Critiquing: Doctor accused of selling false hope to families (USA TODAY NEWS, NATION, Liz Szabo, USA TODAY)

20131116-002847.jpg
I gave Liz Szabo and USA TODAY the chance to act like a Spike Lee joint and “Do the Right Thing”, the same day their article came out [1]

I gave them the opportunity to prove that their article was a legitimate piece of journalism with some semblance of integrity, and NOT just akin to one of “The Skeptics™ phoned-in “rubber-stamped” yellow journalism hit pieces

Instead, it seems that Liz Szabo and / or USA TODAY decided to act as if they had rolled a Spike Lee joint

I sent an e-mail with 2 editorial corrections, and only one (correcting Lisa Merritt’s comment
link from taking the reader to the 1999 Mayo Clinic report instead of to her comments), was corrected [2]

The 2nd correction which they #FAILED to do, earns them well deserved INSOLENCE
——————————————————————
The article claims:
——————————————————————
Burzynski, 70, calls his drugs “antineoplastons” and says he has given them to more than 8,000 patients since 1977.”
——————————————————————

20131116-004037.jpg
——————————————————————
However, if you select the “8,000 patients” link, the referenced page does NOT indicate that at all [2]
——————————————————————

20131116-064344.jpg
——————————————————————
It advises:
——————————————————————
“That same year, Dr. Burzynski founded his clinic in Houston where he’s since treated over 8,000 patients.” [3]
——————————————————————

20131116-064326.jpg
——————————————————————
Nowhere does it indicate that he “treated 8,000 patients” with antineoplastons
——————————————————————

20131116-064409.jpg
——————————————————————
The question that Liz Szabo and USA TODAY should answer, is:

1. Who is your “fact-checker”, and
2. are they smarter than a 5th grader ?
——————————————————————
In fact, Burzynski’s 2002 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing advises:

” … in 1997, his medical practice was expanded to include traditional cancer treatment options such as chemotherapy, gene targeted therapy, immunotherapy and hormonal therapy in response to FDA requirements that cancer patients utilize more traditional cancer treatment options in order to be eligible to participate in the Company’s Antineoplaston clinical trials” [4]
——————————————————————
The article continues:
——————————————————————
“Individual success stories can be misleading, said Arthur Caplan, a professor and head of the division of bioethics at NYU Langone Medical Center”
——————————————————————
The question Arthur Caplan should be asking is:

Why has the United States Food and Drug Administration required Burzynski’s clinical trial patients to fail conventional therapies; such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation, BEFORE they are allowed to be treated with antineoplaston therapy ?

If the F.D.A. did NOT impose these restrictions upon Burzynski’s clinical trials, then the question Arthur Caplan raises would be moot
——————————————————————
The article quotes Dr. Jan Buckner as saying:
——————————————————————
“When I hear a story that is way out of the norm, the first question I ask is,

‘OK, is the diagnosis even correct?‘ ”

Buckner said”

“If the diagnosis wasn’t right to start with, it doesn’t matter what the treatment was.”

“Brain tumors are notoriously difficult to diagnose, Buckner says”

“When dealing with rare brain cancer, doctors may disagree about how to interpret imaging results up to 40% of the time”
——————————————————————
I wonder if Dr. Jan Buckner would agree with David Gorski; who is a BREAST cancer oncology specialist, and NOT a BRAIN cancer oncology specialist, who has the presumptiveness to speculate that 3 different medical opinions could have misdiagnosed Tori Moreno in August 1998; who was diagnosed with a very large tumor, about 3 inches in the largest diameter and located in the brain stem, which was too risky for surgery, and about which her parents were told by ALL 3, that Tori’s brain cancer was fatal and, she would die in a few days or at the most, 2-6 weeks, and that there was nothing that could be done, and was finally put on Burzynski’s antineoplaston therapy in October, when she was about 3 ½ months old, and in such condition that they were afraid that she might die at any time, David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., FACS; who claims, “I do know cancer science” , has the audacity, because of his “book learnin'” has the temerity to postulate his “science-based medicine theory” that Miller’s Children at Long Beach Memorial misdiagnosed Tori Moreno’s inoperable stage 4 BSG

David Gorski has the gall to profer that City of Hope misdiagnosed Tori Moreno’s inoperable stage 4 brain stem glioma

David Gorski has the chutzpah to pontificate that Dr. Fred Epstein in New York misdiagnosed Tori Moreno’s inoperable stage IV brainstem glioma [5]
——————————————————————
The article then quotes Peter Adamson, chair of the Children’s Oncology Group:
——————————————————————
“But these therapies may have delayed benefits, taking weeks or months to shrink a tumor

“So patients treated by Burzynski may credit him for their progress, just because he was the last doctor to treat them, says Peter Adamson, chair of the Children’s Oncology Group, an NCI-supported research network that conducts clinical trials in pediatric cancer

Conventional cancer treatment can also cause tumors to swell temporarily, due to inflammation

“A patient who isn’t familiar with this phenomenon may assume her tumor is growing

“When that swelling subsides, patients may assume it’s because of Burzynski, Adamson says”
——————————————————————
This is laughable

In support of this “phenomenon” , the article provides a link to a Canadian web-site [6]

The site posits:
——————————————————————
“RT/TMZ is now widely practiced and the standard of care for appropriately selected patients, we are learning more about the consequences of RT/TMZ”

“One phenomena, termed Pseudo-Progression (psPD)…”
——————————————————————
The problem is that this only applies to “Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM)”, and the article provides NO proof whatsoever, that any of Burzynski’s “Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM)” patients have taken “RT/TMZ”
——————————————————————
Additionally, the site cites the reference as:

Sanghera, Perry, Sahgal, et al., “Sunnybrook Health Sciences Odette Cancer Centre” (in press, Canadian Journal of Neuroscience)

(“In press” refers to journal articles which have been accepted for publication, but have not yet been published)

However, the journal article in question was published 1/2010, so it has NOT been “in press” for over 3 years and 7 months [7]

Get your act together, aye, Canada !
——————————————————————
The article rants and raves on and on about FDA inspection reports from as far back as 1998, but at least they did quote Richard A. Jaffe:

“In Burzynski’s defense, Jaffe notes that inspection reports represent preliminary findings

“The FDA has not yet issued final conclusions”
——————————————————————
The article posts this ridiculous claim:
——————————————————————
“Yet the National Cancer Institute says there is no evidence that Burzynski has cured a single patient, or even helped one live longer
——————————————————————
That’s NOT what this seems to suggest [8]
——————————————————————
Then the article quotes pediatric oncologist Peter Adamson, a professor of pediatrics and pharmacology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, in what will no doubt soon be known as a “classic”:
——————————————————————
“He’s a snake oil salesman,” says pediatric oncologist Peter Adamson, a professor of pediatrics and pharmacology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia”
——————————————————————
All I’d like to know is, which rock did this clown crawl out from under ?

Dr. Adamson, please advise which “snake oil” has been granted Orphan Drug Designation (“ODD”) from the United States Food and Drug Administration [9], and which “snake oil” has been approved for, and used in, phase III clinical trials ? [10]
——————————————————————
Q: Is it, it the phase 2 trial is finished ?

A: “Mhmm”

Q: but they’re still accepting people ?

A: “Yeah”

Q: on more like a special ?

A: Special basis, and, um, sometimes compassionate grounds

A: “(compassion exception)”

A: “Uh, exceptions

Q: That’s normal ?

A: “Yes”
“So”

A: “(Yes I guess it is a funding issue ?)”

Q: Right

A: “(Like FDA, during the 2nd phase of clinical trials they found the data to be, real, real one, and they gave him the ok to go for 3rd phase of clinical trials, but just to go through this process you would probably need $100,000)”
——————————————————————

20131116-164617.jpg

20131021-200529.jpg

20131021-200553.jpg
——————————————————————
Oh, wait !!

Dr. Adamson, when you say “snake oil”, I take it you are referring to the low-dose chemotherapy that Burzynski uses ?

Dr. Adamson, do you know what a “hack” is ?
——————————————————————
In regards to the Merritt’s, the article has:
——————————————————————
“The couple say that Burzynski misled them about the type of treatment that would be offered, as well as the cost”

My questions about the Merritt’s are:

1. Where is their complaint to the Texas Medical Board ?

2. Where is their lawsuit ? Couldn’t they find an attorney to take their case pro bono ?
——————————————————————
The article continues:
——————————————————————
“Yet even Jaffe has acknowledged that the trialnow in its 17th year — was more about politics than science”

“In his 2008 memoirs, Galileo’s Lawyer, Jaffe called it “a joke.”

“”It was all an artifice, a vehicle we and the FDA created to legally give the patients Burzynski’s treatment,” Jaffe said
——————————————————————
What Liz Szabo and her friends at USA TODAY fail to let the readers know, is that this only applied to one trial:
——————————————————————
Burzynski’s lawyer is obviously referring to the CAN-1 clinical trial mentioned in Burzynski’s 11/25/1997 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing [11]
——————————————————————
One trial that is retrospective is CAN-1 Clinical Trial
——————————————————————
CAN-1 PHASE II STUDY OF ANTINEOPLASTONS A10 AND AS2-1 IN

PATIENTS WITH REFRACTORY MALIGNANCIES

133 patients
——————————————————————
Clinical trial of patients treated by Dr. Burzynski through 2/23/1996
——————————————————————
FDA has indicated it will not accept data generated by this trial since it was not a wholly prospective one
——————————————————————
The article continues in the same vein:
——————————————————————
“In an interview, Burzynski said developing new drugs is complex and takes time

“Yet the FDA has approved 108 cancer drugs since Burzynski began his trial”
——————————————————————
Ms. Szabo and “pals” conveniently “forgets” to educate their audience that Burzynski was using Fleming’s One-sample multiple testing procedure for phase II clinical trials [13], which requires that if the 1st 20 patients meet certain criteria, 20 additional patients are added [14]
——————————————————————
“Well, we cannot publish until the time is right” (laughs)

Yeah

“If you would like to publish the results of, of a
10 year survival, for instance”

Mmm

“Which we have
Nobody has over 10 year survival in
malignant brain tumor, but we do, and if you like to do it right, it takes time to prepare it, and that’s what we do now
What we publish so far
We publish numerous, uh, publications which were, interim reports when we are still continuing clinical trials
Now we are preparing, a number of publications for final reports
[15]
——————————————————————
Then Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition makes an outlandish statement, which is quoted in the article:
——————————————————————
“Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition, describes the FDA’s tolerance of Burzynski as “outrageous.”

“They have put people at risk for a long time,” says Visco, an attorney and breast cancer survivor

“That’s completely unacceptable”

“How can anyone look at these facts and believe that there is a real clinical trial going on … rather than just using the FDA and the clinical trial system to make money?”
——————————————————————
I have a suggestion for Ms. Visco

Take your hypocrisy and ask the American Cancer Society if they are still engaged in this kind of activity:

1. AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY: More Interested In Accumulating Wealth Than Saving Lives [15]

2. National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society: Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest [16]
——————————————————————
Then, ask the American Cancer Society, why is it that 10 years ago, estimated breast cancer deaths were expected to be 39,800 (15%), and this year it was 39,620 (14%), which is ONLY 180 LESS than 10 years ago ?
——————————————————————
Estimated Breast Cancer Deaths (Women)-USA
——————————————————————
2013☝39,620 (14%)
2012👇39,510 (14%)
2011👇39,520 (15%)
2010👇39,840 (15%)
2009👇40,170 (15%)
2008☝40,480 (15%)
2007👇40,460 (15%)
2006☝40,970 (15%)
2005👇40,410 (15%)
2004☝40,110 (15%)
2003☝39,800 (15%)
2002
39,600 (15%)
—————————————————————–
American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures (2002-2013)
—————————————————————–
And then ask the American Cancer Society, why is it that 10 years ago, the estimated NEW breast cancer cases were expected to be 211,300 (32%), and this year it was 232,340 (29%), which is 21,340 MORE than it was 10 years ago ?
——————————————————————
Estimated New Breast Cancer (Women) – USA
——————————————————————
2013☝232,340 (29%)
2012👇226,870 (29%)
2011☝238,480 (30%)
2010☝207,090 (28%)
2009☝192,370 (27%)
2008☝182,460 (26%)

2007👇178,480 (26%)
2006☝212,920 (31%)
2005👇211,240 (32%)
2004☝215,900 (32%)
2003☝211,300 (32%)
2002
_-_203,500 (31%)
—————————————————————–
American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures (2002-2013)
——————————————————————
And after that, ask Susan G. Komen how much is spent on legal action to protect her brand, compared to how much is spent on breast cancer research and prevention ?
——————————————————————
Visco, the breast cancer advocate

“I do NOT know why it took YOU so long.”
——————————————————————
The article continues with:
——————————————————————
“Yet hypernatremia is one of antineoplastons’ most common side effects, known to doctors for two decades”
——————————————————————
Yet, “The Skeptics™” refuse to discuss:
——————————————————————
2/13/2013 – The frequency, cost, and clinical outcomes of hypernatremia in patients hospitalized to a comprehensive cancer center

Over 3 month period in 2006 re 3,446 patients, most of the hypernatremia (90 %) was acquired during hospital stay [19]

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

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

Division of Endocrinology, Mayo Clinic
——————————————————————
9/1999 – The changing pattern of hypernatremia in hospitalized children [20]

Department of Pediatrics, Texas Children’s Hospital, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
——————————————————————
So, after all that, my question for USA TODAY is, does Liz Szabo, Michael Stravato, Jerry Mosemak or Robert Hanashiro have a
journalism degree ?

Because if any of them do, the institution they obtained it from most be so proud of this piece of “fish wrap” you produced

Thank you, USA TODAY, for censoring my 18 comments

I guess you must be (“intellectual”) cowards

At least Forbes had the GRAPEFRUITS to post some of my comments
——————————————————————
You’ve just been served, INSOLENTLY
——————————————————————
USA TODAY, GONE TOMORROW
——————————————————————

20131116-084820.jpg

20131116-085357.jpg

20131116-084833.jpg

20131116-084847.jpg

20131116-084909.jpg

20131116-084924.jpg

20131116-084937.jpg

20131116-085152.jpg

20131116-085218.jpg

20131116-085311.jpg

20131116-085436.jpg

20131116-085528.jpg

20131116-085550.jpg

20131116-085608.jpg

20131116-085629.jpg

20131116-084804.jpg

20131116-084745.jpg
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – 11/15/2013 – USA TODAY NEWS, NATION
Doctor accused of selling false hope to families
Liz Szabo, USA TODAY
——————————————————————
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/15/stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-controversy/2994561/
======================================
[2] – Mayo Clinic – 1999 – report: Lisa Merritt
——————————————————————
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/816819-mayo-clinic-1999-report.html
======================================
[3] – 2012 – former Burzynski web-site screenshots, Pg 3 of 62;
——————————————————————
http://www.circare.org/info/bri/burzynski_fdauntitled_promo_2012.pdf
======================================
[4] – 4/26/2013 – Burzynski: FDA requirements that cancer patients utilize more traditional cancer treatment options in order to be eligible to participate in the Company’s Antineoplaston CLINICAL TRIALS:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/burzynski-fda-requirements-that-cancer-patients-utilize-more-traditional-cancer-treatment-options-in-order-to-be-eligible-to-participate-in-the-companys-antineoplaston-clinical-trials/
======================================
[5] – 11/14/2013 – Critiquing: Why we fight for patients (Why we fight your patience) TAM 2013, TAM2013, “The Amazing Meeting” 2013 #TAM2013 http://www.theamazingmeeting.com
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/14/tam-2013-tam2013-tam2013-the-amazing-meeting-2013-the-amazing-meeting-httptheamazingmeeting-com-httpwww-theamazingmeeting-com/
======================================
[6] – Phenomenon – Brain Tumour Foundation of Canada
——————————————————————
http://www.braintumour.ca/1649/ask-the-expert-psuedo-progression-gbm
======================================
[7] – Pseudoprogression following chemoradiotherapy for glioblastoma multiforme
Can J Neurol Sci. 2010 Jan;37(1):36-42
——————————————————————
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20169771/
======================================
[8] – 9/19/2013 – 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] – FDA Orphan Drug Designation
——————————————————————
http://www.burzynskiresearch.com/assets/PressRelease_12022008_BZYR(2).pdf
======================================
[10] – 11/7/2013Pete Cohen chats with Sonali Patil, Ph.D., Research Scientist at The Burzynski Clinic:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/07/pete-cohen-chats-with-sonali-patil-ph-d-research-scientist-at-the-burzynski-clinic/
======================================
[11] – 7/9/2013 – Burzynski: The Original 72 Phase II Clinical Trials:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/09/burzynski-the-original-72-phase-ii-clinical-trials/
======================================
[12] – 8/21/2013 – 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/
======================================
[13] – 2003 – pg. 94
——————————————————————
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/960.pdf
======================================
[14] – 3/1982 – Biometrics 1982; 38: 143-51
——————————————————————
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7082756/
======================================
[15] – 11/9/2013Pete Cohen chats with Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski – Interview #2:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/09/pete-cohen-chats-with-dr-stanislaw-burzynski-interwiew-2/
======================================
[16] – AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY: More Interested In Accumulating Wealth Than Saving Lives
——————————————————————
http://www.wnho.net/acs.pdf
======================================
[17] – 9/11/2013 – National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society: Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/national-cancer-institute-and-american-cancer-society-criminal-indifference-to-cancer-prevention-and-conflicts-of-interest/
—————————————————————
[18] – 11/13/2013 – The War on Cancer (I don’t think it means, what you think it says it means) #Winning?
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/httpcancer-orgacsgroupscontentepidemiologysurveilancedocumentsdocumentacspc-036845-pdf/
======================================
[19] – 4/24/2013 – Burzynski: HYPERNATREMIA:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/burzynski-hypernatremia/
======================================
[20] – 9/1999 – Pediatrics. 1999 Sep;104(3 Pt 1):435-9
——————————————————————
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10469766/
======================================

20131116-002912.jpg

A Message to Guy “Can’t Git-R-Done” Chapman

Guy “Crapman” Chapman is a SkeptiCoward©

20131004-021044.jpg
I’m NOT “Astroturfwatch” you twit
——————————————————————
“Guy” blogged another one of “The Skeptics™” #Fails [1]

He has a blog full of essentially misinformation, disinformation, misdirection, and lies regarding Burzynski, but the gist of it is that so far he has demonstrated to the entire world that he is that “Guy”, that “Yellow-Back” Chap, man, who has NOT demonstrated that he has the “Grapefruits”, to answer for his actions [2-4]

He claims my blog is “full of essentially incoherent commentary,” yet he offers NO explanation as to why it is that since its inception 2/14/2013, the Didymus Judas Thomas’ Hipocritical Oath Blog has had 9,626 visitors

20131003-223812.jpg
Where’s your stats, Guy ?

Lets “review” his latest piece of propaganda and Dezinformatsiya, shall we ?
——————————————————————
“The FDA approved a phase 3 trial, therefore Burzynski’s antineoplastons definitely work”
——————————————————————
#fail [5]

“[T]he emphasis in Phase 2 is on EFFECTIVENESS

“Phase 3 studies begin if EVIDENCE of EFFECTIVENESS is shown in Phase 2″
——————————————————————
“The Lancet rejected publication of the sole paper known to have been sumbitted from the one completed phase 2 trial, therefore there is a global conspiracy to suppress Burzynski”
——————————————————————
#Fail [6]

Bob Blaskiewicz postulated during the Google+ Hangout on Saturday, that this is a generic, usual, normal course-of-business rejection letter

NO such example is on Al Gore’s Internet

Whose got one ?

20130930-164002.jpg
Even in a Tweet, everybody must include all caveats and the full body of knowledge with footnotes, or stand convicted of lying
——————————————————————
#FaiL

Do NOT post deceptive Twits:

20130928-192050.jpg

20130930-101722.jpg
#faIL

@SceptiGuy, on 5/25/2013, what did you NOT understand about her 5/23/2013 Cease and Desist Tweet ?

20131003-094026.jpg
A trial at a reputable cancer center once took several years to complete and publish, therefore failure to complete and publish a single trial in 40 years means nothing
——————————————————————
#FaiL

So, does this mean you wanted Burzynski to publish the phase 2 clinical trial final results before the trials were finished ?
——————————————————————
“Failure to participate on a partisan blog means you refuse to debate”
——————————————————————
#FAil [7]

Is this just another one of “The Skeptics™” Red Herring’s you like to use ?

The About page on my blog is crystal clear:

“The decision is that he is neither guilty nor innocent doesn’t mean he doesn’t need to do work within his practice, and the FDA obviously needs to pursue things as well

As I said on the Saturday Google+ Hangout, I consider myself to be a Skeptic Skeptic [8]

In other words, if you are going to be a true Skeptic, at least police yourself and “fact-check” before you insert foot-in-mouth and spread misinformation, disinformation, misdirection, and / or lies all over social media

Making lame excuses for NOT debating on my blog is like an atheist stating that they would NOT debate on Earth because creationists claim it was created by God
——————————————————————
“Failure to complete and publish trials is the single biggest reputational issue Burzynski has and it cannot be waved away or covered with a fig leaf of a single rejected paper”

“If you can’t understand why this is a problem, then we’re all wasting our time even talking to you”
——————————————————————
#FaIL [9]

YOUR failure to provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) from the Declaration of Helsinki, United States Food and Drug Administration, National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), or any other source to support your claim as to when you think Burzynski is required to publish, says it all
——————————————————————
“The average time from commencement of a trial to completion is 3-5 years”

“If a trial is going to be completed and published, very few take longer than 8 years to final publication”
——————————————————————
3/29/1996, then United States Food and Drug Administration Commissioner, David Kessler told the American people [10]:

2. The … FDA’s initiatives … will allowthe agencyto rely on smaller trialsfewer patients … if there is evidence … of partial response in clinical trials

A. What is the FDA’s definition of “smaller trials”?

B. What is the FDA’s definition of “fewer patients”?

Burzynski’s 2006 publication lists 1652 adults and 335 children (1,799 Total) [11]

20131003-184941.jpg
“A quick sample says that the first 60 of Burzynski’s phase 2 trials were all registered on the same day”

“1 November 1999, presumably following the consent decree which forbade him from administering antineoplastons outside of a registered clinical trial”
——————————————————————
fAil [11]

If you’re correct; which is rare, 3/29/1996, why did then US FDA Commissioner, David Kessler tell the American people [10]:

6. The uhh agency hasMANY … trials … has has approved trialsfor patientswith antineoplastons ?

Why does Burzynski’s 11/25/1997 SEC Form 10-SB filing list 72 phase 2 clinical trials ? [12]

Could it be because you are wrong ?
——————————————————————
“The trial that completed, was finished in February 2005”
——————————————————————
Are you certain ? [13]

20131003-182641.jpg

20131003-182705.jpg
“The single phase 3 trial is withdrawn”
——————————————————————
Guy, did you contact the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) like I did, where they advised me: “Not every cancer clinical trial taking place in the United States is listed on our NCI Clinical Trials Database” ? [14]
——————————————————————
“I do not choose to debate on DJT’s blog”
——————————————————————
Guy, can you see the yellow stripe down your back ?

(I won’t say “spine,” because you haven’t shown that you have one)
——————————————————————
“He has a long history of misrepresenting differences of opinion as evidence of deceit (e.g. his claim that 0/61 is evidence that I can’t count, rather than what tit is, brevity during a rapid exchange of suggested questions during a Google hangout, where the person to whom the suggestion is made, is fully aware of the full context of 0/1/61 published/complete/registered”
——————————————————————
Guy, why don’t you just PROVE IT ?

20131003-201924.jpg

20131003-202235.jpg
#fAiL

Guy, hasn’t ONE been completed ?

20131003-202310.jpg
You wanted him to publish before the clinical trials were finished ?
——————————————————————
“So that kind of stuff is not the actions of an honest broker”
——————————————————————
Guy, what do you call all of your above FAILS?
——————————————————————
“I wouldn’t expect DJT to debate here, nor would I be interested in giving him a platform; am happy to debate in an open forum where there are comprehensible questions and some sort of moderation to prevent tactics such as the Gish gallop”
——————————————————————
Talk about “Gish galloping”

First you post: I wouldn’t expect DJT to debate here … “

and then you posted: ” … nor would I be interested in giving him a platform …”

which just shows that you were NOT sincere when you posted your 1st comment

What you are basically saying when you posted: ” … I am happy to debate in an open forum where there are comprehensible questions and some sort of moderation to prevent tactics such as the Gish gallop, is that you are NOT competent enough to call “Gish gallop” and prove it during any debate

You want “Mommy” to protect you from someone who is more intelligent than you are ?

That’s what I hear you saying
——————————————————————
“Sorry, your blog is not an “open forum” and the majority of what’s written there is gibberish”
——————————————————————
I understand you

My blog is meant for intelligent people who can grasp ideas, dry wit, and other concepts humans use to communicate with each other

Unfortunately, I take it you are NOT like the other 9,600* people who have visited my blog
——————————————————————
“I recommend you stop trying to satirise someone else’s style and instead write in your own words”
——————————————————————
Why would I take any advice from you ?

You’re one FAIL after another

I’ll satirize (and spell it correctly) that Ph.D. FAIL “Orac” all I want
——————————————————————
“And read them back, if necessary to a friend, so that you get the general air of “what the hell does that even mean?””

“knocked out of it”
——————————————————————
It’s readily apparent who needs to check them self

Because you act as if you’ve been “knocked out of it” for quite some time

Maybe you should wear a helmet
——————————————————————
“Twitter is about rapid-fire debate”
——————————————————————
What the problem is ?

“The Skeptics™” think Twitter is a “debate forum”, but you do NOT have the cranial capacity to “debate”

What “The Skeptics™” do is called “mental bastardization”
——————————————————————
“Don’t pretend that any statement is ever intended to be a nuanced and scientifically rigorous statement of the prevailing consensus view, because it isn’t, and it’s not pretending to be”
——————————————————————
As far as I’m concerned, the vast majority of your twits are “pretending”
——————————————————————
“It’s fair to ask for a source or a clarification, it’s grossly misleading to cherry-pick individual tweets and misrepresent a lack of detail as deliberate malfeasance”
——————————————————————
The FACT is, a plethora of your twittering has as its source, your posterior
——————————————————————
“That’s the kind of tactic that gets you ignored and dismissed as a mendacious time-sink; if that’s the image you’re striving for then fine but I don’t think it is”
——————————————————————
Everyone already knows what you are

Guy “Crapman”
——————————————————————
“There you go”
——————————————————————
I could NOT have said it better myself
——————————————————————
“And now, if you don’t mind, I will get on with other things”
—————————————————————
LIKE THIS ?

EXPLAIN THIS [15]

20131003-225353.jpg

20131003-232222.jpg

20131002-101725.jpg
Prove I spammed 🙂

Are you a man ?

Or are you a

SkeptiCoward© ?

20131004-013014.jpg

20131004-013041.jpg

20131004-013113.jpg

20131004-013506.jpg
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – 10/2013 – A Message to DJT
——————————————————————
http://t.co/Rd9CVSaKcq
——————————————————————
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg/2013/10/a-message-to-a-djt/
======================================
[2] – 3/24/2013 – Critiquing “Burzynski: Another fact-blind troll, who predicted that?”:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/critiquing-burzynski-another-fact-blind-troll-who-predicted-that/
======================================
[3] – 4/12/2013 – The dishonesty of Guy Chapman, “The Skeptics” shill:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/12/the-dishonesty-of-guy-chapman-the-skeptics-shill/
======================================
[4] – 5/5/2013 – guychapman (Guy Chapman) Critiquing “The Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics (page 9):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/05/guychapman-guy-chapman-critiquing-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics-page-9/
======================================
[5] – 4/25/2013 – Burzynski: The FDA’s Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-the-fdas-drug-review-process-ensuring-drugs-are-safe-and-effective/
======================================
[6] – 9/30/2013 – Bob Burzynski Skeptic Sez Multiforme Manuscript Meme Message Memorable:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/30/bob-burzynski-skeptic-sez-multiforme-manuscript-meme-message-memorable/
======================================
[7] – About | Didymus Judas Thomas’ Hipocritical Oath Blog
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/about/
======================================
[8] – 10/3/2013 – “The Skeptics™” Definition of “Debate”:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/03/the-skeptics-definition-of-debate/
======================================
[9] – 4/25/2013 – Burzynski: Declaration of Helsinki:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-declaration-of-helsinki/
======================================
[10] – 6/8/2013 – WHAT IS MISDIRECTION? Critiquing “Antineoplastons: Has the FDA kept its promise to the American people ?”:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/what-is-misdirection-critiquing-antineoplastons-has-the-fda-kept-its-promise-to-the-american-people/
======================================
[11] – Treatments for Astrocytic Tumors in Children: Current and Emerging Strategies. Pediatric Drugs 2006;8:167-178. (Pediatr Drugs 2006; 8 (3)), 2.3. Targeted Therapy, pg. 174
——————————————————————
8/21/2013 – 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/
======================================
[12] – 7/9/2013 – Burzynski: The Original 72 Phase II Clinical Trials:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/09/burzynski-the-original-72-phase-ii-clinical-trials/
======================================
[13] – 6/26/2013 – Burzynski: The Clinical Trials:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/26/burzynski-the-clinical-trials/
——————————————————————
http://clinicaltrials.gov/archive/NCT00003509/2009_05_26/changes
======================================
[14] – 4/26/2013 – Burzynski: Not Every Cancer Clinical Trial Taking Place In The United States Is Listed On Our NCI Clinical Trials Database:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/burzynski-not-every-cancer-clinical-trial-taking-place-in-the-united-states-is-listed-on-our-nci-clinical-trials-database/
======================================
[15]
——————————————————————
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23408699/
======================================

Critiquing Wikipedia: Burzynski Clinic, Colorado Public Television (CPT12), and Public Broadcasting System (PBS)

[1] – Wikipedia, which is behind on updating the “propaganda” on their Burzynski article, posted:

Legal issues

2010 film, Burzynski – Cancer is Serious Business

[2] – “A showing of Burzynski by CPT12 only generated a handful of complaints to the PBS Ombudsman

“These mostly concurred with earlier reviewers of the film that the movie displays a serious lack of objectivity”

[3] – “Some CPT staffers were also criticized for failing to ask Eric Merola any of the hard questions”[65]

[4] – What Wikipedia fails to advise the reader is how many times “The Skeptics™” lied, misinformed, disinformed, and / or did NOT provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support their claims, did NOT respond to questions, used adolescent excuses and / or instead of addressing one issue per comment, posted numerous multiple issues in each comment which required research to address each issue, and thus #FAILED on the CPT12 Facebook page

[5] – [6] – Here is a list of “The Skeptics™” who participated in this questionable behavior

Darren Woodward (Sebastian Armstrong @spikesandspokes on Twitter)
Val Perry Rendel
Amber Sherwood K
Amy Hochberg Beaton
Robert Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz)
Adam Jacobs @DianthusMed)
Paul Morgan (@DrPaulMorgan)
William M. London
Scott Myers
David James (@StortSkeptic)
Guy Chapman (@SkepticGuy)
Karl Mamer
David H. Gorski (@gorskon @oracknows @ScienceBasedMed)
Adam Levenstein
Rene F. Najera
Tsu Dho Nimh
Jen Keane
Vicky Forster
Scott Hurst
Susan Scotvold Goodstein
Catherina Becker
Footy Stuff

Oh, wait

That would take too much time since it was about all of “The Skeptics™”
=====================================
[1] – Burzynski Clinic – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
——————————————————————
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzynski_Clinic
——————————————————————
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzynski_Clinic
——————————————————————
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzynski_Clinic
=====================================
[2] – 3/23/2013 – My review of “Burzynski: A note to the PBS ombudsman”:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/23/my-review-of-burzynski-a-note-to-the-pbs-ombudsman/
=====================================
[3] – [65] – 3/22/2013 – PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler – Cancer Is ‘Serious Business.’ Is the ‘Documentary’?
——————————————————————
http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/2013/03/cancer_is_serious_business_is_the_documentary_1.html
=====================================
[4] – 3/7/2013 – Colorado Public Television 12 – PBS (broadcasted a version of “Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business”(Part I)
——————————————————————
http://www.cpt12.org
——————————————————————
#CPT12 @ColoPublicTV
——————————————————————
https://www.facebook.com/questions/488444654552853
=====================================
[5] – 3/9/2013 – Colorado Public Television – PBS:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/09/colorado-public-television-pbs/
=====================================
[6] – 3/26/2013 – 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/
=====================================

Critiquing David H. “Orac” Gorski, MD PhD and his Personalized MUD-Targeted Skeptic Therapy

I’ve made no secret of my opinion of a certain cancer “research” doctor named David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, of Wayne State University School of Medicine and Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Center / Institute, Detroit, Michigan fame

Gorski, as you may recall was responsible for this 6/3/2013 “Orac” posting:
======================================
In which the latest movie about Stanislaw Burzynski’s “cancer cure” is reviewed…with Insolence
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/03/in-which-the-latest-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynskis-cancer-cure-is-reviewed-with-insolence/
——————————————————————
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/
======================================
When last we left Gorski, his propaganda, which I characterize as pure propaganda so incompetently made that it would make blush blush

After a couple of winks I changed my characterization to say that it would have made Penn and Teller vomit in revulsion at its sheer incompetence

Be that as it may, I view Gorski as highly unethical and pseudononsense, an incompetent purveyor of “personalized MUD-targeted medicine for dummies,” and someone who might at one time have been on to something but, like all hacks, just couldn’t let go when it became clear that his personalized MUD-targeted Skeptic therapy was far more toxic than advertised and way less efficacious, if it’s even efficacious at all, which is highly doubtful.

Gorski claimed:

“[I]f I had screwed up, I would have admitted it”

Data talks

BS walks

And there’s no doubt that Gorski, too, is pure BS

In fact, I think I’m being too kind

I have yet to see his admission that he lied when he posted:

“how Burzynski never explains which genes are targeted by antineoplastons … “
======================================
Critiquing: Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski, M.D., Ph.D, L.I.A.R.:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/07/critiquing-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-m-d-ph-d-l-i-a-r/
======================================
8/12/2013 Gorski blogged:
======================================
A study of antineoplastons fails to be published. Stanislaw Burzynski’s propagandist Eric Merola whines about it. News at 11.
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/08/12/antineoplaston-fails-publication/ ======================================
In regards to antineoplastons, Gorski states:

“antineoplastons are chemotherapy”

“They even have significant toxicity!”

What science based medicine publication(s) does Gorski cite in support of his “theory”?

NONE !!!

What do the science based medicine publications indicate?
======================================
[1] 4/1/1992 PHENYLACETATE-novel NONTOXIC inducer of tumor cell differentiation
——————————————————————
Sodium PHENYLACETATE found to affect growth and differentiation of tumor cells in vitro at concentrations achieved in humans WITH NO SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECTS
——————————————————————
PHENYLACETATE is effective in inducing tumor cell maturation and FREE OF CYTOTOXIC AND CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS, a combination that warrants attention to potential use in cancer intervention
——————————————————————
Sodium PHENYLACETATE is investigational new drug approved for human use by U.S. Food and Drug Administration
——————————————————————
DRUG ALREADY ESTABLISHED AS SAFE AND EFFECTIVE … we propose use may be extended to cancer preventation and therapy
======================================
[2] 8/20/1992 Difficulties may be overcome through exploitation of recent discovery of sodium PHENYLACETATE as NONTOXIC inducer of differentiation …
——————————————————————
(pro-drug) Sodium 4-PHENYLBUTYRATE can be given in oral doses of 0.3 to 0.6 g per kilogram of body weight per day with NO ADVERSE REACTIONS
——————————————————————
Drug rapidly metabolized to PHENYLACETATE and PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINE
——————————————————————
PHENYLACETATE (but not PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINE) … CAN POTENTIATE EFFICACY OF OTHER DIFFERENTIATING AGENTS, such as cytotoxic drugs …
======================================
[3] 9/15/1992 we explored efficacy of PHENYLACETATE, an amino acid derivative with LOW TOXICITY INDEX WHEN ADMINISTERED TO HUMANS
——————————————————————
PHENYLACETATE, used alone or in combination with other drugs, might offer safe and effective new approach to treatment
======================================
[4] 5/1993 NONTOXIC differentiation inducer, sodium PHENYLACETATE (NaPA)
——————————————————————
In vitro antineoplastic activity was observed with drug concentrations that have been achieved in humans with NO SIGNIFICANT TOXICITIES, suggesting PA, used alone or in combination with other antitumor agents, warrants evaluation in treatment of advanced prostatic cancer
======================================
[5] 10/1/1993 Sodium PHENYLACETATE (NaPA) and its precursor, sodium 4-PHENYLBUTYRATE (NaPB), can enhance HbF production in cultured erythroid progenitor derived from normal donors and patients with SS anemia or beta-thal, when used at pharmacologic concentrations
——————————————————————
NaPA and NaPB, BOTH ALREADY PROVEN SAFE AND EFFECTIVE IN TREATMENT OF CHILDREN
======================================
[6] 2/15/1994 sodium PHENYLACETATE can induce cytostasis and reversal of malignant properties of cultured human glioblastoma cells, when used at pharmacological concentrations that are WELL TOLERATED BY CHILDREN AND ADULTS
——————————————————————
Systemic treatment of rats bearing intracranial gliomas resulted in significant tumor suppression with NO APPARENT TOXICITY to host
======================================
[7] 4/1/1994 Pg. 1690
——————————————————————
protocol underwent several modifications over 6-month period
——————————————————————
Interest in PHENYLACETATE as anticancer agent generated by reports that ANTINEOPLASTON AS2-1, a preparation which by weight is 80% PHENYLACETATE, displayed clinical antitumor activity (13)
——————————————————————
17 patients (16 men / 1 woman) (36-75) median age 57
——————————————————————
Pg. 1693
——————————————————————
Clinical Toxicities. NO TOXICITY associated with bolus administration of drug
——————————————————————
Drug-related TOXICITY clearly related to serum
PHENYLACETATE
concentration
——————————————————————
3 episodes of Central Nervous System (CNS)
TOXICITY
, limited to CONFUSION
and LETHARGY and often preceded by emesis, occurred in patients treated at dose levels 3 and 4
——————————————————————
Symptoms resolved within 18 h of terminating drug infusion in all instances
——————————————————————
Pg. 1694
——————————————————————
PHENYLACETATE serum concentrations … were typically associated with CNS toxicity
——————————————————————
While ability to cross blood-brain barrier may underlie clinical improvement seen in patient with glioblastoma, could also explain dose-limiting side-effects of drug, i.e., nausea, vomiting, sedation, and confusion
——————————————————————
Limited experience with 150-mg/kg i.v. boluses suggests serum PHENYLACETATE concentrations occurring transiently
above 500 ug/ml are well tolerated
——————————————————————
Intermittent drug infusion should permit some drug washout to occur, thereby minimizing drug accumulation
——————————————————————
Predicts wide range of peak drug concentrations will be observed
——————————————————————
Possible these would be sufficiently transient so as not to produce CNS toxicity and troughs not prolonged as to abrogate antitumor activity of drug
——————————————————————
Dosing alternatives should be explored, our study indicates PHENYLACETATE can be safely administered by CIVI and result in clinical improvement in some patients with hormone-refractory
prostatic carcinoma and glioblastoma multiforme who failed conventional therapies
======================================
[8] 6/1/1994 PHENYLACETATE is naturally occurring plasma component that suppresses growth of tumor cells and induces differentiation in vitro
——————————————————————
Treatment with PHENYLACETATE extended survival … WITHOUT ASSOCIATED ADVERSE EFFECTS
======================================
[9] 9/1994 PHENYLACETATE, NONTOXIC differentiation inducer, can suppress growth of other neuroectodermal tumors, i.e., gliomas, in laboratory models and humans
======================================
[10] 4/1995 PHENYLACETATE, an inducer of tumor cytostasis and differentiation, shows promise as RELATIVELY NONTOXIC antineoplastic agent in models and humans
======================================
[11] 6/15/1995 Growth-inhibiting and differentiating effects of sodium PHENYLACETATE against hematopoietic and solid tumor cell lines has aroused clinical interest in use as anticancer drug
——————————————————————
In Phase I trial of PHENYLACETATE … commonly resulted in drug accumulation and REVERSIBLE DOSE-LIMITING NEUROLOGIC TOXICITY
——————————————————————
18 patients
——————————————————————
DOSE-LIMITING TOXICITY, consisting of REVERSIBLE CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM DEPRESSION, observed for 3 patients at 2nd dose level
======================================
[12] 10/12/1995 aromatic fatty acid PHENYLACETATE, a common metabolite of phenylalanine, shows promise as a RELATIVELY NON-TOXIC drug for cancer treatment
======================================
[13] 10/1995 investigated effects of a NONTOXIC differentiation inducer, PHENYLACETATE (PA), on neuroectodermal tumor-derived cell lines
======================================
[14] 1995 Antineoplastons, firstly described by Burzynski, are naturally occurring peptides and amino acid derivatives which control neoplastic growth
——————————————————————
toxicological study of Antineoplastons A-10 and AS2-1 in combination with other anticancer agents or radiation in 42 patients
46 tumors with terminal stage cancer
——————————————————————
Antineoplaston A-10 oral formulation
14 – patients
A-10 injectable formulation
25 – patients

——————————————————————
Antineoplaston AS2-1 oral formulation
33 – patients
AS2-1 injectable formulation
10 – patients

——————————————————————
Major adverse effects that may have been related to agents used in combination with other conventional chemotherapeutic agents or radiation:
liver dysfunction
myelosuppression
general weakness
THESE EFFECTS WEREN’T SEEN WHEN EITHER ANTINEOPLASTON WAS ADMINISTERED ALONE

——————————————————————
MINOR ADVERSE EFFECTS OBSERVED IN SINGLE USE OF EITHER ANTINEOPLASTON A-10 OR AS2-1:
reduced albumin
increased alkaline phosphatase
increased amylase
reduced cholesterol
peripheral edema
eosinophilia
fingers rigidity
excess gas
headache
hypertension
maculopapullar rash
palpitation
adverse effects didn’t limit to continuation of either agent

——————————————————————
Antineoplaston A-10 and AS2-1 LESS TOXIC THAN CONVENTIONAL CHEMOTHERAPIES and useful in maintenance therapy for cancer patients
======================================
[15] 1996 Antineoplastons, first described by Burzynski, are naturally occurring peptides and amino acid derivatives which control neoplastic growth
——————————————————————
reported cytostatic inhibitory effect of A10 on human hepatocellular carcinoma cells and differentiation inducing effect of AS2-1 on various tumor cells suggest potential benefit for treatment of human hepatocellular carcinoma since tumor recurs frequently despite initial successful treatment
——————————————————————
Clinical experience of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patient whose tumor, after incomplete trancathere arterial embolization (TAE) for a 7cm 7cm HCC, has been stable for more than 15 months during which time he has been taking Antineoplaston AS2-1 continuously WITHOUT ANY SERIOUS ADVERSE EFFECTS
======================================
[16] 5/1996
——————————————————————
In pursuit of alternative treatments for chemoresistant tumor cells, tested response of multidrug-resistant (MDR) tumor cell lines to aromatic fatty acids phenylacetate (PA) and phenylbutyrate (PB), 2 differentiation inducers currently in clinical trials
——————————————————————
Both compounds induced cytostasis and maturation of multidrug-resistant breast, ovarian, and colon carcinoma cells with no significant effect on cell viability
——————————————————————
MDR cells generally more sensitive to growth arrest by PA and PB than their parental counterparts
——————————————————————
PA and PB potentiated cytotoxic activity of doxorubicin against MDR cells
——————————————————————
Taken together, in vitro data indicate PA and PB, differentiation inducers of aromatic fatty acid class, may provide alternative approach to treatment of MDR tumors
======================================
[17] 12/1996 PHENYLACETATE (PA) and related aromatic fatty acids constitute novel class of RELATIVELY NONTOXIC antineoplastic agents
======================================
[18] 8/1997 aromatic fatty acids PHENYLACETATE (PA) and PHENYLBUTYRATE (PB) are novel antitumor agents currently under clinical evaluation
————————————————————
ability to induce tumor differentiation in laboratory models and LOW CLINICAL TOXICITY PROFILE makes them promising candidates for COMBINATION WITH CONVENTIONAL THERAPIES
======================================
[19] 1997 PHENYLACETATE and analogs represent new class of pleiotropic growth regulators that alter tumor cell biology by affecting gene expression at both transcriptional and post transcriptional levels
————————————————————
Based on findings, NaPA and NaPB entered clinical trials at National Cancer Institute
————————————————————
Ongoing phase I studies with NaPA, involving adults with prostate and brain cancer, confirmed therapeutic levels can be achieved WITH NO SIGNIFICANT TOXICITIES, and provide preliminary evidence for benefit to patients with advanced disease (Thibault et al., submitted)
======================================
[20] 10/1997 Sodium PHENYLACETATE (PA) and sodium PHENYLBUTYRATE (PB) are aromatic fatty acids that can effect differentiation in a variety of cell lines at doses that may be clinically attainable
——————————————————————
Pg. 1760
——————————————————————
PB has been successfully administered to patients with urea acid cycle disorders and sickle cell anemia for extended periods of time, and NO HEMATOLOGICAL TOXICITY has been reported
——————————————————————
Significant HEMATOLOGICAL TOXICITY was not reported in a Phase I trial of PA in patients with malignancy
——————————————————————
Pg. 1761
——————————————————————
Because of its ATTRACTIVE CLINICAL TOXICITY PROFILE, PB represents an excellent candidate for clinical trials in this group of disorders
======================================
[21] 11..12/1997 Antineoplaston AS2-1 exhibits cytostatic growth inhibition of human hepatocellular carcinoma cells in vitro and SHOWED MINIMUM ADVERSE EFFECTS in phase I clinical trial
======================================
[22] 6/1999 Burkitt’s lymphoma (BL) is readily treated malignancy, recurrences, as well as disease arising in immunosuppressed patients, are notoriously resistant to conventional therapeutic approaches
——————————————————————
Using in vitro models of EBV-transformed lymphoblastoid as well as BL cell lines, we demonstrate increased expression of genes coding for HLA class I and EBV latent proteins by differentiation inducer PHENYLBUTYRATE (PB)
——————————————————————
Aromatic fatty acid also caused cytostasis associated with sustained declines in c-myc expression, a direct antitumor effect that was independent of EBV status
——————————————————————
Findings may have clinical relevance because in vitro activity has been observed with PB concentrations that are
WELL TOLERATED
and nonimmunosuppressive in humans, a desirable feature for different patient populations afflicted with this disease
======================================
[23] 8/2001 PHENYLBUTYRATE (PB) is aromatic fatty acid with multiple mechanisms of action including histone deacetylase inhibition
——————————————————————
Overall DRUG WELL TOLERATED with most common TOXICITIES being grade 1-2 DYSPEPSIA and FATIGUE
——————————————————————
Nonoverlapping dose-limiting TOXICITIES of NAUSEA/VOMITING and HYPOCALCEMIA were seen at 36 g/day
——————————————————————
PB (p.o.) IS WELL TOLERATED and achieves concentration in vivo shown to have biological activity in vitro
======================================
[24] 10/2001 Sodium PHENYLBUTYRATE (PB) demonstrates potent differentiating capacity in multiple hematopoietic and solid tumor cell lines
——————————————————————
Pharmacokinetics performed during and after first infusion period using validated high-performance liquid chromatographic assay and single compartmental pharmacokinetic model for PB and principal metabolite, PHENYLACETATE
——————————————————————
24 patients with hormone refractory prostate cancer being predominant tumor type
——————————————————————
All evaluable for TOXICITY and response
——————————————————————
Dose escalated 150 to 515 mg/kg/day
——————————————————————
One patient at 515 mg/kg/day and one at 345 mg/kg/day experienced this DLT
——————————————————————
Maximum tolerated dose 410 mg/kg/day for 5 days
——————————————————————
Recommended Phase II dose 410 mg/kg/day for 120 h
——————————————————————
Dose-limiting TOXICITY (DLT) was neuro-cortical, exemplified by EXCESSIVE SOMNOLENCE and CONFUSION and accompanied by clinically significant HYPOKALEMIA, HYPONATREMIA, and HYPERURICEMIA
——————————————————————
Other TOXICITIES mild, including FATIGUE and NAUSEA
——————————————————————
DLT in Phase I study for infusional PB
given for 5 days every 21 days is neuro-cortical in nature
——————————————————————
TOXICITY resolved < or =12 h of discontinuing infusion
======================================
[25] 2003 Case of survival for nearly 8 years after treatment of unresectable multiple liver metastases from colon cancer, using microwave ablation and NONTOXIC ANTITUMOR AGENT, ANTINEOPLASTONS
——————————————————————
72-year-old man diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of ascending colon and 14 bilateral liver metastases underwent right hemicolectomy combined with microwave ablation of 6 metastatic liver tumors
——————————————————————
Antineoplaston A10 given intravenously, followed by oral antineoplaston AS2-1
——————————————————————
Patient underwent 2nd and 3rd microwave ablation of recurrent tumors, and has survived for nearly 8 years WITHOUT SUFFERING ANY SERIOUS ADVERSE EFFECTS
——————————————————————
Currently FREE FROM CANCER
——————————————————————
Demonstrates potential effectiveness of NONTOXIC ANTITUMOR AGENT, ANTINEOPLASTONS, for controlling liver metastases from colon cancer
======================================
[26] 4/2005 Determined maximum tolerated dose (MTD), TOXICITY profile of … oral sodium PHENYLBUTYRATE (PB) in patients with recurrent malignant gliomas
——————————————————————
All PB doses of 9, 18, and 27 g/day WELL TOLERATED
——————————————————————
At 36 g/day, 2 of 4 patients developed dose-limiting grade 3 FATIGUE and SOMNOLENCE
——————————————————————
At MTD of 27 g/day, one of 7 patients developed reversible grade 3 SOMNOLENCE
======================================
[27] 4/2007 PHENYLBUTYRATE (PBA), and its metabolite PHENYLACETATE (PAA), induce growth inhibition and cellular differentiation in multiple tumor models
——————————————————————
Conversion of PBA to PAA and PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINE (PAG) documented without catabolic saturation
——————————————————————
THERAPY WELL TOLERATED OVERALL
——————————————————————
Common ADVERSE EFFECTS included grade 1 NAUSEA/VOMITING, FATIGUE, and LIGHTHEADEDNESS
——————————————————————
Dose limiting TOXICITIES were SHORT-TERM MEMORY LOSS, SEDATION, CONFUSION, NAUSEA, and VOMITING
——————————————————————
Administration of PBA twice-daily infusion schedule is SAFE
======================================
None of the above publications indicate that antineoplastons are toxic as Gorski would have people believe

12/12/2011 Gorski published his attempt at trying to explain why antineoplastons are supposedly toxic
======================================
What Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski doesn’t want you to know about antineoplastons
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/12/12/what-dr-stanislaw-burzynski-doesnt-want/
======================================
Gorski posited:

“He’s also prescribing huge doses of antineoplastons (up to 25 g/kg/d for A10 and 80 mg/kg/d for AS-2.1, as we have seen). both of these are so far above the maximal tolerated dose of 300 mg/kg/d determined in the phase I trial I cited above as to be terrifying”

In support of his “theory”, Gorski provided a link to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH):
——————————————————————
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/healthprofessional/Table1
——————————————————————
However, as is the case with a lot of Gorski’s lame research, he makes you search for what he is referring to:

[14]Ba Primitive neuroectodermal tumor (13)

A10/AS2-1

Max dose: A10: 25 g/kg/d; AS2-1: 0.6 g/kg/d

Does this support Gorski’s “toxic theory”?
======================================
[28] 2005
——————————————————————
5 years 7 months (1-11) median age
——————————————————————
13 / 100% – children with recurrent disease or high risk
——————————————————————
5 / 38% – weren’t treated earlier with radiation therapy or chemotherapy
——————————————————————
3 / 23% – Complete Response
1 / 8% – Partial Response
4 / 31% – Stable Disease
5 / 38% – Progressive Disease

——————————————————————
6 / 46% – Survived 5+ years from initiation of ANP
——————————————————————
Serious side effects:
1 – anemia
1 – fever
1 – granulocytopenia

——————————————————————
average dosage of A10 was 10.3 g/kg/d and of AS2-1 was 0.38 g/kg/d
——————————————————————
REDUCED TOXICITY MAKES ANP PROMISING for very young children, patients at high risk of complication of standard therapy, and patients with recurrent tumors
======================================
The above sure does NOT support Gorski’s “toxic theory”

When science based medicine keeps saying the following:
======================================
[9] 9/1994 increasing incidence of melanoma and POOR RESPONSIVENESS OF DISSEMINATED DISEASE TO CONVENTIONAL TREATMENT CALL FOR DEVELOPMENT OF NEW THERAPEUTIC APPROACHES
======================================
[29] 9/27/1995 (7/17/2006) Alterations in expression of ras oncogenes are characteristic of wide variety of human neoplasms
——————————————————————
Accumulating evidence has linked elevated ras expression with disease progression and FAILURE OF TUMORS TO RESPOND TO CONVENTIONAL THERAPIES, INCLUDING RADIOTHERAPY AND CERTAIN CHEMOTHERAPIES
——————————————————————
observations led us to investigate response of ras-transformed cells to differentiation-inducer PHENYLACETATE (PA)
——————————————————————
Interestingly, IN CONTRAST TO THEIR RELATIVE RESISTANCE TO RADIATION and doxorubicin, ras-transformed cells were significantly more sensitive to PA than their parental cells
======================================
[30] 5/1996 CYOTOXIC CHEMOTHERAPIES OFTEN GIVE RISE TO MULTIDRUG RESISTANCE, WHICH REMAINS MAJOR PROBLEM IN CANCER MANAGEMENT
————————————————————
IN PURSUIT OF ALTERNATIVE TREATMENTS FOR CHEMORESISTANT TUMOR CELLS, we tested response of multidrug-resistant (MDR) tumor cell lines to aromatic fatty acids PHENYLACETATE (PA) and PHENYLBUTYRATE (PB), 2 differentiation inducers currently in clinical trials
======================================
[15] 1996 Antineoplastons, first described by Burzynski, are naturally occurring peptides and amino acid derivatives which control neoplastic growth
——————————————————————
reported cytostatic inhibitory effect of A10 on human hepatocellular carcinoma cells and differentiation inducing effect of AS2-1 on various tumor cells suggest potential benefit for treatment of human hepatocellular carcinoma since TUMOR RECURS FREQUENTLY DESPITE INITIAL SUCCESSFUL TREATMENT
======================================
[31] 7/1997 Children with malignant GLIOMAS THAT PROGRESSED AFTER CONVENTIONAL THERAPY
——————————————————————
0 / 0% – EXHIBITED CLEAR-CUT TUMOR regression
======================================
[32] 2000 treatment combination PRODUCED NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE in overall POOR prognosis of patients
——————————————————————
Most tumors responded initially to treatment but RECCURED as study progressed
——————————————————————
Based on POOR RESULTS, recommend ALTERNATIVE TREATMENTS be tested in patients with this type of tumor
======================================
[33] At time of approval, NO RESULTS were available from randomized controlled trials in refractory ANAPLASTIC ASTROCYTOMA that show clinical benefit such as improvement in disease-related symptoms or prolonged survival
======================================
[34] 12/2000 NO CLEAR PROOF OF EFFICACY
——————————————————————
NO BETTER THAN SURVIVAL BEFORE THE INTRODUCTION OF temozolomide
======================================
[35] 2002 p53 tumor suppressor gene plays important role in protecting cells from developing undesirable proliferation
——————————————————————
Mutant p53 gene or malfunctioning p53 protein found in more than 50% of cancer cells impedes DNA repair or apoptosis induction
——————————————————————
MAY BE WHY SOME CANCERS GAIN RESISTANCE TO CHEMOTHERAPY AND RADIATION AND BECOME MORE RESISTANT AFTER FREQUENT CANCER TREATMENTS
======================================
[36] 2004 outcome for patients with either type of tumor is POOR when STANDARD multimodality THERAPY IS USED
——————————————————————
children are ideal candidates for INNOVATIVE TREATMENT approaches
——————————————————————
33 / 100% – DIED OF DISEASE PROGRESSION
——————————————————————
administration of temozolomide after RT DIDN’T ALTER POOR PROGNOSIS associated with newly diagnosed diffuse BRAINSTEM GLIOMA in children
======================================
[37] 2/2008 addition of vincristine and oral VP-16 to standard external beam radiation causes moderate toxicity and DOESN’T IMPROVE SURVIVAL OF CHILDREN WITH DIFFUSE INTRINSIC BRAIN STEM GLIOMA
======================================
[38] 5/6/2009 Currently, NO DATA available from randomized controlled trials demonstrating improvement in disease-related symptoms or increased survival with Avastin in GLIOBLASTOMA
======================================
[39] 10/12/2011 Afinitor (ubependymal giant cell ASTROCYTOMA (SEGA) brain tumor)
——————————————————————
none of their tumors went away completely
======================================
[18] 8/1997 aromatic fatty acids PHENYLACETATE (PA) and PHENYLBUTYRATE (PB) are novel antitumor agents currently under clinical evaluation
————————————————————
ability to induce tumor differentiation in laboratory models and LOW CLINICALTOXICITY PROFILE makes them promising candidates for COMBINATION WITH CONVENTIONAL THERAPIES
======================================
So what does Gorski think is going to fill the void?

His clinical trial drug ?

The potentially profitable drug Gorski is in the process of conducting a clinical trial for is the ALS drug Riluzole, made by Sanofi-Aventis and marketed as Rilutek

Apparently, David Gorski has had his eye on that drug for a long time, but as a possible treatment for breast cancer

As suggested by a 2008-2009 webpage of a breast cancer website:

“Three years ago in another cancer (melanoma), Dr. Gorski’s collaborators found that glutamate might have a role in promoting the transformation of the pigmented cells in the skin (melanocytes) into the deadly skin cancer melanoma”

“More importantly for therapy, it was found that this protein can be blocked with drugs, and, specifically, in melanoma cell lines and tumor models of melanoma using a drug originally designed to treat ALS and already FDA-approved for that indication (Riluzole) can inhibit the growth of melanoma.”
————————————————————
http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/06/david-gorskis-financial-pharma-ties-what-he-didnt-tell-you.html
————————————————————
Better luck next time with your personal MUD-targeted Skeptic therapy Gorski

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
References:
————————————————————
Dvorit D. Samid learned about antineoplastons from Burzynski
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[1] 4/1/1992
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
SAMID, D., Shack, S., and Sherman, l.. T.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1372534/
Cancer Res., 52: 1988-1992, 1992
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1372534/
Cancer Res 1992;52:1988-1992
http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/52/7/1988.abstract
Cancer Res April 1, 1992 52; 1988v I
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/52/7/1988
Cancer Res. 1992 Apr 1;52(7):1988-92
http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/52/7/1988.full.pdf
Cancer Res 52:1988,1992
http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/52/7/1988.full.pdf#page=1
SAMID D, Shack S, Ti-Sherman L
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland
PHENYLACETATE-A novel nontoxic inducer of TUMOR CELL differentiation
↵1 Supported by Elan Pharmaceutical Corporation Grant G174ED
Reference: 12 (SAMID, D.)
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[2] .8/20/1992
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Dover GJ, Brusilow S, SAMID D. Increased fetal hemoglobin in patients receiving sodium 4-PHENYLBUTYRATE. N Engl J Med. 1992 Aug 20;327(8):569–570
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1378939/
N Engl J Med. 1992 Aug 20;327(8):569-70
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1378939/
August 20, 1992
N Engl J Med 1992; 327:569-570
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199208203270818
N Engl J Med 327569, 1992
Dvorit Samid, Ph.D
National Cancer Institute
, Bethesda, MD
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[3] 9/15/1992
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
SAMID D, Yeh A, Prasanna P. Induction of erythroid differentiation and fetal hemoglobin production in human leukemic cells treated with phenylacetate. Blood. 1992 Sep 15;80(6):1576–1581
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1381630/
Blood. 1992 Sep 15;80(6):1576-81
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1381630/
Blood September 15, 1992 vol. 80 no. 6 1576-1581
http://m.bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/content/80/6/1576.full.pd
Blood 80:1576, 1992
http://m.bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/content/80/6/1576.abstract
Blood 80(6):1576–1581
http://m.bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/content/80/6/1576.full.pdf
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD
SAMID D References: 15, 20-21 and 34
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[4] 5/1993
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
SAMID D, Shack S , Myers CE . Selective growth arrest and phenotypic reversion of prostate cancer cells in vitro by NONTOXIC pharmacological concentrations of PHENYLACETATE . J. Clin. Invest . 1993;91:2288
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8486788/
J Clin Invest. 1993 May;91(5):2288-95
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8486788/
J Clin Invest. 1993 May; 91(5): 2288–2295
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC288233/
Published in Volume 91, Issue 5 (May 1993)
http://m.jci.org/articles/view/116457
J Clin Invest. 1993;91(5):2288–2295
1993, The American Society for Clinical Investigation
http://m.jci.org/articles/view/116457/pdf.mobile
J Clin Invest 91:2288, 1993
PMCID: PMC288233
doi:10.1172/JCI116457
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland
SAMID D References: 9, 13-14, 17 and 33
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[5] .10/1/1993
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Enhanced fetal
hemoglobin production by PHENYLACETATE and 4-PHENYLBUTYRATE in erythroid precursors derived from normal blood donors and patients with sickle cell anemia and P-thalassemia
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7691251/
Blood. 1993 Oct 1;82(7):2203-9
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7691251/
Blood 822203, 1993
http://m.bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/content/82/7/2203.full.pd
Blood October 1, 1993 vol. 82 no. 7 2203-2209
http://m.bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/content/82/7/2203.abstract
1993 82: 2203-2209
http://m.bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/content/82/7/2203.full.pdf
Blood 82(7):2203–2209
Department of Hematology, Hadassah University Hospital, Jerusalem, Israel
Fibach E, Prasanna P, Rodgers GP, SAMID D
SAMID D References: 15, 19-21 and 32
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[6] 2/15/1994
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
SAMID, D., Ram, Z., Hudgins, W. R., Shack, S., Liu, L., Waibridge, S., Oldfield, E. H., and Myers, C. E. Selective activity of PHENYLACETATE against malignant gliomas: resemblance to fetal brain damage in phenylketonuria. Cancer Res., 54: 891-895, 1993
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8313377/
Cancer Res. 1994 Feb 15;54(4):891-5
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8313377/
Cancer Res February 15, 1994 54; 891
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/4/891/
Cancer Res 1994;54:891-895
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
Work supported by funds from Elan Pharmaceutical Research Corporation through Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CACR-0139)
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[7] 4/1/1994
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
A phase I and pharmacokinetic study of intravenous PHENYLACETATE in patients with cancer
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8137283
Cancer Res. 1994 Apr 1;54(7):1690-4
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8137283
Cancer Res 54(7):1690-4 (1994), PMID.8137283
http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/7/1690.abstract
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland
http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/7/1690.full.pdf
Thibault A, Cooper MR, Figg WD, Venzon DJ, Sartor AO, Tompkins AC, Weinberger MS, Headlee DJ, McCall NA, SAMID D, et al.
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/7/1690
Study supported in part by grant from Elan Pharmaceutical Research Co
SAMID D
References: 8-12
BURZYNSKI
Reference: 13
13. BURZYNSKI, S. R., Kubove E., Burzynski, B. Treatment of hormonally refractory cancer of the prostate with antineoplaston AS2-1. Drugs Exp. Clin. Res., 16: 361-369, 1990
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2152694/
Drugs Exp Clin Res. 1990;16(7):361-9
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/2152694/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[8] 6/1/1994
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Growth inhibition, tumor maturation, and extended survival in experimental brain tumors in rats treated with PHENYLACETATE.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8187079/
Cancer Res 54:2934-2927, 1994
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8187079/
Cancer Res. 1994 Jun 1;54(11):2923-7
http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/11/2934.abstract?ijkey=03bc67e581ef77536842806b949046916458d548&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
Cancer Res 54(11):2923–2927
http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/11/2923.abstract
Surgical Neurology Branch, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland
http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/11/2923.full.pdf
Ram Z, SAMID D, Walbridge S, et al:
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/11/2923
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[9] 1994
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Liu L , Shack S , Stetler-Stevenson WG , Hudgins WR , SAMID D . Differentiation of cultured human melanoma cells induced by the aromatic fatty acids PHENYLACETATE and PHENYLBUTYRATE . J. Invest. Dermatol . 1994;103:335
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8077698/
J Invest Dermatol. 1994 Sep;103(3):335-40
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8077698/
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[10] 4/1995
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Disposition of PHENYLBUTYRATE and its metabolites, PHENYLACETATE and PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINE.
J Clin Pharmacol 35:368-373, 1995 Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7650225/
J Clin Pharmacol 35:368-373, 1995 Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7650225/
The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
Volume 35, Issue 4, pages 368–373, April 1995
http://m.jcp.sagepub.com/content/35/4/368.abstract?ijkey=74bff0d86ce76b404728762fe2a1bfde1641fa41&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
J Clin Pharmacol. 1995 Apr;35(4):368-73
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.1552-4604.1995.tb04075.x/abstract;jsessionid=DFDEF1599D764E2845EC2897269C198B.d01t01
Article first published online: 8 MAR 2013
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.1552-4604.1995.tb04075.x/abstract;jsessionid=43600D49608A093971D675F3DB5FF13D.d01t03
Piscitelli SC, Thibault A, Figg WD, et al: (SAMID D)
http://jcp.sagepub.com/content/35/4/368
Pharmacy Department, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
DOI: 10.1002/j.1552-4604.1995.tb04075.x
http://m.jcp.sagepub.com/content/35/4/368.abstract?ijkey=74bff0d86ce76b404728762fe2a1bfde1641fa41&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[11] 6/15/1995
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Phase I study of PHENYLACETATE administered twice daily to patients with cancer
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7773944/
Cancer. 1995 Jun 15;75(12):2932-8
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7773944/
Cancer 75(12):2932–2938
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
Thibault A, SAMID D, Cooper MR, Figg WD, Tompkins AC, Patronas N, et al
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[12] 10/12/1995
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Cytostatic activity of PHENYLACETATE and derivatives against tumor cells:
Correlation with lipophilicity and inhibition of protein prenylation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7488244/
Biochem Pharmacol. 1995 Oct 12;50(8):1273-9
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7488244/
Biochem Pharmacol 50:1273-1279, 1995
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0006295295020133
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[13] 10/1995
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Stockhammer G, Manley GT, Johnson R, et al: (SAMID D) Inhibition of proliferation and induction of differentiation in medulloblastoma and astrocytoma-derived cell lines with PHENYLACETATE. J Neurosurg 83:672-681, 1995
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7674018/
J Neurosurg. 1995 Oct;83(4):672-81
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7674018/
Cotzias Laboratory of Neuro-Oncology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
http://thejns.org/doi/abs/10.3171/jns.1995.83.4.0672?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3dpubmed&#038;
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[14] 1995
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Toxicological study on antineoplastons A-10 and AS2-1 in cancer patients
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8667595
Kurume Med J. 1995;42(4):241-9
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8667595
The Kurume Medical Journal
Vol. 42 (1995) No. 4 P 241-249
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/kurumemedj1954/42/4/42_4_241/_article
JST.Journalarchive/kurumemedj1954/42.241
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/kurumemedj1954/42/4/42_4_241/_pdf
Department of Anesthesiology, Kurume University School of Medicine, Japan
http://dx.doi.org/10.2739/kurumemedj.42.241
Tsuda H, Hara H, Eriguchi N, Nishida H, Yoshida H, Kumabe T, Sugita Y
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/kurumemedj1954/42/4/42_4_241/_article/references
Burzynski References: 1 – 3 and 5
Nishida et al. (Japan) A-10 Reference: 4 and 7
Muldoon et al. A-10 Reference: 6
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[15] 1996
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Inhibitory effect of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 on human hepatocellular carcinoma
Tsuda H (Japan)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8755117
Kurume Med J. 1996;43(2):137-47
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8755117
Department of Anesthesiology, Kurume University School of Medicine, Japan
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/kurumemedj1954/43/2/43_2_137/_article
Burzynski References: 1 – 3, 5 and 7
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/kurumemedj1954/43/2/43_2_137/_article/references
SAMID Reference: 13 (who learned from Burzynski re PHENYLACETATE)
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/kurumemedj1954/43/2/43_2_137/_pdf
Nishida et al. (Japan) A10 Reference: 4 and 10
Muldoon et al. A10 Reference: 8
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[16] 5/1996
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Vulnerability of multidrug-resistant tumor cells to the aromatic fatty acids phenylacetate and PHENYLBUTYRATE
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9816242/
Clin Cancer Res. 1996 May;2(5):865-72
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9816242/
Clin Cancer Res 2(5):865–872
http://m.clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/2/5/865.abstract
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
http://m.clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/2/5/865.full.pdf
Shack S, Miller A, Liu L, Prasanna P, Thibault A, SAMID D
http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/2/5/865
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[17] 12/1996
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Gorospe M, Shack S, Guyton KZ, et al: (SAMID D)
Up-regulation and functional role of p21Waf1/Cip1 during growth arrest of human breast carcinoma MCF-7 cells by PHENYLACETATE. Cell Growth Differ 7:1609-1615, 1996
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8959328/
Cell Growth Differ. 1996 Dec;7(12):1609-15
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8959328/
Cell Growth Differ 7(12):1609–1615
http://cgd.aacrjournals.org/cgi/reprint/7/12/1609.pdf
Laboratory of Cellular and Molecular Biology, Gerontology Research Center, National Institute on Aging, NIH, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[18] 8/1997
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Miller AC, Whittaker T, Thibault A, et al: (SAMID D)
Modulation of radiation response of human tumor cells by the differentiation inducers, PHENYLACETATE and PHENYLBUTYRATE. Int J Radiat Biol 72:211-218, 1997
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9269314/
Int J Radiat Biol. 1997 Aug;72(2):211-8
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9269314/
Armed Forces Radiobiology, Research Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[19] 1997
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
PHENYLACETATE and PHENYLBUTYRATE as novel, NONTOXIC differentiation inducers
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9547596
Adv Exp Med Biol (1997), PMID.9547596
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9547596
Adv Exp Med Biol. 1997;400A:501-5
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4615-5325-0_67
DOI
10.1007/978-1-4615-5325-0_67
http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-1-4615-5325-0_67.pdf
Eicosanoids and Other Bioactive Lipids in Cancer, Inflammation, and Radiation Injury 2
Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology Volume 400, 1997, pp 501-505
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD USA
D D SAMID, W R WR Hudgins, … C E CE Myers
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[20] 10/1997
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Impact of the putative differentiating agents sodium PHENYLBUTYRATE and sodium PHENYLACETATE on proliferation, differentiation, and apoptosis of primary neoplastic myeloid cells
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9815560/
Clin Cancer Res. 1997 Oct;3(10):1755-62
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9815560/
Clin Cancer Res October 1997 3; 1755
http://m.clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/3/10/1755.full.pd
Clin Cancer Res. 1997a;3:1755–1762
http://m.clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/3/10/1755.abstract
The Johns Hopkins Oncology Center, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
http://m.clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/3/10/1755.full.pdf
Gore SD, SAMID D, Weng LJ
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[21] 11..12/1997
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Antineoplaston AS2-1 for maintenance therapy in liver cancer
H Tsuda phase I clinical trial
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21590224
Oncol Rep. 1997; 4:1213- 1216
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21590224
Oncol Rep. 1997 Nov-Dec;4(6):1213-6
http://www.spandidos-publications.com/or/4/6/1213
Oncol Rep 4 (6):1213-6 (1997)
Oncology Reports
4 (6):1213-6
KURUME UNIV,SCH MED,DEPT SURG,KURUME,FUKUOKA,JAPAN. KURUME UNIV,SCH MED,DEPT INTERNAL MED,KURUME,FUKUOKA,JAPAN. KURUME UNIV,SCH MED,DEPT RADIOL,KURUME,FUKUOKA,JAPAN
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[22] 6/1999
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
PHENYLBUTYRATE induces cell differentiation and modulates Epstein-Barr virus gene expression in Burkitt’s lymphoma cells
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10389940/
Clin Cancer Res. 1999 Jun;5(6):1509-16
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10389940/
Clin Cancer Res 5(6):1509–1516
http://m.clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/5/6/1509.abstract
Clin Cancer Res June 1999 5; 1509
http://m.clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/5/6/1509.long
Pediatric Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/5/6/1509
Bar-Ner M, Thibault A, Tsokos M, Magrath IT, SAMID D
Supported in part by funds from Elan Pharmaceutical Research Corporation
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[23] 8/2001
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
A phase Idose escalation and bioavailability study of oral sodium PHENYLBUTYRATE in patients with refractory solid tumor malignancies
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11489804
Clin Cancer Res. 2001 Aug;7(8):2292-.300
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11489804
Clin Cancer Res 7(8):2292-.300 (2001), PMID.11489804
http://m.clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/7/8/2292.long
Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Oncology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA
J Gilbert, S D Baker, … M A Carducci
SAMID D References: 2-3, 5-6, 15 and 20
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[24] 10/2001
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
A Phase I clinical and pharmacological evaluation of sodium PHENYLBUTYRATE on an 120-h infusion schedule
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11595694
Clin Cancer Res. 2001 Oct;7(10):3047-55
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11595694
Clin Cancer Res 7(10):3047-55 (2001), PMID.11595694
http://m.clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/7/10/3047.long
Division of Medical Oncology, The Johns Hopkins Oncology Center, Bunting-Blaustein Cancer Research Building, Baltimore, MD, USA
M A Carducci, J Gilbert, … R C Donehower
SAMID D References: 10-11, 13-14, 17-18, 23-24, 27, 33, 40-41 and 47
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[25] 2003
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Long-term survival following treatment with antineoplastons for colon cancer with unresectable multiple liver metastases: report of a case
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12768372
Long-Term Survival Following Treatment with Antineoplastonsfor Colon Cancer with Unresectable Multiple Liver Metastases:
Report of a Case
A10 and AS2-1 – Phase II Clinical Trial
Hideaki Tsuda
http://www.springerlink.com/content/b48ch3ha165nbrqp
Surg Today. 2003;33(6):448-53
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10595-002-2503-2
Surg Today 2003; 33:448–53
http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10595-002-2503-2
Surg Today. 2003; 33:448-453
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10595-002-2503-2?LI=true
33 (6):448-53
http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10595-002-2503-2
Surgery Today, Springer
http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200313/000020031303A0389449.php
Surg Today 2003
http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200313/000020031303A0389449.php
DOI: 10.1007/s10595-002-2503-2
http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/10015483373
Department of Surgery, Kurume University School of Medicine, Kurume, Fukuoka, Japan
http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/10015483373
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[26] 4/2005
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Oral sodium PHENYLBUTYRATE in patients with recurrent malignant gliomas:

A dose escalation and pharmacologic study
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15831235/
Neuro Oncol. 2005 Apr;7(2):177-82
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15831235/
Neuro-oncol. 2005 April; 7(2): 177–182 PMCID: PMC1871887
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1871887/pdf/neu0702p177.pdf
The New Approaches to Brain Tumor Therapy CNS Consortium, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
Buckner Reference: 3
SAMID D References: 12, 17 and 19-21
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[27] 4/2007
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Phase I dose escalation clinical trial of PHENYLBUTYRATE sodium administered twice daily to patients with advanced solid tumors
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17053987
Invest New Drugs. 2007 Apr;25(2):131-8. Epub 2006 Oct 20
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/17053987
Investigational New Drugs
April 2007, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 131-138
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10637-006-9017-4
Invest New Drugs 25(2):131-8 (2007), PMID.17053987
Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Joan and Sanford I. Weill Medical College of Cornell Medical Center, New York, New York, USA
Luis H LH Camacho, Jon J Olson, … Mark G MG Malkin
SAMID D References: 4-5, 7, 20, 24, 30 and 32-38
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[28] 2005
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
14. Burzynski SR, Weaver RA, Janicki T, et al.: Long-term survival of high-risk pediatric patients with primitive neuroectodermal tumors treated with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1. Integr Cancer Ther 4 (2): 168-77, 2005
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/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[29] 9/27/1995
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Increased susceptibility of ras-transformed cells to PHENYLACETATE is associated with inhibition of p21ras isoprenylation and phenotypic reversion. Int J Cancer 63:124-129, 1995
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7558439/
Int J Cancer. 1995 Sep 27;63(1):124-9
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/7558439/
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.2910630122/abstract
Int J Cancer 63:124-129, 1995
Int J Cancer. 1995 Sep 27;63(1):124-9.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.2910630122/references
International Journal of Cancer
Volume 63, Issue 1, Article first published online: 17 JUL 2006
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.2910630122
Shack S, Chen L-C, Miller AC, et al: (SAMID D)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.2910630122/abstract
Shack, S., Chen, L-C., Miller, A. C., Danesi, A., and SAMID, D. Int. J. Cancer, 63: 124-129, 1995
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[30] 5/1996
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Shack, S., Miller, A., Liu, L., Prasanna, P., Thibault, A., and SAMID, D.. Vulnerability of MULTIDRUG-RESISTANT TUMOR CELLS to the aromatic fatty acids PHENYLACETATE and PHENYLBUTYRATE. Clin. Cancer Res., 2: 865-872, 1996
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9816242/
Clin Cancer Res. 1996 May;2(5):865-72
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9816242/
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USA
http://m.clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/2/5/865.abstract

http://m.clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/2/5/865.full.pdf
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[31] 7/1997
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
A phase I study of high-dose tamoxifen for the treatment of refractory malignant gliomas of childhood
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9815790/
Clin Cancer Res. 1997 Jul;3(7):1109-15
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9815790/
Clin Cancer Res July 1997 3; 1109
http://m.clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/3/7/1109.full.pd
Department of Neurosurgery, Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/3/7/1109
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[32] 2000
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Radiation therapy and high-dose tamoxifen in the treatment of patients with diffuse BRAINSTEM GLIOMAS:

results of a Brazilian cooperative study
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10715294/
Brainstem Glioma Cooperative Group
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10715294/
J Clin Oncol 18, 1246-1253
http://m.jco.ascopubs.org/content/18/6/1246.long
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[33]
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/11/19/6767.full
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[34] 12/2000
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Temozolomide and ANAPLASTIC ASTROCYTOMA:

new indication
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11475493/
Prescrire Int. 2000 Dec;9(50):170-1.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11475493/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[35] 2002
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
A novel strategy for remission induction and maintenance in cancer therapy
A10 and AS2-1
H Tsuda
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11748457
Oncol Rep 2002;9:65–8
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11748457
Oncol. Rep. 2002;9:65-68
http://www.spandidos-publications.com/or/9/1/65
Oncol Rep 9(1):65-8 (2002)
Oncology Reports, Spandidos Publications
Department of Anesthesiology, Kurume University, School of Medicine, Fukuoka-ken, Japan
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[36] 2004
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Supratentorial high-grade ASTROCYTOMA and DIFFUSE BRAINSTEM GLIOMA:

two challenges for the pediatric oncologist
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15047924/
Oncologist. 2004;9(2):197-206.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15047924/
Oncologist 9, 197-206
http://m.theoncologist.alphamedpress.org/content/9/2/197.long
Division of Neuro-Oncology, Department of Hematology-Oncology, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA
1/1/2005 (11/24/2004) – 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
——————————————————————
Cancer 103, 133-139
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[37] 2/2008 (Article first published online: 2/2/2007)
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
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
University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, USA
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pbc.21154/abstract;jsessionid=DE7A67EFBAC1A184F6805F11CFC4F30B.d02t02
Article first published online: 2 FEB 2007
DOI: 10.1002/pbc.21154
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[38] 5/6/2009
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval of Avastin (bevacizumab) for people with GLIOBLASTOMA (brain cancer) with progressive disease following prior therapy
——————————————————————
effectiveness of Avastin in AGGRESSIVE form of BRAIN CANCER based on improvement in objective response rate
——————————————————————
http://www.drugs.com/newdrugs/fda-grants-accelerated-approval-avastin-combination-paclitaxel-chemotherapy-first-line-advanced-852.html
According to FDA analysis of study
——————————————————————
Study AVF3708g
——————————————————————
Study NCI 06-C-0064E
——————————————————————
Efficacy of Avastin in GLIOBLASTOMA that progressed following prior therapy supported by another study that used same response assessment criteria as AVF3708g
——————————————————————
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/druginfo/fda-bevacizumab
——————————————————————
http://www.drugs.com/newdrugs/fda-grants-accelerated-approval-avastin-brain-cancer-glioblastoma-has-progressed-following-prior-1342.html
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[39] 10/12/2011 (Published online: 8/1/2011)
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Everolimus tablets for patients with subependymal giant cell ASTROCYTOMA
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3389821/
Expert Opin Pharmacother. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 July 5.
Published in final edited form as:
Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2011 October; 12(14): 2265–2269.
Published online 2011 August 1. doi: 10.1517/14656566.2011.601742
PMCID: PMC3389821
NIHMSID: NIHMS385824
——————————————————————
http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CDER/ucm231967.htm
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

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
======================================