Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski, Stanislaw R. Burzynski, Stanislaw Burzynski, Stan R. Burzynski, Stan Burzynski, S. R. BURZYNSKI, S. Burzynski, Arthur Burzynski, Hippocrates Hypocrite Hypocrites Critic Critics Critical HipoCritical
GorskiGeekstarts off his soapbox stump speech:
—————————————————————— “I was very pleased last Friday, very pleased indeed”
——————————————————————
Of course he was
After all, it was as if USA TODAY was quoting directly from “The Skeptics™”fave Fahrvergnügen pharyngula and GorskGeeks’sjackedJulyjabberwocky at “The Amazing Meeting”2013 (TAM 2013 #TAM2013) Twitter Twaddle-fest
Given the normal subject matter of this blog, in which I face a seemingly unrelenting infiltration of pseudononsensepseudononscience and hackery into even the most hallowed halls of hacademic medicine, against which I seem to be fighting a mostly uphill battle, having an opportunity to see such an excellent non-deconstruction of science and medicine in a large badmainstream news outlet like USA TODAY, GONE TOMORROW is rare and ungratifying
GorskGeek gambits:
—————————————————————— “As you might recall, USA TODAY reporter Liz Szabo capped off a months-long investigation of Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski and his Burzynski Clinic with an excellent (and surprisingly long and detailed) report, complete with sidebars explaining why cancer experts don’t think that Burzysnki’s anecdotes are compelling evidence that his treatment, antineoplastons, has significant anticancer activity and a human interest story about patients whom Burzynski took to the cleaners”
——————————————————————
My question ?
GorskGeek, how do you know it was a:
“months-long investigation” ?
The article does NOT indicate HOW LONG the USA TODAY“investigation” took
From this, I can only conclude, as I did after 1st reading the article, that based on the comments of Dr. David H. Gorski“Orac”, that there must have been collusion between “The Skeptics™” and USA TODAY
Most of this, of course, is no news to my readers, as I’ve been writing about Dr. Burzynski on a fairly regular basis for over 8 months now
—————————————————————— GorskGeek goofs:
—————————————————————— “It’s just amazing to see it all boiled down into three articles and ten short videos in the way that Szabo and USA TODAY did, to be read by millions, instead of the thousands who read this blog“
—————————————————————— Thousands read his blog ?
Does he mean over the 2 year period he’s been writing about Burzynski ?
GorskGeekInspector Gadgets:
—————————————————————— “Szabo also found out who the child was who died of hypernatremia due to antineoplastons in June 2012, a death that precipitated the partial clinical hold on Burzynski’s bogus clinical trials, about which both Liz Szabo and I have quoted Burzynski’s own lawyer, Richard Jaffe, from his memoir, first about Burzynski’s “wastebasket” trial, CAN-1“
—————————————————————— GorskGeek and USA TODAY both hashtag Failed to point out that a boy, the same age as Josia Cotto, survived a serum sodium (Na+) level of 234 mEq/L
If GorskGeek actually knew how to do real “science-based medicine” research, and if Liz Szabo and Jerry Mosemak had really actually done a “months-long investigation”, maybe USA TODAY and “Orac” could have had enough time to have figured the above out, as well as the clinical trialBurzynski’sattorney, Rick Jaffe, was referring to, was the CAN-1, which even you did NOT display any knowledge of in the July TAMmany Twaddle [3], and your 11/15/2013article[4]
——————————————————————
Naturally, upon reading Liz Szabo’s “ story,” I wondered how long it would be before there would be a response from GorskGeek or his minions
Both responses contain the same sorts of tropes, misinformation, and pseudononscience that I’ve come to expect from GorskGeek[1-2+4]
USA TODAY is biased and in the pocket of “The Skeptics™”
It was a “Shite Muslim Militia” piece
—————————————————————— GorskGeekdreamsicles:
—————————————————————— “I’ve deconstructed these, and many more, of Merola’s nonsense over the last two years”
“Odd how @BurzynskiMovie pretends I haven’t deconstructed his “evidence” in depth before”?
Really ?
GorskGeek is so much a monumental myopic Mythomaniac
GorskGeek all you did was “cherry-pick” what you wanted to blather about, and selectively ignored everything else
——————————————————————
What actually surprised me was the viscousness of the counterhackattack
For example, in counterhackattackingEric Merola’s letter to Liz Szabo, GorskGeek tries unsuccessfully to claim that Merola actually hopes that her child will get cancer, so that Burzynski supporters can gloat about it and Szabo will have to apologize to her children for her “perfidy” (in GorskGeek’s eyes, at least):
—————————————————————— GorskGeek gesticulates:
—————————————————————— “He denies that he hopes Szabo’s children will develop brain cancer, but then gloats gleefully over the possibility that she would have to face them after having—again in his mind—”helped to destroy the only thing that could have helped” them”
——————————————————————
In the dictionary, under the definition of “spin bowel movement (SBM),” there should be a picture of “Dr.” (and I use that term very “loosely”) David Gorski
GorskGeek would have fit in holistically as the propagandist for Hitler, Lenin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc.
Then, just when I thought GorskGeek couldn’t go any lower, he does, this time in his longer response on his blog
—————————————————————— “Eric Merola and Stanislaw Burzynski respond to the FDA findings and the USA TODAY story. Hilarity ensues”
——————————————————————
Obviously, to “Orac” asking GorskGeek to follow normal rules regulating medical ethics and human subject protections in critical trolls’ blog trials is exactly like murdering millions of people’s brain cells, carrying out horrible medical experimentation on common sense and sensibility, making untold numbers of Africans, slaves to his stupendousmess, and harassing, gratuitously, families of soldiers “killed” by his word salad battle
Didn’t anyone ever teach GorskGeek that you need to build up to that sort of climax ?
Of course, the big difference between Hitler’s propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels, unfortunately, is that compared to “Orac,” he had talent, and David GorskGeek does NOT
GorskGeek is a hack and is only funny by accident because he has no filters that tell him when he’s going way under the top
To him, Burzynski is an infidel
I do not share his belief, but, even worse, I have the temerity to criticize his god“Orac,” or, to mix metaphors shamelessly, to point out that GorskGeekhas no clothes
Since I’ve dealt with so many of the tropes included in GorskGeek’snot-so-little rant, I hardly see the need to repeat myself
However, as a breast cancer surgeon’s skeptic, I find one of GorskGeek’slies to be as despicable, or perhaps more so, than his ad hominem comparisons
—————————————————————— GorskGeek, the Hitler of hipocracy, came up with this hit parade of paranoia and “conspiracy theory”:
—————————————————————— “I don’t know what sort of attacks on the UK bloggers who produce the bulk of the skeptical blog posts about Burzynski are coming in Burzynski II, but when it comes to me no doubt Merola is referring to this bit of yellow journalism in 2010 from an antivaccine propagandist named Jake Crosby, entitled David Gorski’s Financial Pharma Ties: What He Didn’t Tell You” [5]
—————————————————————— GorskGeek then ad hocs ad nauseum about ad hominem fallacy
“In this fallacy, rather than addressing the actual evidence and science that demonstrate their favorite brand of woo to be nothing more than fairy dust, the idea is to preemptively attack and discredit the person“
“The ad hominem is not just insults or concluding that someone is ignorant because, well, they say ignorant things and make stupid arguments (in which case calling someone stupid or ignorant might just be drawing a valid, albeit impolitic, conclusion from observations of that person’s behavior), but rather arguing or insinuating that you shouldn’t accept someone’s arguments not because their arguments are weak but because they have this personal characteristic or that or belong to this group or that“[6]
—————————————————————— GorskGeek, the huckster of hackery laments that “The Skeptics™” are subject to character assassination, NOT because of their “science-based medicine”, but, alas, for being biased, lying, cowards
So, he must justify that as to why he then ad hominems those who he harangues:
—————————————————————— “In Burzynski The Movie, Dr. Whitaker has his nose embedded so far up Dr. Burzynski’s rectum that Dr. Burzynski wouldn’t need a colonoscopy if Merola just strapped a light to Dr. Whitaker’s face“[7]
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— “In the meantime, I realized that seeing Josh Duhamel stick his proboscis firmly up Burzynski’s posterior was not enough to explain the disturbance that I was feeling“[8]
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— GorskiGeek seems to have an unhealthy infatuation with ASS
My suppositorsition is that GorskiGeek, the highfalutin’ He-Man of hypocrisy, does wax on, wax off, waxes phonetic about ASS, because he is the apex of ASSmuchness
——————————————————————
In essence, he denies the toxicity of water in terms I’ve never seen anyone try to downplay before:
Water… is toxic?
This was perhaps the most stunningly malicious use of emotion to manipulate the reader in any of the propaganda pieces against H2O in history
—————————————————————— GorskGeekclaims:
—————————————————————— “Josia, as readers of Liz Szabo’s report will know, was the six year old boy with an inoperable brain tumor who died of hypernatremia (elevated sodium levels in the blood) as a result of Burzynski’s therapy“
—————————————————————— GorskGeek gassticulates:
—————————————————————— “As I pointed out last Friday and Szabo reported in her story, before his death Josia’s serum sodium was measured at 205 mEq/L, way above the normal range of 136-145 mEq/L and well into the lethal range”
“As I pointed out then, I’ve never seen a sodium level anywhere near that high“
“During my residency, the highest I recall ever seeing was maybe around 180 mEq/L”
——————————————————————
As I already pointed out previously in this article:
GorskGeek and USA TODAY both hashtag Failed to point out that a boy, the same age as Josia Cotto, survived a serum sodium (Na+) level of 234 mEq/L
GorskGeekclaims that Josiadied of hypernatremia (elevated sodium levels in the blood) as a result of Burzynski’s therapy
GorskGeek does NOT provide ANY citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) in support of his claim, and does NOT provide a copy of the autopsy
GorskGeek’s brain cells must be “sleeping in excess”, hence the symptoms of lethargy progressing ignorance of adverse events which approach critical black hole levels
Of course, none of this is new information
—————————————————————— GorskGeek hacks:
—————————————————————— “I also note that one of Burzynski’s most famous patients, Hannah Bradley, who with her partner Pete Cohen proclaims herself cured of her brain cancer, thanks to Burzynski, suffered some pretty serious toxicities from antineoplastons herself, including high fevers to 103.9° F, shaking chills, and severe rashes“
“Pete even documented how badly Hannah reacted to antineoplastons in his YouTube documentary Hannah’s Anecdote”
—————————————————————— GorskGeekflummoxes in that he erred to elucidate that the “rash” which Hannah experienced, even entailed epilepsy anti-seizure medication [4]
GorskGeekgambols the gabroni gambit by giving nothing but glib reasons for his genetically challenged gestation of Hannah’svlogs after gears up for Great Britain
Yes, GorskGeek is gabless about Hannah’sprogress in the G.B. as a germinating gerbil, as far as flu or fever, perhaps fearing his failure to feature any fact-checking facilitation a fanboy of Fanectdotes should fittingly fictionalize
——————————————————————
The rest of GorskGeek’srant reads like a greatest hits compilation from cancer hacks
You get the picture
That’s the whack-n-hack counterhackfensive trying to shore up Liz Szabo’ssorryarticle
—————————————————————— GorskGeekblowshard and long about the FDA Form 483′s findings, but does NOT heed his massive failure to be persuaded that:
“The FDA has not yet issued final conclusions”
——————————————————————
Who would doubt that if GorskGeek were to blog about Burzynski’s1997 criminal trial, that he would NOT list each and every one of the 34 counts of mail fraud, 40 counts of violating Food and Drug Administration regulations, and the 1 contempt-of-court charge; all “allegations”, which netted the U.S. Gubment absolutely NOTHING ? [9]
—————————————————————— GorskGeekidolizes the Burzynski Research Institute(BRI)IRB, because of Burzynski’sscientific publications, which indicate:
—————————————————————— 2003 – Membership of the Institutional Review Board(IRB) was in agreement with the Food and Drug Administration(FDA) [10]
—————————————————————— 3/2004 – Membership of the Institutional Review Board(IRB) was in agreement with the Food and Drug Administration(FDA) [10]
—————————————————————— 9/2004 – Membership of the Institutional Review Board(IRB) was in agreement with the Food and Drug Administration(FDA) [10]
—————————————————————— 2004 – Membership of Institutional Review Board(IRB) was in compliance with FDA guidelines [10]
—————————————————————— 6/2005 – Membership of the Institutional Review Board(IRB) was in agreement with the Food and Drug Administration(FDA) [10]
—————————————————————— GorskGeek then does a piss-poor“slight of hand job”, jerking the reader off about Pseudoprogression, pseudoresponse, so-called pseudoprogression, and “One phenomena, termed Pseudo-Progression (psPD)”
GorskGeekfalls flat face first for failing to show this phenomenon has factually happened [11]
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 articleclaims:
—————————————————————— “Burzynski, 70, calls his drugs “antineoplastons” and says he has given them to more than 8,000 patients since 1977.”
——————————————————————
——————————————————————
However, if you select the “8,000 patients” link, the referenced page does NOT indicate that at all [2]
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— It advises:
—————————————————————— “That same year, Dr. Burzynski founded his clinic in Houston where he’s since treated over 8,000 patients.”[3]
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— Nowhere does it indicate that he “treated 8,000 patients” with antineoplastons
——————————————————————
——————————————————————
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 articlerants and raves on and on about FDA inspection reports from as far back as 1998, but at least they did quote Richard A. Jaffe:
“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)”
——————————————————————
——————————————————————
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 trial — now 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
——————————————————————
Gorski wants to play in the kitchen, but he can’t take the heat
2/18/2013, Gorski posted his 1st book report on Hannah Bradley
Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski’s cancer “success” stories [1]
The year 2012 was rung out and the year 2013 was rung in by news that “Orac” Check-My-Facts-Hack, propagandist for “brave maverick doctor” Dr. David H. Gorski, who claims that sugar doesn’t feed cancer [2], is releasing a sequel to his wildly successful hackumentary (in “The Skeptics™” underground, that is) “How Stanislaw Burzynski became Burzynski the Brave Maverick Doctor, part 1” [3] 😃
In fact, the sequel is coming out on BFD (Blogs For Dummies) on …, well …, just any day now ! 😳
I somehow doubt that GorsKon will send me a screenerBFD to review, but I did review the 4blogettes he posted on Science Based Medicine; home of: “Our only goal is to promote high standards of science in medicine” [4], and National Geographic’s(#NatGeo)Science blogs, because it easily falls into a genre that I like to refer to as medical propaganda posts, which are almost always made in support of dubious blogs re medical treatments 😊
Gorhac’s mostly lame jokes about proposed titles aside (e.g., Burzynski II:”“Pathetic Googleloo, Burzynski II:”This Time It’s Pee-Reviewed, or even Burzynski II: FAQ Harder), it’s very clear that in the wake of his decision to drop his “[I]f I had screwed up, I would have admitted it” [5]claim re Burzynski on a technicality, and his very own spin doctor named “BOrac, are planning on a huge publicity blitz, in which @gorskon will be portrayed as, yes, a “brave maverick doctor” whom “They” (as in the BPG (Burzynski Patient Group), 3’s company, and the Don’t Mess with Texas Board of Education, a.k.a “DJT”) tried to keep down but failed because he has The Natural Cure For Rancor“Two Turntables and a Mr. Microphone” 😝
I come back to this again because Gorac’s strategy for Burzynski II, as I pointed out, is going to involve “conversion stories” of “The Skeptics™” who didn’t believe in @oracknows magic “[I]f I had screwed up, I would have admitted it”, but do now, after Bob ‘n Weave Blaskiewicz proclaimed during the 9/28/2013 “Burzynski Discussion” Google+ Hangout:“I think that professionally he would make, he he he would follow-up on these things” (2:01:00)[6], claims that he’s 75% sure of the identity of someone who has been critical of his work (like me) [7], and, of course, sucky stories 😜
“DOHrac’s” 4 posts consists of four elements:
Bias, MisDisInformation, (anecdotes), including “EOrac’s” “sucky stories”, contrasted with a rehash of “conspiracy theories” from his “review” of the first movie about the “cancer destablishment” trying to suppress common sense with pseudononsense 😄
Never mind that, even if he were FDA-approved, he would be in the same class as “The Skeptics™” that are disdained on social media as being more for hyper-“bull” than anything else because they have been giving B.S. for a long time ☺
He states: “One notes that Burzynski’s protocol requires at least 18 months of near-continuous infusion of high doses of his antineoplastons“
Does Gorski provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support his claim ?
no
“mOResmACk” reminds me of Pink
That would be the Pink in Pink Floyd, singing: “We don’t need no edumacation”, because he’s like the churlish schoolboy so intent on getting on to make his 2nd mud pie, that he pulls a wanker on the 1st one
Maybe he should learn how to do real “cancer research” like I posted 8/21/2013 [8]
——————————————————————
10/2004 (Pg. 384) 4.3 months – median duration of administration
——————————————————————
11/2010 (Pg. iv72) 4.4 months – median duration of treatment
——————————————————————
10/2006 (Pg. 466) 4 1/2 months – median duration of i.v. ANP
——————————————————————
3/2006 (Pg. 40) 5 months – median duration of antineoplaston administration
——————————————————————
10/2004 (Pg. 428) 5.2 months – administered median
——————————————————————
12/2009 (Pg. 951) 5.4 months – median duration of treatment (ST)
——————————————————————
12/2009 (Pg. 951) 5.6 months – median duration of treatment (SE)
——————————————————————
10/2004 (Pg. 427) 5.7 months – average duration of ANP
——————————————————————
10/2008 (Pg. 821) 5.7 months – median duration of treatment
—————————————————————— 2003 (Pgs. 91 + 96) 6 months – median duration of treatment
——————————————————————
12/2008 (Pg. 1067) 6.5 months – median duration of treatment
——————————————————————
10/2003 (Pg. 358) 9.5 months – median duration of IV ANP
——————————————————————
7/2005 (Pg. 300) 9 1/2 months – median duration of administration
—————————————————————— 2004 (Pgs. 315 + 320) 16 months (1 year 4 months) average duration of intravenous ANP
——————————————————————
6/2008 (Pg. 450) 16.5 months (1 year 4.5 months) – median
——————————————————————
2004 (Pg. 320)
19 months – average duration of oral ANP
——————————————————————
6/2005 (Pgs. 168 + 170)
20 months (1 year 8 months) administered average duration
——————————————————————
10/2003 (Pg. 358)
28.6 months (2 years 4.6 months) – median duration of po ANP
After obtaining at least minor response (SD), the treatment continued with po ANP
——————————————————————
9/2004 (Pg. 257)
655 consecutive days – administration of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 with the exception of a few short interruptions
—————————————————————— Gorski continues:
“Attacks on skeptics and critics of Burzynski“
“If you don’t believe me, just read question #12 in Merola’s FAQ, in which he states,
“You will notice the ‘anti-Burzynski’ bloggers refuse to do that or adhere to reputable sources”
—————————————————————— Gorski, you did NOT even provide any “source” for your “claim” that:
” … Burzynski’s protocol requires at least 18 months of near-continuous infusion of high doses of his antineoplastons“
—————————————————————— Gorski adds:
“You might say, they are preying on desperate cancer patients and families of cancer patients by carelessly misleading their readers about Burzynski and his invention.””
—————————————————————— Gorski, let’s check and see where else YOU are “carelessly misleading” your “readers”
One marvels at your amazing level of protestation ッ
However, every movie needs a villain, and it doesn’t take “sidekick” abilities to guess why “The Skeptics™” are portrayed as villains
—————————————————————— Gorski gratuitously gabs on:
“Merola also direly accuses and threatens,
“In the worst case scenarios, some bloggers intentionally publish fabricated information to their readers in an attempt to curb new patients from going to the Burzynski Clinic“
“I can hardly wait”
—————————————————————— Gorski, did you mean to “intentionally publish fabricated information” ? 😮
—————————————————————— “Neither can, I bet, a fair number of lawyers“
—————————————————————— Gorski, who’s your lawyer ?
—————————————————————— Gorski plods onward:
“An attempt to reframe Burzynski’s enormous bills for his antineoplaston therapy and criticism that he’s making clinical trial subjects pay to be in his clinical trials”
—————————————————————— Gorski, BITE ME 🙂
Does Gorski provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support his claim ?
——————————————————————
CHEMOTHERAPY: 9/24/2012 – hospitals routinely marking up prices on cancer drugs 2 to 10 times over cost
Some markups far higher
nearly $4,500 for 240-milligram dose of irinotecan to treat colon or rectal cancer average sales price: less than $60
about $19,000 1-gram dose of rituximab to treat lymphoma and leukemia roughly 3 times average sales price
about $680 50 milligrams of cisplatin markup: more than 50 times average sales price
Avastin, about $90,000 a year http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/09/24/3549634/prices-soar-as-hospitals-dominate.html
——————————————————————
5/14/2012 – Oral anti-cancer medications generally considered pharmacy benefit
Instead of co-payment plan members often pay % of cost — up to 50% in some cases — with no annual out-of-pocket limit
drugs expensive often costing 10s of 1,000s of $s a year http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-05-14/national/35457286_1_lung-cancer-drug-drugs-work-multiple-myeloma-patients
——————————————————————
RADIATION: 1/4/2013 – new study most comprehensive cost analysis ever, compared costs and outcomes associated with various types of treatment for all forms of disease, ranged from $19,901 for robot-assisted prostatectomy to treat low-risk disease, $50,276 for combined radiation therapy for high-risk disease http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2013/01/13370/how-prostate-cancer-therapies-compare-cost-and-effectiveness
——————————————————————
3/15/2012 – Using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data, 26,163 women with localized breast cancer had undergone surgery and radiation 2001 to 2005
found Medicare billing for IMRT increased 0.9% diagnosed 2001 to 11.2% diagnosed 2005
average cost radiation treatment during 1st year $7,179 for non-IMRT $15,230 with IMRT
billing for IMRT more than 5 times higher in regions across nation where local Medicare coverage determinations favorable to IMRT compared to regions where unfavorable
“The new claim is that Burzynski isn’t making patients pay for his antineoplastons (see question #13 in Merola’s FAQ), just for “clinical management” (as if that weren’t incredibly transparent) Vindication”
—————————————————————— Gorski, “NEW CLAIM” ?
2/4/2013 my post #180 on YOUR blog addressed this “new claim” by referencing a 3/12/1996 note before you posted your article 2/18/2013 [9]
—————————————————————— 3/12/1996: 2nd – 4th paragraphs (2/4/2013 post #180)
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— Gorski, makes an excuse:
“The last time I discussed Merola’s forthcoming movie, I mentioned that he had contacted me in December and asked me to appear as a Burzynski critic“
“After consultation with skeptics with more media savvy than I, not to mention the PR department at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute (whom I thought it wise to give fair warning that one of their faculty might be featured as evil incarnate in a new documentary and to give the background on what it’s all about, in case there were press inquiries), I politely declined“
—————————————————————— Gorski is like fetid HOT AIR, all words and NO action
—————————————————————— Gorski fumes:
“While going on and on about how he thinks most of us have “good motives” and how we want to be the white knight riding in to save patients from quackery (a desire he somehow manages to convey with clear dismissiveness and contempt), Merola turns immediately around to claim that we don’t know what we’re talking about and we don’t read the literature“
—————————————————————— Gorski, YOU really “don’t know what” you’re “talking about” and I’m just getting warmed up 🙂
—————————————————————— Gorski has smoke coming out his ears:
“This, of course, is complete nonsense, as I’ve read many of Burzynski’s papers (such as they are), delved into ClinicalTrials.gov to look at his clinical trials, examined the plausibility of his claims from a scientific standpoint, and examined the literature from others, both on antineoplastons and related topics”
“I’ve dissected Burzynski’s claims for antineoplastons based on science, assessed his “personalized, gene-targeted cancer therapy” claims and found them wanting, and pointed out how what he is peddling isn’t really anything new at all (more on that later), all based on my knowledge, skills, and understanding of cancer as a breast cancer surgeon and researcher”
“No doubt that’s why Merola needs to discredit me“
—————————————————————— Gorski, Eric Merola does NOT need “to discredit” you
YOU have already done a yeoman’s job of discrediting yourself [10] 🙂
—————————————————————— Gorski posits:
“Other bloggers who have been critical of Burzynski might or might not have my scientific background, but they’ve delved just as deeply into his claims and the evidence for them, and, as I have, they’ve found them highly overinflated and largely not based in science”
—————————————————————— Gorski, unfortunately, is NOT able to name these “[o]ther bloggers”
—————————————————————— Gorski deposits:
“They’ve also taken on aspects of the Burzynski phenomenon, such what I consider to be his questionable ethics and finding out what happened to a lot of patients who trusted Burzynski, far better than I have”
“Merola’s dismissal of Burzynski’s critics is, quite frankly, insulting to them and to me.”
—————————————————————— Gorski fails to mention the very “questionable ethics” of his intrepid research bud Bob [11]
—————————————————————— Gorski rants:
“I don’t know what sort of attacks on the UK bloggers who produce the bulk of the skeptical blog posts about Burzynski are coming in Burzynski II, but when it comes to me no doubt Merola is referring to this bit of yellow journalism in 2010 from an antivaccine propagandist named Jake Crosby, entitled David Gorski’s Financial Pharma Ties:”
“What He Didn’t Tell You”
——————————————————————
Does Gorski provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support his claim that it’s:
“UK bloggers who produce the bulk of the skeptical blog posts about Burzynski” ?
“What He Didn’t Tell You” ?
NO
—————————————————————— Gorski blots:
“Predictable and tiresome attacks aside, Pete and Hannah’s video made me curious about the specific success stories that Merola will focus on as “proof” that Burzynski is on to something; so I decided I should look into their stories”
“On the surface to those not familiar with cancer they do look like success stories”
“If one digs deeper, the true story is a lot murkier”
—————————————————————— Doctor “G” omits, that once “one digs deeper”, HIS“story is a lot murkier”
—————————————————————— Gorski A.D.D.s:
“More importantly, as I will show, even if they really are success stories—which is not at all clear—they do not constitute convincing evidence of the general efficacy of Burzynski’s antineoplastons, nor do they justify what I consider to be Burzynski’s highly unethical behavior.”
—————————————————————— More importantly, as I will show, is what I consider to be Gorski’s highly unethical behavior
—————————————————————— Gorski flails away:
“I will start with Hannah Bradley’s story because I’ve watched the entire 40 minute video Hannah’s Anecdote (whose title is even more appropriate than perhaps Pete Cohen imagined when he made it)”
“The documentary ends triumphantly several months after the events portrayed during the bulk of the film with Hannah apparently having had a complete response to Burzynski’s antineoplaston therapy:”
——————————————————————
Let me just first say something before I begin my usual analysis
I love these reviews 😘
I really do
Yes, it’s true that GorsGeek can be a bit annoying with his seeming desire to validate everything he flogs about some perceived “offender,”as being applicable to him, but I want GorskGeek and “HOrac” to be able to live a long and full life together, growing old in each other’s company
I really do
In fact, I’d love to hang with these two and maybe buy them a pint or two at their local pub (except that it’s pointed out multiple times that GOrackGeek should no longer drink alcohol)
“Such is not my intent, but what are skeptics supposed to do?”
“Shy away from undertaking a dispassionate analysis of patient anecdotes used to promote dubious cancer therapies for fear of what patients will say?”
—————————————————————— Gorski, it might actually help IF you knew how to do a proper “dispassionate analysis” 😐
—————————————————————— Gorski cites from the Team Hannah blog
“Hannah’s treatment options are very limited and her life expectancy is for this type of tumour is normally around 18 months and this is why I started a mission to find people who had the same condition and are still alive today”
“I managed to track down a number of these people to speak to them.”
“In his movie, Pete points out that these people all led back to Burzynski“
Gorski interjects:
“Of course, as I’ve said before, dead patients don’t produce testimonials for alternative cancer cures“
——————————————————————
One wonders why Gorski even makes this comment as the number of patients Pete contacted re Burzynski’s “alternative cancer” cure, were obviously NOT dead 😮
—————————————————————— Gorski segues on to:
“Not long after they appear at the Burzynski Clinic, they meet with doctors there who tell them that Hannah’s most recent MRI scan showed progression of her tumor (around 8:30 in the movie)”
“Now, I’m not a radiologist, much less a neuroradiologist, but I wondered at all the enhancement on the superficial area of the brain, just under where her neurosurgeon must have raised the bone flap to remove what he could of the tumor“
“One wonders if much of the remaining enhancement could be still post-surgical and post-radiation change“
“Certainly, the tumor is cystic-appearing, and after surgery such cysts would likely shrink and be reabsorbed even if the tumor were to keep growing”
—————————————————————— Gorski, if you were NOT in a such a rush to post your blog article “ad homineming” Josh Duhamel, you could have taken the time to do proper “cancer research” and maybe listen to the 9/24/2012 @YouTube video of Pete Cohen talking with Neurosurgeon (Consultant) Juan F. Martinez-Canca (20:31)
After all, HE is an actual NEUROSURGEON
——————————————————————
——————————————————————
Or you could read the transcript I made of the video [12]
——————————————————————
Or you could have contacted him and asked questions http://www.neurokonsilia.com/About-Us.html
—————————————————————— Gorski tangents:
“Be that as it may, there were a number of things I found very interesting in this video”
“First, I notice that nowhere was there anything mentioned about enrolling Hannah on a clinical trial“
—————————————————————— Gorski, if you had let Hannah know you were going to do your article about her, she might have churned her 4/4/2013 article out faster just for you, where she advises:
“Luckily I was able to take part in a phase 2 clinical trial in Texas, USA”[13]
—————————————————————— Gorski stupefies:
“Given what a thorough videographer Pete obviously is, I find this omission very curious”
“Certainly, given how much detail he’s used in this video and in his vlogs I’d expect that if the subject of clinical trials was mentioned he would have included it”
—————————————————————— Gorski, if you were NOT so busy “getting the popcorn” as you “watched the entire 40 minute video Hannah’s Anecdote”, you might have actually noticed at (7:14):
—————————————————————— 12/12/2011 – Day 2 – Monday
Meeting with Dr. Yi and Dr. Greg Burzynski at Burzynski Clinic
—————————————————————— Dr. Greg Burzynski – “We have permission to start you on the antineoplastons”
“Mhmm”
Dr. Greg Burzynski – “which as you know are in the final stages of drug approval”
“Yeah”
Dr. Greg Burzynski – “Dr. Yi is the oncologist on this case”
—————————————————————— Gorski, did you SEE THAT ?
An ONCOLOGIST at the Burzynski Clinic, working with Burzynski
(No wonder you left that out !)
—————————————————————— Gorski ejects:
“The other thing that struck me was just how much Burzynski is full of it when he advertises antineoplastons as not being chemotherapy and, more importantly, as being nontoxic“
“At least a third of the video consisted of the difficulties that Hannah had with her treatment, including high fevers, a trip to the emergency room, and multiple times when the antineoplaston treatment was stopped“
“She routinely developed fevers to 102° F, and in one scene her fever reached 103.9° F“
“She felt miserable, nauseated and weak“
“I’ve seen chemotherapy patients suffer less”
—————————————————————— Gorski whines:
“I’ve seen chemotherapy patients suffer less”, but this is purely “anecdotal”
“At least a third of the video consisted of the difficulties that Hannah had with her treatment”
Let’s do the math, shall we ?
——————————————————————
In America (48 days)
12/11/2011 (Sunday) – 1/27/2012 (Friday)
[4:52 – 35:43]
—————————————————————— Burzynski Clinic 47 days – (7 weeks)
12/12/2011 (Monday) – 1/26/2012 (Thursday)
[5:37 – 35:43]
—————————————————————— 12/13/2011 (Tuesday) Day 3
after catheter – Hickman line surgery
(painful / really painful) [10:30]
—————————————————————— 12/14/2011 (Wednesday) Day 4
(feeling wrecked / absolutely wrecked) [10:52]
—————————————————————— 12/24/2011 (Saturday) Day 14
fever
bad breathing
uncontrollable chills couldn’t stop shivering all Saturday night [18:10]
—————————————————————— 12/25/2011 (Sunday) Day 15
fever
flu symptoms
bad breathing
headache
in bed
absolutely exhausted
little bit of swelling back of head [18:10]
—————————————————————— 12/27/2011 (Tuesday) Day 17
temp 102
temp down / up [19:04]
—————————————————————— 12/28/2011 (Wednesday) Day 18
exhausted
close to breaking / cracking [19:04]
—————————————————————— 12/29/2011 (Thursday) Day 19
hospital – E.R.
“I’m at my wits end”
“I don’t feel I can take anymore” [20:07]
—————————————————————— 12/30/2011 (Friday) Day 20
last week up & down
fever
chills
shaking
viral infection
bacterial infection
had to go to E.R. [20:22]
—————————————————————— 12/31/2011 (Saturday) Day 21
fever in middle of night
flu-like symptoms
temp 102 [21:53]
—————————————————————— 1/1/2012 (Sunday) Day 22
feel drunky
felt like completely drunk
double vision
Nurse said anti-seizure drug she hadn’t taken before
bit shaky [22:34]
—————————————————————— 1/15/2012 (Sunday) Day 36
antibiotics 1st day [24:33]
—————————————————————— 1/16/2012 (Monday) Day 37
over 102 Monday night
antibiotics 2nd day [25:24]
—————————————————————— 1/17/2012 (Tuesday) Day 38
fever
temp 101.8
throat infection
antibiotics been on 3 days [25:24]
—————————————————————— 1/20/2012 (Friday) Day 41
fever 104 (103.9) Friday night [26:54]
—————————————————————— 1/21/2012 (Saturday) Day 42
temp up to 104 (103.9)
Dr. on-call – Ibuprofen
102.5
yesterday afternoon (blood) rash ? [27:50]
—————————————————————— 1/23/2012 (Monday) Day 44
some itch [28:35] ======================================
47 days – Burzynski Clinic 31 days – treatmentNOTmentioned 16 days – treatment mentioned ====================================== 12/25/2011 (Sunday) Day 15 off ANP [18:10]
—————————————————————— 12/27/2011 (Tuesday) Day 17 back on ANP off ANP – temp 102
temp down / up [19:04]
—————————————————————— 12/28/2011 (Wednesday) Day 18 on ANP much smaller dose [19:04]
—————————————————————— 12/29/2011 (Thursday) Day 19
hospital – E.R. [20:07]
—————————————————————— 12/30/2011 (Friday) Day 20
last week up & down off on off on off ANP [20:22]
—————————————————————— 12/31/2011 (Saturday) Day 21
temp 102 [21:53]
—————————————————————— 1/15/2012 (Sunday) Day 36
antibiotics 1st day [24:33]
—————————————————————— 1/16/2012 (Monday) Day 37
over 102 Monday night
antibiotics 2nd day [25:24]
—————————————————————— 1/17/2012 (Tuesday) Day 38
temp 101.8 off ANP (If 102 take off ANP)
antibiotics been on 3 days [25:24]
—————————————————————— 1/20/2012 (Friday) Day 41
fever 104 (103.9) Friday night [26:54]
—————————————————————— 1/21/2012 (Saturday) Day 42 off ANP – temp up to 104 (103.9)
102.5 [27:50] ====================================== 5 – off ANP
May have beenoff ANP5 to 6 days out of 47? ====================================== 12/27/2011 (Tuesday) Day 17
temp 102
temp down / up [19:04]
—————————————————————— 12/29/2011 (Thursday) Day 19
hospital – E.R. [20:07]
—————————————————————— 12/31/2011 (Saturday) Day 21
temp 102 – in middle of night [21:53]
—————————————————————— 1/16/2012 (Monday) Day 37
temp over 102 Monday night
antibiotics 2nd day [25:24]
—————————————————————— 1/17/2012 (Tuesday) Day 38
temp 101.8
antibiotics been on 3 days [25:24]
—————————————————————— 1/20/2012 (Friday) Day 41
temp 104 (103.9) Friday night [26:54]
—————————————————————— 1/21/2012 (Saturday) Day 42
102.5 [27:50] ====================================== 6 days – temperature mentioned
temp 102 – temp down / up – 12/27/2011 102 in middle of night – 12/31/2011 102+ Monday night – 1/16/2012 temp 101.8 – 1/17/2012 104 (103.9) Friday night – 1/20/2012 102.5 – 1/21/2012 ====================================== Gorski scatterbrains on:
“I was also very puzzled at how the Burzynski Clinic could allow a cancer patient to linger with a fever of 102° F and sometimes higher, accompanied by shaking chills, in a temporary lodging without admitting her to the hospital“
——————————————————————
Does Gorski provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support his claim ?
“It’s not clear what sort of workup was done to evaluate Hannah either, what her white blood cell count was, or what her other labs were“
“Did they draw blood cultures?”
“Did they get urinalyses and cultures?”
“Did they do chest X-rays to rule out pneumonia?”
—————————————————————— Gorski, maybe you should have asked Wayne Dolcefino
Or maybe you should have gone to the Burzynski Clinic
Oh, wait
You think you know everything and could NOT learn anything by going there 😅
—————————————————————— Gorski at least gets one thing correct:
“It’s all very unclear, other than that she apparently was given some antibiotics at some point”
—————————————————————— 1/15/2012 Monday Day 36 antibiotics 1st day
—————————————————————— 1/16/2012 Tuesday Day 37 antibiotics 2nd day
—————————————————————— 1/17/2012 (Tuesday) Day 38 antibiotics been on 3 days
—————————————————————— Gorski wonders:
“Did she have the flu, given her flu-like symptoms, or was this due to her antineoplaston therapy?“
—————————————————————— Gorski, why not “speculate” like “The Skeptics™” usually do ?
—————————————————————— 12/24/2011 (Saturday) Day 14 fever
bad breathing
shivering all night
—————————————————————— 12/25/2011 (Sunday) Day 15 flu symptoms
breathing
headache
uncontrollable chills couldn’t stop off ANP absolutely exhausted
in bed
little bit of swelling back of head
—————————————————————— 12/27/2011 (Tuesday) Day 17 back on ANP temp 102 – off ANP temp down / up
—————————————————————— 12/28/2011 (Wednesday) Day 18 on ANP much smaller dose exhausted – close to breaking / cracking
—————————————————————— 12/29/2011 (Thursday) Day 19 hospital – E.R.
—————————————————————— 12/30/2011 (Friday) Day 20 last week up & down off on off on off fever
chills
shaking
viral infection
bacterial infection
—————————————————————— 12/31/2011 (Saturday) Day 21 temp 102 – fever in middle of night
Dr. SRB thinks flu-like symptoms or tumor actually breaking down
—————————————————————— 1/16/2012 (Monday) Day 37 temp 102+ Monday night
—————————————————————— 1/17/2012 (Tuesday) Day 38 throat infection temp 101.8 – fever – off ANP antibiotics been on 3 days
—————————————————————— 1/20/2012 (Friday) Day 41 104 (103.9) – fever – Friday night
—————————————————————— 1/21/2012 (Saturday) Day 42 temp up to 104
Dr. on-call – Ibuprofen 102.5 – off ANP yesterday afternoon rash
—————————————————————— Gorski ponders:
“The reaction of the clinic staff (i.e., rather blasé, even though at one point Hannah clearly demonstrates a change in mental status, appearing “drunk” and complaining of double-vision) made me wonder if this sort of problem was a common occurrence”
—————————————————————— Gorski, what’s the matter ?
Did you grab another handful of popcorn ?
—————————————————————— 1/1/2012 (Sunday) Day 22Burzynski Clinic feel drunky
felt like completely drunk
double vision
bit shaky Nurse said anti-seizure drug she hadn’t taken before [22:34]
—————————————————————— Gorski, what are some of the side-effects of “anti-seizure” medications ?
dizziness
double-vision
drowsiness
imbalance
loss of coordination
Problems with motor skills
Problems with tasks requiring sustained performance
nausea
slurred speech
staggering
mental disturbances
serious mood changes
—————————————————————— http://umm.edu/health/medical/reports/articles/epilepsy
—————————————————————— Gorski continues his assault on the popcorn:
“At another point, Pete and Hannah come to believe that the fevers might have been due to the tumor breaking down, which strikes me as implausible”
—————————————————————— Gorski, if it “strikes” you “as implausible”, then why did you ask, above ?
“Did she have the flu, given her flu-like symptoms, or was this due to her antineoplaston therapy?“
—————————————————————— 12/31/2011 (Saturday) Day 21 temp 102 – fever in middle of night Dr. SRB thinks flu-like symptoms OR tumor actually breaking down [21:53]
—————————————————————— Gorski blunders along:
“Later, she develops an extensive rash“
—————————————————————— 1/23/2012 (Monday) Day 44 Pete sent pic to Dr. SRB who gave name from pic and Pete verified [28:35]
—————————————————————— Gorski bumbles onward:
“It’s difficult to tell for sure what it is at the resolution of the video, but it looks like erythema multiforme, which is generally an allergic rash”
“What’s the most likely cause of such a rash?”
“Guess”
“Erythema multiforme is usually a drug reaction”
—————————————————————— Gorski, what can cause “Erythema multiforme” ?
“Does this mean that Burzynski’s antineoplaston treatment worked for Hannah?“
“Sadly, the answer is:”
“Not necessarily”
“It might have”
“It might not have”
“Why do I say this?”
“First, she didn’t have much residual disease after surgery and radiotherapy, and in fact it’s hard to tell how much is tumor and how much is postop and radiation effect“
—————————————————————— Gorski, I think it’s safe to say that neurosurgeon Dr. Martinez knows much better than you and your speculation
—————————————————————— Gorski
“Second, the median survival for anaplastic astrocytoma (which is a form of glioma) is around 2 to 3 years, and with different types of radiation therapy five year survival is around 15% or even higher”
—————————————————————— Gorski provides a link to a site which advises [14]:
High-grade tumors grow rapidly and can easily spread through the brain“
High-grade tumors are much more aggressive and require very intensive therapy
All patients with high-grade astrocytomas receive both radiation therapy and chemotherapy regardless of age
Prognosis is poor in this group of patients
—————————————————————— Gorski’s 2nd linked source advises [15]:
These highly aggressive tumors often occur in young adults and typically recur or progress to a grade 4 glioblastoma within several years of diagnosis, despite treatment with surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy
Tumor more resistant to therapy and patients have shorter median survival of only 2 to 3 years
—————————————————————— Gorski’s 3rd link [16] showcases his lame research as one has to read through almost the entire article to find the reference, which directs the reader to yet another publication [17]:
Gorski FAILS to advise the reader that the 2002 study is titled:
“Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) for previously untreated malignant gliomas“
Hannah Bradley’s WAS previously treated
Gorski also FAILS to advise the reader if this study included patients with grade 3 or 4 tumors
—————————————————————— Gorski claims:
“Thus, long term survival for patients with astrocytomas is not so rare that Hannah’s survival is so unlikely that the most reasonable assumption has to be that it was Burzynski’s treatment that saved her”
—————————————————————— Gorski, nice claim, but you did NOT really prove it
—————————————————————— Gorski suspects:
“More likely, Hannah is a fortunate outlier, although it’s hard for me to say even that because, at only two years out from her initial diagnosis, she’s only just reached the lower end of the range of reported median survival times for her disease”
—————————————————————— Gorski, the operative word is “outLIER”
Gorski then goes all “conspiracy theory” about a supposed “cryptic Facebook post”, a “vlog entry no longer exists”, “Hannah and Pete supposedly being “evasive”, “using vague terms”, a “little blip”, and “lack of new scans”
Next, little green “popcorn munchin'” men 👽
—————————————————————— 3/4/2013 Gorski drops “conspiracy theory, part II” on an unsuspecting audience [19]:
Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski’s cancer “success” stories update: Why is the release of the Burzynski sequel being delayed?
It’s no secret that I happen to NOT be on several mailing lists of “The Skeptics™”whose dedication to science is—shall we say?—questionable
As I delved deeper, I learned that Gorski’s evidence for the “questioning” of the anticancer efficacy of “antineoplaston therapy” doesn’t hold up; that his “questioning” of “personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy” is anything but; and that he’s an orphan now in what appears to me to be a strategy to bypass restrictions on his use of proper “cancer research “
The CliffsNotes version for those who don’t want to read Gorsack’s previous lengthy post is that he claims Hannah’s tumor, an astrocytoma (which is a form of glioma) did indeed appear to regress, but that regression can likely be explained by the surgery and radiation therapy that she had
Even then, however, he claims it would not be evidence that the antineoplastons saved her because there are occasional complete remissions in this tumor type, and long term survivors, although uncommon, are not so uncommon that Hannah must be evidence that antineoplastons are so miraculously effective that they saved her when conventional medicine could not
Gorski’s claims are anecdotal, as he failed miserably to provide the necessary citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support his claims
Gorski claims:
“I try very hard not to cross that line, and I think I’ve been successful, for instance, here”
But I proved again, above, how he fails and fails again with his “amateurish” attempts at proper “cancer research”
Similarly, Gorski realizes that it is very effective to appeal to emotions and cast Burzynski’s as heartless
Gorski inserts other Burzynski patients into his posts about Pete and Hannah
—————————————————————— GORSKI FAIL #1 – “One notes that Burzynski’s protocol requires at least 18 months of near-continuous infusion of high doses of his antineoplastons“
—————————————————————— GORSKI FAIL #2 – “The new claim is that Burzynski isn’t making patients pay for his antineoplastons (see question #13 in Merola’s FAQ), just for “clinical management” (as if that weren’t incredibly transparent) Vindication”
—————————————————————— GORSKI FAIL #3 – “First, I notice that nowhere was there anything mentioned about enrolling Hannah on a clinical trial“
—————————————————————— GORSKI FAIL #4 – “Certainly, given how much detail he’s used in this video and in his vlogs I’d expect that if the subject of clinical trials was mentioned he would have included it“
—————————————————————— GORSKI FAIL #5 – “The reaction of the clinic staff (i.e., rather blasé, even though at one point Hannah clearly demonstrates a change in mental status, appearing “drunk”and complaining of double-vision) made me wonder if this sort of problem was a common occurrence”
—————————————————————— GORSKI FAIL #6 – Well, I could add more … 🙂
——————————————————————
My apologies to the following co-authors if you ever had to check the “cancer research” of one: Gorski D., Gorski DH, D H Gorski,
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
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 ?
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:
#faIL
@SceptiGuy, on 5/25/2013, what did you NOT understand about her 5/23/2013 Cease and Desist Tweet ?
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 allow …the agency … to rely on smaller trials … fewer 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]
“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 has … MANY … trials … has has approved trials … for patients … with 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]
“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 ?
#fAiL
Guy, hasn’t ONE been completed ?
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 ?
[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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
[3]
—————————————————————— https://twitter.com/oracknows/status/366866619508596737
—————————————————————— Josephine Jones proves that she does NOT have a clue, and probably has NOT watched Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II (2), OR she was trying to pull a Gorski, and saw the film, but chooses to act like she did NOT see what she chooses NOT to comment on
—————————————————————— [4]
It’s strange that #Burzynski skeptics were asked to name journals and that’s where the study was submitted. http://t.co/VkCsUIENcC
——————————————————————
As you can see below, @BurzynskiMovie posed the question to Doctor B. Paul Morgan 12/20/2012 at 5:12 PM, and he responded at 5:28 PM
@drpaulmorgan @dianthusmed Pick a medical journal Paul…
Eric Merola revealed in Burzynski, Part 2 (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
—————————————————————— 11/26/2012 came before 12/20/2012 last time I checked
—————————————————————— The Lancet Oncology Peer Review Team D-12-01519: #FAIL:
—————————————————————— https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/25/the-lancet-oncology-peer-review-team-d-12-01519-fail/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � [5]
As far as I know, we only have Merola’s word that the ANPs study was submitted to Lancet Oncology. http://t.co/VkCsUIENcC#Burzynski
A study of antineoplastons fails to be published. Stanislaw Burzynski’s propagandist Eric Merola whines about it. News at 11.
Gorski makes me laugh at his antics
He supposedly has a Ph.D, and supposedly is a “cancer researcher”, yet his “research” is horrendous when it comes to actual cancer science
Dr. Gorski, as you recall, prefers to misdirect his Oracolytes away from Science, and instead focus on the mundane
An excellent example of this is where he states:
“(Burzynski) hasn’t bothered to actually demonstrate in a sufficiently rigorous fashion that they (antineoplastons) do what he claims they do or that they have significant anticancer activity in actual human beings”
notwithstanding the claims of his lackeys, toadies, and sycophants
So, when further on in his article where Gorski posts his usual garbage:
“However, even though Burzynski has dozens of clinical trials of antineoplastons against cancer registered at ClinicalTrials.gov but has not managed to publish even a single completed trial …”
you know he is being disingenuous, so that it fits his narrative
Gorski then continues the whining that never ends:
“… there is another investigator who has been doing a randomized clinical trial”
“His name is Dr. Hidaeki Tsuda of the Kurume University Hospital in Japan”
“He’s an anesthesiologist, not a surgeon or oncologist; so I’m not sure why he’s doing clinical trials of a chemotherapy agent”
As usual, Gorski is unable to state what difference it makes that Burzynski and Tsuda are NOT oncologists
Nor does he state whether he reviewed any of their clinical study publications in order to determine if any of the co-authors just happen to be oncologists
Why is this ?
Because Gorski is disingenuous and exhibiting his poor research
In reference to the Tsuda study, Gorski deposits:
“Nor did I have any idea whether any progress had been made in getting the study published”
Yet this is the same Gorski who supposedly blogged a “review” of Burzynski, Part 2, but when it came to the part of the film (1:29:53) where it showed the 11/26/2012 The Lancet Oncology Peer Review Team D-12-01519 lame excuse for NOT publishing Burzynski’s phase 2 clinical trial Progression-Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS) re patients 8 – 16 years after diagnosis, results, in 2 hours 8 minutes and 51 seconds, Gorski was Mr. NO COMMENT #FAIL
====================================== See point #13
—————————————————————— 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/
======================================
Now, all of a sudden, Gorski acts like he thinks we should accept that he’s NOT just continuing his disingenuous behavior
Gorski, Gorski, Gorski, Gorski, you are such a funny man
I really did laugh out loud when I read how you did NOT compare the lame excuse given by The Lancet Oncology Peer Review Team, with the reply they supplied regarding the Tsuda study
Gorski whines about the experience he suffered when he had difficulty getting something published, and comments;
“If the topic is not interesting or the data are crap, its being well-written and rigorously adherent to the journal’s format won’t save it”
I guess this means that Gorski’s journal submission fit his criteria:
“the topic is not interesting or the data are crap”
Gorski continues with his foaming of the mouth and gnashing of teeth:
“The Tweet linked to in the Tweet above was this one:”
@BurzynskiMovie @dianthusmed 1. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2. The Lancet Oncology. 3. New England Journal of Medicine. (1/2)
— Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) December 20, 2012
“So basically, it appears that Mr. Merola likely transmitted suggestions for journals listed on Twitter to Dr. Burzynski and/or Dr. Tsuda, and the advice was taken”
“It’s almost as though this particular Burzynski apologist thought that Dr. Paul Morgan meant that Dr. Tsuda’s manuscript would definitely be accepted”
Such naiveté is almost cute
Gorski exhibits that he did NOT make any effort whatsoever to click on the provided link and read the material associated with the tweet
Actually, it’s painful to behold such basic ignorance about how Twitter links work
Of course, there is a way for Dr. Gorski to demonstrate my educated guess about what really happened to be wrong
All he has to do is to answer a question and provide one bit of information
The question is, “Did you watch Burzynski, Part 2?” If the answer is yes, then all we need to see to determine if you are NOT being disingenuous is true, is one simple thing
Explain WHY you did NOT mention The Lancet Oncology Peer Review Team lame excuse for NOT publishing Burzynski’s results
It’s really that simple, Dr. Gorski
Put up or shut up
In the meantime it is obvious what “plan B” is
You will continue with your usual deception, misdirection, misinformation, disinformation, MisDisInformation, and lies
The reason is easy
Gorski and the Oracolytes are disingenuous
Gorski supporters really need a new schtick
This one’s getting really old
So is the schtick of The Skeptics
Surely they could come up with something better than this?
Apparently not
They are Cowards who refuse to debate the issues on-line or in person
======================================
[1] Josephine Jones (@_JosephineJones) tweeted at 3:31am – 12 Aug 13:
——————————————————————
Antineoplastons study rejected by Lancet Oncology. It’s a conspiracy! scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013… #Burzynski
======================================
[2] Orac (@oracknows) tweeted at 3:47am – 12 Aug 13:
——————————————————————
Yo! New insolence! A study of antineoplastons fails to be published. Stanislaw Burzynski’s propagandist Eric M… bit.ly/1csAfRB
======================================
[3] Orac (@oracknows) tweeted at 5:19am – 12 Aug 13:
——————————————————————
Oh, @BurzynskMovie, here’s what I think of whining that Dr. Tsuda’s paper was rejected by Lancet Oncology. scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013… #Burzynski
======================================
[4] Josephine Jones (@_JosephineJones) tweeted at 3:33am – 12 Aug 13:
——————————————————————
It’s strange that #Burzynski skeptics were asked to name journals and that’s where the study was submitted. scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013…
======================================
[5] Josephine Jones (@_JosephineJones) tweeted at 3:37am – 12 Aug 13:
——————————————————————
As far as I know, we only have Merola’s word that the ANPs study was submitted to Lancet Oncology. scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013… #Burzynski
======================================
[6] David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 5:21am – 12 Aug 13:
——————————————————————
.@_JosephineJones I think Tsuda’s aiming too high. Lancet Oncology is a top tier cancer journal. He should aim much lower. #Burzynski
======================================
[7] FW (@frozenwarning) tweeted at 5:08am – 12 Aug 13:
——————————————————————
@_JosephineJones Look forward to it being published in some shit altmed journal then! *twiddles thumbs*
======================================
[8] Primum Non Nocere (@DrNescio) tweeted at 7:20am – 12 Aug 13:
——————————————————————
A study of antineoplastons fails to be published. Stanislaw Burzynski’s propagandist Eric Merola whines about it…. pulse.me/s/p1zrK
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 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
====================================== THE #Burzynski TWITTER WAR (#TwitterWar)
======================================
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 3:45pm – 20 Dec 12:
Odd contradiction in what #burzynski shills are saying. They say "he cures cancer" and "medical industry won't let him cure cancer". Which?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 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:
——————————————————————
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.
======================================
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
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
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
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/NofollowI 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
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
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
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
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
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)
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
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.
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
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
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).
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
======================================
Didymus Judas Thomas' Hipocritical Oath Blog 