Wikipedia or Wikipediantic ? – wants your 3 pounds of flesh (WikiPEEdia, UR all INe)

20131208-231916.jpg
[WP:SOP] Statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then. 7.”)

Due & undue weight: [3]

“The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant & should not be considered,”

[WP:NPOV] “History of NPOV:” (Content # 6, Note 3)

(Neutral Point of View)
——————————————————————
TRANSLATION: Wikipedia editors, YOUR OPINION IS NOT RELEVANT
——————————————————————
MEANING: It is meaningless to attempt to slather your biased OPINION all over Wikipedia like butter on Texas toast, since supposedly, we only care about verifiable FACTS
======================================
Wikipedia, what the problem is ?

Jimmy Donal Wales

Who ?

No, “The Who” is actually really British !

(as opposed to some “furreigner” who plops across the pond, wants to pound one of your pelts after a celebrity hunt, pops it in his bonnet, pip-pips about, and mounts it up on his rented wall along with what’s left of his balls)

I’m writing, of course, about “Jimbo,” the one who got away . . . Thankfully

The recipient of the write-up earlier this year in The New York Times [1] (Oh, pithy !!)
——————————————————————
Wales, who no longer runs the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia

“He applies his libertarian worldview to the Internet and has taken on institutions like the United States government
——————————————————————
You must be bloody well right joking me

(joking me ? Quit jokin’ me !)

JimCrow’s ’bout as “libertarian” as Fidel Castro with a gun in his hand and (f)lies between his teeth; from traveling with the windows down

Stephen Colbert shoulda seen that comin’ from a 8 mile away

Hey Stephen, Report’ THAT !!!
——————————————————————
“He grew up in Huntsville, Ala., the son of a teacher and a retail man
——————————————————————
And obviously, he didn’t “learnt” well

I think a refund’s in order

And here’s your free school Insolence to go with it

Happy eat in’

It is claimed that “HE” spends time:
——————————————————————
“traveling the world giving talks on free speech and Internet freedom
——————————————————————
seriously ?

Seriously ??

SERIOUSLY ???

Welcome to MizFitTV

What would “Jymboree” know about “free speech” and “Internet freedom,“ anyway ?

How many days did you serve your country in the United States military ?

Oh, you did NOT realize that while you were in San Diego, you could have signed that contract ?

After all, he’s no Vincent Kennedy McMahon”
(“HE” knows where “HIS” GRAPEFRUITS are)
======================================
“B.D.F.L., or the Benevolent Dictator for Life”
——————————————————————
How ’bout:

Big
Disappointing
Fascist
Loser ?
——————————————————————
Argumentum ad Jimbonem” means dutifully following what Wales says, but there are even arguments about that”
——————————————————————
WP:NICETRY, but that’s “SHEEPLE”
——————————————————————
“One Wikipedia editor said, for instance, that Wales was no longer comfortable with the B.D.F.L. description”
——————————————————————
Jiminy Cricket !

Whazzamatta Jiminy?

Did “FASCIST” hit a bit too close to home ?
——————————————————————
“(There is, among some, a debate over what to call him)”

“Some users have also disputed the Latinized version of “Jimbo.”

“(Should it be “Jimboni” or “Jimbini”?)”
——————————————————————
Can you smell what “The Rock” is cookin’ ?

La-La-La-La-Laaaaaaawwww, JIMBRONI !!!!!!!

Get ready, and bend over, ’cause I’m gonna shine this thing up, turn it sideways, and shove it straight up your Candy AstroTurf hatch
——————————————————————
Introduction (statement of principles) [WP:SOP]

“This is a statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then”
——————————————————————
(Or if you go by The New York Times article, [1] Jimbroni is the co-founder” who tries to re-write history to make it appear that “HE” is the one-and-only Fascist Founder ?)
——————————————————————
“I should point out that these are my principles, such that I am the final judge of them”

This does not mean that I will not listen to you, but it does mean that at some ultimate, fundamental level, this is how Wikipedia will be run”
——————————————————————
No, actually, it DOES mean that he will NOT listen to you, as was the case when he ignored my 2/7/2013 appeal

In his defense, perhaps Kate Garvey has his balls
——————————————————————
Principles

1. “Wikipedia’s success to date is entirely a function of our open community”

“This community will continue to live and breathe and grow only so long as those of us who participate in it continue to Do The Right Thing

Doing The Right Thing takes many forms, but perhaps most central is the preservation of our shared vision for the neutral point of view policy and for a culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty
——————————————————————
The problem with this Wacky Tobacky “We are the (Wiki) World” WikiWhOReD Wonderland Jimbroni’s living in, is that “HE” has NOT been Doing The Right Thing since “HE” abdicated “his” “neutral point of view policy” and “culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty,” to “The Skeptics”

“The Skeptics,” who serve as gatekeepers of the Burzynski Clinic article, and who cite Dr. David H. Gorski a/k/a “Orac” aka GorskGeek as if he were a “reliable source”

“The Skeptics,” who bring new meaning to the term “Wikipedia Zero”

“The Skeptics,” who are Intellectual Cowards like their false god Gorski, the Closet Communist of Science-Based Medicine a/k/a Science-Basted Medicine aka Science-Based Mudicine (Spinning Bowel Movement), Wiki Wordsmith Wannabes, nut-jobbers, stale from their failure at the National Peanut Festival in Dothan, Alabama
——————————————————————
3. ““You can edit this page right now” is a core guiding check on everything that we do”

“We must respect this principle as sacred”
——————————————————————
Do the lies just dribble off your chin like phlegm?

You canNOT just go in and “edit” the Burzynski Clinic article “page right now”

That statement is pure, unadulterated Alabama B.S.

That’s NOT a “sacred principle,” it’s sacré “bull”
——————————————————————
7. “Anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity”
——————————————————————
Unfortunately, you do NOT practice what you preach, do you, HYPOCRITE ?
——————————————————————
“They should be encouraged constantly to present their problems in a constructive way”
——————————————————————
So that you can ignore the problem(s), right, Jimbroni ?
——————————————————————
“Anyone who just complains without foundation, refusing to join the discussion, should simply be rejected and ignored”
——————————————————————
THAT would automatically exclude all of “The Skeptics” now, wouldn’t it ?
——————————————————————
“We must not let the “squeaky wheel” be greased just for being a jerk
——————————————————————
Jimbroni, why have you allowed “The Skeptics” to choose from their “squeaky” wheel-house bag o’ tricks, get all “greased” up and jerk” so many people around in such a big CIRCLE-JERK, for so long?
——————————————————————
8. “Diplomacy consists of combining honesty and politeness

“Both are objectively valuable moral principles”

“Be honest with me, but don’t be mean to me”

“Don’t misrepresent my views for your own political ends, and I’ll treat you the same way”
——————————————————————
“Honesty” and “politeness” are really great buzzwords,” Jimbroni, but they are as foreign to your “Skeptics,” as “moral principles”
——————————————————————
A great example of the questionable “honesty” and “moral principles” of one of your apparatchiks, was demonstrated 2/3/2013, 6:56, when I sent an arbitration appeal e-mail to Wikipedia, advising, in part, that the e-mail listed on Wikipedia; as the one that blocked users should use, did NOT work, because there was NO “@” sign in it

There was a . (period) where the “@” sign belonged
——————————————————————

20131212-173725.jpg

20131212-173745.jpg
——————————————————————
2/3/2013, 8:11 AM, Anthony (AGK) BASC
wikiagk@gmail.com
advised:

“Everything you have said in that e-mail demonstrates a misunderstanding or misreading of Wikipedia policy”
——————————————————————

20131212-173821.jpg

20131212-173851.jpg
——————————————————————
Check the “time” and “place” where you are, so that you, too, can advise, that according to Wikipedia, pointing out to them that the e-mail they advise people to use, DOES NOT WORK; because there is no “@” sign in it (instead, there’s a . (period)), translates into meaning:
——————————————————————
“Everything you have said in that e-mail demonstrates a misunderstanding or misreading of Wikipedia policy”
======================================
Core principles

Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset [WP:SR]

Wikipedia does not have its own views, or determine what is “correct”
——————————————————————
I wish I could LIE like that, but I have a conscience
======================================
12/24/2012, Monday – 3:52 pm – 21:52 (UTC) –
“We are told that 2013 will be a big year, but apparently his plan is to release another bullshit movie not to publish useful research”

[User Talk:JzG|Guy] ([User JzG/help|Help!]) [2]

20131212-205521.jpg
——————————————————————
“Bullshit movie” ?
——————————————————————

20131212-210534.jpg
——————————————————————
Does anyone other than me NOT think it a “coinkydink” that some “Guy” on Wikipedia, going by the name “Guy”, using the same 2 words (“Bullshit movie”) as a “Guy” on Twitter ?
======================================
2. Founding principles:

“Neutrality is mandatory . . . “
——————————————————————
I call B.S.

Neutrality is mandatory,” EXCEPT on the Burzynski Clinic article, controlled by “The Skeptics”
——————————————————————
4. “Ignore all rules (IAR):”

“Rules on Wikipedia are not fixed in stone”
——————————————————————
Especially when Jimbroni allows “The Skeptics”
to “dictator” the “rules”
——————————————————————
“The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule

“The common purpose of building an encyclopedia trumps both”

“This means that any rule can be broken for a very good reason, if it ultimately helps to improve the encyclopedia”
——————————————————————
And “The Skeptics” are NOT required to provide ANY reason for having broken “any rule”
——————————————————————
“It doesn’t mean that anything can be done just by claiming IAR, or that discussion is not necessary to explain one’s decision”
——————————————————————
But do NOT expect Wikipedia to require anything from The Skeptics”
——————————————————————
Founding principles

1. “Neutral point of view (NPOV) as a mandatory editorial principle”
—————————————————————–
EXCEPT when it comes to the Burzynski Clinic article
——————————————————————
12/26/2012 – I attempted to get Wikipedia to reference the interview which Burzynski’s attorney, Richard (Rick) A. Jaffe, and Lola Quinlan’s attorney; who posted it on his web-site, had given: [4]

20131213-073026.jpg
Please add re WP:NPOV that Burzynski’s attorney, Richard Jaffe has disputed Lola Quinlan’s claims:

“On February 1, 2012, Dr. Burzynski’s attorney, Richard Jaffe, disputed Lola Quinlan’s allegations on Houston’s KPRC News.”

Thank you very much.[[User: Didymus Judas Thomas 15:03, 12/26/2012 (UTC)
——————————————————————
So? [OR] Disputing it in the media probably means he doesn’t have a case. [/OR] In any case, a lawyer disputing the allegations against his client is not even news. — [[User: Arthur Rubin 15:24, 12/26/2012 (UTC)

20131213-072937.jpg
Arthur Rubin, I’m not sure what relevance your above post has re WP:NPOV since the article includes statements from attorneys representing both sides

17:51, 12/27/2012 (UTC) Didymus Judas Thomas

20131213-072956.jpg

20131213-073014.jpg

20131212-231332.jpg
======================================
12/24/2012, Monday – 3:54 pm (21:54.UTC) – “What they mean is that nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it, which necessarily means that it’s not considered in the least promising.”

[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([User JzG/help|Help!])

20131212-235933.jpg
“Nobody else is doing meaningful work on it” ?

Ignores independent research done in Poland, Russia, Korea, Egypt, Japan, & China which specifically reference SRB’s publications in their publications re antineoplastons & phenylacetylglutamine (PG); which is AS2-5, & includes phase III trials published in China & continued research being published in China 12/17/2012?

FACTS:

1. I pointed out to Wikipedia, a 12/17/2012 scientific publication re antineoplastons, which referenced Burzynski @ 22. (antineoplaston AS21)

2. 7 days after this scientific journal was published, Wikipedia’a “Guy (Help!’s) ”response, Monday, 12/24/2012 @ 3:54 pm, is to advise me:

“What they mean is that nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it, which necessarily means that it’s not considered in the least promising.”

Guy (Help!) 3:54 pm, 12/24/2012, Monday

3. So, Wikipedia’s, Guy (Help!), defines an event having been published 7 days ago (12/17/2012 to 12/24/2012) as:

“…nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it…”

12/17/2012
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3524164
CDA-2 (cell differentiation agent 2), a URINARY preparation
http://po.st/g71N8P
CDA-2 and its main component PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINE (PG or PAG)
Antineoplaston AS2-5 is PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINE (PAG or PG)
http://redd.it/1dk974
Antineoplaston AS2-1 is a 4:1 mixture of phenylacetic acid (PA) and PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINE (PAG or PG)
Antineoplastons AS2-5 and AS2-1 are derived from Antineoplaston A10
BURZYNSKI Reference: 22.
antineoplaston AS21
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0052117
======================================
12/26/2012, Wednesday – 12:43 – “There is unlikely to be any dispassionate debate over ANPs while Burzynski continues with his unethical practices.”

JzG|Guy User:JzG/help|Help!

20131213-064500.jpg
Wikipedia: Judge, Jury, Executioner
======================================

20131213-065902.jpg
“The world, right now, considers Burzynski to be at best unethical and at worst a quack…”?

Since when did Wikipedia conduct a world-wide “opinion poll” re Burzynski ?

And if Wikipedia is correct, how did this happen ?

Burzynski referenced by other Cancer researchers:

2011 – Phase II trial of tipifarnib and radiation in children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas
http://neuro-oncology.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/3/298.full
University of California—San Francisco

Children’s Hospital Boston, Massachusetts

St Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee

Seattle Children’s Hospital, Seattle, Washington

Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Children’s National Medical Center, Washington, DC

Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Ohio

Neuro Oncol (2011) 13 (3): 298-306
doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noq202

5.723 Impact Factor

25. ↵ Burzynski SR
Treatments for astrocytic tumors in children: current and emerging strategies
Paediatr Drugs. 2006;8:167-178
http://link.springer.com/article/10.2165%2F00148581-200608030-00003
Pediatric Drugs
May 2006, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 167-178
======================================

20131213-081001.jpg
——————————————————————
Rhode Island Red attempts to get away with misquoting me:
——————————————————————

20131213-081015.jpg
——————————————————————
“The other argument is that the secondary sources (i.e., respected cancer organizations, FDA, etc.) are not reliable because they are Burzynski’s “competitors”

[[User: Rhode Island Red]] 4:18 pm, Yesterday (UTC−6)
======================================

20131213-085153.jpg

20131213-085209.jpg

20131213-085227.jpg

20131213-085242.jpg

20131213-085308.jpg
——————————————————————
What a Wipocrite (Wiki + Hypocrite)

Steve Pereira (SilkTork) is such a “WIPOCRITE,” that he claims:
——————————————————————
“the community were united that your contributions were biased”
——————————————————————
He conveniently; like a good little mini-Jimbroni would, ignores ALL of his fellow WIPOCRITES comments, which completely ignored:
——————————————————————
([WP:SOP] Statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then. 7.”)

Due & undue weight: [3]

“The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant & should not be considered,”

[WP:NPOV] “History of NPOV:” (Content # 6, Note 3)

(Neutral Point of View)
——————————————————————
1. 12/24/2012, Monday – 3:52 pm – 21:52 (UTC) – “We are told that 2013 will be a big year, but apparently his plan is to release another bullshit movie not to publish useful research”
——————————————————————
2. 12/24/2012, Monday – 3:54 pm (21:54.UTC) – “What they mean is that nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it, which necessarily means that it’s not considered in the least promising.”
——————————————————————
3. 12/26/2012, Wednesday – 12:43 – “There is unlikely to be any dispassionate debate over ANPs while Burzynski continues with his unethical practices.”
——————————————————————
4. 12/30/2012 8:58 “The world, right now, considers Burzynski to be at best unethical and at worst a quack…”?
——————————————————————
Am I NOT the only one convinced that “the community” was also “united” in something more than just their “goose-stepping ?
——————————————————————
Pereira, the imperfect ‘pedia Pimp tries to Wow his readers by waxing WikiWhOReD, by ignoring that ALL the previous BIASED opinion B.S. that his fellow-Facist forged ahead with, and which Wikipediantic history says means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING (say it again) because it is their BIASED OPINION and is ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS, and it was as so much WikiLitter, well, he’s just facist-free speechless about that, as any Jimbroni AstroTurf Twerk should be
======================================
To show exactly what zealots these WikiPimps are, just absorb this exchange:
——————————————————————
“The Burzynski Clinic Article has:

“…a Mayo Clinic study found no benefit….”

But that was not what the study concluded

See below:
——————————————————————
“CONCLUSION:

Although we could not confirm any tumor regression in patients in this study, the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions about treatment efficacy.”
——————————————————————
In the interest of Neutrality, please remove the reference to Mayo entirely or change to;
——————————————————————
“…a Mayo Clinic study found that “the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions about treatment efficacy.”
——————————————————————
Thank you very much

Didymus Judas Thomas 21:12, 12/10/2012
——————————————————————
“How is “found no benefit” not a a fair and pithy description of the Mayo Clinic study’s summary?”

Alexbrn 21:24, 12/10/2012
——————————————————————
“I feel this should be changed under WP:NPOV because not every reader is going to understand the “Fair & Pithy” reason I was provided

I feel that the average reader reading this will read it as meaning a study was done & completed with the necessary # of people for an effective study, when that was not the conclusion as pointed out in my above post

Thank you very much.”

Didymus Judas Thomas 11:02, 12/18/2012
——————————————————————
NO RESPONSE

That’s right !

“NO RESPONSE” from the “mini-b” (a/k/a “mini-brain”), wannabe Fascists who are so zealous about using their alleged “Fair and Pithy” “found no benefit” WikiWhOReD; which they utilize in an effort to deceive those who are NOT smarter than a fifth-grader

These WikiPimps are so certain of the righteousness of their evangelical cause, that they do NOT even have the “GRAPEFRUITS” to use what the study’s conclusions actually said, and let the chips fall where they may

There are a lot of “chips” falling at Wikipedia

“BULL CHIPS”

JIMBRONI, you’re no Maggie Thatcher

You can’t even wear her pants
——————————————————————
Margaret Thatcher: “The Iron Lady”

Jimbroni: “No iron in the pants”
——————————————————————
Jimbroni’s list of Facist, mini-Hitler, Monty Pythonesque Women’s underwear wearing Wannabes on Wikipediantic:

1. Alexbrn
2. fluffernutter
3. NE Ent
4. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 (Seb az86556)
5. Tom Morris
6. Guerillero
7. Dave Dial
8. John
9. Nstrauss
10. Yobol
11. Drmies
12. foxj
13. Ironholds
14. Rhode Island Red
15. Anthony (AGK) BASC wikiagk@gmail.com
16. Steve Pereira (Silk Tork) silktork@gmail.com
——————————————————————
WikiWhOReD (Wiki + Word + Whore): Pimping a word. Attempting to deceive someone by means of misdirection with words
——————————————————————
The South will rise again, just not in Jimbroni’s pants
——————————————————————
Happy Friday the 13th, Wikipediantic
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – 6/27/2013Jimmy Wales Is Not an Internet Billionaire (By AMY CHOZICK):
——————————————————————
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/magazine/jimmy-wales-is-not-an-internet-billionaire.html
======================================
[2] – 12/24/2012, Monday – 3:52 pm – 21:52 (UTC) – [User Talk:JzG|Guy] ([User:JzG/help|Help!])
——————————————————————
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burzynski_Clinic&diff=next&oldid=529537854
======================================
[3] – 12/26/2012Lola A. Quinlan:
——————————————————————
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burzynski_Clinic&diff=prev&oldid=529836971
——————————————————————
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burzynski_Clinic&diff=next&oldid=529836971
——————————————————————
Houston’s KPRC News:
——————————————————————
http://m.click2houston.com/news/Houston-cancer-doctor-draws-new-complaints-from-patients/-/16714936/8581480/-/hmrbjk/-/index.html
——————————————————————
Lola A. Quinlan’s attorney’s web-site:
——————————————————————
http://www.jag-lawfirm.com/burzynski-suit-kprc-02012012.html
======================================
[4] –
——————————————————————
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Didymus_Judas_Thomas&diff=next&oldid=528610760
======================================

20131213-082217.jpg

20131213-082233.jpg

20131213-082247.jpg

20131213-082302.jpg

20131213-082316.jpg

20131213-082331.jpg

20131213-082346.jpg

20131213-082404.jpg

20131213-082422.jpg

20131213-082437.jpg

20131213-082452.jpg

20131213-082508.jpg

20131213-083448.jpg

20131213-083506.jpg

20131213-083521.jpg

20131213-083539.jpg

20131213-083554.jpg

20131213-083611.jpg

20131213-083626.jpg

20131213-083646.jpg

20131213-083701.jpg

20131213-083720.jpg

20131213-083758.jpg

20131213-083822.jpg

20131213-083839.jpg

20131213-083859.jpg

20131213-083914.jpg

20131213-083929.jpg
These mini-b’s went so far as to allege all sorts of sockpuppetry

Wikipediantic, why don’t you list all the dates and times I was supposedly doing all of these activities; and don’t forget to include all the time I spent blogging, on Twitter, making comments on articles, etc., and once you have all that data compiled, explain how one individual could do all that in a 24-hour day

That’s right Wikipediantic

I’m challenging you to put up or shut up your cornholio

Letter to Congress – Dear CONGRESSPERSON’S NAME: My name is _(Slim Shady)_ and I am one of your constituents

I am writing to you to request your urgent attention to a matter that involves the abuse of cancer patients, their families, and their communities

A few weeks ago, one of “The Skeptics” wrote to you concerning the Houston cancer doctor Stanislaw Burzynski, and requested that you take action and look into how he was able to continue treating cancer patients for decades under the auspices of clinical trials with an unproven treatment he claims to have discovered, patented, manufactures, prescribes, and sells (at his in house pharmacy) at exorbitant (NOT so muchly ?) prices

On Friday, November 15, Dr. Burzynski was the subject of a front-page explosé in the USA Today

Additionally, since before “The Skeptics” last contacted your office, the FDA has released sweet inspection notes into the electronic FOIA reading room (also known as “The Internet”) about Stanislaw Burzynski in his role as Principal Investigator (also included)

The findings were horrifying

Burzynski (as investigator, the subject of the inspection) “failed to comply with protocol requirements related to the primary outcome, non-compliance […] for 100% of study subjects reviewed during the inspection.”

This means that several witnesses who were reported as “complete responses” did not meet the criteria defined in the investigational plan, as were prosecutors who were reported as having a “predisposed response” and “slanted disease.”

This means that his outcomes figures for these studies are inaccurate

Some witnesses admitted failed to meet the inclusion criteria for the study

Even though prosecutors needed to have a physician back home to monitor their progress prior to enrolling in a trial, the FDA found a prosecutor who began receiving treatment before a doctor had been found

United States lead prosecutor, attorney Amy LeCocq attempted to subpoena Dr. Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.
——————————————————————
“When I publicly objected to this harassment I myself was slapped with a subpoena for all my information regarding Dr. Burzynski

“When I pointed out the illegality of this request, and indicated my willingness to fight the FDA, the subpoena was just as suddenly quashed by the U.S. Attorney” [2]
——————————————————————
“Dr. Ralph Moss, an award-winning journalist and author of books about cancer, was subpoenaed and ordered to produce every document in his possessionelectronic, magnetic, printed or otherwiserelating to Dr. Burzynski”

“Unfortunately for Amy Lecocq, the prosecutor in charge of this case, her subpoena of Dr. Moss violated at least six federal laws governing subpoenas of journalists”

“When Dr. Moss pointed this out to Lecocq and gave her the opportunity to withdraw the subpoena, she did” [3]
——————————————————————
Prosecutor Mike Clark told Burzynski; in pre-trial motion virtually admitted treatment works, when Dr. Burzynski’s attorneys asked jurors be allowed to tour BRI (Burzynski Research Institute), Clark called the request:

“a thinly veiled effort to expose the jury to the specter of Dr. Burzynski in his act of saving lives”
——————————————————————
Three (3) subjects experienced 1 or 2 investigational overdoses between January 9, 1997 and January 22, 1997

January 9, 1997, according to the [trial number redacted] List of Insurance Industry Witnesses / ICE (Insurance Company Employees) [redacted] Overdose [redacted]/Conspiracy Infection report
——————————————————————
The final witness of the day was Ms. Peggy Oakes, an employee of CNA Insurance company

Although insurance companies were allegedly “defrauded” by Burzynski, witness admitted under questioning, her company knew all along the treatment was experimental

(If a company is on notice that a treatment is experimental there can be no finding of fraud, say Dr. Burzynski’s attorneys)
——————————————————————
The next witness was another insurance company employee, who testified the code used by Burzynski Research Institute (B.R.I.) on claim form was not a perfect fit

Under cross examination by attorney Richard Jaffe, she admitted:

1. such codes do not have to be exact fits

2. she did not know a better code than one they used
——————————————————————
Jaffe then tried to read a sentence from one of the Institute’s letters to the insurance company, but prosecutors jumped to their feet & argued that this would be prejudicial, violating judge’s ruling that effectiveness of treatment was not at issue in this case

Judge Lake overruled the prosecution’s objections, pointing out that prosecutors themselves had quoted extensively from the letter during direct examination

The jury seemed riveted as Jaffe read:

“Antineoplastons have shown remarkable effectiveness in treating certain incurable tumors such as brain tumors”

The jury suddenly knew not only that:

1. treatment might actually work

2. prosecutors were trying to hide this fact from them

Was a dramatic moment
——————————————————————
1/22/1997, Wednesday, more witnesses from insurance industry
——————————————————————
Employee of Golden Rule Insurance Company testified clinic had billed her company for infusion services
——————————————————————
On cross, Ackerman presented evidence `Golden Rule’ well-known throughout industry as nit-picking company, which does everything it can to deny claims

He showed her record of phone conversation in which patient pleaded for them to cover costs of his antineoplaston treatment
——————————————————————
Employee tells patient that if he sent in medical records showing benefit, company might agree to pay
——————————————————————
“So in fact your company can review results of experimental treatment & make an exception if it sees fit?” Ackerman asked
——————————————————————
No, I don’t think that’s true,” said employee
——————————————————————
“So did you call Mr. Newman & tell him he had been misinformed,”

Ackerman probed,

“that in fact Golden Rule would not review his medical records?”
——————————————————————
Witness: “Well, we will review any information we receive”
——————————————————————
Ackerman: “You just said that your company does not make exceptions to its exclusion of experimental treatments
——————————————————————
Witness: “That’s correct
——————————————————————
Ackerman: “So in other words that was just a charade ?

“Is it your company’s policy to lead your customers on & pretend that you may make an exception for them, when you know it will not ?
——————————————————————
Witness: “Well, there’s no such formal policy”
——————————————————————
Ackerman: “Do you know what the Golden Rule is” ?
——————————————————————
Witness: “Yes”

“Do unto others as you would have others do unto you”
——————————————————————
Ackerman: “That’s right”

“No further questions”
——————————————————————
Prosecutor, Amy LeCocq, asked witness during re-direct if insurance was not a “service industry”

That gave defense opportunity to point out that the more claims company denies the richer it becomes

Golden Rule had “serviced” its clients in such a manner that its own assets had grown to over $1 billion
——————————————————————
Overdose incidents have been reported to you [….]

There is no documentation to show that you have implemented corrective actions during this time period to ensure the safety and welfare of subjects. [emphasis added]

It seems that these overdoses are related to the protocol, which requires federal members to administer the depositions via phone, paper (papyrus), playback, or on their own

Further, patience records show that there were many more overdoses that were not included in the List of Insurance Industry Witnesses / SAR (Systematic Antineoplaston Ridicule)/Overdose list

The FDA (Federal Deposition Attorney) reported:

“Your […] deposition measurements initially recorded on worksheets at baseline and on-study treatment […] studies for all study subjects were destroyed and are not available for FDA inspectional review.”

This is one of the most damning statements, as without any…not a single baseline measurement…there is no way to determine any actual effect of the systematic antineoplaston ridicule treatment

This means that Burzynski’s stripes–which by last account cost $25 ($15 + $10 smuggled in) to begin and $60 MILLION + ($60,000,000 +) to maintain–are unpublishable

It will be stunning if this finding alone were not investigated by legal authorities

Witnesses who had Grade 3 or 4 toxic effects were supposed to be removed from trial

One witness had 3 Grade 3 events followed by 3 Grade 4 events

Another witness had 7 disqualifying toxic events before she was removed from the study

Prosecution did not report all adverse events as required by study protocols

One witness had 12 events of hypocrisy (high insurance), none of which was reported

There are several similar witnesses

Some adverse events were not reported to the Burzynski Clinic IRB for years

For instance one witness had an adverse event in 1993 and the oversight board did not hear about it until 1997

The FDA observed that the deposition consent document did not include a statement of extra costs that might be incurred

Specifically, some deposition consent documents were signed days to weeks before billing agreements, and in a couple of cases no consent form could be found

The “Clark” was unable to account for its stock of the investigational drag, an act that would get any other research Labrador shut down

“Sadly, a child, Josia Cotto, had to die from apparent sodium overload before this investigation could be carried out”

Wait !

“[A] child had to die from apparent sodium overload” ?

Obviously, it canNOT be “infamous” breast cancer specialist Dr. David H. Gorski, “Orac” a/k/a GorskGeek, who’s that “guy” who is NOT a brain cancer specialist, but claimed that a Burzynski patient died from hypernatremia even though he has NOT provided one scintilla of evidence that he has a copy of any autopsy, or been privy to any autopsy of the patient [9]

GorskGeek is that cut below the sludge that wakes up everyday, still secure in the knowledge that Burzynski has his name on a number of phase 2 clinical trial preliminary reports, and GorskGeek still has his on ZERO

Burzynski is the lead author on at least 31 PubMed articles (of 47 (1973-2013), 2013 – most recent) to GorskGeek’s pitiful 11 (of 27 (1989-2013), 2003 – most recent)

Despite these findings, when interviewed by USA Today, Burzynski actually said:

“We see patients from various walks of life”

“We see great people”

“We see crooks”

“We have prostitutes”

“We have thieves”

GorskiGeek, I guess Burzynski could have been talking about you, or your fave biochemist, Saul Green ?
——————————————————————

20131209-192845.jpg
——————————————————————
“All you have to do is to read Saul Green’s reports on Quackwatch and in The Cancer Letter from the 1990s” [10]
——————————————————————
12/2002Interview [11]
——————————————————————
“One of your greatest critics is Saul Green (Ph.D. Biochemistry), a retired biochemist from Memorial Sloan Kettering

“In 1992 the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), published Green’s article, “Antineoplastons:”

“An Unproved Cancer Therapy.”

“What were his conclusions about Antineoplastons?
——————————————————————
“Well, Green is not a medical doctor, he’s a retired biochemist; he never reviewed our results“

“He got hold of some of our patents and that’s what he based his opinion on

“He was hired by another insurance company (Aetna) that was in litigation with us”

“He’s like a hired assassin

“Not telling the truth”

“So really to argue with him is good for nothing

“Even if something were completely clear he would negate it”

“He is simply a guy who was hired by our adversaries”

“He would do whatever they paid him to do”
——————————————————————
“Did Green ask to look at your patients’ files or even talk to any of your patients themselves?”
——————————————————————
“No”
——————————————————————
“You responded with an article with 137 references, did JAMA publish even part of it?”
——————————————————————
“JAMA refused to publish the article”

“They decided that they would publish a short letter to the editors

“And obviously this is another dirty thing, because letters to the editors are not in the reference books”

“If you look in the computer and try to find letters to the editor from JAMA, you’ll never find it”

“So people who are interested will always find Green’s article, but they will never find our reply to Green’s article, unless they go to the library”

“Then they can look in the JAMA volume in which the letter was published, and then they will find it”

“So many doctors were asking me why I did not respond to Saul Green’s article because they never found my letter to the editors”
——————————————————————
“Are they obligated to publish your rebuttal?”
——————————————————————
“Certainly they are, because they put Green’s article in JAMA in the first place, they accepted it without any peer review and then they did not allow me to honestly respond to it

“I should be allowed to publish my response to the article in JAMA
——————————————————————
“At the time of the publication Green was working as a consultant to Grace Powers Monaco, Esq., a Washington attorney who was assisting Aetna insurance agency in its lawsuit against you”

“What was the Aetna lawsuit about?”
——————————————————————
“One of our patients sued Aetna because Aetna refused to pay for my treatment

“Then Aetna got involved and Aetna sued us

“Aetna really became involved in what you can call racketeering tactics because they contacted practically every insurance company in the US”

“They smeared us, they advised insurance companies to not pay for our services”

“So based on all of this, our lawyer decided to file a racketeering suit against Aetna

“This was a 190 million dollar lawsuit against Aetna

“So certainly Aetna was trying to discredit us by using people like Saul Green

“And they hired him to work on their behalf”

“So there was an obvious conflict of interest for Green because he worked for Monaco who was assisting Aetna
——————————————————————
“Was this information published in the JAMA article?

(Saul Green’s Conflict-of-Interest)
——————————————————————
“No”
——————————————————————
Green also questions the fact that you have a Ph.D.”

“At the American Association for Clinical Chemistry Symposium, July 1997, Atlanta, GA., he says in part:”

““Burzynski’s claim to a Ph.D. is questionable”

“Letters from the Ministry of Health, Warsaw, Poland, and from faculty at the Medical Academy at Lublin, Poland, say, respectively:”

“1. At the time Burzynski was in school, medical schools did not give a Ph.D.

“2. Burzynski received the D.Msc. in 1968 after completing a one-year laboratory project and passing an exam”

“(3) Burzynski did no independent research while in medical school.””

“He cites the people below as giving him some of this information”

“1. Nizanskowski, R. , Personal communication. Jan 15, 1992

“3. Bielinski, S., Personal communication, Nov. 22, 1987
——————————————————————
“First of all, do you have a Ph.D.?
——————————————————————
“Well, the program in Poland is somewhat different than the US

“What I have is equivalent to a US Ph.D

“When a medical doctor in the US graduates from medical school, he receives a medical doctor diploma

“In Poland it’s a similar diploma, but it’s called a physician diploma, which is equal to medical doctor

“And after that, if you would like to obtain a Ph.D., you have to do independent research, both in the US and in Poland

“So you have to work on an independent project, you have to write a doctorate thesis and, in addition, to that in Poland, you have to take exams in medicine, in philosophy and also you have to take exams in the subjects on which you have written your thesis, in my case this was biochemistry

“As you can see from the letter from the President of the medical school from which I graduated, this is a Ph.D.

“Saul Green got information from the guys who were key communist figures in my medical school”

“The second secretary of the communist party in my school, hated my guts, because I didn’t want to be a communist

“So, somehow, Green got hold of “reputable” communist sources (laugh) to give him that information”

“It is exactly the President of the medical school who certified that I have a Ph.D.
——————————————————————
“So you are saying that theses people he received his personal communication from, Nizanskowski R, and Bielinski S, are both Communists, is that correct, or they were?”
——————————————————————
“Not only communists, but Bielinski was one of the key players in the communist party in my medical school

“So certainly he was extremely active as a communist

“And, you know that communists, they usually don’t tell the truth
——————————————————————
“So there is absolutely no question about it, you have a Ph.D. and Green’s doubts are totally without foundation”

“Has he ever acknowledged publicly the fact that you have a Ph.D.?
——————————————————————
“He’s never got in touch with me regarding this”
——————————————————————
“Orac,” the god of “Bore”, wants his “Meet-up” Puppets to accept Saul Green as a “reputable source” [12]:
——————————————————————
“Yes, I’m referring to Stanislaw Burzynski, the oncologist who has never done a residency in internal medicine or a fellowship in oncology…”
——————————————————————
But then “GorskGeek” conveniently “forgets” to point out Saul Green’s lack of qualifications:

(Green is not a medical doctor, he’s a retired biochemist)

1. Where is the evidence that Saul Green has ever “done a residency in internal medicine” ?

2. Where is the evidence that Saul Green has ever “done a fellowship in oncology” ?

3. GorskGeek, are you now, or have you ever been, a communist ?

4. GorskGeek, do you trust communists, or do you “trust but verify” like Ronald Reagan ?

5. GorskGeek, are you a hypocrite ?

20131209-234700.jpg
I am asking you to help me understand what happened at the FDA to allow “the man” to conduct criminal trials and almost bankrupt a patients’ doctor in the process despite years of alarming reviews by the Federal Congress

I also ask you to support an investigation into this betrayal of over 317 MILLION persons and to push for legislation to prevent the most desperate patients from such unthinkable exploitation: providing a massive chemotherapeutic agent injected through the carotid artery that goes to the brain, that harbors the tumor, which results in killing the tumor, but destroys a large part of the healthy brain as well, and the patients became severely handicapped, and a life that’s not worth living, because of the serious side effects [13]
——————————————————————
Was Prosecutor Amy LeCocq, Assistant United States Attorney Mike Clark, and Assistant U.S.Attorney George Tallichet, attempting to:

1. Lose this criminal case for the United States Gubment ?
or
2. Win this case for the United States Gubment ?
——————————————————————
Lawyering for Dummies
——————————————————————
1. Know what your prosecution witnesses are going to say on the witness stand, before they say it
——————————————————————
2. On the witness stand, all 3 insurance industry prosecution witnesses made statements that benefitted the defense (Burzynski)

a. 1/9/1997 – final witness of the day Ms. Peggy Oakes, employee of CNA Insurance company

b. insurance company employee

c. 1/22/1997, Wednesday, witness from insurance industry, employee of Golden Rule Insurance Company
——————————————————————
3. Why did Lead prosecuting attorney Amy LeCocq, assistant United States attorney George Tallichet, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Mike Clark, offer the “informed consent” forms into evidence, and allow Clark to tell the jury, the government’s most “damning” charge:

a. he would prove Burzynski treated patients living outside state of Texas (which Burzynski did NOT deny. Why should he ?)

b. Burzynskiknew they were living outside state of Texas (Burzynski’s patients, the media, other courts, always assumed was perfectly legal)

Perhaps because of this, Clark’s delivery was considered dull by many in the audience – “It would put you to sleep,” noted one observer
——————————————————————
4. By contrast, defense attorney John Ackerman (a Wyoming colleague of famed “country lawyer” Jerry Spence):

a. showed jury copy of attorney’s opinion informing Burzynski it would be legal for him to use new experimental drugs in state of Texas

b. read from 1987 Federal Circuit Court opinion which agreed Burzynski’s use of antineoplastons were in fact legal in Texas

c. Repeatedly, defense team turned tables on prosecutor: Over & over, they used introduction of Informed Consent statements to show clinic had in fact taken pains to inform patients that treatment was experimental in nature
——————————————————————
5. 1/9/1997government called 1st witness, US postal inspector Barbara Ritchey:

a. Ms. Ritchey testified she’d been assigned to investigate Burzynski in 1993 (for alleged “mail fraud”) & working on case full-time since 3/1995

b. Throughout 1st 2 weeks of trial, prosecutors repeatedly put up enlarged copies of informed consent forms all patients required to sign

c. Some showed out-of-state addresses

d. point was to impress jury with fact:

1) some patients lived outside of Texas

2) Burzynski knew this

e. approach provided opening for team of defense attorneys to have documents read out loud to jury

f. forms clearly informed patients antineoplastons were experimental in nature & had not been approved by FDA

g. forms were explicit there could be no guarantee antineoplastons would reduce or stabilize their cancers

h. Attorney Ramsey astutely pointed out that one crucial element of “fraud” is deceit

i. Without deceit, there can be no fraud, he said

j. “Isn’t that Informed Consent form the absolute, honest golden truth?

he asked

k. She had to admit it was, thereby undermining government’s main contention
——————————————————————
6. Ramsey had Ms. Ritchey read from 1987 5th Circuit decision which stated Burzynski could continue to prescribe antineoplastons in state of Texas:

a. Decision stated Judge Gabrielle McDonald retained authority to amend or modify her order

b. “In other words,”

boomed the Texas lawyer,

“the FDA had another remedy, didn’t it ?

“If it felt Dr. B. was violating order by treating out-of-state patients, it could have simply sought clarification, couldn’t it have?”

“Then we wouldn’t all have to sit here for 4 or 5 or 6 weeks of this trial”

Here too, Ritchey had to agree
——————————————————————
7. Mr. Ramsey continued cross examination of Ms. Ritchey:

a. She admitted what had previously been suspected, she & 6 other federal agents had known Burzynski would be out-of-town when they raided his clinic 3/24/1995

b. In dramatic moment, she admitted Informed Consent form was truthful, but took issue with the sentence,

1) “Dr. Burzynski may continue to prescribe antineoplastons in Texas”

She contended that legal decision’s actual language read

2) “Dr. Burzynski may continue to treat patients with antineoplastons in Texas”

“Isn’t that the same thing? “

asked Ramsey

“No,”

said Ritchey

“Sometimes, I go to the doctor & he treats me but he doesn’t prescribe”

Observers seemed non-plussed by this hair-splitting response
——————————————————————
United States postal inspector Barbara Ritchey must have thought she was dealing with people who weren’t as smart as a fifth-grader

She contended the legal decision’s:

1) “Dr. Burzynski may continue to prescribe antineoplastons in Texas”

MEANT:

2) “Dr. Burzynski may continue to treat patients with antineoplastons in Texas”

and likened it to:

“Sometimes, I go to the doctor & he treats me but he doesn’t prescribe”
——————————————————————
Perhaps United States postal inspector Barbara Ritchey and Dr. David H. (“Orac” a/k/a GorskGeek) both came from the same Wacky Tobacky Universe

United States postal inspector

does NOT mean:

United States District Court Judge

U.S. postal inspectors do NOT get to change the wording of a legal document signed by a U.S. Federal District Court Judge

At NO time was it indicated that postal inspector Barbara Ritchey was an “expert witness” in the proper usage of the English Language

You do NOT have to be smarter than a 5th-grader to know this
——————————————————————
According to Chronicle:

I think this was a government witch hunt,”

said juror Sharon Wray

“I don’t understand why they brought criminal action when they had a civil remedy”
——————————————————————
3/3/1997 “I couldn’t find any victims,”

Coan added (Houston Chronicle)
——————————————————————
Another juror, a 40-year-old engineer named Anthony Batiste, said he favored a guilty verdict

“I couldn’t go into my kitchen & make things”

“Why should somebody else be above the law?”
——————————————————————
If you’re a 40-year-old engineer, and you “couldn’t go into” your kitchen & make things, maybe you do NOT deserve to be called an “Engineer”

I hope you thought of a career change
——————————————————————
Strong sentiments, pro & con, were expressed by jurors on both sides

Jury foreman, John Coan, favored acquittal:

Quoted in New York Times:

“The fact that we didn’t make a unanimous decision one way or another does not mean we didn’t make a decision,”

Coan said

The decision is that he is neither guilty nor innocent doesn’t mean he doesn’t need to do work within his practice, & the FDA obviously needs to pursue things as well”
——————————————————————
Lead prosecuting attorney Amy LeCocq, assistant United States attorney George Tallichet, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Mike Clark, collectively reminded me of “The Three Stooges”
——————————————————————
9/8/1993Public Corruption Working Group Report – The Sentencing (Amy Lecocq) [29]

Well, at least it looks like Amy Lecocq got herself involved in something she might actually be knowledgeable about !
——————————————————————
Faced life in federal prison
Faced up to:

5 years in prison
$250,000 fine
on each of 34 counts of mail fraud

5 years
x
34
=
170 years

$250,000
x
34
=
$8,500,000 MILLION
——————————————————————
up to 3 years in prison

$250,000 fine
for each of 40 counts of violating the food, drug & cosmetic laws

3 years
x
40
=
120 years

$250,000
x
40
=
$10,000,000 MILLION
——————————————————————
TOTAL
——————————————————————
170 years (34 counts of mail fraud)
+
120 years (40 counts of violating the food, drug & cosmetic laws)
=
390 years
——————————————————————
$8,500,000 MILLION (34 counts of mail fraud)
+
$10,000,000 MILLION (40 counts of violating the food, drug & cosmetic laws)
=
$18,500,000 MILLION
——————————————————————
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – 12/7/2013 – How to Crank your Congressperson (according to “The Skeptics”: USA TODAY vs. Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/12/07/how-to-crank-your-congressperson-according-to-the-skeptics-usa-today-vs-dr-stanislaw-burzynski/
======================================
[2] – 2/4/1998Dr. Ralph MossGovernment Reform and Oversight Committee
——————————————————————
http://www.forhealthfreedom.org/Publications/Monopoly/Moss.html
——————————————————————
http://archive.is/gKNcL
======================================
[3]The FDA’s Vendetta Against Dr. Burzynski: By Dean Mouscher, Director, Clinical Trials, Burzynski Institute
——————————————————————
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/602961/replies?c=24
======================================
[4]Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (A nonprofit association dedicated to providing free legal assistance to journalists since 1970): Sources and Subpoenas (Reporter’s Privilege) | Reporters – From the First Amendment Handbook
——————————————————————
http://www.rcfp.org/digital-journalists-legal-guide/sources-and-subpoenas-reporters-privilege
======================================
[5] – 4-5/2008 – From AJR, April/May 2008, A Flurry of Subpoenas, By Kevin Rector
——————————————————————
http://ajrarchive.org/article.asp?id=4511
======================================
[6] – Mass Media Law | Chapter Overview, Protection of News Sources/Contempt Power, Chapter Overview, Constitutional Protection of News Sources:
——————————————————————
http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072492171/student_view0/chapter10/chapter_overview.html
======================================
[7] – 9/18/2013Online News Association
——————————————————————
http://journalists.org/2013/09/18/ona-working-to-ensure-federal-shield-law-truly-protects-journalists/
======================================
[8] – 9/24/2013 – Desks and Blogs » Paying attention to the shield law’s critics – Journalists shouldn’t blindly support the shield law without taking in the whole picture, Posted on Tuesday Sep 24th at 10:50am, By Eric Newton
——————————————————————
http://cjr.org/303546/show/e0254cdea27dd5aabd57553cc5190110/?
——————————————————————
http://m.cjr.org/303546/show/e0254cdea27dd5aabd57553cc5190110/?
======================================
[9] – 11/21/2013 – Critiquing: Eric Merola and Stanislaw Burzynski respond to the FDA findings and the USA TODAY story. Hilarity ensues:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/21/httpscienceblogs-cominsolence20131118eric-merola-and-stanislaw-burzynski-respond-to-the-fda-findings-and-the-usa-today-story-hilarity-ensues/
======================================
[10] – 6/4/2013Stanislaw Burzynski versus the BBC:
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/04/stanislaw-burzynski-versus-the-bbc/
======================================
[11] – 12/2002 – Interview with Dr. Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D. Biochemistry (12/2002):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/12/httpwww-cancerinform-orgaburzinterview-html/
======================================
[12] – 11/22/2013 – Is anyone attending the 4th Quadrennial Meeting of the Society of Neuro-Oncology in San Francisco right now?:
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/11/22/is-anyone-attending-the-4th-quadrennial-meeting-of-the-society-of-neuro-oncology-in-san-francisco-right-now/
======================================
[13] – 12/4/2013 – USA TODAY and “The Skeptics” selling false hope to cancer patients:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/12/04/usa-today-and-the-skeptics-selling-false-hope-to-cancer-patients/
======================================
[14] – 9/1986 and 1/1987 – THE DISEASE OF INFORMATION: AN INTERVIEW WITH STANISLAW BURZYNSKI (The following interview was conducted in Sept., 1986, and January, 1987, and was first published in the Townsend Letter for Doctors, June 1989 – Reprinted with permission from the author):
——————————————————————
http://www.encognitive.com/node/4174
======================================
[15] – 7/4/1996– Cameron Frye Has a Big Idea (Bob Burtman):
——————————————————————
http://www.houstonpress.com/1996-07-04/news/cameron-frye-has-a-big-idea/full/
======================================
[16] – 1996 – Cancer doctor disregarded warnings, prosecutor says (Lubbock Avalanche-Journal):
——————————————————————
http://lubbockonline.com/news/010997/cancer.htm
======================================
[17] – 2/22/1997 – Trial of Houston Doctor Linked to Unapproved Drugs Goes to Jury:
——————————————————————
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/22/us/trial-of-houston-doctor-linked-to-unapproved-drugs-goes-to-jury.html
======================================
[18] – 2/24/1997 – Houston cancer doctor’s trial resumes (The Victoria Advocate):
——————————————————————
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=861&dat=19970224&id=l08KAAAAIBAJ&sjid=3UoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3982,4466569
======================================
[19] – 3/4/1997 – Deadlocked jurors force mistrial in case of cancer doctor (By TERRI LANGFORD Associated Press Writer):
——————————————————————
http://www.texnews.com/texas97/mistrial030497.html
======================================
[20] – 5/27/1997 – Long legal squabble ends for Burzynski: Embattled cancer doctor acquitted (Lubbock Avalanche-Journal):
——————————————————————
http://lubbockonline.com/news/052897/long.htm
======================================
[21] – 5/28/1997 – Embattled cancer doctor acquitted of contempt charge (By JOAN THOMPSON / Associated Press Writer):
——————————————————————
http://www.texnews.com/texas97/doc052897.html
======================================
[22] – 6/1997Burzynski Acquitted Of Fraud Judge Declares Mistrial on Other
Prosecutor George Tallichet said that Burzynski had not conformed to the standards of the Food, Drug …
——————————————————————
http://m.lef.org/magazine/mag97/june-report97.htm
======================================
[23] – 7/7/1997 – Free Market Medicine:
——————————————————————
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/1895-free-market-medicine
======================================
[24] – 12/15/1997 – FDA vendetta against cancer doc:
——————————————————————
http://www.science-bbs.com/117-life-extension/9624d6ce44477915.htm
======================================
[25] – 1/1/2002 – Cancer Patient Thomas Navarro Dies at Age Six [medical freedom case]:
——————————————————————
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/602961/posts
======================================
[26] – Praktikos Institute
——————————————————————
http://www.praktikosinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Selections-from-FDA.pdf
======================================
[27] – Dr Stanislaw Burzynski — Antineoplaston Therapy — Articles:
——————————————————————
http://www.rexresearch.com/burzynski/burzynski.htm
======================================
[28]
——————————————————————
http://www.pdfio.com/k-2065004.html
======================================
[29] – 9/8/1993 – Public Corruption Working Group Report – The Sentencing (Amy Lecocq)
——————————————————————
http://www.src-project.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/ussc_report_publiccorruption_19930908.pdf
======================================

All’s fair in Drugs and War

======================================
GlaxoSmithKline
======================================
$3 BILLION
——————————————————————
7/2/2012
——————————————————————
(4/1998 – 8/2003)
——————————————————————
United States alleges GSK participated in
preparing
publishing
distributing

misleading medical journal article that misreported that clinical trial of drug demonstrated efficacy in treatment when study failed to demonstrate efficacy
——————————————————————
At same time, United States alleges, GSK didn’t make available data from 2 other studies in which drug also failed to demonstrate efficacy
——————————————————————
(2001 – 2007)
——————————————————————
United States alleges GSK failed to include certain safety data about drug in reports to FDA meant to allow FDA to determine if drug continues to be safe for approved indications and to spot drug safety trends
——————————————————————
missing information included data regarding certain post-marketing studies
——————————————————————
data regarding 2 studies undertaken in response to European regulators’ concerns about safety of drug
——————————————————————
United States alleges GSK stated drug had positive cholesterol profile despite having no well-controlled studies to support that message
======================================

======================================
Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and subsidiaries, Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Scios Inc.
Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, L.P.
======================================
$2.2 BILLION +
——————————————————————
11/4/2013, Monday
——————————————————————
Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and Janssen
——————————————————————
complaint alleges J&J and Janssen were aware drug posed serious health risks, but companies downplayed these risks
——————————————————————
For example, when J&J study of drug showed significant risk of strokes and other adverse events in patients, complaint alleges Janssen combined study data with other studies to make it appear there was lower overall risk of adverse events
——————————————————————
year after J&J received results of 2nd study confirming increased safety risk for patients taking drug, but hadn’t published data, one physician who worked on study cautioned Janssen
——————————————————————
“[a]t this point, so long after [the study] has been completedwe must be concerned that this gives the strong appearance that Janssen is purposely withholding the findings.”
——————————————————————
complaint alleges Janssen knew patients taking drug had increased risk, but nonetheless promoted drug as “uncompromised by safety concerns
——————————————————————
When Janssen received initial results of studies indicating drug posed same risk as other antipsychotics, complaint alleges company retained outside consultants to re-analyze study results and ultimately published articles stating drug was actually associated with lower risk
——————————————————————
J&J and another of its subsidiaries, Scios Inc.
——————————————————————
8/2001 – FDA approved drug to treat patients with acutely decompensated congestive heart failure who have shortness of breath at rest or with minimal activity
——————————————————————
approval based on study involving hospitalized patients experiencing severe heart failure who received infusions of drug over average 36-hour period
——————————————————————
complaint alleged Scios had no sound scientific evidence supporting medical necessity of outpatient infusions and misleadingly used small pilot study to encourage serial outpatient use of drug
======================================

======================================
Abbott Laboratories Inc.
======================================
$1.5 BILLION
——————————————————————
5/7/2012, Monday
——————————————————————
(2001 – 2006)
——————————————————————
company marketed drug in combination with atypical antipsychotic drugs even after its clinical trials failed to demonstrate adding drug was any more effective than atypical antipsychotic alone for that use
——————————————————————
1999 – forced to discontinue clinical trial of drug due to increased incidence of adverse events, including
somnolence
dehydration
anorexia
experienced by study participants administered drug
——————————————————————
funded 2 studies of use of drug
both failed to meet main goals established for the study
——————————————————————
When 2nd study failed to show statistically significant treatment difference between antipsychotic drugs used in combination with drug and antipsychotic drugs alone, waited nearly 2 years to notify sales force about study results and another 2 years to publish results
======================================

======================================
AstraZeneca LP / AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP
======================================
$520 MILLION
——————————————————————
4/27/2010, Tuesday
——————————————————————
engaged doctors to conduct studies on unapproved uses of drug
——————————————————————
recruited doctors to serve as authors of articles that were ghostwritten by medical literature companies and about studies doctors in question didn’t conduct
——————————————————————
then used
studies
articles

as basis for promotional messages about unapproved uses of drug
======================================
REFERENCE:
======================================
11/26/2013 – United States Department of Justice (DOJ) versus BIG Pharma: BIG Pharma fought the law, and the law won ?:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/26/united-states-department-of-justice-versus-big-pharma-big-pharma-fought-the-law-and-the-law-won/
======================================

Count de Money: What Are the Costs of Cancer ? (American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures 2002-2013)

======================================
What Are the Costs of Cancer?
——————————————————————
National Institutes of Health (NIH) estimates:
——————————————————————
overall costs of cancer:
——————————————————————
2010 – $263.8 billion (2011)
2010☝$263.8 billion (2010)

2008👇$201.5 billion (2013)
2008☝$228.1 billion (2009)
2007☝$226.8 billion (2012)
2007☝$219.2 billion (2008)

2006👇$206.3 billion (2007)
2005☝$209.9 billion (2006)
2004☝$189.8 billion (2005)
2003☝$189.5 billion (2004)
2002☝$171.6 billion (2003)
2001☝$156.7 billion (2002)

——————————————————————
direct medical costs
(total of all health expenditures)
——————————————————————
2010 – $102.8 billion (2011)
2010☝$102.8 billion (2010)

2008👇$77.4 billion (2013)
2008👇$93.2 billion (2009)
2007☝$103.8 billion (2012)
2007☝$89.0 billion (2008)
2006☝$78.2 billion (2007)
2005☝$74.0 billion (2006)
2004☝$69.4 billion (2005)
2003☝$64.2 billion (2004)
2002☝$60.9 billion (2003)
2001☝$56.4 billion (2002)

——————————————————————
2008-2011 – indirect morbidity costs
(cost of lost productivity due to illness)
——————————————————————
2010 – $20.9 billion (2011)
2010☝$20.9 billion (2010)
2008☝$18.8 billion (2009)
2007☝$18.2 billion (2008)
2006☝$17.9 billion (2007)
2005☝$17.5 billion (2006)
2004☝$16.9 billion (2005)
2003☝$16.3 billion (2004)

2002👇$15.5 billion (2003)
2001☝$15.6 billion (2002)
——————————————————————
indirect mortality costs
(cost of lost productivity due to premature death)
——————————————————————
2010 – $140.1 billion (2011)
2010☝$140.1 billion (2010)
2008☝$124.0 billion (2013)

2008👇$116.1 billion (2009)
2007☝$123.0 billion (2012)
2007☝$112.0 billion (2008)

2006👇$110.2 billion (2007)
2005☝$118.4 billion (2006)
2004👇$103.5 billion (2005)
2003☝$109 billion (2004)
2002☝$95.2 billion (2003)
2001☝$84.7 billion (2002)

——————————————————————
According to US Census Bureau:
——————————————————————
Americans uninsured
2012-2013 had no health insurance coverage
——————————————————————
2010👇approximately 50 million (2013)
2009 – almost 51 million (2012)
2009☝almost 51 million (2011)
2008☝46 million (2010)
——————————————————————
2008 – approximately 28% aged 18 to 34 years (2010)
——————————————————————
2010👇almost one-third of Hispanics (31%) (2013)
2009 – almost one-third of Hispanics (32%) (2012)
2009☝almost one­-third of Hispanics (32%) (2011)
——————————————————————
2011-2012 (17 years of age and younger)
2010-2012had no health insurance coverage
——————————————————————
2010 – one in 10 children (2013)
2009 – one in 10 children (2012)
2009 – one in 10 children (2011)
2008 – 10% of children (2010)
——————————————————————
2012-2013 PLEASE NOTE:

These numbers are not comparable to those published in previous years as of 2011, NIH calculating estimates using different data source:

2012 – NIH is using a different data source:

2012-2013 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

2012-2013 MEPS estimates based on more current, nationally representative data used extensively in scientific publications

2012-2013 direct and indirect costs will no longer be projected to current year, estimates of indirect morbidity costs discontinued

2012-2013 For more information, please visit nhlbi.nih.gov/about/factpdf.htm.
——————————————————————
Lack of health insurance and other barriers prevents many Americans from receiving optimal health care
——————————————————————
2008 – early release estimates from National Health Interview Survey (2009)
2006 – early release estimates from the National Health Interview Survey (2008)
2004National Health Interview Survey data (2007)
2003National Health Interview Survey data (2006)
——————————————————————
2008 – about 24% aged 18 to 64 years (2009)
2006☝about 24% aged 18-64 (2008)
2004 – about 17% younger than age 65 had no health insurance coverage (2007)
2003☝about 17% younger than age 65 have no health insurance coverage (2006)
——————————————————————
2004 – 27% 65 and older had Medicare coverage only (2007)
2003☝24% 65 and older have Medicare coverage only (2006)
——————————————————————
2008 – 13% of children had no health insurance coverage for at least part of past year (2009)
2006☝13% of children had no health insurance coverage for at least part of past year (2008)
——————————————————————
2008 – More than 36% of adults who lack high school diploma were uninsured in past year (2009)
2006☝Almost 34% of adults who lack high school diploma were uninsured in past year (2008)
——————————————————————
2008 – 23% of high school graduates (2009)
2006☝23% of high school graduates (2008)
——————————————————————
2008👇14% of those with more than high school education (2009)
2006 – 15% of those with more than high school education (2008)
——————————————————————
2008 – Lack of health insurance is not only a concern of unemployed; almost one-quarter of employed individuals (aged 18 to 64 years) were uninsured sometime during past year (2009)
——————————————————————
2004 – Persons in lowest income group 10 times as likely as persons in highest income group not to receive needed medical care because of cost (2007)
——————————————————————
2004 – Almost 16 million citizens (6%) were unable to obtain needed medical care due to cost (2007)
——————————————————————
2003 – In survey, nearly 20% aged 18-44 years reported not having usual place to go for medical care (2006)
——————————————————————
2010-2013 – Uninsured patients and ethnic minorities substantially more likely to be diagnosed with cancer at later stage, when treatment can be more extensive and more costly
——————————————————————
2012-2013 – For more information on relationship between health insurance and cancer, see Cancer Facts & Figures 2008, Special Section, available online at cancer.org/statistics.
2010 – cancer.org.
2009 – (5008.08), Special Section, available online at cancer.org.
2008 – see special section page 22

20131122-005657.jpg

20131122-005720.jpg

20131122-005738.jpg

20131122-005752.jpg
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
2013:
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurveilance/documents/document/acspc-036845.pdf
======================================
2012:
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurveilance/documents/document/acspc-031941.pdf
======================================
2011:
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurveilance/documents/document/acspc-029771.pdf
======================================
2010:
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@nho/documents/document/acspc-024113.pdf
======================================
2009:
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@nho/documents/document/500809webpdf.pdf
======================================
2008:
——————————————————————
http://www.oralcancerfoundation.org/facts/pdf/worldcancer.pdf
=====================================
2007:
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@nho/documents/document/caff2007pwsecuredpdf.pdf
======================================
2006:
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@nho/documents/document/caff2006pwsecuredpdf.pdf
======================================
2005:
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@nho/documents/document/caff2005f4pwsecuredpdf.pdf
======================================
2004:
——————————————————————
http://www.pink-ribbon-pins.com/CancerRates2004.pdf
======================================
2003:
——————————————————————
http://www.whyquit.com/studies/2003_ACS_Cancer_Facts.pdf
======================================
2002:
——————————————————————
http://www.uhmsi.com/docs/CancerFacts&Figures2002.pdf
======================================

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘OK, is the diagnosis even correct?‘ ”

Buckner said”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A: “Mhmm”

Q: but they’re still accepting people ?

A: “Yeah”

Q: on more like a special ?

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

A: “(compassion exception)”

A: “Uh, exceptions

Q: That’s normal ?

A: “Yes”
“So”

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

Q: Right

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

20131116-164617.jpg

20131021-200529.jpg

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

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

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

My questions about the Merritt’s are:

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

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

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

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

PATIENTS WITH REFRACTORY MALIGNANCIES

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

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

Yeah

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

Mmm

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

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

“That’s completely unacceptable”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, USA TODAY, for censoring my 18 comments

I guess you must be (“intellectual”) cowards

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

20131116-084820.jpg

20131116-085357.jpg

20131116-084833.jpg

20131116-084847.jpg

20131116-084909.jpg

20131116-084924.jpg

20131116-084937.jpg

20131116-085152.jpg

20131116-085218.jpg

20131116-085311.jpg

20131116-085436.jpg

20131116-085528.jpg

20131116-085550.jpg

20131116-085608.jpg

20131116-085629.jpg

20131116-084804.jpg

20131116-084745.jpg
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – 11/15/2013 – USA TODAY NEWS, NATION
Doctor accused of selling false hope to families
Liz Szabo, USA TODAY
——————————————————————
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/15/stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-controversy/2994561/
======================================
[2] – Mayo Clinic – 1999 – report: Lisa Merritt
——————————————————————
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/816819-mayo-clinic-1999-report.html
======================================
[3] – 2012 – former Burzynski web-site screenshots, Pg 3 of 62;
——————————————————————
http://www.circare.org/info/bri/burzynski_fdauntitled_promo_2012.pdf
======================================
[4] – 4/26/2013 – Burzynski: FDA requirements that cancer patients utilize more traditional cancer treatment options in order to be eligible to participate in the Company’s Antineoplaston CLINICAL TRIALS:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/burzynski-fda-requirements-that-cancer-patients-utilize-more-traditional-cancer-treatment-options-in-order-to-be-eligible-to-participate-in-the-companys-antineoplaston-clinical-trials/
======================================
[5] – 11/14/2013 – Critiquing: Why we fight for patients (Why we fight your patience) TAM 2013, TAM2013, “The Amazing Meeting” 2013 #TAM2013 http://www.theamazingmeeting.com
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/14/tam-2013-tam2013-tam2013-the-amazing-meeting-2013-the-amazing-meeting-httptheamazingmeeting-com-httpwww-theamazingmeeting-com/
======================================
[6] – Phenomenon – Brain Tumour Foundation of Canada
——————————————————————
http://www.braintumour.ca/1649/ask-the-expert-psuedo-progression-gbm
======================================
[7] – Pseudoprogression following chemoradiotherapy for glioblastoma multiforme
Can J Neurol Sci. 2010 Jan;37(1):36-42
——————————————————————
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20169771/
======================================
[8] – 9/19/2013 – Critiquing: National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) CancerNet “fact sheet” :
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/critiquing-national-cancer-institute-nci-at-the-national-institutes-of-health-nih-cancernet/
======================================
[9] – FDA Orphan Drug Designation
——————————————————————
http://www.burzynskiresearch.com/assets/PressRelease_12022008_BZYR(2).pdf
======================================
[10] – 11/7/2013Pete Cohen chats with Sonali Patil, Ph.D., Research Scientist at The Burzynski Clinic:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/07/pete-cohen-chats-with-sonali-patil-ph-d-research-scientist-at-the-burzynski-clinic/
======================================
[11] – 7/9/2013 – Burzynski: The Original 72 Phase II Clinical Trials:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/09/burzynski-the-original-72-phase-ii-clinical-trials/
======================================
[12] – 8/21/2013 – Critiquing David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/critiquing-david-h-gorski-md-phd-facs-www-sciencebasedmedicine-orgeditorial-staffdavid-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
======================================
[13] – 2003 – pg. 94
——————————————————————
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/960.pdf
======================================
[14] – 3/1982 – Biometrics 1982; 38: 143-51
——————————————————————
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7082756/
======================================
[15] – 11/9/2013Pete Cohen chats with Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski – Interview #2:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/09/pete-cohen-chats-with-dr-stanislaw-burzynski-interwiew-2/
======================================
[16] – AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY: More Interested In Accumulating Wealth Than Saving Lives
——————————————————————
http://www.wnho.net/acs.pdf
======================================
[17] – 9/11/2013 – National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society: Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/national-cancer-institute-and-american-cancer-society-criminal-indifference-to-cancer-prevention-and-conflicts-of-interest/
—————————————————————
[18] – 11/13/2013 – The War on Cancer (I don’t think it means, what you think it says it means) #Winning?
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/httpcancer-orgacsgroupscontentepidemiologysurveilancedocumentsdocumentacspc-036845-pdf/
======================================
[19] – 4/24/2013 – Burzynski: HYPERNATREMIA:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/burzynski-hypernatremia/
======================================
[20] – 9/1999 – Pediatrics. 1999 Sep;104(3 Pt 1):435-9
——————————————————————
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10469766/
======================================

20131116-002912.jpg