How to Crank your Congressperson (according to “The Skeptics”: USA TODAY vs. Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski)

Let’s say you’re one of “The Skeptics,” (“The Burzynski Skeptics,”) don’t have a life (but doesn’t that go without saying ?), enjoy associating yourself with known liars, cowards, ethically and intellectually challenged individuals, so you grab a newspaper (It’s doubtful that USA TODAY would qualify), and if you do NOT know what a “Newsie” is, go online and select an article which has a plethora of innuendo and allegations, compose a missive to your member in Congress assembled about the nothingness you just reviewed, just don’t piss yourself silly when you shoot that zinger off, because you’ve just sent something to your Congressperson, exhibiting what a whacky weed tobacco day tripper you are, and a prime example of what “Rocky Mountain High” really will mean, starting January 1st, 2014

Congratulations, Colorado

My only suggestion is that you add something like:

“Dear Congressperson Y,

I know your time is valuable, but please allow me to waste some of you and your staff’s, as well as provide you with “fodder” you can hang up on the bathroom wall and laugh about for days!

In the next weeks I will be contacting you about all of the “conspiracy theories” in Jesse Ventura’s book, including; but not limited to:

Area 51
Aliens
The Denver International Airport
…

Smoke ’em if ya got ’em !
======================================

Letter to Congress

Dear CONGRESSPERSON’S NAME:

My name is _______ 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, I 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 prices

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

Additionally, since I last contacted your office, the FDA has released site inspection notes into the electronic FOIA reading room 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, therapeutic response […] for 67% of study subjects reviewed during the inspection.”

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

This means that his outcomes figures for these studies are inaccurate

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

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

The FDA told Burzynski:

“You failed to protect the rights, safety, and welfare of subjects under your care

Forty-eight (48) subjects experienced 102 investigational overdoses between January 1, 2005 and February 22, 2013, according to the [trial number redacted] List of Hospitalizations/SAE (serious adverse events) [redacted] Overdose [redacted]/Catheter Infection report

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 family members to administer the drugs via programmable pump on their own

Further, patient records show that there were many more overdoses that were not included in the Hospitalization/SAE/Overdose list

The FDA reported:

“Your […] tumor 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 antineoplaston treatment

This means that Burzynski’s studies–which by last account cost $30,000 to begin and $7000 a month to maintain–are unpublishable

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

Patients who had Grade 3 or 4 toxic effects were supposed to be removed from treatment

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

Another patient had 7 disqualifying toxic events before he was removed from the study

Burzynski did not report all adverse events as required by his study protocols

One patient had 12 events of hypernatremia (high sodium), none of which was reported

There are several similar patients

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

For instance one patient had an adverse event in 1998 and the oversight board did not hear about it until 2005.)

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

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

The clinic was unable to account for its stock of the investigational drug, an act that would get any other research lab shut down

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

Despite these findings, when interviewed by USA Today, Burzynski actually said of his former cancer patients:

“As for criticism from former patients, Burzynski says, ‘We see patients from various walks of life

We see great people

We see crooks

We have prostitutes

We have thieves

We have mafia bosses

We have Secret Service agents

Many people are coming to us, OK?

Not all of them are the greatest people in the world

And many of them would like to get money from us

They pretend they got sick and they would like to extort money from us.’”

I am asking you to help me understand what happened at the FDA to allow this man to conduct clinical trials and bankrupt patients in the process despite 10 years of alarming reviews by the FDA

I also ask you to support an investigation into this betrayal of over 8,000 patients and to push for legislation to prevent the most desperate patients from such unthinkable exploitation

I will be calling your office next week to touch base with you and I look forward to your response

Sincerely,
======================================
REFERENCE:
======================================
Letter to Congress:
——————————————————————
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hx3KJ6mmCd8MTdlbdXb2r2qrN9l3JjrzdJrHh0VIJXo/mobilebasic?pli=1
======================================
Burzynski: court cases
—————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/burzynski-court-cases/
—————————————————————
Main Page – Stanislawrajmundburzynski
——————————————————————
http://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wiki-site.com/index.php/Main_Page
======================================

Advertisement

USA TODAY and “The Skeptics” selling false hope to cancer patients

——————————————————————
Irrespective Insolence
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
Hill ?

Sharon Hill ??

Does anyone know SHARON HILL ???
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
no ?

NoNo ??

NO NEVER MATTER
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
NOT HARDLY !

If it’s “Doubtful News”, that’s a “Hint and a Half” that it’s “Doubtful” it’s “News” [1]

In fact, I first received confirmation that what flows down-Hill was definitely, NO doubtfully, NOT news, when she displayed her “propensity” for “density” on #Forbes [2]
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
“Orac”, “The Skeptics™” Dope-on-a-Rope Pope. claimed:

4/19/2013 – “also obsessively read anything posted about Eric Merola or Stanislaw Burzynski on any social media.”
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
5/7/2013 – “If “Orac” was anywhere close to being 75% sure, I would have already reviewed “Doubtful News,” which received “free pub” on Forbes
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
“The Skeptics™” must have got into Liz Szabo’s ear, since she subsequently short-sheeted herself by being unable to answer her own question
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
Maybe Szabo shoulda asked the F.D.A. !!
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
All that Jerry Mosemak (@jmosemak), Connie Mosemak, and Mosemak Creative (@mosemakcreative) wanted to know was what Twitter thought of their Twerk
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
Bob Blaskiewicz, fresh off the AstroTurf campaign with “Orac’s” orifice, seemed ready to really be headed, right in to rectify on Liz’s
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
Liz, do you really want this anywhere around your backside ?
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
Bob-B obviously confused Liz Szabo with being a “journalist“, when she is a “reporter“

Ms. Szabo, is obviously NOT a “journalist”
——————————————————————
Liz Szabo (USA TODAY) – health reporter, medical reporter covering cancer, heart disease, pediatrics, public health, women’s health, kids/parenting, …
——————————————————————
The question is, how did a “reporter” like Liz Szabo, manage to get her name as the reporter “headlining” “The Skeptics™” “report,” instead of Robert Hanashiro ?

Hanashiro had under his belt:
——————————————————————
8/3/2011 – Urine test may help predict prostate cancer risk [4]
——————————————————————
The best Szabo could cite as support was:
——————————————————————
3/19/2008 – “Prostate cancer treatments’ sexual, urinary side effects compared” [5]
——————————————————————
Exactly how did Liz Szabo “win” that “pissing contest” ?

Even a monkey can report the news:

10/18/2013 – Monkeys ‘talk in turns’ [6]

If @LizSzabo wanted to do a REAL article on “selling false hope to cancer patients”, then USA TODAY should have done an “investigation” on something like THIS:
======================================
8/25/2010, Wednesday [7]
——————————————————————
Canadian Man Sentenced to 33 Months (2 years 9 months) in Prison for Selling Counterfeit Cancer Drugs Using the Internet

Hazim Gaber, 22, of Edmonton, Alberta, Canada sentenced in Phoenix, Arizona by U.S. District Court Judge James A. Teilborg

Ordered to pay $128,724 ($75,000 fine $53,724 in restitution)

Serve 3 years of supervised release following prison term for selling counterfeit cancer drugs using Internet
——————————————————————
6/30/2009 – indicted by federal grand jury in Phoenix, Arizona: 5 counts of wire fraud for selling counterfeit cancer drugs through website DCAdvice.com
——————————————————————
7/25/2009 – arrested Frankfurt, Germany
——————————————————————
12/18/2009 – extradited to United States
——————————————————————
5/2010 – plea hearing: admitted selling what he falsely claimed was experimental cancer drug sodium dichloroacetate, also known as DCA, to at least 65 victims (.10/2007 – 11/2007) in:
1. United States
2. Canada
3. United Kingdom
4. Belgium
5. the Netherlands

According to plea agreement, charged:
$23.68 for 10 grams of purported DCA
$45.52 for 20 grams
or
$110.27 for 100 grams
plus shipping

Admitted sent victims white powdery substance later determined through laboratory tests to contain:
1. dextrin
2. dextrose
3. lactose
4. starch
Contained no DCA

According to court documents, along with counterfeit DCA, packages also contained fraudulent certificate of analysis from fictitious laboratory and instructions on how dilute and ingest bogus DCA

DCA is experimental cancer drug not yet approved by U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in United States

According to plea agreement knew that website DCAdvice.com contained false claims it was only legal supplier of DCA and falsely claimed it was associated with University of Alberta

According to information contained in plea agreement, DCA is odorless, colorless, inexpensive, relatively non-toxic experimental cancer drug highly sought by cancer patients

Doctor at University of Alberta in Canada published report in early 2007 summarizing results of study, which showed DCA caused regression in several cancers, including:
1. breast cancer
2. cancerous brain tumors
3. lung cancer

According to information contained in plea agreement, DCA cannot be prescribed by medical doctor in:
1. United States
or
2. Canada
since:
1. it is not approved for use in patients with cancer
2. nor is DCA available in pharmacies

As part of plea agreement, agreed to:
1. forfeit
or
2. cancel
any:
1. website
2. domain name
3. Internet services account
related to fraud scheme

“Hazim Gaber went from selling false hope to cancer patients to now spending 33 months in a U.S. prison,”

said Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of Criminal Division

“Criminals often seek to exploit the most vulnerable of victims – but offering fake, unapproved medication to cancer patients reaches a new low”

“Today’s sentence shows that cyber criminals who prey on the seriously ill cannot elude justice simply by committing crimes outside of our borders.”

“Gaber used the Internet to victimize people already suffering from the effects of cancer,”

said Dennis K. Burke, U.S. Attorney for District of Arizona

“Now he will go to prison for this bogus business and heartless fraud.”

“The FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office are committed to pursuing individuals who prey on those who are living with the affects of cancer,”

said Nathan Gray, Special Agent in Charge of FBI Phoenix Division

“Today’s sentencing illustrates international law enforcement partners working together to send a message not to use the Internet to perpetuate fraud, especially against those afflicted with a serious medical condition.”

Sentencing part of larger department-wide effort led by Department of Justice Task Force on Intellectual Property (IP Task Force)

Attorney General Eric Holder created IP Task Force to combat growing number of:
1. domestic
2. international
3. intellectual property crimes
protect:
1. health
2. safety
of American consumers
safeguard nation’s economic security against those who seek to profit illegally from American creativity, innovation and hard work

IP Task Force seeks to strengthen intellectual property rights protection through heightened:
1. civil enforcement
2. criminal enforcement
greater coordination among:
1. federal
2. state
3. local
law enforcement partners
increased focus on international enforcement efforts, including reinforcing relationships with key:
1. foreign partners
2. U.S. industry leaders

To learn more about IP Task Force, go to http://www.justice.gov/dag/iptaskforce/

Announced:
1. Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of Criminal Division
2. U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke for District of Arizona
3. FBI Special Agent in Charge of Phoenix Field Office Nathan T. Gray

Case prosecuted by:
1. Trial Attorney Thomas S. Dougherty of Criminal Division’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section
2. Assistant U.S. Attorney Peter Sexton of U.S. Attorney’s Office for District of Arizona

Significant assistance provided by:
1. Alberta Justice Office of Special Prosecutions-Edmonton
2. Alberta Partnership Against Cross Border Fraud
3. Competition Bureau of Canada
4. Edmonton Police Service
5. Federal Trade Commission
6. U.S. Postal Inspection Service

Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs provided assistance in case

Case investigated by Phoenix FBI Cyber Squad
10-958 Criminal Division
======================================
7/30/2013 – United States to Settle Cancer Research Grant Fraud [8]
——————————————————————
Northwestern University to Pay Nearly $3 Million to United States to Settle Cancer Research Grant Fraud Claims

$2.93 million – Northwestern University will pay United States to settle claims of cancer research grant fraud by former researcher and physician at university’s Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Center for Cancer in Chicago

Agreed to settlement in federal False Claims Act lawsuit after government investigated claims made by former employee and whistleblower who will receive portion of settlement

Alledgedly allowed researcher, Dr. Charles L. Bennett, to submit false claims under research grants from National Institutes of Health

Settlement covers improper claims Dr. Bennett submitted for reimbursement from federal grants (1/1/2003 – 8/31/2010) for:
1. food
2. hotels
3. travel
4. other expenses
5. professional and consulting services
6. subcontracts
that benefited:
1. Dr. Bennett
2. family
3. friends

Allegations made in civil lawsuit filed under seal 2009 by Melissa Theis, (2007 and 2008) worked as purchasing coordinator in hematology and oncology at Northwestern’s Feinberg School of Medicine, will receive $498,100 in settlement proceeds

Suit named defendants:
1. Dr. Bennett
2. Dr. Steven T. Rosen
3. Lurie Cancer Center
4. Northwestern

Alleged defendants submitted false claims to United States when:
1. Dr. Bennett
2. Dr. Rosen
directed and authorized spending of grant funds on goods and services that did not meet applicable NIH and government grant guidelines

Government contends has certain civil claims against Northwestern arising out of Northwestern’s improper submission of claims to NIH for grant expenditures for items that were for personal benefit of:
1. Dr. Bennett
2. family
3. friends
incurred in connection with grants as to which he was principal investigator

Northwestern, fully cooperated during investigation, did not admit liability as part of settlement

Agreement releases university and all its affiliates and employees, other than Dr. Bennett, from claims made in whistleblower lawsuit

Northwestern agreed to pay settlement within 14 business days

Agreement covers allegations university submitted false claims to NIH for costs Dr. Bennett incurred on grant-funded research projects involving:
1. adverse drug-events
2. blood disorder known as thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura
3. multiple myeloma drugs
4. quality of care for cancer patients

Dr. Bennett allegedly billed federal grants for:
1. family trips
2. meals
3. hotels
for
1. himself
2. friends
and “consulting fees” for unqualified:
1. friends
2. family members
including:
1. brother
2. cousin

At Dr. Bennett’s request, Northwestern allegedly improperly subcontracted with various universities for services that were paid for by NIH grants

Allegations investigated by:
1. Federal Bureau of Investigation
2. National Institutes of Health
3. U.S. Attorney’s Office
4. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General

“Allowing researchers to use federal grant money to pay for personal travel, hotels, and meals, and to hire unqualified friends and relatives as ‘consultants’ violates the public’s trust,”

said Gary S. Shapiro, United States Attorney for Northern District of Illinois

“This settlement, combined with the willingness of insiders to report fraud, should help deter such misconduct, but when it doesn’t, federal grant recipients who allow the system to be manipulated should know that we will aggressively pursue all available legal remedies,”

he added

“The mismanagement or improper expenditure of grant funds is unacceptable and will not be tolerated,”

said Lamont Pugh III, Special Agent-in-Charge of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General – Chicago Region

“The OIG will continue to diligently investigate allegations of this nature to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being properly utilized.”

Cory B. Nelson, Special Agent-in-Charge of Chicago Office of Federal Bureau of Investigation said:

“The FBI takes allegations of fraud seriously, especially those allegations from insiders who are often in the best position to detect wrongdoing long before it would otherwise come to the attention of law enforcement.”

United States represented by:
Assistant U.S. Attorney Kurt N. Lindland

Under federal False Claims Act, defendants may be liable for triple amount of actual damages and civil penalties between $5,500 and $11,000 for each violation

Individual whistleblowers may be eligible to receive between 15 and 30 percent of amount of any recovery
======================================
Show EmorME the Money ! [9]
——————————————————————
8/28/2013, Wednesday

$1.5 Million – Emory University False Claims Act Investigation

University Overbilled Medicare and Medicaid for Patients Enrolled in Clinical Trial Research at Emory’s Winship Cancer Institute

Settlement with Emory University

$1.5 million – agreed to pay to settle claims it violated False Claims Act by billing:
1. Medicaid
2. Medicare
for clinical trial services not permitted by:
1. Medicaid rules
2. Medicare rules

Providers generally not permitted to bill Medicare for medical care and services for which clinical trial sponsor agreed to pay

1. United States
2. State of Georgia
alleged Emory University billed:
1. Medicaid
2. Medicare
for services clinical trial sponsor agreed to pay

(and, in some cases, actually did pay, thereby resulting in Emory’s being paid twice for the same service)

Investigation of Emory University revealed institution’s clinical trial false billing and led to settlement

Civil settlement resolves lawsuit filed by Elizabeth Elliot under qui tam, whistleblower, provisions of False Claims Act

Ms. Elliot will receive share of settlement payment that resolves qui tam suit

United States Attorney’s Office for Northern District of Georgia
Attorney General Sam Olens announced reached settlement

“This settlement demonstrates our office’s continued commitment to protect crucial Medicare and Medicaid dollars,”

said United States Attorney Sally Quillian Yates

“Treatment of cancer is expensive, and Medicare and Medicaid dollars should be reserved for patients who need services that properly may be billed to these programs.”

“Our investigation of Emory University revealed the institution’s clinical trial false billing and led to today’s settlement,”

said Derrick L. Jackson, Special Agent in Charge of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General for Atlanta region

“Protecting Medicare — and taxpayer dollars — remains a top priority.”

Mark F. Giuliano, Special Agent in Charge, FBI Atlanta Field Office, stated:

“Federal funds, to include those of Medicare and Medicaid, are limited and are to be used as intended”

“The FBI will continue to play a role in enforcing federal law that governs the use of these much needed funds.”

Attorney General Sam Olens stated,

“Cancer research is paramount to saving and extending lives”

“However, strict rules govern the use of Georgia Medicaid dollars”

“My office takes seriously its obligation to ensure that these resources are used properly.”

Case investigated by:
1. Federal Bureau of Investigation
2. Georgia Medicaid Fraud Control Unit
3. United States Attorney’s Office for Northern District of Georgia
4. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Office of Inspector General

Civil settlement reached by Assistant United States Attorney Darcy F. Coty

For further information please contact U.S. Attorney’s Public Affairs Office at USAGAN.PressEmails@usdoj.gov

Internet address for HomePage for U.S. Attorney’s Office for Northern District of Georgia
http://www.justice.gov/usao/gan.
Emory Settlement Agreement
======================================
5/24/1993 – Court Testimony Of Nicholas Patronas, MD:
——————————————————————
Pg. 122
——————————————————————
“We have done– we have an experimental protocol at the NIH where we inject a chemotherapeutic agent through the carotid artery, the artery that goes to the brain, and we have three survivals with this technique, by providing massive amounts of chemotherapeutic drugs to the brain that harbors the tumor“

“And we destroy the tumor, but we destroy a large part of the brain as well, and the patients became severely handicapped, and a life that’s not worth living“
——————————————————————
Pg. 123
——————————————————————
“And so I have three cases with this particular experimental protocol which resulted in killing the tumor, but a large part of the healthy brain as well“

“So overall the protocol was abandoned and is not any more in effect because of the serious side effects that we witnessed”
——————————————————————
Nicholas J. Patronas
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
http://www.cc.nih.gov/drd/staff/nicholas_patronas.html
——————————————————————
Sharon Hill, you’re just a footnote to this article, because all you did was “cut-and-paste”, and try to pass off David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., FACS and Bob Blaskiewicz as “reliable sources”

You’ve gotta be kidding me !!!
——————————————————————
P.S. A fifth-grader can “cut-and-paste”

Are you smarter than a 5th-grader ?
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – 11/15/2013 – Burzynski exposed in USA Today:
——————————————————————
http://doubtfulnews.com/2013/11/burzynski-exposed-in-usa-today/
======================================
[2] – 5/6/2013 – Critiquing “The Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics (page 10):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/06/critiquing-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics-page-10/
======================================
[3] – 5/7/2013 – Critiquing: Is Eric Merola issuing bogus DMCA takedown notices against critics of Stanislaw Burzynski?:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/critiquing-is-eric-merola-issuing-bogus-dmca-takedown-notices-against-critics-of-stanislaw-burzynski/
======================================
[4] – 8/3/2011 – Urine test may help predict prostate cancer risk:
——————————————————————
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/medical/health/medical/cancer/story/2011/08/Urine-test-may-help-predict-prostate-cancer-risk/49790014/1?fullsite=true
——————————————————————
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/medical/health/medical/cancer/story/2011/08/Urine-test-may-help-predict-prostate-cancer-risk/49790014/1
======================================
[5] – 3/19/2008 – “Prostate cancer treatments’ sexual, urinary side effects compared”:
——————————————————————
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-03-19-prostate-cancer_N.htm
======================================
[6] – 10/18/2013 – Monkeys ‘talk in turns’:
——————————————————————
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/language/wordsinthenews/2013/10/131018_witn_monkeys.shtml
======================================
[7] – 8/2010
——————————————————————
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/August/10-crm-958.html
======================================
[8] – 7/30/2013
——————————————————————

http://www.justice.gov/usao/iln/pr/chicago/2013/pr0730_01.html
======================================
[9] – 8/28/2013 – Emory University
——————————————————————
http://www.justice.gov/usao/gan/press/2013/08-28-13b.html
======================================
[10] – 5/24/1993
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/25/5241993-court-testimony-of-nicholas-petronas-md/
======================================

OUCHIE !!!

Bob ‘n Weave Blaskiewicz selected from his
select “Sexual Predator” syllabus he must cite from; during sessions like his series at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, where he surely must supply sorry examples of how to supposedly elicit a “Pavlov’s dog” style series of events from confused children; who’ve been told to “not talk to strangers,” and “never go anywhere with someone you don’t know,” when he Gabroni’s this gem and juice:
——————————————————————
“He IS big pharma” [1]
——————————————————————
How quaint

Bob is unable to back-up his biased talking-head brillnuance

But he hopes mightily that his brilliance of adding the nut menagerie symbolism of menutgerie:
——————————————————————
“He uses the same legal loopholes available to drug companies … “ [2]
——————————————————————
Basically, “The Skeptics™,” according to Bob, believe that every law they disagree with is a “legal loophole,” but every law they might not agree with, but which their opposition feels is a “legal loophole,” is a valid law to them

But I digress

Bob would have you believe that he thinks his readers are NOT smarter than a fifth-grader; and perhaps that belief is well founded, because a lot of Bob’s regular followers may not really be: smarter than a 5tłh-grader”, based on his theory that if a child were instructed to never go somewhere with a stranger, Bob believes that children, like his readers, can be “suckered” into ignoring warnings, and instead, if they are told a “plausible story” like:
——————————————————————
“Your parent needs your help and they want you to follow me”

“They have some candy for you”
——————————————————————
they will forego that which they have been told is the intelligent, correct choice, for the big, shiny, fruit of the stupid stick tree
——————————————————————
Now, let’s review Blatherskitewicz’s attempt at Tolstory:
——————————————————————
“He IS big pharma”: “He uses the same legal loopholes available to drug companies … “
——————————————————————
A 5th-grader is smart enough to see through Bobby’s piss-poor Pulitzer Prize phallicy

Bobby excreted end-run attempt around intelligent-design, is his word-salad salute to
“Stupid is, as Stupid Does”

He tries to MisDisInform, by depositing that because Burzynski has to use the same, as he puts it, “legal loopholes” as BILLION Pharma, that this somehow translates into Burzynski being Big Pharma

Jeepers, creepers, this would be akin to me attempting to pull a Pol Pot over your Peepers, by trying to claim that just because Bobby Blatherskitewicz sits down and uses the same type of device; a toilet, to attempt to rid himself of what he is obviously “full of,” that this means he is smarter than a 5th-grader who uses the same device, when it is clear that even medical-grade cannabis couldn’t help Bobby Blatherskite be smarter than a 5th-grader
——————————————————————
“He IS big pharma”: “He uses the same large poophole“, and even the largest roll of Charmin in the world wouldn’t help him
——————————————————————
Since Booby couldn’t name an actual Big pharmaceutical company to contrast Burzynski with, let’s take a look at one, shall we ?
——————————————————————
2/7/2012, Monday, GlaxoSmithKline LLC (GSK) was fined $3 BILLION ($3,000,000,000 Billion) dollars, for actions which occurred from
(4/1998 – 2007)

How did this $3 BILLION dollar slap on the wrist affect GSK ?
——————————————————————
Well, I’m glad you asked !
——————————————————————
Before “Black Monday”, 2/7/2012, EARNINGS PER SHARE was:

40.6¢ – .12/31/2011 (3 months ended)

Afterwards, a 1.6¢ rise:

42.2¢ – 3/31/2012 (3 months ended)
——————————————————————
Before the United States Department of Justice’s devastating news, Profit attributable to shareholders was:

$2,017,000,000 BILLION – .12/31/2011 (3 months ended)

After, a $77 MILLION ($77,000,000 Million) dollar rise to:

$2,094,000,000 BILLION – 3/31/2012 (3 months ended)
——————————————————————
Before the 2/7/2012 surprise, Cash and cash equivalents (Current assets) was:

$8,857,000,000 BILLION – .12/31/2011 (3 months ended)

Afterward, a $161 MILLION ($161,000,000 Million) rise to:

$9,018,000,000 BILLION – 3/31/2012 (3 months ended)
——————————————————————
Before the announcement, Total current assets:

$25,059,000,000 BILLION – .12/31/2011 (3 months ended)

After the FALL, a $986 MILLION ($986,000,000 Million RISE to:

$26,045,000,000 BILLION – 3/31/2012 (3 months ended)
——————————————————————
And, last, but certainly NOT in any way, shape, or form, least, before “that” day, TOTAL ASSETS

$63,674,000,000 BILLION – .12/31/2011 (3 months ended)

The aftermath, a $1,610 BILLION ($1,610,000,000 Billion) increase to:

$65,284,000,000 BILLION – 3/31/2012 (3 months ended)
——————————————————————
With the current TOTAL ASSETS being a miserly:

$66,598,000,000 BILLION – 9/30/2013 (3 months ended)
——————————————————————
I’m NOT quite sure how they’ll be able to function!!
======================================
Next, Bob Blaskiewicz tries to claim that since his vehicle uses gas, and a Rolls Royce uses gas, his car is like a Rolls Royce Silver Arrow
——————————————————————
.12/31/2011 (3 months ended) Cash and cash equivalents (Current assets)
——————————————————————
$3 BILLION (3,000,000,000 Billion)
is
33.871514056678336%
of
$8,857,000,000 BILLION
——————————————————————
2/7/2012 – $3 BILLION ($3,000,000,000 fine)
——————————————————————
3/31/2012 (3 months ended) Cash and cash equivalents (Current assets)
——————————————————————
$3 BILLION (3,000,000,000 Billion)
is
33.2667997338656%
of
$9,018,000,000 BILLION
——————————————————————
.12/31/2011 (3 months ended) Total current assets
——————————————————————
$3 BILLION (3,000,000,000 Billion)
is
11.971746677840295%
of
$25,059,000,000 BILLION
——————————————————————
2/7/2012 – $3 BILLION ($3,000,000,000 fine)
——————————————————————
3/31/2012 (3 months ended) Total current assets
——————————————————————
$3 BILLION (3,000,000,000 Billion)
is
11.518525628719523%
of
$26,045,000,000 BILLION
——————————————————————
.12/31/2011 (3 months ended) TOTAL ASSETS
——————————————————————
$3 BILLION (3,000,000,000 Billion)
is
4.711499199045136%
of
$63,674,000,000 BILLION
——————————————————————
2/7/2012 – $3 BILLION ($3,000,000,000 fine)
——————————————————————
3/31/2012 (3 months ended) TOTAL ASSETS
——————————————————————
$3 BILLION (3,000,000,000 Billion)
is
4.5953066601311185%
of
$65,284,000,000 BILLION
——————————————————————
9/30/2013 (3 months ended) current TOTAL ASSETS
——————————————————————
$3 BILLION (3,000,000,000 Billion)
is
4.504639778972342%
of
$66,598,000,000 BILLION
——————————————————————
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
——————————————————————
67 countries
68th – GSK would rank ($66,598,000,000 BILLION)
of
214
——————————————————————
======================================
EARNINGS PER SHARE
——————————————————————
95.2¢☝9/30/2013 (9 months ended)
31.0¢👇9/30/2013 (3 months ended)
64.2¢☝6/30/2013 (6 months ended)
33.1¢☝6/30/2013 (3 months ended
31.0¢👇3/31/2013 (3 months ended)
$147.7☝.12/31/2012 (12 months ended)
28.8¢👇.12/31/2012 (3 months ended)
$118.5☝9/30/2012 (9 months ended)
36.2¢👇9/30/2012 (3 months ended)
82.3¢☝6/30/2012 (6 months ended)
40.1¢☝6/30/2012 (3 months ended)
42.2¢👇3/31/2012 (3 months ended)
$168.4☝.12/31/2011 (12 months ended)
40.6¢👇.12/31/2011 (3 months ended)
$127.8☝9/30/2011 (9 months ended)
43.9¢👇9/30/2011 (3 months ended)
83.9¢☝6/30/2011 (6 months ended)
35.8¢👇6/30/2011 (3 months ended)
48.0¢👇3/31/2011 (3 months ended)
49.8¢☝.12/31/2010 (12 months ended)
(–21.5¢ LOSS)👇.12/31/2010 (3 months ended)
70.4¢☝9/30/2010 (9 months ended)
39.5¢☝9/30/2010 (3 months ended)
31.2¢☝6/30/2010 (6 months ended)
(– 9.0¢ LOSS)👇6/30/2010 (3 months ended)
41.2¢👇3/31/2010 (3 months ended)
$170.2☝.12/31/2009 (12 months ended)
52.0¢👇.12/31/2009 (3 months ended)
$118.6 ☝9/30/2009 (9 months ended)
42.6¢👇9/30/2009 (3 months ended)
75.9¢☝6/30/2009 (6 months ended)
44.1¢☝6/30/2009 (3 months ended)
32.1¢☝3/31/2009 (3 months ended)
——————————————————————
12 months ended (12/31/2009-12/31/2012)
——————————————————————
$147.7👇.12/31/2012 (12 months ended)
$168.4☝.12/31/2011 (12 months ended)
49.8¢👇.12/31/2010 (12 months ended)
$170.2☝.12/31/2009 (12 months ended)
——————————————————————
9 months ended (9/30/2009-9/30/2013)
——————————————————————
95.2¢👇9/30/2013 (9 months ended)
$118.5👇9/30/2012 (9 months ended)
$127.8☝9/30/2011 (9 months ended)
70.4¢👇9/30/2010 (9 months ended)
$118.6☝9/30/2009 (9 months ended)
——————————————————————
6 months ended (6/30/2009-6/30/2013)
——————————————————————
64.2¢👇6/30/2013 (6 months ended)
82.3¢👇6/30/2012 (6 months ended)
83.9¢☝6/30/2011 (6 months ended)
31.2¢👇6/30/2010 (6 months ended)
75.9¢☝6/30/2009 (6 months ended)
——————————————————————
3 months ended (3/31/2009-9/30/2013)
——————————————————————
31.0¢👇9/30/2013 (3 months ended)
33.1¢☝6/30/2013 (3 months ended)
31.0¢☝3/31/2013 (3 months ended)
28.8¢👇.12/31/2012 (3 months ended)
36.2¢👇9/30/2012 (3 months ended)
40.1¢👇6/30/2012 (3 months ended)
42.2¢☝3/31/2012 (3 months ended)
40.6¢👇.12/31/2011 (3 months ended)
43.9¢☝9/30/2011 (3 months ended)
35.8¢👇6/30/2011 (3 months ended)
48.0¢☝3/31/2011 (3 months ended)
(– 21.5¢ LOSS)👇.12/31/2010 (3 months ended)
39.5¢☝9/30/2010 – (3 months ended)
(– 9.0¢ LOSS)👇6/30/2010 (3 months ended)
41.2¢👇3/31/2010 (3 months ended)
52.0¢☝.12/31/2009 (3 months ended)
42.6¢👇9/30/2009 (3 months ended)
44.1¢☝6/30/2009 (3 months ended)
32.1¢☝3/31/2009 (3 months ended)
——————————————————————
Profit attributable to shareholders
——————————————————————
$4,611,000,000 BILLION☝9/30/2013 (9 months ended)
$1,502,000,000 BILLION👇9/30/2013 (3 months ended)
$3,109,000,000 BILLION☝6/30/2013 (6 months ended)
$1,610,000,000 BILLION☝6/30/2013 (3 months ended)
$1,499,000,000 BILLION👇3/31/2013 (3 months ended)
$7,258,000,000 BILLION☝.12/31/2012 (12 months ended)
$1,410,000,000 BILLION👇.12/31/2012 (3 months ended)
$5,848,000,000 BILLION☝9/30/2012 (9 months ended)
$1,773,000,000 BILLION👇9/30/2012 (3 months ended)
$4,075,000,000 BILLION☝6/30/2012 (6 months ended)
$1,981,000,000 BILLION👇6/30/2012 (3 months ended)
$2,094,000,000 BILLION👇3/31/2012 (3 months ended)
$8,471,000,000 BILLION☝.12/31/2011 (12 months ended)
$2,017,000,000 BILLION👇.12/31/2011 (3 months ended)
$6,454,000,000 BILLION☝9/30/2011 (9 months ended)
$2,191,000,000 BILLION👇9/30/2011 (3 months ended)
$4,263,000,000 BILLION☝6/30/2011 (6 months ended)
$1,824,000,000 BILLION👇6/30/2011 (3 months ended)
$2,439,000,000 BILLION👇3/31/2011 (3 months ended)
$2,532,000,000 BILLION☝.12/31/2010 (12 months ended)
(–$1,046,000,000 BILLION LOSS)👇.12/31/2010 (3 months ended)
$3,578,000,000 BILLION☝9/30/2010 (9 months ended)
$1,993,000,000 BILLION☝9/30/2010 – (3 months ended)
$1,585,000,000 BILLION☝6/30/2010 (6 months ended)
(– $505,000,000 million LOSS)👇6/30/2010 (3 months ended)
$2,090,000,000 BILLION👇3/31/2010 (3 months ended)
$8,629,000,000 BILLION☝.12/31/2009 (12 months ended)
$2,622,000,000 BILLION👇.12/31/2009 (3 months ended)
$6,007,000,000 BILLION☝9/30/2009 (9 months ended)
$2,158,000,000 BILLION👇9/30/2009 (3 months ended)
$3,849,000,000 BILLION👇6/30/2009 (6 months ended)
$3,849,000,000 BILLION☝6/30/2009 (3 months ended)
$1,629,000,000 BILLION☝3/31/2009 (3 months ended)
——————————————————————
12 months ended (12/31/2009-12/31/2012)
——————————————————————
$7,258,000,000 BILLION👇.12/31/2012 (12 months ended)
$8,471,000,000 BILLION☝.12/31/2011 (12 months ended)
$2,532,000,000 BILLION👇.12/31/2010 (12 months ended)
$8,629,000,000 BILLION☝.12/31/2009 (12 months ended)
——————————————————————
9 months ended (9/30/2009-9/30/2013
——————————————————————
$4,611,000,000 BILLION👇9/30/2013 (9 months ended)
$5,848,000,000 BILLION👇9/30/2012 (9 months ended)
$6,454,000,000 BILLION☝9/30/2011 (9 months ended)
$3,578,000,000 BILLION👇9/30/2010 (9 months ended)
$6,007,000,000 BILLION☝9/30/2009 (9 months ended)
——————————————————————
6 months ended (6/30/2009-6/30/2013)
——————————————————————
$3,109,000,000 BILLION👇6/30/2013 (6 months ended)
$4,075,000,000 BILLION👇6/30/2012 (6 months ended)
$4,263,000,000 BILLION☝6/30/2011 (6 months ended)
$1,585,000,000 BILLION👇6/30/2010 (6 months ended)
$3,849,000,000 BILLION☝6/30/2009 (6 months ended)
——————————————————————
3 months ended (3/31/2009-9/30/2013)
——————————————————————
$1,502,000,000 BILLION👇9/30/2013 (3 months ended)
$1,610,000,000 BILLION☝6/30/2013 (3 months ended)
$1,499,000,000 BILLION☝3/31/2013 (3 months ended)
$1,410,000,000 BILLION👇.12/31/2012 (3 months ended)
$1,773,000,000 BILLION👇9/30/2012 (3 months ended)
$1,981,000,000 BILLION👇6/30/2012 (3 months ended)
$2,094,000,000 BILLION☝3/31/2012 (3 months ended)
$2,017,000,000 BILLION👇.12/31/2011 (3 months ended)
$2,191,000,000 BILLION☝9/30/2011 (3 months ended)
$1,824,000,000 BILLION👇6/30/2011 (3 months ended)
$2,439,000,000 BILLION☝3/31/2011 (3 months ended)
(– $1,046,000,000 BILLION LOSS)👇.12/31/2010 (3 months ended)
$1,993,000,000 BILLION☝9/30/2010 – (3 months ended)
(– $505,000,000 million LOSS)👇6/30/2010 (3 months ended)
$2,090,000,000 BILLION👇3/31/2010 (3 months ended)
$2,622,000,000 BILLION☝.12/31/2009 (3 months ended)
$2,158,000,000 BILLION👇9/30/2009 (3 months ended)
$3,849,000,000 BILLION☝6/30/2009 (3 months ended)
$1,629,000,000 BILLION☝3/31/2009 (3 months ended)
——————————————————————
Cash and cash equivalents (Current assets)
——————————————————————
$5,268,000,000 BILLION☝9/30/2013 (3 months ended)
$4,318,000,000 BILLION👇6/30/2013 (3 months ended)
$5,825,000,000 BILLION👇3/31/2013 (3 months ended)
$6,820,000,000 BILLION☝.12/31/2012 (3 months ended)
$5,459,000,000 BILLION👇9/30/2012 (3 months ended)
$11,601,000,000 BILLION☝6/30/2012 (3 months ended)
$9,018,000,000 BILLION☝3/31/2012 (3 months ended)
$8,857,000,000 BILLION☝.12/31/2011 (3 months ended)
$8,446,000,000 BILLION👇9/30/2011 (3 months ended)
$9,412,000,000 BILLION👇6/30/2011 (3 months ended)
$10,397,000,000 BILLION☝3/31/2011 (3 months ended)
$9,449,000,000 BILLION👇.12/31/2010 (3 months ended)
$9,842,000,000 BILLION👇9/30/2010 – (3 months ended)
$9,861,000,000 BILLION👇6/30/2010 (3 months ended)
$10,585,000,000 BILLION☝3/31/2010 (3 months ended)
$10,357,000,000 BILLION☝.12/31/2009 (3 months ended)
$10,347,000,000 BILLION☝9/30/2009 (3 months ended)
$8,821,000,000 BILLION👇6/30/2009 (3 months ended)
$8,896,000,000 BILLION☝3/31/2009 (3 months ended)
——————————————————————
Total current assets
——————————————————————
$21,825,000,000 BILLION☝9/30/2013 (3 months ended)
$20,423,000,000 BILLION👇6/30/2013 (3 months ended)
$21,458,000,000 BILLION👇3/31/2013 (3 months ended)
$22,318,000,000 BILLION☝.12/31/2012 (3 months ended)
$21,724,000,000 BILLION👇9/30/2012 (3 months ended)
$27,105,000,000 BILLION☝6/30/2012 (3 months ended)
$26,045,000,000 BILLION☝3/31/2012 (3 months ended)
$25,059,000,000 BILLION👇.12/31/2011 (3 months ended)
$25,573,000,000 BILLION👇9/30/2011 (3 months ended)
$26,257,000,000 BILLION👇6/30/2011 (3 months ended)
$26,882,000,000 BILLION☝3/31/2011 (3 months ended)
$25,016,000,000 BILLION👇.12/31/2010 (3 months ended)
$26,533,000,000 BILLION☝9/30/2010 – (3 months ended)
$25,619,000,000 BILLION👇6/30/2010 (3 months ended)
$27,901,000,000 BILLION👇3/31/2010 (3 months ended)
$28,288,000,000 BILLION☝.12/31/2009 (3 months ended)
$27,745,000,000 BILLION☝9/30/2009 (3 months ended)
$25,161,000,000 BILLION☝6/30/2009 (3 months ended)
$24,263,000,000 BILLION☝3/31/2009 (3 months ended)
——————————————————————
TOTAL ASSETS
——————————————————————
$66,598,000,000 BILLION☝9/30/2013 (3 months ended)
$63,930,000,000 BILLION👇6/30/2013 (3 months ended)
$65,196,000,000 BILLION👇3/31/2013 (3 months ended)
$67,604,000,000 BILLION☝.12/31/2012 (3 months ended)
$65,129,000,000 BILLION👇9/30/2012 (3 months ended)
$66,658,000,000 BILLION☝6/30/2012 (3 months ended)
$65,284,000,000 BILLION☝3/31/2012 (3 months ended)
$63,674,000,000 BILLION👇.12/31/2011 (3 months ended)
$64,559,000,000 BILLION👇9/30/2011 (3 months ended)
$67,745,000,000 BILLION👇6/30/2011 (3 months ended)
$68,125,000,000 BILLION☝3/31/2011 (3 months ended)
$65,601,000,000 BILLION👇.12/31/2010 (3 months ended)
$67,384,000,000 BILLION☝9/30/2010 – (3 months ended)
$64,580,000,000 BILLION👇6/30/2010 (3 months ended)
$67,726,000,000 BILLION👇3/31/2010 (3 months ended)
$69,007,000,000 BILLION☝.12/31/2009 (3 months ended)
$66,315,000,000 BILLION☝9/30/2009 (3 months ended)
$59,336,000,000 BILLION☝6/30/2009 (3 months ended)
$56,009,000,000 BILLION☝3/31/2009 (3 months ended)
======================================

======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – 12/2/2013 – Robert J. (don’t call me “Bobby”) “Bob” (I’m NOT a doctor, I just pretend that I’m one on The Other Burzynski Patient Group (TOBPG)) Blaskiewicz Blatherskitewicz’s Burzynski “IS big pharma”::
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/12/02/robert-j-dont-call-me-bobby-bob-im-not-a-doctor-i-just-play-like-im-one-on-the-other-burzynski-patient-group-tobpg-blaskiewicz-blatherskitewicz/
======================================
[2] – 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/
======================================
2013

——————————————————————

Click to access Q3-2013-US-dollar-translation.pdf

——————————————————————
2013

——————————————————————

Click to access Q2-2013-US-dollar-translation.pdf

——————————————————————
2013

——————————————————————

Click to access Q1-2013-US-dollar-translation.pdf

======================================
2012

——————————————————————

Click to access Q4-2012-US-dollar-translation.pdf

——————————————————————
2012

——————————————————————

Click to access Q3-2012-US-dollar-translation.pdf

——————————————————————
2012

——————————————————————

Click to access Q2-2012-US-dollar-translation.pdf

——————————————————————
2012

——————————————————————

Click to access Q1-2012-US-dollar-translation.pdf

======================================
2011

——————————————————————

Click to access Q4-2011-US-dollar-translation.pdf

——————————————————————
2011

——————————————————————

Click to access Q3-2011-US-dollar-translation.pdf

——————————————————————
2011

——————————————————————

Click to access Q2-2011-US-dollar-translation.pdf

——————————————————————
2011

——————————————————————

Click to access Q1-2011-US-dollar-translation.pdf

======================================
2010

——————————————————————

Click to access Q4-2010-US-dollar-translation.pdf

——————————————————————
2010

——————————————————————

Click to access Q3-2010-US-dollar-translation.pdf

——————————————————————
2010

——————————————————————

Click to access Q2-2010-US-dollar-translation.pdf

——————————————————————
2010

——————————————————————

Click to access Q1-2010-US-dollar-translation.pdf

======================================
2009

——————————————————————

Click to access Q4-2009-US-dollar-translation.pdf

——————————————————————
2009

——————————————————————

Click to access Q3-2009-US-dollar-translation.pdf

——————————————————————
2009

——————————————————————

Click to access Q2-2009-US-dollar-translation.pdf

——————————————————————
2009

——————————————————————

Click to access Q1-2009-US-dollar-translation.pdf

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

Robert J. (don’t call me “Bobby”) “Bob” (I’m NOT a doctor, I just pretend that I’m one on The Other Burzynski Patient Group (TOBPG)) Blaskiewicz Blatherskitewicz’s Burzynski “IS big pharma”

——————————————————————
Bob, looks like you #FAILED to delete all of your Twits insinuating that Burzynski is allegedly “BIG Pharma”

Bob, there’s a really good reason as to why you’re still only a “visiting” professor of writing

Bob, THIS is Big Pharma
======================================
GlaxoSmithKline LLC / Glaxo-Smith-Kline (GSK)
——————————————————————
PROFIT AFTER TAXATION FOR THE PERIOD (2009 – 2013)
——————————————————————
$4,841,000,000 BILLION – 9/30/2013 (9 months ended)
$1,566,000,000 BILLION – 9/30/2013 (3 months ended)
$3,275,000,000 BILLION – 6/30/2013 (6 months ended)
$1,670,000,000 BILLION – 6/30/2013 (3 months ended)
$1,605,000,000 BILLION – 3/31/2013 (3 months ended)
$7,543,000,000 BILLION – 12/31/2012 (12 months ended)
$1,373,000,000 BILLION – 12/31/2012 (3 months ended)
$6,170,000,000 BILLION – 9/30/2012 (9 months ended)
$1,890,000,000 BILLION – 9/30/2012 (3 months ended)
$4,280,000,000 BILLION – 6/30/2012 (6 months ended)
$2,084,000,000 BILLION – 6/30/2012 (3 months ended)
$2,197,000,000 BILLION – 3/31/2012 (3 months ended)
$8,788,000,000 BILLION – 12/31/2011 (12 months ended)
$2,068,000,000 BILLION – 12/31/2011 (3 months ended)
$6,720,000,000 BILLION – 9/30/2011 (9 months ended)
$2,295,000,000 BILLION – 9/30/2011 (3 months ended)
$4,425,000,000 BILLION – 6/30/2011 (6 months ended)
$1,891,000,000 BILLION – 6/30/2011 (3 months ended)
$2,534,000,000 BILLION– 3/31/2011 (3 months ended)
$2,872,000,000 BILLION – 12/31/2010 (12 months ended)
(– $955,000,000 million LOSS) – 12/31/2010 (3 months ended)
$3,827,000,000 BILLION – 9/30/2010 (9 months ended)
$2,078,000,000 BILLION – 9/30/2010 – (3 months ended)
$1,749,000,000 BILLION – 6/30/2010 (6 months ended)
(– $427,000,000 million LOSS) – 6/30/2010 (3 months ended)
$2,176,000,000 BILLION – 3/31/2010 (3 months ended)
$8,844,000,000 BILLION – 12/31/2009 (12 months ended)
$2,683,000,000 BILLION – 12/31/2009 (3 months ended)
$6,161,000,000 BILLION – 9/30/2009 (9 months ended)
$2,216,000,000 BILLION – 9/30/2009 (3 months ended)
$3,945,000,000 BILLION – 6/30/2009 (6 months ended)
$2,262,000,000 BILLION – 6/30/2009 (3 months ended)
$1,683,000,000 BILLION – 3/31/2009 (3 months ended)
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
Bob, ever tire of calling yourself a TwIdiot ?
——————————————————————
9 MONTHS ENDED (2009 – 2013)
——————————————————————
$4,841,000,000 BILLION👇9/30/2013 (9 months ended)
$6,170,000,000 BILLION👇9/30/2012 (9 months ended)
$6,720,000,000 BILLION☝9/30/2011 (9 months ended)
$3,827,000,000 BILLION👇9/30/2010 (9 months ended)
$6,161,000,000 BILLION☝9/30/2009 (9 months ended)
——————————————————————
6 MONTHS ENDED (2009 – 2013)
——————————————————————
$3,275,000,000 BILLION👇6/30/2013 (6 months ended)
$4,280,000,000 BILLION👇6/30/2012 (6 months ended)
$4,425,000,000 BILLION☝6/30/2011 (6 months ended)
$1,749,000,000 BILLION👇6/30/2010 (6 months ended)
$3,945,000,000 BILLION☝6/30/2009 (6 months ended)
——————————————————————
3 MONTHS ENDED (2009 – 2013)
——————————————————————
$1,566,000,000 BILLION👇9/30/2013 (3 months ended)
$1,670,000,000 BILLION☝6/30/2013 (3 months ended)
$1,605,000,000 BILLION☝3/31/2013 (3 months ended)
$1,373,000,000 BILLION👇.12/31/2012 (3 months ended)
$1,890,000,000 BILLION👇9/30/2012 (3 months ended)
$2,084,000,000 BILLION👇6/30/2012 (3 months ended)
$2,197,000,000 BILLION☝3/31/2012 (3 months ended)
$2,068,000,000 BILLION👇.12/31/2011 (3 months ended)
$2,295,000,000 BILLION☝9/30/2011 (3 months ended)
$1,891,000,000 BILLION👇6/30/2011 (3 months ended)
$2,534,000,000 BILLION☝3/31/2011 (3 months ended)
(– $955,000,000 million LOSS) 👇.12/31/2010 (3 months ended)
$2,078,000,000 BILLION☝9/30/2010 – (3 months ended)
(– $427,000,000 million LOSS)👇6/30/2010 (3 months ended)
$2,176,000,000 BILLION👇3/31/2010 (3 months ended)
$2,683,000,000 BILLION☝.12/31/2009 (3 months ended)
$2,216,000,000 BILLION👇9/30/2009 (3 months ended)
$2,262,000,000 BILLION☝6/30/2009 (3 months ended)
$1,683,000,000 BILLION☝3/31/2009 (3 months ended)
——————————————————————
3 months ended (9/30)
——————————————————————
$1,566,000,000 BILLION👇9/30/2013 (3 months ended)
$1,890,000,000 BILLION👇9/30/2012 (3 months ended)
$2,295,000,000 BILLION☝9/30/2011 (3 months ended)
$2,078,000,000 BILLION👇9/30/2010 – (3 months ended)
$2,216,000,000 BILLION☝9/30/2009 (3 months ended)
——————————————————————
3 months ended (6/30)
——————————————————————
$1,670,000,000 BILLION☝6/30/2013 (3 months ended)
$2,084,000,000 BILLION👇6/30/2012 (3 months ended)
$1,891,000,000 BILLION👇6/30/2011 (3 months ended)
(– $427,000,000 million LOSS)👇6/30/2010 (3 months ended)
$2,262,000,000 BILLION☝6/30/2009 (3 months ended)
——————————————————————
3 months ended (3/31)
——————————————————————
$1,605,000,000 BILLION☝3/31/2013 (3 months ended)
$2,197,000,000 BILLION☝3/31/2012 (3 months ended)
$2,534,000,000 BILLION☝3/31/2011 (3 months ended)
$2,176,000,000 BILLION👇3/31/2010 (3 months ended)
$1,683,000,000 BILLION☝3/31/2009 (3 months ended)
——————————————————————
3 months ended (12/31)
——————————————————————
$1,373,000,000 BILLION👇.12/31/2012 (3 months ended)
$2,068,000,000 BILLION👇.12/31/2011 (3 months ended)
(– $955,000,000 million LOSS) 👇.12/31/2010 (3 months ended)
$2,683,000,000 BILLION☝.12/31/2009 (3 months ended)
——————————————————————
12 MONTHS ENDED (2009 – 2012)
——————————————————————
$7,543,000,000 BILLION👇.12/31/2012 (12 months ended)
$8,788,000,000 BILLION☝.12/31/2011 (12 months ended)
$2,872,000,000 BILLION👇.12/31/2010 (12 months ended)
$8,844,000,000 BILLION☝.12/31/2009 (12 months ended)
——————————————————————

======================================
REFERENCE:
======================================
http://www.gsk.com/investors/
======================================

Critiquing: Why we fight for patients (Why we fight your patience) TAM 2013, TAM2013, “The Amazing Meeting” 2013 #TAM2013 http://www.theamazingmeeting.com

Dr. David H. Gorski a/k/a D H Gorski a/k/a Gorski DH a/k/a Gorski D. a/k/a “Orac” a/k/a GorskGeek of University of Michigan, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Alexander J. Walt Comprehensive Breast Center, American College of Surgeons Committee on Cancer, Institute for Science in Medicine, #sciencebasedmedicine, science based medicine, National Geographic’s (#NatGeo) scienceblogs, Respectful Insolence, @gorskon, @oracknows, @ScienceBasedMed “fame”, is a certifiable “Hack” 😷

He claims to believe in “science-based medicine”, but he so readily and easily bastardizes the term on his blogs and during his “talk” at The Amazing Meeting (TAM 2013) in July, about Stanislaw Burzynski, MD, PhD [1]: “Why We Fight (Part I): Stanislaw Burzynski Versus Science-Based Medicine” and the “Medical Cranks and Quacks” panel discussion, that it becomes painfully obvious, when Mark Crislip stated [2]:
——————————————————————
(37:00)
——————————————————————
“As a philosophical approach to medicine, I would probably say that 99% of doctors are not science-based“
——————————————————————
and:
——————————————————————
(37:25)
——————————————————————
“This table, is probably pretty much all of the science-based medicine docs in the United States” 😮
——————————————————————
Note: There were only 4 individual’s at the table, and Bob Blaskiewicz is NOT a doctor, he’s a QUACK 😄
——————————————————————
The world might indeed need more Mark Crislip™ , but I think it needs some more insolence for “The Skeptics™” 🙂

So, in that spirit, the videos, recently released by the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF), of Bob Blaskiewicz, GorskGeek, and some key SBM players that you’ve come to know and love for their transparency, deserve some of what’s mentioned by Mark Crislip at:
——————————————————————
25:00
——————————————————————
1. Embarrassment 😳
2. Ridicule 😁
3. Education 😐

😉

David Gorski makes the stupendous remark that Burzynski “could treat anyone he wanted” in the clinical trials 😖

How asinine 😝
——————————————————————
(18:20)
——————————————————————
David Gorski then has the temerity to suggest 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 😡

David Gorski; who is a BREAST cancer oncology specialist, and NOT a BRAIN cancer oncology specialist, 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 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” [3], has the audacity, because of his “book learnin'” to postulate his “science-based medicine theory”, but he obviously does NOT have the “balls” to name the medical institutions or doctors involved, whose opinions he disagrees with ☻
——————————————————————
(20:00)
——————————————————————
David Gorski; who has had the stupendity to state: “[I]f I had screwed up, I would have admitted it” [4], in the case of Hannah Bradley, who had a grade III anaplastic astrocytoma brain tumor, while noting that Hannah had epileptic seizures, he then serendipitously stupified the not-so-startling but nonetheless shocking revelations that he seemingly had fallen when climbing a tree, and been hit by every “stupid stick” on the way to reinforcing Newton’s Law of Gravity; whilst claiming that he had watched the entire movie about her trip to the Burzynski Clinic, but was inexplicably unable to determine that the reason Hannah experienced a “change in mood” and “double-vision”, was because, as stated in the movie, a nurse said it was because of a new anti-seizure drug she had NOT used before to control her epileptic seizures, and which was most likely responsible for the rash that Hannah developed, which GorskGeek acted clueless about [5] 😛
——————————————————————
If GorskGeek actually knew HOW to apply SCIENCE, he might be somewhat credible 😅

Never let it be said that Mark Crislip can’t match “Orac” in shameless promotion of “Orac’s” shameless stupidity 😜
——————————————————————
The second video is David Gorski’s brother in bulkshit, Bob Blaskiewicz, of Skeptical Humanities and The Other Burzynski Patient Group

It’s entitled, appropriately enough, “Why We Fight (Part II): It’s All About the Patients”

Robert Blaskiewicz is the epitome of a “Medical Crank” 😲

@rjblaskiewicz is “infamous” for talking out of both sides of his mouth 😂

Blatherskitewicz is the “intellectual juggernaut” who during the Google+ Hangout
Burzynski Discussion, 9/28/2013, stated:

“we respect scientific method“ [6]

But if he really does, he certainly does NOT prove it on theotherburzynskipatientgroup which is saturated with so much of his bias, that it’s extremely difficult for one to separate his bullshit from the actual patient
story, and NO ONE can draw any coherent science-based conclusions from his “stories” because they grossly lack the necessary scientific data, such as:
——————————————————————
1. When were they diagnosed with cancer ?
2. What previous treatment(s) did they have, if any ?
(a) biopsy only
(b) surgery
(c) chemotherapy
(d) radiation
(e) radiotherapy
(f) other
3. How long did they have prior treatment(s), if any ?
4. How long were they on antineoplaston therapy ?
——————————————————————
Don’t forget to pay attention to Bob Blaskiewicz’s plea at the end of his talk to contact him if you’re interested in becoming active, since he needs all the help he can get 😃

Online, just mosey on over to The Other Burzynski Patient Group and contact Bob Blaskiewicz, and ask him why he posted such crap in an attempt to smear Burzynski, NOT based on SCIENCE, but instead on hyperbole 😶

But do NOT forget to remember that Bob is NOT a doctor, he’s a QUACK ☺
——————————————————————
You’ve just been insolenced
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – 11/10/2013 – Why we fight for patients: Posted by Orac on November 10, 2013
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/11/10/why-we-fight-for-patients/
======================================
[2] – 11/11/2013 – “The Amazing Meeting” (I don’t think it means, what you think it says it means): 2 Intellectually and Ethically Challenged Individuals, Twaddle at TAM 2013:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/www-amazingmeeting-com-www-randi-org-lanyrd-com2013tam-forums-randi-orgforumdisplay-php/
======================================
[3] – 10/16/2013 – Burzynski: “The Skeptics™” – Harming without Care:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/burzynski-the-skeptics-harming-without-care/
======================================
[4] – 9/13/2013 – Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski wins “Noballs” Prize:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/13/dr-david-h-orac-gorski-wins-noballs-prize/
======================================
[5] – 11/2/2013 – Critiquing: Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski’s cancer “success” stories:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/02/critiquing-dr-stanislaw-burzynskis-cancer-success-stories/
======================================
[6] – 10/27/2013 – “The Skeptics™” Burzynski Bias, Censorship, Lies, and Alibi’s: September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/27/the-skeptics-lie-lied-lies-liars-lying-burzynski-bias-censorship-lies-and-alibis-september-28-2013-the-skeptics-burzynski-discussion-by-bob-blaskiewic/
======================================

@PrismPodcast Pimps Poltroon Prevaricator

Robert J. (Bob) Blaskiewicz, Professor
Bob Blaskiewicz Faux Skeptic Exposed!
@rjblatherskiewicz
Blatherskitewicz
https://mobile.twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz
skeptical humanities
http://skepticalhumanities.com/
blogger at
skepticalhumanities.com
skepticalhumanities
http://www.skepticalhumanities.com/
The Virtual Skeptics
Skepticality podcast
http://virtualskeptics.com/
virtualskeptics
http://rbutr.com/
rbutr
http://blog.rbutr.com/
r-but-r
http://uwec.edu/Staff/blaskir/
University of Wisconsin
Eau Claire, Wisconsin
http://www.uwec.edu/Staff/blaskir/
He is a Visiting Assistant Professor of Writing at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire
http://www.csicop.org/author/rblaskiewicz
Skeptical Inquirer
Skeptical Inquiry
http://necss.org/speakers/bob-blaskiewicz/
Northeast Conference on Science and Skepticism
http://centerforinquiry.net/speakers/blaskiewicz_bob
Center for Inquiry
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/speakers/blaskiewicz_bob
Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
http://lanyrd.com/2013/tam/sckkdy/
“Conspiracy Guy”
http://thehoustoncancerquack.com/
web columnist
http://anp4all.com/
JREF Swift
Blog contributor
St. Louis, Missouri must be so proud, you’ve left the State

Bias Biased “The Telegraph” Censor “Telegraph” Censors “The Daily Telegraph” Censored “The Sunday Telegraph” Censoring Censorship (@Telegraph): I Feel Empowered, In Control Of My Body: Four Women On Fighting Cancer With Alternative Therapies http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10383724/I-feel-empowered-in-control-of-my-body-four-women-on-fighting-cancer-with-alternative-therapies.html

====================================
“The Skeptics™” – comments
——————————————————————
50 – Guy Chapman (1 – awaiting moderation): 1st person to comment
48 – Mark McAndrew (2 – deleted): 3rd person to comment
6 – Margaret Hardman
5 – lilady, R.N.
5 – anarchic teapot
3 – Adam Jacobs – 6th person to comment
4 – edith prickly (1 – deleted)
3 – jrtmedic
I – JGC
1 – AlanHenness
I – David Doran
1 – DoreeenParsons
I – Stephen Tonkin
I – skepticat
I – Tara
——————————————————————
(1 – awaiting moderation: Guy Chapman)
——————————————————————
(2 – deleted: Mark McAndrew)
(1 – deleted: edith prickly)
——————————————————————
131 – TOTAL (“The Skeptics™”)
====================================
Questioning “The Skeptics™” – comments
——————————————————————
42 – Sandra Courtney (6 – deleted): (3 – awaiting moderation)
13 – ReallyGoodMedicine (1 – awaiting moderation)
3 – Didymus Judas Thomas (1 – deleted): (1 – awaiting moderation)
3 – Gillian23 (1 – deleted)
2 – Jonnybones (1 – deleted)
1 – margretnewman (1 – awaiting moderation)
——————————————————————
(3 – awaiting moderation: Sandra Courtney)
(1 – awaiting moderation: ReallyGoodMedicine)
(1 – awaiting moderation: Didymus Judas Thomas)
(1 – awaiting moderation: margretnewman)
——————————————————————
(6 – deleted: Sandra Courtney)
(1 – deleted: Didymus Judas Thomas)
(1 – deleted: Gillian23)
(1 – deleted: Jonnybones)
——————————————————————
63 – TOTAL (Questioning “The Skeptics™”)
====================================
NEUTRAL
——————————————————————
1 – louise40
1 – Xassandra
1 – lordmuck
——————————————————————
3 – TOTAL (NEUTRAL)
====================================
I – deleted (by unknown)
——————————————————————
1 – TOTAL (deleted / unknown)
====================================
198 – TOTAL
——————————————————————
4 – censored *
——————————————————————
202 comments – TOTAL
====================================
131 – TOTAL (“The Skeptics™”)
63 – TOTAL (Questioning “The Skeptics™”)
3 – TOTAL (NEUTRAL)
1 – TOTAL (deleted / unknown)
——————————————————————
198 – TOTAL
——————————————————————
4 – censored *
——————————————————————
202 comments – TOTAL
====================================
* – at least 10 of Didymus Judas Thomas’ comments were censored
====================================
REFERENCES:
====================================
“The Skeptics™” Bum Rush “The Telegraph” (@Telegraph): I Feel Empowered, In Control Of My Body: Four Women On Fighting Cancer With Alternative Therapies http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10383724/I-feel-empowered-in-control-of-my-body-four-women-on-fighting-cancer-with-alternative-therapies.html
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/23/the-telegraph-telegraph-i-feel-empowered-in-control-of-my-body-four-women-on-fighting-cancer-with-alternative-therapies/
====================================
“The Sunday Telegraph,” “The Daily Telegraph,” “The Telegraph,” will you learn how “The Skeptics™” operate like Forbes did ? The Big 3: Articles, Bias, Biased, Censor, Censors, Censored, Censoring, Censorship:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/24/the-sunday-telegraph-the-daily-telegraph-the-telegraph-will-you-learn-how-the-skeptics-operate-like-forbes-did-the-big-3-artices-bias-biased-censor-censors-censore/
====================================

“The Skeptics™” Bum Rush “The Telegraph” (@Telegraph): I Feel Empowered, In Control Of My Body: Four Women On Fighting Cancer With Alternative Therapies http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10383724/I-feel-empowered-in-control-of-my-body-four-women-on-fighting-cancer-with-alternative-therapies.html

I see “The Skeptics™” have descended on The Telegraph [1], just like they did on Forbes [2], and are attempting to “control the conversation” there, in the same manner

“The Skeptics™” LIE, comments get deleted, It’s like Forbes Part II (bias, biased, censor, censors, censored, censoring, censorship)

“The Skeptics™” obviously did NOT learn from their #epic Skeptic #fail #failure there

I wonder if “The Skeptics™” have taken a peek at #Forbes and seen that some of my comments which were removed, now have reappeared, as media sources find out how “The Skeptics™” operate ?

I also see that “The Skeptics™” fave oncologist has commented on the article and one of “The Skeptics™” has tried to get their Lord and Master, The King of “The Skeptics™” #epic Skeptic #fail #failure Disaster to join him in the pollution of another media source [3]

Mark McAndrew

Three people here have posted the link to Doctor Gorski’s response to this actual article

About as on-topic as it gets – and not their own work either

You, on the other hand, have spammed at least 12 people here with the exact same link to the “Didymus Judas Thomas’ Hipocritical Oath Blog” (sic), which – surprise – has absolutely nothing to do with this article

Is 12 less or more than 3, Diddy?

Who’s the liar?

Mr. McAndrew, did you get screenshots?

I only counted 10, which was provided because it backs up my comments

As far as who has posted your fave oncologist’s link

4 – Mark McAndrew
2 – lilady, R.N.
1 – Margaret Hardman
1 – David Doran

Do I really need to list the # of times Guy Chapman has cited his own blog?

And you were on your fave oncologist’s blog trying to get him to post here

Difference without a distinction

Guten Tag 🙂

DJT, USA

Mr. McAndrew, why don’t you ask your fave oncologist to reveal who I am so that I can prove him wrong?

Then you can try and prove that I work for the clinic after I prove him wrong

Problem solved

See how easy that is?

And you don’t end up looking like the
proverbial “village idiot” like one of “The Skeptics” who posts things without “fact-checking” them

I enjoy taking screenshots of my posts

Do you?

Sayanora

DJT, USA

Guy Chapman

All of homeopathy, or just the imponderables?
——————————————————————
Didymus Judas Thomas

Mr. Chapman, I’m quite surprised that you’ve been mum about this particular Homeopathy publication on PubMed?

Cell Biochem Funct. 2013 Feb 13. doi: 10.1002/cbf.2960
[Epub ahead of print]

Stimulation of natural killer cells for homoeopathic complexes: An in vitro and in vivo pilot study in advanced cancer patients.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23408699/

1. Mark McAndrew citing Dr. David H. (“Orac”) Gorski’s Respectful Insolence blog

2. Mark McAndrew citing Dr. David H. (“Orac”) Gorski’s Respectful Insolence blog

3. Mark McAndrew citing Dr. David H. (“Orac”) Gorski’s Respectful Insolence blog

4. Mark McAndrew citing Dr. David H. (“Orac”) Gorski’s Respectful Insolence blog

1. lilady, R.N. citing Dr. David H. (“Orac”) Gorski’s Respectful Insolence blog

2. lilady, R.N. citing Dr. David H. (“Orac”) Gorski’s Respectful Insolence blog

Margaret Hardman citing Dr. David H. (“Orac”) Gorski’s Respectful Insolence blog

David Doran citing Dr. David H. (“Orac”) Gorski’s Respectful Insolence blog

=====================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – I Feel Empowered, In Control Of My Body: Four Women On Fighting Cancer With Alternative Therapies:
——————————————————————
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10383724/I-feel-empowered-in-control-of-my-body-four-women-on-fighting-cancer-with-alternative-therapies.html
======================================
[2] – Forbes Learns a Lesson, but Not the Right One: Censorship and Bias re: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/05/forbes-learns-a-lesson-but-not-the-right-one-censorship-and-bias-re-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/
======================================
[3] –

——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/10/22/four-misleading-cancer-testimonials-and-reverse-balance/
======================================

Deconstructing Dr. David H. (Orac) Gorski – September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51

——————————————————————
DJT – Didymus Judas Thomas
——————————————————————
BB – Bob Blaskiewicz
======================================
(0:12:00)
——————————————————————
DJT – Well a lot of the time I’m making fun of y’all’s favorite oncologist, the way he words his blogs, and uhmmm I cite specifically from the FDA, from from the National Cancer Institute, from these other scientific sources, from scientific publications

I give people specific information so they can fact-check me, unlike a lot of The Skeptics who just go out there and say things and publish things on social media, they provide no back-up for their uhhh sayings
——————————————————————
(0:13:00)
——————————————————————
DJT – And so I’ve tried to add those things and allow people to search, on specific things like publications, or what I posted about The Lancet, or specifically about The Skeptics, or specifically about the oncologist
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
DJT – Well the thing is, when you accepted this hangout, I published my newest blog article and I specifically listed all the information I had critiqued from you previously including Amelia, and I posted the specific Twitter responses by BurzynskiMovie; which is probably Eric, to your issues with Amelia, and he disagrees with what the oncologist posted, and so I pretty much let his Twitter responses stand to what the oncologist said
——————————————————————
0:14:24
======================================

If it's true that #burzynski and his adman Merola have insinuated that parents are to blame for Amelia's death that's utterly disgusting.

— FW (@frozenwarning) March 14, 2013

@frozenwarning More inventions from the Orac/Gorski CULT – why not blame aliens or bigfoot for it? Oh! Unless you have all become psychic!

— Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) March 14, 2013

#oracknows #oracspsychicabilitiesarefailing #gorskineedstotrytheJREFPsychicChallenge! pic.twitter.com/AyHjRYZwEJ

— Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) March 14, 2013

#oracknows (?) #burzynski more libel conspiracy theories from a sociopath pic.twitter.com/Du1OrFENRS

— Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) March 14, 2013

Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 11:49pm – 14 Mar 13:
http://t.co/wxU2PHJ3GD

so-called *oncologist* never seen film & reviews it (orac/gorski) maybe he will add *review* 2 #burzynski wikipedia pic.twitter.com/wxU2PHJ3GD

— Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) March 15, 2013

======================================
DJT – Well what I find interesting about these other doctors is like like the doctors mentioned in the movie and BBC Panorama’s report and in some of these newspaper articles where they are mentioned again is that these doctors never do a review of Burzynski’s scientific publications and including our favorite oncologist who refuses to do so [4]

Uhhh
——————————————————————
0:24:10
——————————————————————
BB – “He’s read everything”

“I think”
======================================
11/2/2012 – “Personally having pored over Burzynski’s publications”
======================================

======================================
5/8/2013 – “I’ve searched Burzynski’s publications”
======================================

DJT – Oh yeah he says he’s read everything but uh you know he claims that he’s uhmmm reviewed, reviewed uh Burzynski’s personalized gene targeted therapy but he, but then just a few months ago he admitted, you know, I don’t know where Burzynski says which genes are targeted by antineoplastons

And I pointed out which specific publications that Burzynski published, publications which specifically mention which genes are targeted by antineoplastons, and I said how can you claim that you’ve read and reviewed every Burzynski publication and you didn’t know which genes are targeted by antineoplastons when that’s specifically in the publications ?

To me that tells me that you do not know how antineoplastons work be because you just admitted you don’t know which genes Burzynski talks about

I mean that’s just funny as heck to me that he would say that [5]
——————————————————————
0:25:07
——————————————————————
DJT – But the other issue is that Skeptics have posted on there that he could not get that accelerated approval until he had published a phase 2 trial and that is exactly not the case because other drugs have been given accelerated approval before their results were published in phase 2 clinical trial publications, cuz, so that question remains as well [6]
======================================
“Temodar and Avastin both had proper, completed, and published phase II trials before approval”
======================================

======================================
Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) tweeted at 10:44am – 31 Jul 13:

@TomLemley1 @AceofSpadesHQ @mikespillane The FDA won’t approve his drug until he ever finishes and publishes a trial. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?te…

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

@TomLemley1 @AceofSpadesHQ @mikespillane The FDA won't approve his drug until he ever finishes and publishes a trial. http://t.co/FyudQ6QGje

— Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) July 31, 2013

And so when I critique an oncologist or any other Skeptic I always provide source material so people can always fact-check me and I specifically said that people should fact-check everything ummm that the oncologist should say because he has, I’ve proven him to be frequently incorrect about his information and misleading
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
0:44:00
——————————————————————
DJT – The thing that’s funny is that people can say, ohhh Burzynski charges a lot, but the fact is, so does chemo, radiation, and some of these newspaper articles that have been published, and specifically in the movie, Burzynski 2, one of the people mentioned how much someone was paying for standard treatment

And I noticed our favorite oncologist didn’t comment about that in his movie review [7]
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
1:11:04
——————————————————————
BB – “There’s something that that we don’t know, you’re coming, honestly we didn’t know what to expect when we talked to you”

“We, were looking at the design, of your web-site and wondering whether or not we would be able to get a a coherent sentence out of you, because the web-site is disorganized, uh”

“Um, at at at at least it’s the organization is not apparent to the readers“

“Um, and um according to”
——————————————————————
DJT
That’s like, that’s like saying that Gorski’s web-site is disorganized, his blog is like anti vaccine one day, Burzynski the next, blah blah blah
——————————————————————
BB – “No, that is tied together”
——————————————————————
1:12:00
——————————————————————
BB – “But let me, we know that that the the, the central concern is Burzynski“
======================================
This is so Hilarious

Bob, why don’t you give a detailed explanation of how my blog with all its different search functions, is more “disorganized” than yours, and how about an in-depth data-analysis of Gorski’s “Respectful Insolence” blog, listing the # of Burzynski articles versus other articles

Oh

By the way, if you have NOT yet figured it out, my entire blog is Burzynski related
======================================
DJT – Well I think that people who really believe in “Free Speech,” and when it’s done rationally, I mean, Gorski would never, really respond to any of my questions, so I
——————————————————————
BB – “Did he, did he leave them up ?”

“Did he leave them up ?”
——————————————————————
DJT – Well I know that he specifically removed a review I did uh of his review of Burzynski I on his web, on his blog

But he’s pretty much left a lot of my comments up that I’ve seen

Uh, but he never really responded to my questions about, what he based his beliefs upon
——————————————————————
1:27:00
——————————————————————
BB – “Right, um, do you think that he is required to answer you ?”
——————————————————————
DJT – Well I would think, if you’re going to base your position on a certain thing, and then you can’t back it up with scientific literature, uh, you should answer, maybe not specifically to me, but answer the question

Answer to your readers [8]
——————————————————————
BB – “Right”
——————————————————————
DJT – You know, I can tell his readers come on my blog because it shows that they come on my blog
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
1:34:00
——————————————————————
BB – “Um, you know, Gorski blogs under his real name, and is critical of uh, uh, also, let’s face it, everyone know, knows who “Orac” is”
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
1:39:00
——————————————————————
BB – “Uh, what’s next for you”
——————————————————————
DJT – Well I’ll just keep reviewing the, any inaccurate statements I see posted

You know, it depends on if it’s Gorski, you know

Gorski’s gone on there and posted inaccurate stuff, and I call him out, you know he’s basically said on his blog, you know, if I do something inaccurate, you know, I’ll ‘fess up to it
======================================
======================================
6/3/2013 – “[I]f I had screwed up, I would have admitted it”
======================================

Well, I’ve pointed out where he’s done that and said “Hey, you said you were gonna ‘fess up to it”

If I said on my blog that I was going to ‘fess up to doing something wrong, and you caught me, well, then I should, come out and say, “Okay, you got me”

But Gorski won’t even do that, you know, he just continues to go on down the road, as if
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
1:56:02
——————————————————————
DJT – Well, I’m sure, I’m sure Gorskiwould have a comment about that, as he’s commented previously about how he thinks uh Burzynski should publish
——————————————————————
BB – “Oh I, I I I certainly don’t think that he would put a lot of stock in it, but I, I, I know Dave Gorski enough, he wants this to work”

“He has patients who are dying, you know”

“And if if if let’s say that that Burzynski could get ah his gene-targeted therapy to work on breast cancer patients in in a reliable way, that would be, such a help to these people, that that Gorski’s trying to help”
——————————————————————
1:57:10
——————————————————————
BB – “Um, yea, it doesn’t matter now whether or not Burz, whether or not Gorski agrees with how Burzynski publishes”
======================================
This is Laughable

Nowhere have I seen any indication from Gorski of a positive nature towards Burzynski [9]
======================================
DJT – Like I said before

Like I said before on my blog, you know, even if Burzynski publishes his phase 2 information, Gorski can just jump up and down and say, “Well, that just shows evidence of efficacy, you know, it’s not phase 3, so it doesn’t really prove it”
——————————————————————
1:58:04
——————————————————————
DJT – So then he can go on, you know, for however many years he wants to
——————————————————————
BB – “But he is a, the thing is, the thing is, you thing you have to understand is Gorski, Gorski is a genuine expert, in matters re re regarding on oncology studies“

I mean, he has a”
——————————————————————
DJT – Well,
——————————————————————
BB – “He, He’s able to convince people, he’s able to convince people, on the strength of his record, to give him money to carry out research”

People who know what they’re talking about”

To give him money to carry out his research”

Right ?”
——————————————————————
DJT – This is, this is a guy who must phone it in because, he went in there and posted the old Josephine Jones response that, you know, no drugs had been approved by the FDA without their final phase 2 publication 1st being published, which was not a factual statement, and you’ve made the same statement

So I, I’m thinking that Gorski just bought her statement and took it and ran with it, and before he fact-checked it, and what, what happened, it was wrong
——————————————————————
1:59:00
——————————————————————
DJT – I mean, Gorski needs to stop phoning stuff in, and check his sources before he posts stuff, because I’ve found many cases where, he hasn’t seemed to do that, and that’s why I question him
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
DJT – He’s done more than the case studies

He’s specifically given uh, almost all the information om an oncologist would want

And Gorski, and Gorski
——————————————————————
BB – “Except for a ph, completed phase 3 clinical trial”
——————————————————————
(laughing)

DJT – I mean, I love Gorski, but he comes up with these stupid excuses like, “Well, Burzynski is not an oncologist”
——————————————————————
2:01:00
——————————————————————
DJT – Well, Gorski doesn’t go go in there and look at his other, his phase 2 clinical trial publications, as far as the preliminary reports, and look at the co-authors, and see if any of those guys are oncologists, and that they’re working with Gorski, I mean they’re working with Burzynski

I find that ridiculous
——————————————————————
Uh, Guy Chapman, “It’s a blog, not a peer-reviewed publication”
——————————————————————
BB – “Um, so, it it is kind of, slightly disingenuous to hold uh Gorski to the same . . standard that you would, it on his blog“

“I think that professionally he would make, he he he would follow-up on these things”
======================================
PROVE IT [10]
======================================
2:03:03
——————————————————————
DJT – I mean, Gorski doesn’t want to deal with the issues

Hey, I’ve said it to Gorski

He liked to back his stuff up on the Mayo study, yet he wouldn’t, he wouldn’t uh debate about the Mayo study

He likes to say, “Well, Burzynski is not an oncologist,” but he won’t, say Hey, look at the publications, are any of the guys on the publications oncologists ?

We know that Gorski, we know that Burzynski works with oncologists in his practice

So, just because Burzynski himself is not an an oncologist, does not necessarily mean anything

Do we need to go out, onto PubMed, and, and review every particular person that’s published something about cancer and see if they’re all oncologists ?

Seriously
——————————————————————
2:04:11
——————————————————————
DJT – I mean, Gorski will just
——————————————————————
BB – “Yeah, but they”
——————————————————————
DJT – post a lot of stuff without backing it up
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
2:16:09
——————————————————————
DJT – What I defend, is that, y’all post stuff, a lot of Skeptics post stuff, including Gorski, and they do not back it up, with references, citations, or links

Gorski will just post stuff, like he did about saying, you know, the FDA would not approve, uh, accelerated approval, without a final phase 2 clinical trial being published, which was an incorrect statement, he did not provide any link
——————————————————————
BB – “Even if it’s true or false you, honestly though”
——————————————————————
DJT – We know it’s false
——————————————————————
BB – “Even if it’s true or false, in in that particular instance, you know, eh let’s just say that you’re right”

Gorski gets that point completely wrong”

It has no bearing on whether or not, ANP works”
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
2:18:00
——————————————————————
DJT – You know, I don’t see why Gorski is afraid of debating issues
——————————————————————
BB – “I don’t think he is””
——————————————————————
DJT – on the Internet, on his blog
——————————————————————
BB – “I don’t think he’s afraid”

“I just think he’s got a lot going on”

“He is act, a full-time surgical oncologist and researcher”

“He does have insane am, he has to pick and choose his battles”

“And if, if if he saw that we were going to ultimately be circling around our same arguments again and again; kind of like we’ve done here, um, he uh, you, he doesn’t have time for that, I don’t think”
——————————————————————
2:19:00
——————————————————————
BB – “I mean”
——————————————————————
DJT – Hey, he has time to post about, “Hey, uh, Burzynski got a Catholic award from somebody,” which, has nothing to do with antineoplastons, whatsoever

So, you know, he’s not focusing just in on,

“Do antineoplastons work, yes or no?,”

“When will Burzynski publish ?,” yes or no ?

You know, he’s putting all this ridiculous side junk, you know

So, I am not going to take that seriously
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/04/september-28-2013-the-skeptics-burzynski-discussion-by-bob-blaskiewicz-21951/
======================================
[2] – Robert J. (don’t call me “Bobby”) Blaskiewicz’s #Epic Skeptic “Word-Salad” #Fail – September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/burzynski-timeline-2-3/
======================================
[3] – DJT’s Comments – September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/burzynski-timeline-2/
======================================
[4] – Critiquing David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/critiquing-david-h-gorski-md-phd-facs-www-sciencebasedmedicine-orgeditorial-staffdavid-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
======================================
[5] – Critiquing: Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski, M.D., Ph.D, L.I.A.R.:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/07/critiquing-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-m-d-ph-d-l-i-a-r/
======================================
[6] – Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, quickly realized that David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS is NOT doing something wrong when he LIES about Burzynski:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/wayne-state-university-detroit-michigan-quickly-realized-that-david-h-gorski-md-phd-facs-is-not-doing-something-wrong-when-he-lies-about-burzynski/
======================================
[7] – 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/
======================================
[8] – IMPORTANT: The live “debate” that wasn’t-A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/important-the-live-debate-that-wasnt-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/
======================================
[9] – Does David H. “Orac” Gorski, M.D., Ph.D, really CARE about Breast Cancer patients?:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/does-david-h-orac-gorski-m-d-ph-d-really-care-about-breast-cancer-patients/
======================================
[10] – Burzynski: “The Skeptics™” – Harming without Care:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/burzynski-the-skeptics-harming-without-care/
======================================

Why “The Skeptics™” Perfessor Robert J. (don’t call me “Bobby”) “Bob” Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) of University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire, “Fame,” is a Coward and a Liar

9/28/2013 Google+ Hangout

“Before you dismiss it you have to look into it”
——————————————————————
1:13:00
——————————————————————
“Everytime somebody throws uh uh something to me, I have to look into it”

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

“Um”
——————————————————————
Well you didn’t when I tried to get you to do stuff the 1st time, did ya ?
——————————————————————
“What, what stuff would you like”
——————————————————————
(laughing)
——————————————————————
“What stuff would you like me to do ?”

“I generally, I don’t read your blog”
——————————————————————
Well I, the most, the mostly, excuse me, the most recent article I posted on there is the one about this particular conversation, where I went through all your comments that you had posted, and my response to them

And so I tried to consolidate everything into one, particular article
——————————————————————
“Uh um, alright“
——————————————————————
And that’s the newest article
——————————————————————
“Okay, I’ll look at that, and I will respond to it once I’ve taken a look at that, okay ?“

“Um, and I’ll respond on your web-site“

“Um, seems only fair“
——————————————————————
1:14:00
——————————————————————
2:09:00
——————————————————————
“I’ve made it very clear that he just needs to have a completed study published and replicated before I support his right to go out and charge people what he’s charging for these, for these drugs, and I’m I’m just not seeing that here with you, and I I wonder what could come from, and don’t worry I will go to your site and I will comment on on on what you’ve run“
——————————————————————
2:10:15
——————————————————————
2:18:00
——————————————————————
“Um, I, uh, wanna thank you for coming on here”

“I wasn’t sure that you would actually do it”

“Um, I’m glad that you did”

“I’m glad that we talked”

“Um, I will look at your web-site, and we will, uh, we, uh, you, oh make sure that I I go to your blog and and I talk there“
——————————————————————
2:19:00
——————————————————————
#EPIC #SKEPTIC #FAIL

“Um, alright then, this is your chance t, there are lots of people have lots of questions about me out there”

“Uh, about what my motivations are and such”

“I might as well put that out on the table just so it’s on the record, is that I am taking exactly no money from anyone for this, and have gotten nothin’ but grief from a lot of people, even people who (laugh), even people who support me have given me grief for this“
——————————————————————
1:22:02
——————————————————————
Bob, is that because you LIE ?

I fielded ALL of your questions within 2 hours,15 minutes, and 51 seconds, answering each question within about 1 to 10 seconds of the question being asked

You, on the other hand, have NOT even been able to answer ONE of my questions over a 14 day time-period; while you have had NO problem whatsoever, interjecting your twits on Twitter

Queue “The Skeptics™” Excuses
====================================
REFERENCES:
====================================
9/28/2013 – Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
——————————————————————
http://m.youtube.com/?client=mv-google#/watch?v=pa97hXMbUL0
====================================
September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™”
Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/04/september-28-2013-the-skeptics-burzynski-discussion-by-bob-blaskiewicz-21951/
====================================
Bobby Blaskiewicz Bows Up ‘Bout Burzynski:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/bobby-blaskiewicz-bows-up-bout-burzynski/
====================================