinik, Hämato/Onkologie, Steinmetzstr. 1–3, Regensburg, Germany
http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v87/n9/pdf/6600552a.pdf
======================================
[6] .9/15/1999 – brainstem gliomas
======================================
A Phase I/II study of carboplatin combined with hyperfractionated radiotherapy for
brainstem gliomas

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19990915)86:6%3C1064::AID-CNCR24%3E3.0.CO;2-1/full
Cancer 1999;86:1064–9
1999 American Cancer Society
Cancer
Volume 86, Issue 6, pages 1064–1069, 15 September 1999
Article first published online: 20 NOV 2000
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19990915)86:63.0.CO;2-1
======================================
[7] 3/15/1999 children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic brainstem tumors
======================================
There is no role for hyperfractionated radiotherapy in the management of
children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic brainstem tumors
: results of a Pediatric Oncology Group phase III trial comparing conventional vs. hyperfractionated radiotherapy
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10192340/
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 , Pages 959-964, 15 March 1999
http://www.redjournal.org/article/S0360-3016(98)00501-X/abstract
Department of Radiation Oncology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY 10029-6574, USA
======================================
[8] 1/1998 – children with newly diagnosed diffuse pontine gliomas
======================================
Carboplatin and etoposide with hyperfractionated radiotherapy in children with newly diagnosed diffuse pontine gliomas: a phase I/II study
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9371386/
Med Pediatr Oncol. 1998 Jan;30(1):28-33
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9371386/
Medical and Pediatric Oncology
Volume 30, Issue 1, pages 28–33, January 1998
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1096-911X(199801)30:13.0.CO;2-2/abstract;jsessionid=94E4BFEF2606B89ADDD9682528353D47.d03t02
Article first published online: 7 DEC 1998
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1096-911X(199801)30:13.0.CO;2-2/pdf
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-911X(199801)30:13.0.CO;2-2
Department of Hematology-Oncology, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, University of Tennessee, Memphis, USA
Pediatric Oncology
======================================
[9] .9/15/1994 – children with brain stem gliomas
======================================
Outcome of children with brain stem gliomas after treatment with 7800 cGy of hyperfractionated radiotherapy. A Childrens Cancer Group Phase I/II Trial
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8082086/
Cancer. 1994 Sep 15;74(6):1827-34
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8082086/
Department of Neurology, Children’s National Medical Center, Washington, DC
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
The Burzynski Skeptics:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/the-burzynski-skeptics/
======================================
Perfessor Robert J. (Bob) Blaskiewicz Blatherskitewicz:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/31/the-burzynski-b-s-app/
======================================
Bob Blaskiewicz (Blatherskitewicz), Faux Skeptic Exposed!:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/bob-blaskiewicz-blatherskitewicz-faux-skeptic-exposed/
======================================
Critiquing the #SkepticCanary: “The Skeptics™” (SkeptiCowards©) Bob Blatherskitewicz and the so-called, “self-proclaimed” “CANCER RESEARCHER”:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/critiquing-the-skepticcanary-the-skeptics-skepticowards-bob-blatherskitewicz-and-the-so-called-self-proclaimed-cancer-researcher/
======================================
Critiquing Bob Blaskiewicz (#Burzynski Cancer is Serious Business, Part II):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/critiquing-bob-blaskiewicz-burzynski-cancer-is-serious-business-part-ii/
======================================
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/
======================================
“The Skeptics” (Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business, Part II):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/the-skeptics/
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

Advertisements

The Lancet Oncology Peer Review Team D-12-01519: #FAIL

Eric Merola revealed in Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II (2), at (1:29:53), that The Lancet Oncology Peer Review Team D-12-01519, in 2 hours 8 minutes and 51 seconds, refused to publish Burzynski’s 11/26/2012 phase 2 clinical trial Progression-Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS) re patients 8 – 16 years after diagnosis, results
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/critiquing-in-which-the-latest-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-cure-is-reviewed-with-insolence-2/
Here is the “back story” involving the Critics, Cynics, “The Skeptics™”, SkeptiCowards©
======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 5:12pm – 20 Dec 12:

@drpaulmorgan @dianthusmed Pick a medical journal Paul…

======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 5:28pm – 20 Dec 12:

@BurzynskiMovie @dianthusmed 1. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2. The Lancet Oncology. 3. New England Journal of Medicine. (1/2)

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 4:26am – 16 Feb 13:

@dianthusmed @annacapunay #burzynski ask the Lancet, Adam.

======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
John (@JohnDaily15) tweeted at 1:18pm – 16 Feb 13:

@BurzynskiMovie @dianthusmed @annacapunay if u want 2 see burzynski published data then ask the Lancet to pull their socks up @endless psych
https://twitter.com/JohnDaily15/status/303047378246705153
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 1:54pm – 17 Feb 13:

@SceptiGuy @sdmack Asked the Lancet yet Guy? #burzynski

======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 2:32pm – 18 Feb 13:

@gorskon @mrhawkes @BurzynskiSaves Ask the Lancet why it is not published, Gorski.

======================================
THE #Burzynski TWITTER WAR (#TwitterWar)
======================================
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 3:45pm – 20 Dec 12:

——————————————————————
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 4:30pm – 20 Dec 12:

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:32pm – 20 Dec 12:

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:33pm – 20 Dec 12:

@drpaulmorgan Maybe if we tell him name of a good journal, he’ll pretend #burzynski published in it in his next movie?

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Alan Henness (@zeno001) tweeted at 4:33pm – 20 Dec 12:

——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:34pm – 20 Dec 12:

——————————————————————
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 4:37pm – 20 Dec 12:

——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:39pm – 20 Dec 12:

——————————————————————
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 4:40pm – 20 Dec 12:

——————————————————————
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Burzynski: Japan publications:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/burzynski-japan/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Burzynski and AACR (American Association for Cancer Research):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/burzynski-and-aacr-american-association-for-cancer-research/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:41pm – 20 Dec 12:

======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 5:12pm – 20 Dec 12:

@drpaulmorgan @dianthusmed Pick a medical journal Paul…

======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 5:28pm – 20 Dec 12:

@BurzynskiMovie @dianthusmed 1. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2. The Lancet Oncology. 3. New England Journal of Medicine. (1/2)

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 5:31pm – 20 Dec 12:

——————————————————————
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 5:32pm – 20 Dec 12:

——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 2:46am – 16 Feb 13:

======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 4:26am – 16 Feb 13:

@dianthusmed @annacapunay #burzynski ask the Lancet, Adam.

======================================
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:59am – 16 Feb 13:

@BurzynskiMovie And why, pray tell, do you think the Lancet would know about #burzynski’s trials? Are you claiming he submitted there?

——————————————————————
Phil Harris (@Phil_Harris10) tweeted at 8:33am – 16 Feb 13:

@dianthusmed @annacapunay BurzynskiMovie Please explain why you refer to ‘The Lancet’ for info on #burzynski studies?

——————————————————————
Phil Harris (@Phil_Harris10) tweeted at 8:44am – 16 Feb 13:

@dianthusmed @BurzynskiMovie @annacapunay Can’t see any positive reference to #burzynski in the Lancet. What’s their point

——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 8:54am – 16 Feb 13:

@Phil_Harris10 I’m guessing @BurzynskiMovie thinks if he says #burzynski’s published in the Lancet, the fanbois will just believe it

——————————————————————
MedTek (@medtek) tweeted at 9:17am – 16 Feb 13:

@dianthusmed @Phil_Harris10 I suspect @BurzynskiMovie is saying that the Lancet has refused to publish #burzynski?

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
John (@JohnDaily15) tweeted at 1:18pm – 16 Feb 13:

@BurzynskiMovie @dianthusmed @annacapunay if u want 2 see burzynski published data then ask the Lancet to pull their socks up @endless psych
https://twitter.com/JohnDaily15/status/303047378246705153
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Steve Mack (@sdmack) tweeted at 6:32am – 17 Feb 13:

——————————————————————
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 6:41am – 17 Feb 13:

——————————————————————
Steve Mack (@sdmack) tweeted at 7:42am – 17 Feb 13:

——————————————————————
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 9:24am – 17 Feb 13: .

======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 1:54pm – 17 Feb 13:

@SceptiGuy @sdmack Asked the Lancet yet Guy? #burzynski

======================================
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:28pm – 17 Feb 13:

@BurzynskiMovie If #Burzynski’s reference style is “have you asked the Lancet yet?” that might explain why he his publications are rejected

——————————————————————
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:30pm – 17 Feb 13:

——————————————————————
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:35pm – 17 Feb 13:

——————————————————————
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:37pm – 17 Feb 13:

——————————————————————
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:44pm – 17 Feb 13:

——————————————————————
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 1:05pm – 18 Feb 13:

——————————————————————
BurzynskiSaves (@BurzynskiSaves) tweeted at 1:24pm – 18 Feb 13:

——————————————————————
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 2:11pm – 18 Feb 13:

——————————————————————
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 2:15pm – 18 Feb 13:

——————————————————————
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 2:16pm – 18 Feb 13:

——————————————————————
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 2:30pm – 18 Feb 13:

======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 2:32pm – 18 Feb 13:

@gorskon @mrhawkes @BurzynskiSaves Ask the Lancet why it is not published, Gorski.

======================================
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:32pm – 18 Feb 13:

——————————————————————
THE #Burzynski TWITTER WAR (#TwitterWar)
——————————————————————
Alan Henness @zeno001
Phil Harris @Phil_Harris10
Keir Liddle @endless psych
Guy Chapman @SceptiGuy
Adam Jacobs Dianthus Medical @dianthusmed
Dr. Paul Morgan @drpaulmorgan
MedTek @medtek
Dr. David H. Gorski (@gorskon)

——————————————————————
The majority of the above twits have tweeted on Twitter since the movie was available, and NONE of them have the “testicular fortitude” to provide a reason that The Lancet’s excuse for NOT publishing, is acceptable, including Dr. Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan), who suggested The Lancet

Eric Merola:

“All I can say to everyone reading this:”

“Think for yourself”

“Question everything, including me and my films”

@JoeRogan,

Question THIS!!!

“Joe Rogan Questions Everything”

@SyFy
======================================
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 4:30pm – 20 Dec 12:
@dianthusmed Neither claim having any evidence to support them. #Burzynski
——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:32pm – 20 Dec 12:
@drpaulmorgan I’d still love to know why @BurzynskiMovie is asking about journals. Guess we’ll have to wait until he’s asked his boss
——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:33pm – 20 Dec 12:
@drpaulmorgan Maybe if we tell him name of a good journal, he’ll pretend #burzynski published in it in his next movie?
——————————————————————
Alan Henness (@zeno001) tweeted at 4:33pm – 20 Dec 12:
@dianthusmed @drpaulmorgan @BurzynskiMovie That might take a while…
——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:34pm – 20 Dec 12:
@zeno001 @drpaulmorgan @BurzynskiMovie Yeah. Well, I’m certainly not holding my breath
——————————————————————
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 4:37pm – 20 Dec 12:
@dianthusmed @BurzynskiMovie I think it’s just obfuscation.
——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:39pm – 20 Dec 12:
@drpaulmorgan @BurzynskiMovie Yes, very likely. All designed to distract from important stuff on #burzynski, like bit.ly/vbUfgo
——————————————————————
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 4:40pm – 20 Dec 12:
@dianthusmed Like all those registered* Japanese trials? #Burzynski
*not registered anywhere
——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:41pm – 20 Dec 12:
@drpaulmorgan If by “registered”, you mean “fictitious”, then yes, exactly like that #burzynski
======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 5:12pm – 20 Dec 12:
@drpaulmorgan @dianthusmed Pick a medical journal Paul…
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 5:28pm – 20 Dec 12:
@BurzynskiMovie @dianthusmed 1. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2. The Lancet Oncology. 3. New England Journal of Medicine. (1/2)
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 5:32pm – 20 Dec 12:
@BurzynskiMovie @dianthusmed Do you want me to go on? How about #Burzynski picks from this list impactfactor.weebly.com/oncology.html
——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 2:46am – 16 Feb 13:
@annacapunay I see you’re supporting #burzynski. Can you explain why he won’t publish his data? 61 trials registered, none published. Why?
======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 4:26am – 16 Feb 13:
@dianthusmed @annacapunay #burzynski ask the Lancet, Adam.
======================================
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:59am – 16 Feb 13:
@BurzynskiMovie And why, pray tell, do you think the Lancet would know about #burzynski’s trials? Are you claiming he submitted there?
——————————————————————
Phil Harris (@Phil_Harris10) tweeted at 8:33am – 16 Feb 13:
@dianthusmed @annacapunay BurzynskiMovie Please explain why you refer to ‘The Lancet’ for info on #burzynski studies?
——————————————————————
Phil Harris (@Phil_Harris10) tweeted at 8:44am – 16 Feb 13:
@dianthusmed @BurzynskiMovie @annacapunay Can’t see any positive reference to #burzynski in the Lancet. What’s their point
——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 8:54am – 16 Feb 13:
@Phil_Harris10 I’m guessing @BurzynskiMovie thinks if he says #burzynski’s published in the Lancet, the fanbois will just believe it
——————————————————————
MedTek (@medtek) tweeted at 9:17am – 16 Feb 13:
@dianthusmed @Phil_Harris10 I suspect @BurzynskiMovie is saying that the Lancet has refused to publish #burzynski?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
John (@JohnDaily15) tweeted at 1:18pm – 16 Feb 13:
@BurzynskiMovie @dianthusmed @annacapunay if u want 2 see burzynski published data then ask the Lancet to pull their socks up @endless psych
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Steve Mack (@sdmack) tweeted at 6:32am – 17 Feb 13:
2013 – Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II (Feb 16, 2013 Trai…: youtu.be/wGJpDNrcSEo via @YouTube
——————————————————————
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 6:41am – 17 Feb 13:
@sdmack Extended paean to a man who has conducted over 60 trials and published none, then wonders why the medical world does not believe him
——————————————————————
Steve Mack (@sdmack) tweeted at 7:42am – 17 Feb 13:
@SceptiGuy
——————————————————————
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 9:24am – 17 Feb 13:
@sdmack Point refuted a thousand times. Most are conference proceedings or not peer reviewed. No credible per-reviewed #Burzynski pubs.
======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 1:54pm – 17 Feb 13:
@SceptiGuy @sdmack Asked the Lancet yet Guy? #burzynski
======================================
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:28pm – 17 Feb 13:
@BurzynskiMovie If #Burzynski’s reference style is “have you asked the Lancet yet?” that might explain why he his publications are rejected
——————————————————————
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:30pm – 17 Feb 13:
@BurzynskiMovie ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=(…+”Lancet”[Journal]
——————————————————————
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:35pm – 17 Feb 13:
@BurzynskiMovie Obviously you don’t mean ow.ly/hNgfB as it is in no way an endorsement of #Burzynski or his methods.
——————————————————————
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:37pm – 17 Feb 13:
@BurzynskiMovie You probably meant this extremely well argued piece: ow.ly/hNgla – directly relevant to #Burzynski.
——————————————————————
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:44pm – 17 Feb 13:
@dianthusmed @Phil_Harris10 @drpaulmorgan @medtek ow.ly/hNgE1 (not a study, an editorial, makes no claim to judgment re validity)
——————————————————————
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 1:05pm – 18 Feb 13:
Most abstracts submitted to conferences get a poster presentation. Were #burzynski abstracts for talks? I doubt it. @SceptiGuy @sdmack
——————————————————————
BurzynskiSaves (@BurzynskiSaves) tweeted at 1:24pm – 18 Feb 13:
@gorskon So there’s no peer-reviewed literature by #Burzynski in this list?Please say yes.. please say yes.. burzynskiclinic.com/publications.h… @sdmack
——————————————————————
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 2:11pm – 18 Feb 13:
@gorskon @SceptiGuy @sdmack Yes, many were (ex: Neuro-Oncology). You’d know that if you understood definition of *research*. #burzynski
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 2:16pm – 18 Feb 13:
——————————————————————
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 2:15pm – 18 Feb 13:
Funny, @BurzynskiMovie, but many of those #burzynski “studies” don’t show up on searches of PubMed. Not a good sign. @SceptiGuy @sdmack
——————————————————————
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 2:16pm – 18 Feb 13:
Funny, but no one I know ever said that #burzynski has “no” peer-reviewed studies. Learn to read, @BurzynskiSaves. @sdmack
——————————————————————
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 2:30pm – 18 Feb 13:
It’s easy for #burzynski to shut his critics up: Publish the data and show that it supports ANPs! @mrhawkes @BurzynskiSaves @BurzynskiMovie
======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 2:32pm – 18 Feb 13:
@gorskon @mrhawkes @BurzynskiSaves Ask the Lancet why it is not published, Gorski.
======================================

Critiquing: In which Orac does Stanislaw Burzynski propagandist Eric Merola a favor…

“Orac” / Dr. David H. Gorski posted his lame 6/3/2013 excuse for a review of Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II (2), and I critiqued it:

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/
7/17/2013 Gorski pushed out his “best” effort:

In which Orac does Stanislaw Burzynski propagandist Eric Merola a favor…
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/07/17/in-which-orac-does-stanislaw-burzynski-propagandist-eric-merola-a-favor/
After my Epic Sharknado Deconstruction of “Orac’s” “review,” I thought it only fair to continue the feeding frenzy with a Burzynski Texas Tornado

Believe it or not, I’m going to do “Dr.” Gorski (who particularly likes me, to the point of thinking, apparently, that I’m a white research supremacist) a favor

“Dr.” Gorski, as you recall, is a supposed “Doctor,” oncologist, breast cancer specialist, cancer (cough-cough) “researcher” who was responsible for two dubious propaganda reviews about documentary films which Eric Merola made re: Stanislaw Burzynski, the cancer doctor who has used “antineoplastons” to treat cancer without having published any final clinical trial evidence that they do what he claims, since his 1st completed phase II (2) clinical trial in 2009

However, no worries

M. D. Anderson did a clinical trial in 2006 and did NOT publish the final results until 6-7 years later, 2/13/2013

Based on that criteria, Burzynski has until 2016-2017 to publish

Back in 2010, Merola released the first of a dynamic duo of films, the first of which was called Burzynski The Movie: Cancer Is A Serious Business (as Gorski likes to call it, by adding an “A” in the title)

The sequel, the slightly less pretentiously titled Burzynski: Cancer Is A Serious Business, Part 2 (as Gorski again likes to call it with the “A”), was then released June 1 on various pay-per-view modes

As has been pointed out, it’s better than the first, and it features direct attacks on The Skeptics™, or SkeptiCowards©, if you will, who had the temerity to criticize Burzynski and Merola over the last couple of years with their school-yard bully attacks, NOT having the intestinal testicular fortitude to back up their claims with any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) in support of their blatherskite, which they found worthy enough to defend on my blog

Merola is apparently trying to recreate the success of his previous strategy, which involved letting people watch the movie online for free for limited periods of time on websites like Mercola.com

I link directly to the Mercola.com link to the second Burzynski movie, because I want to give Mercola more Google juice than he already has

The movie was, however, on Vimeo until July 20:

BURZYNSKI: CANCER IS SERIOUS BUSINESS, PART II (2013) from BurzynskiMovie on Vimeo
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/07/13/burzynski-cancer-film.aspx
If you want to see what the fuss was about and whether my criticisms of The Skeptics™, or SkeptiCowards©, were valid, now’s your chance

If you want to see the highlighted attack on The Skeptics™ SkeptiCowards©, it begins around 1:19 h into the movie

Yes, I’m encouraging you to watch Burzynski 2

It’s a beautiful example of all the things that Gorski tried to inculcate #TAM2013 attendees against

Indeed, dissecting this magnum opus is an excellent way to teach oneself critical thinking, much as dissecting creationist tripe is

Unfortunately, Gorski is unable to do this, because individuals like me, exist and will NOT let him get away with his disingenuous hack attacks

Other key points include:

Laura Hymas interview and the recording of her discussion with her oncologist (approximately 0:28 h in)

This section is horrifying (to Gorski, at least) to watch, as he can’t help but feel how dicey and ethical the situation that poor UK NHS oncologist found himself in with Hymas and her family demanding that he help her be part of one of Burzynski’s “clinical trials” by agreeing to be the local physician and agreeing to order various scans

The end of the story of Amelia Saunders (approximately 0:58 h in)

This is one where Merola caused Gorski true revulsion, as he basically implied that Amelia died because her parents took her off the antineoplastons

Or you can read what Eric Merola REALLY posted on Twitter:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/18/fact-checking-httpthehoustoncancerquack-com/
Hideaki Tsuda’s clinical trial (approximately 1:31 h in)

Gorski wonders why he hasn’t yet published, just like he wonders why Burzynski hasn’t published, but Gorski, SkeptiCoward© that he is, can NOT seem to explain why The Lancet Oncology Peer Review Team D-12-01519 refused to publish Burzynski’s 11/26/2012 (1:29:53) phase 2 clinical trial Progression-Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS) re patients 8 – 16 years after diagnosis, results

Those of you who watch it, let Gorski know what you think

Those of you who can only watch part of it, let Gorski know what you think of that section

Remember, though, Gorski will BLOCK you if you question HIS infallibility, because he and his “Oracolytes” would rather comment on things that have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Burzynski, like:

“it is possible to link without boosting google rankings through the “no-follow command”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nofollow I learned about this from Bob Blaskiewicz, who proposed that we use this when linking to dubious websites in our posts”

Gorski makes unreliable excuses for NOT doing research re Burzynski, so I did it for him

Burzynski: Complete Response, Partial Response, Stable Disease, Progressive Disease, Objective Response, and Response:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/04/burzynski-complete-response-partial-response-stable-disease-progressive-disease-objective-response-and-response/
Burzynski: Progression-Free Survival (PFS):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/04/burzynski-progression-free-survival/
Antineoplastons: Adverse Effects:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/antineoplastons-adverse-effects/
Burzynski: Acknowledgements, Authors, and Co-Investigators:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/03/burzynski-acknowledgements/
Burzynski: Institutional Review Board (IRB):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/burzynski-institutional-review-board-irb/
And because Gorski and others do NOT seem to understand how antineoplastons (ANP) A10 (Atengenal) and AS2-1 (Astugenal) work, I provide the relevant Burzynski publications and page #’s for them to review:
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/scientific-publications.html
======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials
16. 2003 (BT-11)
Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma: a preliminary report.
DRUGS IN R&D
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12718563
Drugs in R and D
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12718563
(Drugs in Research and Development)
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/960.pdf
Drugs R D. 2003;4(2):91-101
Drugs in R&D 2003;4:91-101

Pg. 92
Antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 are synthetic derivatives of phenylacetate (PN) acid, glutamine and isoglutamine

A10 is sterile solution of sodium phenylacetylisoglutiminate (isoPG) in 4 : 1 ratio

Antineoplaston AS2-1 is sterile solution of sodium phenylacetate (PN) and phenylacetylglutaminate (PG) in 4 : 1 ratio

Pg. 97
Discussion
Pg. 99

======================================
Review Articles on Clinical Trials:
1. 3/2004
The Present State of Antineoplaston Research
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/994.pdf
Integrative Cancer Therapies 2004;3:47-58
Volume 3, No. 1, March 2004
DOI: 10.1177/1534735-403261964
Volume 3 Number 1 March 2004

Pg. 47
Pg. 48
Mechanism of Action of Antineoplaston
Pg. 49
Pg. 50

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

Pg. 56
Conclusion

======================================
Case Reports:
4. 9/2004 (Special Exception (SE) to BT-11 Study (ST))
Long-term survival and complete response of a patient with recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioblastoma multiforme
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1145.pdf
Integrative Cancer Therapies 2004;3:257-261
Volume 3, Number 3 September 2004
DOI: 10.1177/1534735404267748

Pgs. 257-258
Pg. 260
Discussion
Pg. 261

======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
2. 10/2004
Phase II study of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in recurrent glioblastoma multiforme
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1218.pdf
Neuro-Oncology. 2004; 6: 384
Volume 6 Issue 4 October 2004
Abstracts from the Society for Neuro-Oncology Ninth Annual Meeting, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, November 18-21, 2004

Pg. 385
======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
3. 10/2004 (Study (ST) and Special Exception (SE))
Long-term survivals in phase II studies of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in patients with diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1219.pdf
Neuro-Oncology. 2004; 6: 386
Volume 6 Issue 4 October 2004

Antineoplastons (ANP) consist of 3 active ingredients including sodium salts of phenylacetylglutamine (PG), phenylacetylisoglutimine (isoPG), and phenylacetic acid (PN)

Preclinical data supports that the mechanism of antineoplastic activity in DBSG, involves interruption of signal transmission in the RAS, (PN) AKT2, and TGFB1 (PG) pathways, activation of p53 and p21 tumor suppressor genes (PN) and apoptosis (PG and isoPG)

======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
17. 2004 (BT-13 and BT-23)
Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in children with recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma :
a preliminary report
DRUGS IN R&D
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15563234
Drugs in R and D
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15563234
(Drugs in Research and Development)
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1194.pdf
Drugs R D. 2004;5(6):315-26
Drugs R&D 2004;5(6):315-326.

Pg. 316
Pg. 324
Discussion

======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
18. 6/2005 (CAN-01 and BT-12)
Burzynski, S.R., Weaver, R.A., Janicki, T., Szymkowski, B., Jurida, G., Khan, M., Dolgopolov, V.
Long-term survival of high-risk pediatric patients with primitive neuroectodermal tumors treated with Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15911929
Integr Cancer Ther. 2005 Jun;4(2):168-77
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15911929
Integrative Cancer Therapies 2005;4(2):168-177
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1220.pdf
DOI: 10.1177/1534735405276835
http://m.ict.sagepub.com/content/4/2/168.long?view=long&pmid=15911929
Volume 4 Number 2 June 2005

Pg. 168
Pg. 174
Discussion
Pgs. 175-176

======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
19. 3/2006 (BT-03, BT-11, BT-18, and CAN-01)
Targeted therapy with Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 of high grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem glioma.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16484713
Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Mar;5(1):40-7
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16484713
Integrative Cancer Therapies 2006;5(1):40-47
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/5825.pdf
DOI: 10.1177/1534735405285380
http://m.ict.sagepub.com/content/5/1/40.long?view=long&pmid=16484713

Pgs. 40-41
Pg. 46
Discussion
Conclusion

======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
8. 10/2006
Treatment of multicentric brainstem gliomas with antineoplastons (ANP) A10 and AS2-1.
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/2105.pdf
Neuro-Oncology. 2006; 8:466.
Volume 8 Issue 4 October 2006
Abstracts for the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO)

Pg. 466
Antineoplastons (ANP) are synthetic analogues of naturally occurring phenylacetylglutamine (PG), phenylacetylisoglutimine (isoPG), and phenylacetate (PN)

======================================
Review Articles on Clinical Trials:
3. 12/2007
Recent clinical trials in diffuse intrinsic brainstem glioma. Cancer Therapy 2007; 5, 379-390.
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/5692.pdf
Review Article
Cancer Therapy Vol 5, 379-390, 2007
http://www.cancer-therapy.org/CT/v5/B/HTML/42._Burzynski,_379-390.html
Volume 5 Number 2 December, 2007

Pg. 381
Pg. 384
E. Multitargeted therapy

======================================
Interim Reports on Clinical Trials:
11. 10/2008
(BT-8 – PATIENTS WITH ANAPLASTIC ASTROCYTOMA)
(BT-15 – ADULT PATIENTS WITH ANAPLASTIC ASTROCYTOMA)
Phase II study of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in patients with newly diagnosed anaplastic astrocytoma:
A preliminary report
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/7853.pdf
Volume 10 Issue 5 October 2008
Neuro-Oncology 2008; 10:821
Abstracts for the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Society for Neuro-Oncology, November 20-23, 2008

Pg. 821

Antineoplastons (ANP) are synthetic analogs of naturally occurring phenylacetylglutamine (PG), phenylacetylisoglutimine (isoPG), and phenylacetate (PN)

Antineoplastons (ANP) is a multi-targeted therapy affecting signal transduction, the cell cycle, the TCA cycle, and apoptosis

======================================
Interim Reports on Clinical Trials:
12. 12/2008
(BT-8 – PATIENTS WITH ANAPLASTIC ASTROCYTOMA)
(BT-15 – ADULT PATIENTS WITH ANAPLASTIC ASTROCYTOMA)
Phase II study of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 infusions (ANP) in patients with recurrent anaplastic astrocytoma
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/7898.pdf
Neuro-Oncology 2008; 10:1067
Volume 10 Issue 6 December 2008
Abstracts for the Eighth Congress of the European Association for Neuro-Oncology (EANO), Sept. 12-14, 2008, Barcelona, Spain

Antineoplastons (ANP) affects multiple targets, and its components have different mechanisms of action

A10 interferes with signaling in the AKT2 and MYCC pathways, blocks expression of TGFB1, activates the PTEN and MAD tumor suppressor genes, and normalizes nuclear transport by decreasing the expression of RANBP1, which may restore the activity of the mutated INI protein

AS2-1 interferes with signal transmission in the RAS and BCL2 pathways and activates expression of the tumor suppressors TP53 and p21

======================================
Case Reports:
1. 12/2009 (BT-11 Special Exception (SE))
Over a 10-year survival and complete response of a patient with diffuse intrinsic brainstem glioma (DBSG) treated with antineoplastons (ANP).
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/8638.pdf
Neuro-Oncology 2009; 11:923.
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

Antineoplastons (ANP) is a multi-targeted therapy that is well tolerated with minimal and reversible adverse events and has multiple different mechanisms of action by affecting the AKT, RAS, TP53, p21, and PTEN pathways
======================================