Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski, Stanislaw R. Burzynski, Stanislaw Burzynski, Stan R. Burzynski, Stan Burzynski, S. R. BURZYNSKI, S. Burzynski, Arthur Burzynski, Hippocrates Hypocrite Hypocrites Critic Critics Critical HipoCritical
David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., F.A.C.S. is an academic (i.e.: egg-head, paper-pusher, apparatchik) surgical oncologistspecializing in breast surgery and oncologic surgery
Gorski is no H.G. Wells
Wellscould, at least, tell a convincing lie; as he did in War of the Worlds
Gorski’d likely #fail as his evil half-brother, “H.G. #Fails”, in World War Peed, and probably didn’t think his readers would get the double-entendre’
Gorski is more famouser for pie in the sky
He’ll never be likened to Samuel Langhorne Clemens, or receive a “Mark Twain Award”
He’s an unlicensed Hackademic Quackademic who believes that bad press is good press, any press is good press
Gorski is the “Guy” who felt he was Scroogled by Google, when he and his public relations (P.R.) team; which reside in the hyperthalamus section of his brain, decided on 12/5/2012 to go pure pseudononsense pseudononscience:
Critiquing: Stanislaw Burzynski: On the arrogance of ignorance about cancer and targeted therapies [1]
wherein he quoted
Dr Burzynski:
“I published the review article in a peer-reviewed journal almost 20 years ago on the principles of personalized gene-targeted therapy”
====================================== Gorski:
“Curious as to just what the heck Burzynski was talking about here, I searched PubMed for this alleged review article”
“I couldn’t find it on PubMed”
“His only publications from the 1990s had nothing to do with cancer as a “genetic disease” or “personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy” and everything to do with antineoplastons”
“Perhaps Burzynski proposed this “revolutionary”
new idea in a peer-reviewed article that’s not indexed in PubMed, but if he did I couldn’t find it using Google and Google Scholar”
“I was in graduate school 20 years ago, and was taught back then that cancer was primarily a genetic disease.. ”
“There’s a term called “oncogene,” which describes genes that, when either mutated or too much is made, can result in cancer” ======================================
====================================== Gorski would have the reader suspend belief, and believe that he’s notsmarter than a fifth-grader; which is entirely plausible
That he could not do a search on the words:
antineoplastons
oncogenes
Burzynski
and find anything whatsoever ======================================
======================================
and that he did not have the cranial capacity to access the Burzynski Clinic web-site’s Scientific Publications page: ======================================
======================================
The United States Food and Drug Administration(FDA) did NOT have any problem finding it ======================================
====================================== Pg. 24
1997 – Burzynski. S.R. Antineoplastons. oncogenes and cancer. Anti-Aging Medical Therapeutics, Vol.1. Klatz RM.
Goldman R. (Ed). Health Quest Publication 1997; Marina del Rey, CA. USA
——————————————————————
======================================
This, from a doctor, eager to prove to the world, just how smart he is, because of:
—————————————————————— 12/.5/2011 – “positions I hold at an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center“[2] ======================================
====================================== 12/13/2012 – “positions I hold at an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center“[3] ======================================
====================================== 3/7/2013 – “my last two jobs have been at NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers“[4] ======================================
====================================== 11/2/2012 – “Personally having pored over Burzynski’s publications” [5] ======================================
====================================== 2/18/2013 – “I’ve read many of Burzynski’s papers” [6] ======================================
====================================== 6/5/2013 – “I do know cancer science” [8] ======================================
====================================== 6/10/2013 – “I do know cancer science” [9] ======================================
====================================== 6/7/2013 – “Unlike Mr. Merola, I am indeed very concerned with getting my facts correct” [10] ======================================
======================================
The same “Guy” who claimed:
Burzynskinever explains which genes are targeted by antineoplastons ======================================
======================================
A statement which I showed to be incorrect, by pointing out at least 18 different Burzynskiscientific publications which did what Gorski claimed they did NOT [11-12] ======================================
======================================
When Dr. David H. Gorski said:
—————————————————————— “Personally having pored over Burzynski’s publications”–11/2/2012
“I’ve read many of Burzynski’s papers”–2/18/2013
“I’ve searched Burzynski’s publications”–5/8/2013
——————————————————————
exactly what did he mean by “pored over,” “read,” and “searched”?
Some Bill Clintonesque definition designed to try and stump anyone who’s not smarter than a fifth-grader ?
(“It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is,’ is”)
You don’t have to be smarter than a fifth-grader to understand that ifDr. Gorski actually did what he said he did, that he should have been able to conclude without any hint of doubt, thatBurzynskiexplains which genes are targeted by antineoplastons
Where was your head ?
Was your head in Mississippi?
Was your head like a hole ?
Or was your head so far up your “Show Me State” pal Robert J.(don’t call me “Bobby”)Bob (I’m not a doctor, I just pretend like I’m one on the otherburzynskipatientgroup (TOBPG) and houstoncancerquack) blatherskite Blatherskitewicz(known liar) Blaskiewicz’s AstroTurf campaign, that you couldn’t see what you were not doing ?
This is a guywho has been funded by:
a) the Department of Defense(DOD)
b) the NIH (National Institutes of Health)
c) the Conquer Cancer Foundation of ASCO
and
d) the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
and this is the kind of supposed “Science-Based Medicine”(SBM)“results” he produces ?
This guy is proclaimed as:
“a prolific essayist and managing editor of Science-Based Medicine, a highly-respected blog that exposes non-scientific research and practices”
A “highly-respected blog”?
really ?
Really ??
REALLY ???
You’ve gotta be kiddin’ me !!!
“For the last ten years, he has been a major voice — as himself and pseudonymously — for science-based medicine”
You mean that “Orac”Hack ?
“Dr Gorski also runs an active research laboratory at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute”
Research ?
Is it similar to his “research” which I exposed here?
And yet, after showcasing such “brillianot” research skilz, Tuesday, 7/30/2013, Dr. Gorski was appointed / named program co-director of Michigan Breast Oncology Quality Initiative(MiBOQI); a state-wide initiative to improve the quality of breast cancer care using evidence-based guidelines[13]
He “will be involved in many aspects of the quality initiative”
Let’s hope that one of those aspects is NOT the “research” one
“Dr. Gorski has the breadth and depth of knowledge to effectively lead our very strong Breast Multidisciplinary Team,” said Dr. Bepler
“I have every confidence that Dr. Gorski will continue this very high standard of care.”
Perhaps Dr. Bepler is out-of-touch with reality when it comes to Gorski’s “research” and “standard of care” abilities
I wonder how long it is before his effort at infiltrating evidence-based guidelines with his Science-Based Medicine, raises its ugly hypocritical head ?
During the Holidays, maybe Dr. Gorski will have time to celebrate his promotion with his wife with an evening out, and before he pops the surprise to her about his retirement plans for Castro’s Cuba, he can take her by the hands, stare into her eyes with his big brown eyes; they have to be brown, right (?), because he’s so full of “it,” (?) and tell her these heart-warming words:
Darling, I know, that you know, that what I do brings home the bacon, and so it makes a difference in Michigan
In fact, I wanted to let you know how much of a difference I’m helping to make
1997 thru 2001, African American women breast cancer death rates per 100,000 in Michigan; as reported in the American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures for African Americans, 2005-2006, listed Michigan as the state tied with the 20 most breast cancer cases per 100,000, with 36.2
I’m proud to announce that for the last 2 reporting periods (2011-2014), covering 2003 thru 2009, Michigan is no longer tied with the state with the 20 most cases of breast cancer per 100,000
Michiganis now the state with the 11th most cases of breast cancer in African American women, which rose .5 from 33.8 to 34.3 over the last 2 reporting periods
And that’s not all
African American womenbreast cancer incidences inMichigan, per 100,000, rose from 119.0, 2000 thru 2004 as reported in the 2007-2008 report, up .4 to 119.4, 2006 thru 2010, as reported 2013-2014
Additionally, African American womenbreast cancer death rates inMichigan, per 100,000, rose from 33.8 for 2003 thru 2007, as reported for 2011-2012, up .5 to 34.3 for 2006 thru 2010, reported 2013-2014
And furthermore, breast cancer incidences in Michigan, per 100,000, were 119.4 for African American women for 2006 thru 2010, reported 2013-2014, and 118.7 for 2006 thru 2010 for white women, reported 2013-2014
So African American womenhad .7 more breast cancer incidences thanwhite women
And also, the breast cancer death rates inMichigan, per 100,000, was 34.3 forAfrican American women 2006 thru 2010, reported 2013-2014, 11.5 more than the 22.8 for white women for 2006 thru 2010, as reported 2013-2014
And I thought you’d be very pleased to know that the estimated new breast cancer cases in women inMichigan, rose from 6,120 in 2008, to 8,140 in 2013
An increase of 2,010
And, Michiganwent from being the state with the 9th most cases of estimated new breast cancer cases, to the 8th
And as if that were not enough great news for you, the estimated breast cancer deaths in women inMichigan, rose from 1,350 in 2004, to an additional 10 more women, 1,360 in 2013
And just like with the estimated new women breast cancer cases, again, Michiganwent from being the state with the 9th most cases of estimated breast cancer deaths, to the 8th
And last, but certainly not least, Michigan cancer death rates dropped from 25.8 in 2008, 1.8 to 24.0 in 2013
However, Michiganwent from being the state tied with the 18th most cancer cases per 100,000, to the state tied with the 11th most
But don’t worry honey
If you’re white like me, because you’re in Michigan, the breast cancer incidence for you per 100,000, went from 133.9 for 1998 thru 2002, as reported 2005-2006, down 15.2 to 118.7 for 2006 thru 2010, as reported 2013-2014
And, even better, white death rates in Michigan per 100,000, dropped from 27.3 for 1996 thru 2000, as reported 2003-2004, 4.5 to 22.8 for 2006 thru 2010, as reported 2013-2014
And best of all, sweetie, if you do get breast cancer and you’re white, you have a 9% better 5-year overall survival rate (69% – whites / 60% – African Americans, and for each stage of diagnosis for most cancer sites)
And I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that life expectancy is lower forAfrican Americans than whites among women (77.2 vs. 80.9 years) (2013-2014)
If that’s not job security for me, I don’t know what is
The mistake that Gorski made is that he did not take into account that this is not the age of Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini, etc
In this day and age, people canNOT get away with adopting lying as a part of a strategy, because the NSA is watching, and so are We, the People
Remain calm
Germans subjugated themselves to Hitler, the Soviets, Stalin, Italians, Mussolini, Cubans to Castro, and none of them were worth subjugating oneself to
None of them were worth being put on a pedestal
None of them were greater than you or I
Gorski is NOT the greater good
Gorski has a degree in “B.S.” from the University of Michigan
I do not have a “B.S.” degree
I’m the one NOT full of“B.S.”
Now that sounds like a story ripe for a journalistic investigation
So, I guess that means Bob Blaskiewicz’s fave “journalist,” Liz Szabo, and USA TODAY, are out of the running for this type of “reporting”
But look on the bright side:
“In his new role, he will work with the Samuel Silver, M.D., Ph.D., who is the MiBOQI program director, as well as assistant dean for Research and professor of Internal Medicine/Hematology-Oncology at the University of Michigan Medical School”
Maybe “the Samuel Silver, M.D., Ph.D.” will be GorskGeeks“checks and balances” ====================================== “Our only goal is to promote high standards of science in medicine” ====================================== http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/
======================================
====================================== Such risible hyperbole would induce fits of laughter in me if it weren’t such a complete lie ======================================
I’m just glad dad got outta Kellogg country while he could
—————————————————————— P.S.: Per Dr. David H. Gorski, anything which might erroneously be perceived as a lie about Burzynski, is NOT anything wrong, per Wayne State University[14] ======================================
[WP:SOP]“Statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then. 7.”)
Due & undue weight: [3]
“The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant & should not be considered,”
[WP:NPOV]“History of NPOV:” (Content # 6, Note 3)
(Neutral Point of View)
—————————————————————— TRANSLATION: Wikipedia editors, YOUR OPINION IS NOT RELEVANT
—————————————————————— MEANING: It is meaningless to attempt to slather your biased OPINION all over Wikipedia like butter on Texas toast, since supposedly, we only care about verifiable FACTS
======================================
Wikipedia, what the problem is ?
Jimmy Donal Wales
Who ?
No, “The Who” is actually really British!
(as opposed to some “furreigner” who plops across the pond, wants to pound one of your pelts after a celebrity hunt, pops it in his bonnet, pip-pips about, and mounts it up on his rented wall along with what’s left of his balls)
I’m writing, of course, about “Jimbo,” the one who got away . . . Thankfully
The recipient of the write-up earlier this year in The New York Times[1] (Oh, pithy!!)
—————————————————————— Wales, who no longer runs the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia
“He applies his libertarian worldview to the Internet and has taken on institutions like the United States government“
——————————————————————
You must be bloody well rightjoking me
(joking me ? Quit jokin’ me !)
JimCrow’s ’bout as “libertarian” as Fidel Castrowith a gun in his hand and (f)lies between his teeth; from traveling with the windows down
Stephen Colbert shoulda seen that comin’ from a 8 mile away
Hey Stephen, Report’ THAT !!!
—————————————————————— “He grew up in Huntsville, Ala., the son of a teacher and a retail man“
——————————————————————
And obviously, he didn’t “learnt” well
I think a refund’s in order
And here’s your free school Insolence to go with it
Happy eat in’
It is claimed that “HE” spends time:
—————————————————————— “traveling the world giving talks on free speech and Internet freedom“
——————————————————————
seriously ?
Seriously ??
SERIOUSLY ???
Welcome to MizFitTV
What would “Jymboree” know about “free speech” and “Internet freedom,“ anyway ?
How many days did you serve your country in the United States military ?
Oh, you did NOT realize that while you were in San Diego, you could have signed that contract ?
After all, he’s no Vincent Kennedy McMahon” (“HE” knows where “HIS”GRAPEFRUITS are)
====================================== “B.D.F.L., or the Benevolent Dictator for Life”
——————————————————————
How ’bout:
Big Disappointing Fascist Loser ?
—————————————————————— “Argumentum ad Jimbonem” means dutifully following what Wales says, but there are even arguments about that”
—————————————————————— WP:NICETRY, but that’s “SHEEPLE”
—————————————————————— “One Wikipedia editor said, for instance, that Wales was no longer comfortable with the B.D.F.L. description”
—————————————————————— Jiminy Cricket!
Whazzamatta Jiminy?
Did “FASCIST” hit a bit too close to home ?
—————————————————————— “(There is, among some, a debate over what to call him)”
“Some users have also disputed the Latinized version of “Jimbo.”“
“(Should it be “Jimboni” or “Jimbini”?)”
—————————————————————— Can you smell what “The Rock” is cookin’ ?
La-La-La-La-Laaaaaaawwww, JIMBRONI !!!!!!!
Get ready, and bend over, ’cause I’m gonna shine this thing up, turn it sideways, and shove it straight up your Candy AstroTurf hatch
—————————————————————— Introduction (statement of principles) [WP:SOP]
“This is a statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then”
—————————————————————— (Or if you go by The New York Times article, [1] Jimbroni is the “co-founder” who tries to re-write history to make it appear that “HE” is the one-and-onlyFascist Founder ?)
——————————————————————
“I should point out that these are my principles, such that I am the final judge of them”
“This does not mean that I will not listen to you, but it does mean that at some ultimate, fundamental level, this is how Wikipedia will be run”
—————————————————————— No, actually, it DOES mean that he will NOT listen to you, as was the case when he ignored my 2/7/2013 appeal
In his defense, perhaps Kate Garvey has his balls
—————————————————————— Principles
1. “Wikipedia’s success to date is entirely a function of our open community”
“This community will continue to live and breathe and grow only so long as those of us who participate in it continue to Do The Right Thing”
“Doing The Right Thing takes many forms, but perhaps most central is the preservation of our shared vision for the neutral point of view policy and for a culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty”
——————————————————————
The problem with this Wacky Tobacky“We are the (Wiki) World”WikiWhOReD Wonderland Jimbroni’s living in, is that “HE” has NOT been Doing The Right Thing since “HE”abdicated “his”“neutral point of view policy” and “culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty,” to “The Skeptics”
“The Skeptics,” who serve as gatekeepers of the Burzynski Clinic article, and who cite Dr. David H. Gorski a/k/a “Orac” aka GorskGeekas if he were a “reliable source”
“The Skeptics,” who bring new meaning to the term“Wikipedia Zero”
“The Skeptics,” who are Intellectual Cowards like their falsegodGorski, the Closet Communist of Science-Based Medicine a/k/a Science-Basted Medicine aka Science-Based Mudicine(Spinning Bowel Movement), WikiWordsmith Wannabes, nut-jobbers, stale from their failure at the National Peanut Festival in Dothan, Alabama
——————————————————————
3. ““You can edit this page right now” is a core guiding check on everything that we do”
“We must respect this principle as sacred”
——————————————————————
Do the lies just dribble off your chin like phlegm?
You canNOT just go in and “edit” the Burzynski Clinic article “page right now”
That statement is pure, unadulteratedAlabamaB.S.
That’s NOT a “sacred principle,” it’s sacré “bull”
——————————————————————
7. “Anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity”
——————————————————————
Unfortunately, you do NOT practice what you preach, do you, HYPOCRITE ?
—————————————————————— “They should be encouraged constantly to present their problems in a constructive way”
——————————————————————
So that you can ignore the problem(s), right, Jimbroni ?
—————————————————————— “Anyone who just complains without foundation, refusing to join the discussion, should simply be rejected and ignored”
—————————————————————— THAT would automatically exclude all of “The Skeptics” now, wouldn’t it ?
——————————————————————
“We must not let the “squeaky wheel” be greased just for being a jerk”
—————————————————————— Jimbroni, why have you allowed “The Skeptics” to choose from their “squeaky” wheel-house bag o’ tricks, get all “greased” up and jerk” so many people around in such a big CIRCLE-JERK, for so long?
——————————————————————
8. “Diplomacy consists of combining honesty and politeness”
“Both are objectively valuable moral principles”
“Be honest with me, but don’t be mean to me”
“Don’t misrepresent my views for your own political ends, and I’ll treat you the same way”
—————————————————————— “Honesty” and “politeness” are really great “buzzwords,” Jimbroni, but they are as foreign to your “Skeptics,” as “moral principles”
——————————————————————
A great example of the questionable“honesty” and “moral principles” of one of your apparatchiks, was demonstrated 2/3/2013, 6:56, when I sent an arbitration appeale-mail to Wikipedia, advising, in part, that the e-mail listed on Wikipedia; as the one that blocked users should use, did NOT work, because there was NO “@” sign in it
There was a . (period) where the “@” sign belonged
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— 2/3/2013, 8:11 AM, Anthony (AGK) BASC wikiagk@gmail.com advised:
“Everything you have said in that e-mail demonstrates a misunderstanding or misreading of Wikipedia policy”
——————————————————————
——————————————————————
Check the “time” and “place” where you are, so that you, too, can advise, that according to Wikipedia, pointing out to them that the e-mail they advise people to use, DOES NOT WORK; because there is no “@” sign in it (instead, there’s a . (period)), translates into meaning:
—————————————————————— “Everything you have said in that e-mail demonstrates a misunderstanding or misreading of Wikipedia policy”
====================================== Core principles
Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset [WP:SR]
Wikipedia does not have its own views, or determine what is “correct”
——————————————————————
I wish I could LIE like that, but I have a conscience
====================================== 12/24/2012, Monday – 3:52 pm – 21:52 (UTC) –
“We are told that 2013 will be a big year, but apparently his plan is to release another bullshit movie not to publish useful research”
——————————————————————
Does anyone other than me NOT think it a “coinkydink” that some “Guy” on Wikipedia, going by the name “Guy”, using the same 2 words (“Bullshit movie”) as a “Guy” on Twitter ?
======================================
2. Founding principles:
“Neutrality is mandatory . . . “
—————————————————————— I call B.S.
“Neutrality is mandatory,”EXCEPT on the Burzynski Clinic article, controlled by “The Skeptics”
——————————————————————
4. “Ignore all rules (IAR):”
“Rules on Wikipedia are not fixed in stone”
——————————————————————
Especially when Jimbroni allows “The Skeptics”
to “dictator” the “rules”
——————————————————————
“The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule”
“The common purpose of building an encyclopedia trumps both”
“This means that any rule can be broken for a very good reason, if it ultimately helps to improve the encyclopedia”
——————————————————————
And “The Skeptics” are NOT required to provide ANY reason for having broken “any rule”
——————————————————————
“It doesn’t mean that anything can be done just by claiming IAR, or that discussion is not necessary to explain one’s decision”
——————————————————————
But do NOT expect Wikipedia to require anything from The Skeptics”
—————————————————————— Founding principles
1. “Neutral point of view (NPOV) as a mandatory editorial principle”
—————————————————————– EXCEPT when it comes to the Burzynski Clinic article
—————————————————————— 12/26/2012 – I attempted to get Wikipedia to reference the interview which Burzynski’s attorney, Richard (Rick) A. Jaffe, and Lola Quinlan’s attorney; who posted it on his web-site, had given: [4]
Please add re WP:NPOV that Burzynski’s attorney, Richard Jaffe has disputed Lola Quinlan’s claims:
“On February 1, 2012, Dr. Burzynski’s attorney, Richard Jaffe, disputed Lola Quinlan’s allegations on Houston’s KPRC News.”
Thank you very much.[[User: Didymus Judas Thomas 15:03, 12/26/2012 (UTC)
—————————————————————— So? [OR] Disputing it in the media probably means he doesn’t have a case. [/OR] In any case, a lawyer disputing the allegations against his client is not even news. — [[User: Arthur Rubin 15:24, 12/26/2012 (UTC)
Arthur Rubin, I’m not sure what relevance your above post has re WP:NPOV since the articleincludes statements from attorneys representing both sides
17:51, 12/27/2012 (UTC) Didymus Judas Thomas
====================================== 12/24/2012, Monday – 3:54 pm (21:54.UTC) – “What they mean is that nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it, which necessarily means that it’s not considered in the least promising.”
[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([User JzG/help|Help!])
“Nobody else is doing meaningful work on it” ?
Ignores independent research done in Poland, Russia, Korea, Egypt, Japan, & China which specifically reference SRB’s publications in their publications re antineoplastons & phenylacetylglutamine (PG); which is AS2-5, & includes phase III trials published in China & continued research being published in China 12/17/2012?
FACTS:
1. I pointed out to Wikipedia, a 12/17/2012 scientific publication re antineoplastons, which referenced Burzynski@ 22. (antineoplaston AS21)
2. 7 days after this scientific journal was published, Wikipedia’a“Guy (Help!’s) ”response, Monday, 12/24/2012 @ 3:54 pm, is to advise me:
“What they mean is that nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it, which necessarily means that it’s not considered in the least promising.”
Guy (Help!) 3:54 pm, 12/24/2012, Monday
3. So, Wikipedia’s, Guy (Help!), defines an event having been published7 days ago (12/17/2012 to 12/24/2012) as:
“…nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it…”
12/17/2012 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3524164
CDA-2 (cell differentiation agent 2), a URINARY preparation http://po.st/g71N8P
CDA-2 and its main component PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINE (PG or PAG)
Antineoplaston AS2-5 is PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINE (PAG or PG) http://redd.it/1dk974
Antineoplaston AS2-1 is a 4:1 mixture of phenylacetic acid (PA) and PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINE (PAG or PG)
Antineoplastons AS2-5 and AS2-1 are derived from Antineoplaston A10 BURZYNSKI Reference: 22.
antineoplaston AS21 http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0052117
====================================== 12/26/2012, Wednesday – 12:43 – “There is unlikely to be any dispassionate debate over ANPs while Burzynskicontinues with his unethical practices.”
25. ↵ Burzynski SR
Treatments for astrocytic tumors in children: current and emerging strategies
Paediatr Drugs. 2006;8:167-178 http://link.springer.com/article/10.2165%2F00148581-200608030-00003
Pediatric Drugs
May 2006, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 167-178
======================================
—————————————————————— Rhode Island Redattempts to get away with misquoting me:
——————————————————————
——————————————————————
“The other argument is that the secondary sources (i.e., respected cancer organizations, FDA, etc.) are not reliable because they are Burzynski’s “competitors”
[[User: Rhode Island Red]] 4:18 pm, Yesterday (UTC−6)
======================================
——————————————————————
What a Wipocrite (Wiki+Hypocrite)
Steve Pereira (SilkTork) is such a “WIPOCRITE,” that he claims:
—————————————————————— “the community were united that your contributions were biased”
——————————————————————
He conveniently; like a good little mini-Jimbroni would, ignores ALL of his fellow WIPOCRITES comments, which completely ignored:
—————————————————————— ([WP:SOP]“Statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then. 7.”)
Due & undue weight: [3]
“The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant & should not be considered,”
[WP:NPOV]“History of NPOV:” (Content # 6, Note 3)
(Neutral Point of View)
——————————————————————
1. 12/24/2012, Monday – 3:52 pm – 21:52 (UTC) – “We are told that 2013 will be a big year, but apparently his plan is to release another bullshit movie not to publish useful research”
——————————————————————
2. 12/24/2012, Monday – 3:54 pm (21:54.UTC) – “What they mean is that nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it, which necessarily means that it’s not considered in the least promising.”
——————————————————————
3. 12/26/2012, Wednesday – 12:43 – “There is unlikely to be any dispassionate debate over ANPs while Burzynskicontinues with his unethical practices.”
——————————————————————
4. 12/30/2012 8:58 “The world, right now, considers Burzynski to be at best unethical and at worst a quack…”?
——————————————————————
Am I NOT the only one convinced that “the community” was also “united” in something more than just their “goose-stepping ?
—————————————————————— Pereira, the imperfect‘pedia Pimp tries to Wow his readers by waxing WikiWhOReD, by ignoring that ALL the previous BIASED opinion B.S. that his fellow-Facist forged ahead with, and which Wikipediantic history says means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING (say it again) because it is their BIASED OPINION and is ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS, and it was as so much WikiLitter, well, he’s just facist-free speechless about that, as any Jimbroni AstroTurf Twerk should be
======================================
To show exactly what zealots these WikiPimps are, just absorb this exchange:
——————————————————————
“The Burzynski Clinic Article has:
“…a Mayo Clinic study found no benefit….”
But that was not what the study concluded
See below:
—————————————————————— “CONCLUSION:
Although we could not confirm any tumor regression in patients in this study, the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions about treatment efficacy.”
——————————————————————
In the interest of Neutrality, please remove the reference to Mayo entirely or change to;
—————————————————————— “…a Mayo Clinic study found that “the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions about treatment efficacy.”
——————————————————————
Thank you very much
Didymus Judas Thomas 21:12, 12/10/2012
——————————————————————
“How is “found no benefit” not a a fair and pithy description of the Mayo Clinic study’s summary?”
Alexbrn 21:24, 12/10/2012
—————————————————————— “I feel this should be changed under WP:NPOV because not every reader is going to understand the “Fair & Pithy” reason I was provided
I feel that the average reader reading this will read it as meaning a study was done & completed with the necessary # of people for an effective study, when that was not the conclusion as pointed out in my above post
Thank you very much.”
Didymus Judas Thomas 11:02, 12/18/2012
—————————————————————— NO RESPONSE
That’s right !
“NO RESPONSE” from the “mini-b”(a/k/a “mini-brain”), wannabe Fascists who are so zealous about using their alleged“Fair and Pithy” “found no benefit” WikiWhOReD; which they utilize in an effort to deceive those who are NOTsmarter than a fifth-grader
These WikiPimps are so certain of the righteousness of their evangelical cause, that they do NOT even have the “GRAPEFRUITS” to use what the study’s conclusions actually said, and let the chips fall where they may
There are a lot of “chips” falling at Wikipedia
“BULL CHIPS”
JIMBRONI, you’re no Maggie Thatcher
You can’t even wear her pants
—————————————————————— Margaret Thatcher: “The Iron Lady”
Jimbroni: “No iron in the pants”
—————————————————————— Jimbroni’s list of Facist, mini-Hitler, Monty Pythonesque Women’s underwear wearing Wannabes on Wikipediantic:
These mini-b’s went so far as to allege all sorts of sockpuppetry
Wikipediantic, why don’t you list all the dates and times I was supposedly doing all of these activities; and don’t forget to include all the time I spent blogging, on Twitter, making comments on articles, etc., and once you have all that data compiled, explain how one individual could do all that in a 24-hour day
That’s right Wikipediantic
I’m challenging you to put up or shut up your cornholio
Bob ‘n Weave Blaskiewiczselected 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 biasedtalking-headbrillnuance
But he hopes mightily that his brilliance of adding the nut menageriesymbolism 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 NOTsmarter 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 sticktree
——————————————————————
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’spiss-poorPulitzer Prizephallicy
Bobbyexcretedend-runattempt 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 Burzynskibeing 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’sdevastating news, Profit attributable to shareholders was:
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
GorskiGeekstarts off his soapbox stump speech:
—————————————————————— “I was very pleased last Friday, very pleased indeed”
——————————————————————
Of course he was
After all, it was as if USA TODAY was quoting directly from “The Skeptics™”fave Fahrvergnügen pharyngula and GorskGeeks’sjackedJulyjabberwocky at “The Amazing Meeting”2013 (TAM 2013 #TAM2013) Twitter Twaddle-fest
Given the normal subject matter of this blog, in which I face a seemingly unrelenting infiltration of pseudononsensepseudononscience and hackery into even the most hallowed halls of hacademic medicine, against which I seem to be fighting a mostly uphill battle, having an opportunity to see such an excellent non-deconstruction of science and medicine in a large badmainstream news outlet like USA TODAY, GONE TOMORROW is rare and ungratifying
GorskGeek gambits:
—————————————————————— “As you might recall, USA TODAY reporter Liz Szabo capped off a months-long investigation of Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski and his Burzynski Clinic with an excellent (and surprisingly long and detailed) report, complete with sidebars explaining why cancer experts don’t think that Burzysnki’s anecdotes are compelling evidence that his treatment, antineoplastons, has significant anticancer activity and a human interest story about patients whom Burzynski took to the cleaners”
——————————————————————
My question ?
GorskGeek, how do you know it was a:
“months-long investigation” ?
The article does NOT indicate HOW LONG the USA TODAY“investigation” took
From this, I can only conclude, as I did after 1st reading the article, that based on the comments of Dr. David H. Gorski“Orac”, that there must have been collusion between “The Skeptics™” and USA TODAY
Most of this, of course, is no news to my readers, as I’ve been writing about Dr. Burzynski on a fairly regular basis for over 8 months now
—————————————————————— GorskGeek goofs:
—————————————————————— “It’s just amazing to see it all boiled down into three articles and ten short videos in the way that Szabo and USA TODAY did, to be read by millions, instead of the thousands who read this blog“
—————————————————————— Thousands read his blog ?
Does he mean over the 2 year period he’s been writing about Burzynski ?
GorskGeekInspector Gadgets:
—————————————————————— “Szabo also found out who the child was who died of hypernatremia due to antineoplastons in June 2012, a death that precipitated the partial clinical hold on Burzynski’s bogus clinical trials, about which both Liz Szabo and I have quoted Burzynski’s own lawyer, Richard Jaffe, from his memoir, first about Burzynski’s “wastebasket” trial, CAN-1“
—————————————————————— GorskGeek and USA TODAY both hashtag Failed to point out that a boy, the same age as Josia Cotto, survived a serum sodium (Na+) level of 234 mEq/L
If GorskGeek actually knew how to do real “science-based medicine” research, and if Liz Szabo and Jerry Mosemak had really actually done a “months-long investigation”, maybe USA TODAY and “Orac” could have had enough time to have figured the above out, as well as the clinical trialBurzynski’sattorney, Rick Jaffe, was referring to, was the CAN-1, which even you did NOT display any knowledge of in the July TAMmany Twaddle [3], and your 11/15/2013article[4]
——————————————————————
Naturally, upon reading Liz Szabo’s “ story,” I wondered how long it would be before there would be a response from GorskGeek or his minions
Both responses contain the same sorts of tropes, misinformation, and pseudononscience that I’ve come to expect from GorskGeek[1-2+4]
USA TODAY is biased and in the pocket of “The Skeptics™”
It was a “Shite Muslim Militia” piece
—————————————————————— GorskGeekdreamsicles:
—————————————————————— “I’ve deconstructed these, and many more, of Merola’s nonsense over the last two years”
“Odd how @BurzynskiMovie pretends I haven’t deconstructed his “evidence” in depth before”?
Really ?
GorskGeek is so much a monumental myopic Mythomaniac
GorskGeek all you did was “cherry-pick” what you wanted to blather about, and selectively ignored everything else
——————————————————————
What actually surprised me was the viscousness of the counterhackattack
For example, in counterhackattackingEric Merola’s letter to Liz Szabo, GorskGeek tries unsuccessfully to claim that Merola actually hopes that her child will get cancer, so that Burzynski supporters can gloat about it and Szabo will have to apologize to her children for her “perfidy” (in GorskGeek’s eyes, at least):
—————————————————————— GorskGeek gesticulates:
—————————————————————— “He denies that he hopes Szabo’s children will develop brain cancer, but then gloats gleefully over the possibility that she would have to face them after having—again in his mind—”helped to destroy the only thing that could have helped” them”
——————————————————————
In the dictionary, under the definition of “spin bowel movement (SBM),” there should be a picture of “Dr.” (and I use that term very “loosely”) David Gorski
GorskGeek would have fit in holistically as the propagandist for Hitler, Lenin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc.
Then, just when I thought GorskGeek couldn’t go any lower, he does, this time in his longer response on his blog
—————————————————————— “Eric Merola and Stanislaw Burzynski respond to the FDA findings and the USA TODAY story. Hilarity ensues”
——————————————————————
Obviously, to “Orac” asking GorskGeek to follow normal rules regulating medical ethics and human subject protections in critical trolls’ blog trials is exactly like murdering millions of people’s brain cells, carrying out horrible medical experimentation on common sense and sensibility, making untold numbers of Africans, slaves to his stupendousmess, and harassing, gratuitously, families of soldiers “killed” by his word salad battle
Didn’t anyone ever teach GorskGeek that you need to build up to that sort of climax ?
Of course, the big difference between Hitler’s propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels, unfortunately, is that compared to “Orac,” he had talent, and David GorskGeek does NOT
GorskGeek is a hack and is only funny by accident because he has no filters that tell him when he’s going way under the top
To him, Burzynski is an infidel
I do not share his belief, but, even worse, I have the temerity to criticize his god“Orac,” or, to mix metaphors shamelessly, to point out that GorskGeekhas no clothes
Since I’ve dealt with so many of the tropes included in GorskGeek’snot-so-little rant, I hardly see the need to repeat myself
However, as a breast cancer surgeon’s skeptic, I find one of GorskGeek’slies to be as despicable, or perhaps more so, than his ad hominem comparisons
—————————————————————— GorskGeek, the Hitler of hipocracy, came up with this hit parade of paranoia and “conspiracy theory”:
—————————————————————— “I don’t know what sort of attacks on the UK bloggers who produce the bulk of the skeptical blog posts about Burzynski are coming in Burzynski II, but when it comes to me no doubt Merola is referring to this bit of yellow journalism in 2010 from an antivaccine propagandist named Jake Crosby, entitled David Gorski’s Financial Pharma Ties: What He Didn’t Tell You” [5]
—————————————————————— GorskGeek then ad hocs ad nauseum about ad hominem fallacy
“In this fallacy, rather than addressing the actual evidence and science that demonstrate their favorite brand of woo to be nothing more than fairy dust, the idea is to preemptively attack and discredit the person“
“The ad hominem is not just insults or concluding that someone is ignorant because, well, they say ignorant things and make stupid arguments (in which case calling someone stupid or ignorant might just be drawing a valid, albeit impolitic, conclusion from observations of that person’s behavior), but rather arguing or insinuating that you shouldn’t accept someone’s arguments not because their arguments are weak but because they have this personal characteristic or that or belong to this group or that“[6]
—————————————————————— GorskGeek, the huckster of hackery laments that “The Skeptics™” are subject to character assassination, NOT because of their “science-based medicine”, but, alas, for being biased, lying, cowards
So, he must justify that as to why he then ad hominems those who he harangues:
—————————————————————— “In Burzynski The Movie, Dr. Whitaker has his nose embedded so far up Dr. Burzynski’s rectum that Dr. Burzynski wouldn’t need a colonoscopy if Merola just strapped a light to Dr. Whitaker’s face“[7]
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— “In the meantime, I realized that seeing Josh Duhamel stick his proboscis firmly up Burzynski’s posterior was not enough to explain the disturbance that I was feeling“[8]
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— GorskiGeek seems to have an unhealthy infatuation with ASS
My suppositorsition is that GorskiGeek, the highfalutin’ He-Man of hypocrisy, does wax on, wax off, waxes phonetic about ASS, because he is the apex of ASSmuchness
——————————————————————
In essence, he denies the toxicity of water in terms I’ve never seen anyone try to downplay before:
Water… is toxic?
This was perhaps the most stunningly malicious use of emotion to manipulate the reader in any of the propaganda pieces against H2O in history
—————————————————————— GorskGeekclaims:
—————————————————————— “Josia, as readers of Liz Szabo’s report will know, was the six year old boy with an inoperable brain tumor who died of hypernatremia (elevated sodium levels in the blood) as a result of Burzynski’s therapy“
—————————————————————— GorskGeek gassticulates:
—————————————————————— “As I pointed out last Friday and Szabo reported in her story, before his death Josia’s serum sodium was measured at 205 mEq/L, way above the normal range of 136-145 mEq/L and well into the lethal range”
“As I pointed out then, I’ve never seen a sodium level anywhere near that high“
“During my residency, the highest I recall ever seeing was maybe around 180 mEq/L”
——————————————————————
As I already pointed out previously in this article:
GorskGeek and USA TODAY both hashtag Failed to point out that a boy, the same age as Josia Cotto, survived a serum sodium (Na+) level of 234 mEq/L
GorskGeekclaims that Josiadied of hypernatremia (elevated sodium levels in the blood) as a result of Burzynski’s therapy
GorskGeek does NOT provide ANY citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) in support of his claim, and does NOT provide a copy of the autopsy
GorskGeek’s brain cells must be “sleeping in excess”, hence the symptoms of lethargy progressing ignorance of adverse events which approach critical black hole levels
Of course, none of this is new information
—————————————————————— GorskGeek hacks:
—————————————————————— “I also note that one of Burzynski’s most famous patients, Hannah Bradley, who with her partner Pete Cohen proclaims herself cured of her brain cancer, thanks to Burzynski, suffered some pretty serious toxicities from antineoplastons herself, including high fevers to 103.9° F, shaking chills, and severe rashes“
“Pete even documented how badly Hannah reacted to antineoplastons in his YouTube documentary Hannah’s Anecdote”
—————————————————————— GorskGeekflummoxes in that he erred to elucidate that the “rash” which Hannah experienced, even entailed epilepsy anti-seizure medication [4]
GorskGeekgambols the gabroni gambit by giving nothing but glib reasons for his genetically challenged gestation of Hannah’svlogs after gears up for Great Britain
Yes, GorskGeek is gabless about Hannah’sprogress in the G.B. as a germinating gerbil, as far as flu or fever, perhaps fearing his failure to feature any fact-checking facilitation a fanboy of Fanectdotes should fittingly fictionalize
——————————————————————
The rest of GorskGeek’srant reads like a greatest hits compilation from cancer hacks
You get the picture
That’s the whack-n-hack counterhackfensive trying to shore up Liz Szabo’ssorryarticle
—————————————————————— GorskGeekblowshard and long about the FDA Form 483′s findings, but does NOT heed his massive failure to be persuaded that:
“The FDA has not yet issued final conclusions”
——————————————————————
Who would doubt that if GorskGeek were to blog about Burzynski’s1997 criminal trial, that he would NOT list each and every one of the 34 counts of mail fraud, 40 counts of violating Food and Drug Administration regulations, and the 1 contempt-of-court charge; all “allegations”, which netted the U.S. Gubment absolutely NOTHING ? [9]
—————————————————————— GorskGeekidolizes the Burzynski Research Institute(BRI)IRB, because of Burzynski’sscientific publications, which indicate:
—————————————————————— 2003 – Membership of the Institutional Review Board(IRB) was in agreement with the Food and Drug Administration(FDA) [10]
—————————————————————— 3/2004 – Membership of the Institutional Review Board(IRB) was in agreement with the Food and Drug Administration(FDA) [10]
—————————————————————— 9/2004 – Membership of the Institutional Review Board(IRB) was in agreement with the Food and Drug Administration(FDA) [10]
—————————————————————— 2004 – Membership of Institutional Review Board(IRB) was in compliance with FDA guidelines [10]
—————————————————————— 6/2005 – Membership of the Institutional Review Board(IRB) was in agreement with the Food and Drug Administration(FDA) [10]
—————————————————————— GorskGeek then does a piss-poor“slight of hand job”, jerking the reader off about Pseudoprogression, pseudoresponse, so-called pseudoprogression, and “One phenomena, termed Pseudo-Progression (psPD)”
GorskGeekfalls flat face first for failing to show this phenomenon has factually happened [11]
I’ve made no secret of how much I dispute David H. Gorski, a la “Orac”, the “self-proclaimed”brain cancer doctor and brain cancer researcher who has been treating readers with an unproven, unapproved, NOT ordinarychemotherapeutic agent since Jesus just left Chicago, bound for Nawlins, seemingly Elaphe longissimaslithering around, under, over, and past all attempts to intestate him and shut him up
Along the way, GorskGeek has become a hero to the cancer hackery industry, touted as the man who can cure incurable insomnia that science-based medicine can’t, even though his treatment, insolence, allegedly pop tarts isolated from bloopers and Uranus that normally keep insomnia in check in healthy people, are by any reasonable definition NOT ordinary chemotherapy
Indeed, they are toxic, with a number of side effects reported, the most common and dangerous of which being life-threatening hyperactivity (elevated sugar levels in the blood)
All you have to do is to type GorsGeek’s name into the search box of this blog, and you’ll find copious documentation of the abuses of patience, science, and critical trials perpetrated by “Orac” and the cult of impersonality that has evolved around him
He’s even acquired his very own film perpougendist, a credulous fellow named Bob Blaskiewicz, who has made 2 astoundingly bad hackumentaries that are nothing more than unabashed hagiographies of the brave maverick doctor curing insolence where no one else can
They’re chock full of misinformation, pseudononsense, spin, and obvious emotional manipulation, and the 2nd one, at least, was very popular
For the longest time, I’ve been hoping that major mainstream news organizations would take this story on
—————————————————————— GorskGeekclaims:
“Now, thanks to Liz Szabo at USA Today, we know from her article Doctor accused of selling false hope to families [1]:
“Yet hypernatremia is one of antineoplastons’ most common side effects, known to doctors for two decades”
—————————————————————— GorskGeek, of course, does NOT care to mention the 2 hypernatremia studies that I listed in the 2nd of my 3 critiques on USA TODAY’s“hatchet job” of Burzynski[2], because, as he accuses others:
THEY DO NOT FIT HIS NARRATIVE
—————————————————————— GorskGeek continues:
—————————————————————— “showed a blood sodium level of 205 millimoles per liter, a level that is typically fatal“
“I was astounded to see that number“
“I’ve never, ever seen a sodium level that high“
“Typically, normal is typically between 135 and 145 mEq/L, with slight variations of that range depending on the lab”
“Burzynski’s excuse, which I’ve heard at various times as being due to an “improper blood draw” or as described above, is purest nonsense”
“Unless the technician spiked Josia’s sample with 3% saline or something like that, there’s no way to get the leve that high”
“Josia almost certainly died because of hypernatremia from antineoplaston therapy“
“To me, this is the biggest revelation of the story:”
“The story and identity of the child who was killed by Burzynski’s treatments“
——————————————————————
I did NOT know that GorskGeek was the Medical Examiner for the United States Food and Drug Administration
—————————————————————— GorskGeek is mistaken, as the “purest nonsense” is his nonsensical claim:
“I’ve never, ever seen a sodium level that high“
The reasonGorskGeek has:
“never, ever seen a sodium level that high”
is because he’s a “hack”, who’s more interested in churning out as many blogsplats as he can, rather than doing real“science-based medicine”research
As evidence of MY claim, I submit:
—————————————————————— 9/2004 – A Non-Fatal Case of Sodium Toxicity (Hypernatremia)
—————————————————————— “6 year old boy who was taken to the hospital following a seizure attack, and lab analyses revealed a serum sodium (Na+) levels of 234 mEq/L”
“A search of the boy’s house led to the discovery of rock salt in the cabinet and a container of table salt”
“Extrapolating from the serum sodium (Na+) level, it was estimated that the child had ingested approximately 4 tablespoons of rock salt, leading to the acute toxicity“
“A literature search revealed that the serum sodium (Na+) concentration in the present report was the highest documented level of sodium in a living person“
Non-Fatal 193-209 mEq/L have been reported previously [3]
——————————————————————
We also learn that—surprise! surprise!—GorskGeek is an enormous tool
(as opposed to having “an enormous tool” His cranium is too small to have “enormous tool”)
—————————————————————— GorskGeek then hacks:
—————————————————————— “Look at him dismiss his critics, particularly former patients, many of whom, let’s recall, have terminal cancer, many of whom are dead:”
“Burzynski dismisses criticism of his work, referring to his detractors as “hooligans” and “hired assassins.””
—————————————————————— GorskGeek, you are a “hooligan”, liar, lame, loser, et al.
—————————————————————— GorskGeek proceeds:
—————————————————————— “You know, whenever I hear Burzynski fans like Eric Merola accuse skeptics of attacking cancer patients, of accusing them of horrible things”
“I think I will throw this quote right back in their faces”
“Here’s Burzynski calling his patients prostitutes, thieves, and mafia bosses, and “not the greatest people in the world,” while accusing them of wanting to “extort money from us.””
—————————————————————— GorskGeek, LAME attempt at another LIE
Burzynski did NOT CALL his patients what YOU claim he called them
Let me repeat it for YOU, because I have the sneaking suspicion that YOU are “intellectually challenged”
BurzynskiSAID:
“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”
—————————————————————— GorskGeek, just in case you did NOT learn this at the University of Michigan, there is a difference between SAYING“WE SEE” and / or “WE HAVE”, and CALLING someone something
Allow me to provide you with a great example
If I SAY that YOU are the BIGGEST POMPOUS ASS I’ve ever seen, and YOU are NOT a BIG POMPOUS ASS, then THAT is derogatory
However, if I CALL YOU the BIGGEST POMPOUS ASS that I have ever seen, because you really and truly are a BIG POMPOUS ASS; as you are, then THAT is NOT derogatory
—————————————————————— GorskGeek tries again:
—————————————————————— “Not surprisingly, he also liberally uses the Galileo gambit, but that’s not surprising, as he’s repeatedly made the hilariously arrogant and scientifically ignorant claim that he is a pioneer in genomic and personalized cancer therapy and that M.D. Anderson Cancer Center and other world-class cancer centers are “following his lead.””
“Indeed, he claimed to have invented the field 20 years ago”
“Sadly, his publication record does not support such grandiose claims“
—————————————————————— GorskGeek, how would you know ?
You proved that you weren’t smarter than a 5th grader when you could NOT find Burzynski’s1997 Antineoplastons, oncogenes and cancer [4]
—————————————————————— “Curious as to just what the heck Burzynski was talking about here, I searched PubMed for this alleged review article”
“I couldn’t find it on PubMed“
“Perhaps Burzynski proposed this “revolutionary” new idea in a peer-reviewed article that’s not indexed in PubMed, but if he did I couldn’t find it using Google and Google Scholar“[5]
So why should ANYONE believe that you were able to locate the rest of his publications
and review all of them?
Now THAT would be a “grandiose claim”
—————————————————————— GorskGeek was also the village “idiot savant” (minus the “savant”) who face planted:
“how Burzynski never explains which genes are targeted by antineoplastons … “[6]
GorskGeek must have fumed for days when he found I “fact-checked” his fluff and found it false: [7-8]
—————————————————————— GorskGeekhopes to wreak havoc when he harrumphs:
—————————————————————— “For instance, experts are saying the same things I’ve been saying for a couple of years now about Burzynski’s anecdotes of “miracle cures,” such as Hannah Bradley and Laura Hymas”
“The reasons for these anecdotes include:”
“Burzynski often relies on anecdotes, which don’t tell the full story”
“Burzynski’s therapies are unproven“
“Burzynski’s patients may have been misdiagnosed“
“Burzynski’s patients may have been cured by previous therapy“
“There’s a reason why I’ve spent so much time deconstructing Burzynski anecdotes, and it’s for all of those reasons plus that anecdotes are often interpreted incorrectly by patients without medical training”
“Even doctors who are not oncologists sometimes interpret such anecdotes incorrectly to indicate that the cancer therapy chosen is the therapy that cured the patient“
“It’s not just Burzynski patient anecdotes, but it’s any cancer cure anecdote“
“That’s why clinical trials are necessary to differentiate all these confounding effects from actual effects due to the treatment”
—————————————————————— GorskiGeek displays what an abject #FAIL he is, as the question he should be asking is:
Why is the Food and Drug Administration FORCING patients to #FAIL conventional treatments; such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy, before being allowed to utilize antineoplaston therapy ?
If the FDA was NOT doing this, then GorskGeek and the “so-called experts” would NOT have this crutch to fall back on
GorskGeek, please list all the other phase II clinical trials where the F.D.A. has done this, and please also explain what would you do if the FDA did this to YOUR clinical trials ?
I know this might require some “Grapefruits” on your part, but do try and see if you can find yours in order to pull this off, if you’re NOT the coward I think you are
And when you’re done with that, please try to explain away the case of Jessica Ressel-Doeden
GorskGeekwinds up for the pitch of bullshit
He ratchets back his right arm and rockets it right into his rectum, reaches ’round and pulls out this righteousness:
—————————————————————— “Not coincidentally, Hannah Bradley had surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation, and Laura Hymas had radiation and chemotherapy”
GorskGeek, Hannah Bradley NEVER had chemotherapy, unless you are now going to claim that by “chemotherapy” you meant antineoplastons [9]
Hannah specifically mentioned:
“Chemotherapy also mentioned but not strong enough for that” [10]
—————————————————————— GorskGeek:
“Even doctors who are not oncologists sometimes interpret such anecdotes incorrectly” ?
I think you meant, even breast cancer oncologist specialists who are NOT brain cancer oncology specialists interpret incorrectly, you JackASS
====================================== [4] – 1997 – Burzynski. S.R. Antineoplastons. oncogenes and cancer. Anti-Aging Medical Therapeutics, Vol.1. Klatz RM.
Goldman R. (Ed). Health Quest Publication 1997; Marina del Rey, CA. USA
Pg. 24
——————————————————————
I gave Liz Szabo and USA TODAY the chance to act like a Spike Lee joint and “Do the Right Thing”, the same day their article came out [1]
I gave them the opportunity to prove that their article was a legitimate piece of journalism with some semblance of integrity, and NOT just akin to one of “The Skeptics™ phoned-in “rubber-stamped” yellow journalism hit pieces
Instead, it seems that Liz Szabo and / or USA TODAY decided to act as if they had rolled a Spike Lee joint
I sent an e-mail with 2 editorial corrections, and only one (correcting Lisa Merritt’s comment link from taking the reader to the 1999 Mayo Clinic report instead of to her comments), was corrected [2]
The 2nd correction which they #FAILED to do, earns them well deserved INSOLENCE
——————————————————————
The articleclaims:
—————————————————————— “Burzynski, 70, calls his drugs “antineoplastons” and says he has given them to more than 8,000 patients since 1977.”
——————————————————————
——————————————————————
However, if you select the “8,000 patients” link, the referenced page does NOT indicate that at all [2]
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— It advises:
—————————————————————— “That same year, Dr. Burzynski founded his clinic in Houston where he’s since treated over 8,000 patients.”[3]
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— Nowhere does it indicate that he “treated 8,000 patients” with antineoplastons
——————————————————————
——————————————————————
The question that Liz Szabo and USA TODAY should answer, is:
1. Who is your “fact-checker”, and 2. are they smarter than a 5th grader ?
——————————————————————
In fact, Burzynski’s 2002 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing advises:
” … in 1997, his medical practice was expanded to include traditional cancer treatment options such as chemotherapy, gene targeted therapy, immunotherapy and hormonal therapy in response to FDA requirements that cancer patients utilize more traditional cancer treatment options in order to be eligible to participate in the Company’s Antineoplaston clinical trials”[4]
——————————————————————
The article continues:
—————————————————————— “Individual success stories can be misleading, said Arthur Caplan, a professor and head of the division of bioethics at NYU Langone Medical Center”
——————————————————————
The question Arthur Caplan should be asking is:
Why has the United States Food and Drug Administration required Burzynski’s clinical trial patients to fail conventional therapies; such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation, BEFORE they are allowed to be treated with antineoplaston therapy ?
If the F.D.A. did NOT impose these restrictions upon Burzynski’s clinical trials, then the question Arthur Caplan raises would be moot
——————————————————————
The article quotes Dr. Jan Buckner as saying:
—————————————————————— “When I hear a story that is way out of the norm, the first question I ask is,
‘OK, is the diagnosis even correct?‘ ”
“Buckner said”
“If the diagnosis wasn’t right to start with, it doesn’t matter what the treatment was.”
“Brain tumors are notoriously difficult to diagnose, Buckner says”
“When dealing with rare brain cancer, doctors may disagree about how to interpret imaging results up to 40% of the time”
——————————————————————
I wonder if Dr. Jan Buckner would agree with David Gorski; who is a BREAST cancer oncology specialist, and NOT a BRAIN cancer oncology specialist, who has the presumptiveness to speculate that 3 different medical opinions could have misdiagnosed Tori Moreno in August 1998; who was diagnosed with a very large tumor, about 3 inches in the largest diameter and located in the brain stem, which was too risky for surgery, and about which her parents were told by ALL 3, that Tori’s brain cancer was fatal and, she would die in a few days or at the most, 2-6 weeks, and that there was nothing that could be done, and was finally put on Burzynski’s antineoplaston therapy in October, when she was about 3 ½ months old, and in such condition that they were afraid that she might die at any time, David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., FACS; who claims, “I do know cancer science”, has the audacity, because of his “book learnin'” has the temerity to postulate his “science-based medicine theory” that Miller’s Children at Long Beach Memorial misdiagnosed Tori Moreno’s inoperable stage 4 BSG
David Gorski has the gall to profer that City of Hope misdiagnosed Tori Moreno’s inoperable stage 4 brain stem glioma
David Gorski has the chutzpah to pontificate that Dr. Fred Epstein in New York misdiagnosed Tori Moreno’s inoperable stage IV brainstem glioma [5]
——————————————————————
The article then quotes Peter Adamson, chair of the Children’s Oncology Group:
—————————————————————— “But these therapies may have delayed benefits, taking weeks or months to shrink a tumor“
“So patients treated by Burzynski may credit him for their progress, just because he was the last doctor to treat them, says Peter Adamson, chair of the Children’s Oncology Group, an NCI-supported research network that conducts clinical trials in pediatric cancer“
“Conventional cancer treatment can also cause tumors to swell temporarily, due to inflammation“
“A patient who isn’t familiar with this phenomenon may assume her tumor is growing“
“When that swelling subsides, patients may assume it’s because of Burzynski, Adamson says”
——————————————————————
This is laughable
In support of this “phenomenon”, the article provides a link to a Canadian web-site [6]
The site posits:
—————————————————————— “RT/TMZ is now widely practiced and the standard of care for appropriately selected patients, we are learning more about the consequences of RT/TMZ”
“One phenomena, termed Pseudo-Progression (psPD)…”
——————————————————————
The problem is that this only applies to “Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM)”, and the article provides NO proof whatsoever, that any of Burzynski’s “Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM)” patients have taken “RT/TMZ”
——————————————————————
Additionally, the site cites the reference as:
Sanghera, Perry, Sahgal, et al., “Sunnybrook Health Sciences Odette Cancer Centre” (in press, Canadian Journal of Neuroscience)
(“In press” refers to journal articles which have been accepted for publication, but have not yet been published)
However, the journal article in question was published 1/2010, so it has NOT been “in press” for over 3 years and 7 months [7]
Get your act together, aye, Canada!
——————————————————————
The articlerants and raves on and on about FDA inspection reports from as far back as 1998, but at least they did quote Richard A. Jaffe:
“The FDA has not yet issued final conclusions”
——————————————————————
The article posts this ridiculous claim:
—————————————————————— “Yet the National Cancer Institute says there is no evidence that Burzynski has cured a single patient, or even helped one live longer“
——————————————————————
That’s NOT what this seems to suggest [8]
——————————————————————
Then the article quotes pediatric oncologist Peter Adamson, a professor of pediatrics and pharmacology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, in what will no doubt soon be known as a “classic”:
—————————————————————— “He’s a snake oil salesman,” says pediatric oncologist Peter Adamson, a professor of pediatrics and pharmacology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia”
——————————————————————
All I’d like to know is, which rock did this clown crawl out from under ?
Dr. Adamson, please advise which “snake oil” has been granted Orphan Drug Designation (“ODD”) from the United States Food and Drug Administration [9], and which “snake oil” has been approved for, and used in, phase III clinical trials ? [10]
—————————————————————— Q: Is it, it the phase 2 trial is finished ?
A:“Mhmm”
Q: but they’re still accepting people ?
A:“Yeah”
Q: on more like a special ?
A:“Special basis, and, um, sometimes compassionate grounds“
A:“(compassion exception)”
A:“Uh, exceptions“
Q: That’s normal ?
A:“Yes” “So”
A:“(Yes I guess it is a funding issue ?)”
Q: Right
A:“(Like FDA, during the 2nd phase of clinical trials they found the data to be, real, real one, and they gave him the ok to go for 3rd phase of clinical trials, but just to go through this process you would probably need $100,000)”
——————————————————————
——————————————————————
Oh, wait !!
Dr. Adamson, when you say “snake oil”, I take it you are referring to the low-dose chemotherapy that Burzynski uses ?
Dr. Adamson, do you know what a “hack” is ?
——————————————————————
In regards to the Merritt’s, the article has:
—————————————————————— “The couple say that Burzynski misled them about the type of treatment that would be offered, as well as the cost”
My questions about the Merritt’s are:
1. Where is their complaint to the Texas Medical Board ?
2. Where is their lawsuit ? Couldn’t they find an attorney to take their case pro bono ?
——————————————————————
The article continues:
—————————————————————— “Yet even Jaffe has acknowledged that the trial — now in its 17th year — was more about politics than science”
“In his 2008 memoirs, Galileo’s Lawyer, Jaffe called it “a joke.””
“”It was all an artifice, a vehicle we and the FDA created to legally give the patients Burzynski’s treatment,” Jaffe said“
——————————————————————
What Liz Szabo and her friends at USA TODAY fail to let the readers know, is that this only applied to one trial:
—————————————————————— Burzynski’s lawyer is obviously referring to the CAN-1 clinical trial mentioned in Burzynski’s 11/25/1997 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing [11]
—————————————————————— One trial that is retrospective is CAN-1 Clinical Trial
—————————————————————— CAN-1 PHASE II STUDY OF ANTINEOPLASTONS A10 AND AS2-1 IN
PATIENTS WITH REFRACTORY MALIGNANCIES
133 patients
—————————————————————— Clinical trial of patients treated by Dr. Burzynski through 2/23/1996
—————————————————————— FDA has indicated it will not accept data generated by this trial since it was not a wholly prospective one
——————————————————————
The article continues in the same vein:
——————————————————————
“In an interview, Burzynski said developing new drugs is complex and takes time”
“Yet the FDA has approved 108 cancer drugs since Burzynski began his trial”
—————————————————————— Ms. Szabo and “pals” conveniently “forgets” to educate their audience that Burzynski was using Fleming’s One-sample multiple testing procedure for phase II clinical trials [13], which requires that if the 1st 20 patients meet certain criteria, 20 additional patients are added [14]
—————————————————————— “Well, we cannot publish until the time is right” (laughs)
Yeah
“If you would like to publish the results of, of a 10 year survival, for instance”
Mmm
“Which we have
Nobody has over 10 year survival in malignant brain tumor, but we do, and if you like to do it right, it takes time to prepare it, and that’s what we do now
What we publish so far
We publish numerous, uh, publications which were, interim reports when we are still continuing clinical trials
Now we are preparing, a number of publications for final reports“[15]
——————————————————————
Then Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition makes an outlandish statement, which is quoted in the article:
—————————————————————— “Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition, describes the FDA’s tolerance of Burzynski as “outrageous.””
“They have put people at risk for a long time,” says Visco, an attorney and breast cancer survivor”
“That’s completely unacceptable”
“How can anyone look at these facts and believe that there is a real clinical trial going on … rather than just using the FDA and the clinical trial system to make money?”
——————————————————————
I have a suggestion for Ms. Visco
Take your hypocrisy and ask the American Cancer Society if they are still engaged in this kind of activity:
1.AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY: More Interested In Accumulating Wealth Than Saving Lives [15]
2.National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society: Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest [16]
——————————————————————
Then, ask the American Cancer Society, why is it that 10 years ago, estimated breast cancer deaths were expected to be 39,800 (15%), and this year it was 39,620 (14%), which is ONLY 180 LESS than 10 years ago ?
—————————————————————— Estimated Breast Cancer Deaths (Women)-USA
—————————————————————— 2013☝39,620 (14%)
2012👇39,510 (14%)
2011👇39,520 (15%)
2010👇39,840 (15%)
2009👇40,170 (15%) 2008☝40,480 (15%)
2007👇40,460 (15%) 2006☝40,970 (15%)
2005👇40,410 (15%) 2004☝40,110 (15%)
2003☝39,800 (15%)
2002 – 39,600 (15%)
—————————————————————– American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures (2002-2013)
—————————————————————–
And then ask the American Cancer Society, why is it that 10 years ago, the estimated NEW breast cancer cases were expected to be 211,300 (32%), and this year it was 232,340 (29%), which is 21,340 MORE than it was 10 years ago ?
—————————————————————— Estimated New Breast Cancer (Women) – USA
—————————————————————— 2013☝232,340 (29%)
2012👇226,870 (29%) 2011☝238,480 (30%)
2010☝207,090 (28%)
2009☝192,370 (27%)
2008☝182,460 (26%)
2007👇178,480 (26%) 2006☝212,920 (31%)
2005👇211,240 (32%) 2004☝215,900 (32%)
2003☝211,300 (32%)
2002_-_203,500 (31%)
—————————————————————– American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures (2002-2013)
——————————————————————
And after that, ask Susan G. Komen how much is spent on legal action to protect her brand, compared to how much is spent on breast cancer research and prevention ?
—————————————————————— Visco, the breast cancer advocate
“I do NOT know why it took YOU so long.”
——————————————————————
The article continues with:
—————————————————————— “Yet hypernatremia is one of antineoplastons’ most common side effects, known to doctors for two decades”
——————————————————————
Yet, “The Skeptics™” refuse to discuss:
—————————————————————— 2/13/2013 – The frequency, cost, and clinical outcomes of hypernatremia in patients hospitalized to a comprehensive cancer center
Over 3 month period in 2006 re 3,446 patients, most of the hypernatremia (90 %) was acquired during hospital stay [19]
Division of Internal Medicine, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
Department of General Internal Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
Division of Endocrinology, Mayo Clinic
—————————————————————— 9/1999 – The changing pattern of hypernatremia in hospitalized children [20]
Department of Pediatrics, Texas Children’s Hospital, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
——————————————————————
So, after all that, my question for USA TODAY is, does Liz Szabo, Michael Stravato, Jerry Mosemak or Robert Hanashiro have a journalism degree ?
Because if any of them do, the institution they obtained it from most be so proud of this piece of “fish wrap” you produced
Thank you, USA TODAY, for censoring my 18 comments
I guess you must be (“intellectual”) cowards
At least Forbes had the GRAPEFRUITS to post some of my comments
—————————————————————— You’ve just been served, INSOLENTLY
—————————————————————— USA TODAY, GONE TOMORROW
——————————————————————
Gorski wants to play in the kitchen, but he can’t take the heat
2/18/2013, Gorski posted his 1st book report on Hannah Bradley
Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski’s cancer “success” stories [1]
The year 2012 was rung out and the year 2013 was rung in by news that “Orac” Check-My-Facts-Hack, propagandist for “brave maverick doctor” Dr. David H. Gorski, who claims that sugar doesn’t feed cancer [2], is releasing a sequel to his wildly successful hackumentary (in “The Skeptics™” underground, that is) “How Stanislaw Burzynski became Burzynski the Brave Maverick Doctor, part 1” [3] 😃
In fact, the sequel is coming out on BFD (Blogs For Dummies) on …, well …, just any day now ! 😳
I somehow doubt that GorsKon will send me a screenerBFD to review, but I did review the 4blogettes he posted on Science Based Medicine; home of: “Our only goal is to promote high standards of science in medicine” [4], and National Geographic’s(#NatGeo)Science blogs, because it easily falls into a genre that I like to refer to as medical propaganda posts, which are almost always made in support of dubious blogs re medical treatments 😊
Gorhac’s mostly lame jokes about proposed titles aside (e.g., Burzynski II:”“Pathetic Googleloo, Burzynski II:”This Time It’s Pee-Reviewed, or even Burzynski II: FAQ Harder), it’s very clear that in the wake of his decision to drop his “[I]f I had screwed up, I would have admitted it” [5]claim re Burzynski on a technicality, and his very own spin doctor named “BOrac, are planning on a huge publicity blitz, in which @gorskon will be portrayed as, yes, a “brave maverick doctor” whom “They” (as in the BPG (Burzynski Patient Group), 3’s company, and the Don’t Mess with Texas Board of Education, a.k.a “DJT”) tried to keep down but failed because he has The Natural Cure For Rancor“Two Turntables and a Mr. Microphone” 😝
I come back to this again because Gorac’s strategy for Burzynski II, as I pointed out, is going to involve “conversion stories” of “The Skeptics™” who didn’t believe in @oracknows magic “[I]f I had screwed up, I would have admitted it”, but do now, after Bob ‘n Weave Blaskiewicz proclaimed during the 9/28/2013 “Burzynski Discussion” Google+ Hangout:“I think that professionally he would make, he he he would follow-up on these things” (2:01:00)[6], claims that he’s 75% sure of the identity of someone who has been critical of his work (like me) [7], and, of course, sucky stories 😜
“DOHrac’s” 4 posts consists of four elements:
Bias, MisDisInformation, (anecdotes), including “EOrac’s” “sucky stories”, contrasted with a rehash of “conspiracy theories” from his “review” of the first movie about the “cancer destablishment” trying to suppress common sense with pseudononsense 😄
Never mind that, even if he were FDA-approved, he would be in the same class as “The Skeptics™” that are disdained on social media as being more for hyper-“bull” than anything else because they have been giving B.S. for a long time ☺
He states: “One notes that Burzynski’s protocol requires at least 18 months of near-continuous infusion of high doses of his antineoplastons“
Does Gorski provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support his claim ?
no
“mOResmACk” reminds me of Pink
That would be the Pink in Pink Floyd, singing: “We don’t need no edumacation”, because he’s like the churlish schoolboy so intent on getting on to make his 2nd mud pie, that he pulls a wanker on the 1st one
Maybe he should learn how to do real “cancer research” like I posted 8/21/2013 [8]
——————————————————————
10/2004 (Pg. 384) 4.3 months – median duration of administration
——————————————————————
11/2010 (Pg. iv72) 4.4 months – median duration of treatment
——————————————————————
10/2006 (Pg. 466) 4 1/2 months – median duration of i.v. ANP
——————————————————————
3/2006 (Pg. 40) 5 months – median duration of antineoplaston administration
——————————————————————
10/2004 (Pg. 428) 5.2 months – administered median
——————————————————————
12/2009 (Pg. 951) 5.4 months – median duration of treatment (ST)
——————————————————————
12/2009 (Pg. 951) 5.6 months – median duration of treatment (SE)
——————————————————————
10/2004 (Pg. 427) 5.7 months – average duration of ANP
——————————————————————
10/2008 (Pg. 821) 5.7 months – median duration of treatment
—————————————————————— 2003 (Pgs. 91 + 96) 6 months – median duration of treatment
——————————————————————
12/2008 (Pg. 1067) 6.5 months – median duration of treatment
——————————————————————
10/2003 (Pg. 358) 9.5 months – median duration of IV ANP
——————————————————————
7/2005 (Pg. 300) 9 1/2 months – median duration of administration
—————————————————————— 2004 (Pgs. 315 + 320) 16 months (1 year 4 months) average duration of intravenous ANP
——————————————————————
6/2008 (Pg. 450) 16.5 months (1 year 4.5 months) – median
——————————————————————
2004 (Pg. 320)
19 months – average duration of oral ANP
——————————————————————
6/2005 (Pgs. 168 + 170)
20 months (1 year 8 months) administered average duration
——————————————————————
10/2003 (Pg. 358)
28.6 months (2 years 4.6 months) – median duration of po ANP
After obtaining at least minor response (SD), the treatment continued with po ANP
——————————————————————
9/2004 (Pg. 257)
655 consecutive days – administration of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 with the exception of a few short interruptions
—————————————————————— Gorski continues:
“Attacks on skeptics and critics of Burzynski“
“If you don’t believe me, just read question #12 in Merola’s FAQ, in which he states,
“You will notice the ‘anti-Burzynski’ bloggers refuse to do that or adhere to reputable sources”
—————————————————————— Gorski, you did NOT even provide any “source” for your “claim” that:
” … Burzynski’s protocol requires at least 18 months of near-continuous infusion of high doses of his antineoplastons“
—————————————————————— Gorski adds:
“You might say, they are preying on desperate cancer patients and families of cancer patients by carelessly misleading their readers about Burzynski and his invention.””
—————————————————————— Gorski, let’s check and see where else YOU are “carelessly misleading” your “readers”
One marvels at your amazing level of protestation ッ
However, every movie needs a villain, and it doesn’t take “sidekick” abilities to guess why “The Skeptics™” are portrayed as villains
—————————————————————— Gorski gratuitously gabs on:
“Merola also direly accuses and threatens,
“In the worst case scenarios, some bloggers intentionally publish fabricated information to their readers in an attempt to curb new patients from going to the Burzynski Clinic“
“I can hardly wait”
—————————————————————— Gorski, did you mean to “intentionally publish fabricated information” ? 😮
—————————————————————— “Neither can, I bet, a fair number of lawyers“
—————————————————————— Gorski, who’s your lawyer ?
—————————————————————— Gorski plods onward:
“An attempt to reframe Burzynski’s enormous bills for his antineoplaston therapy and criticism that he’s making clinical trial subjects pay to be in his clinical trials”
—————————————————————— Gorski, BITE ME 🙂
Does Gorski provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support his claim ?
——————————————————————
CHEMOTHERAPY: 9/24/2012 – hospitals routinely marking up prices on cancer drugs 2 to 10 times over cost
Some markups far higher
nearly $4,500 for 240-milligram dose of irinotecan to treat colon or rectal cancer average sales price: less than $60
about $19,000 1-gram dose of rituximab to treat lymphoma and leukemia roughly 3 times average sales price
about $680 50 milligrams of cisplatin markup: more than 50 times average sales price
Avastin, about $90,000 a year http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/09/24/3549634/prices-soar-as-hospitals-dominate.html
——————————————————————
5/14/2012 – Oral anti-cancer medications generally considered pharmacy benefit
Instead of co-payment plan members often pay % of cost — up to 50% in some cases — with no annual out-of-pocket limit
drugs expensive often costing 10s of 1,000s of $s a year http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-05-14/national/35457286_1_lung-cancer-drug-drugs-work-multiple-myeloma-patients
——————————————————————
RADIATION: 1/4/2013 – new study most comprehensive cost analysis ever, compared costs and outcomes associated with various types of treatment for all forms of disease, ranged from $19,901 for robot-assisted prostatectomy to treat low-risk disease, $50,276 for combined radiation therapy for high-risk disease http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2013/01/13370/how-prostate-cancer-therapies-compare-cost-and-effectiveness
——————————————————————
3/15/2012 – Using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data, 26,163 women with localized breast cancer had undergone surgery and radiation 2001 to 2005
found Medicare billing for IMRT increased 0.9% diagnosed 2001 to 11.2% diagnosed 2005
average cost radiation treatment during 1st year $7,179 for non-IMRT $15,230 with IMRT
billing for IMRT more than 5 times higher in regions across nation where local Medicare coverage determinations favorable to IMRT compared to regions where unfavorable
“The new claim is that Burzynski isn’t making patients pay for his antineoplastons (see question #13 in Merola’s FAQ), just for “clinical management” (as if that weren’t incredibly transparent) Vindication”
—————————————————————— Gorski, “NEW CLAIM” ?
2/4/2013 my post #180 on YOUR blog addressed this “new claim” by referencing a 3/12/1996 note before you posted your article 2/18/2013 [9]
—————————————————————— 3/12/1996: 2nd – 4th paragraphs (2/4/2013 post #180)
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— Gorski, makes an excuse:
“The last time I discussed Merola’s forthcoming movie, I mentioned that he had contacted me in December and asked me to appear as a Burzynski critic“
“After consultation with skeptics with more media savvy than I, not to mention the PR department at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute (whom I thought it wise to give fair warning that one of their faculty might be featured as evil incarnate in a new documentary and to give the background on what it’s all about, in case there were press inquiries), I politely declined“
—————————————————————— Gorski is like fetid HOT AIR, all words and NO action
—————————————————————— Gorski fumes:
“While going on and on about how he thinks most of us have “good motives” and how we want to be the white knight riding in to save patients from quackery (a desire he somehow manages to convey with clear dismissiveness and contempt), Merola turns immediately around to claim that we don’t know what we’re talking about and we don’t read the literature“
—————————————————————— Gorski, YOU really “don’t know what” you’re “talking about” and I’m just getting warmed up 🙂
—————————————————————— Gorski has smoke coming out his ears:
“This, of course, is complete nonsense, as I’ve read many of Burzynski’s papers (such as they are), delved into ClinicalTrials.gov to look at his clinical trials, examined the plausibility of his claims from a scientific standpoint, and examined the literature from others, both on antineoplastons and related topics”
“I’ve dissected Burzynski’s claims for antineoplastons based on science, assessed his “personalized, gene-targeted cancer therapy” claims and found them wanting, and pointed out how what he is peddling isn’t really anything new at all (more on that later), all based on my knowledge, skills, and understanding of cancer as a breast cancer surgeon and researcher”
“No doubt that’s why Merola needs to discredit me“
—————————————————————— Gorski, Eric Merola does NOT need “to discredit” you
YOU have already done a yeoman’s job of discrediting yourself [10] 🙂
—————————————————————— Gorski posits:
“Other bloggers who have been critical of Burzynski might or might not have my scientific background, but they’ve delved just as deeply into his claims and the evidence for them, and, as I have, they’ve found them highly overinflated and largely not based in science”
—————————————————————— Gorski, unfortunately, is NOT able to name these “[o]ther bloggers”
—————————————————————— Gorski deposits:
“They’ve also taken on aspects of the Burzynski phenomenon, such what I consider to be his questionable ethics and finding out what happened to a lot of patients who trusted Burzynski, far better than I have”
“Merola’s dismissal of Burzynski’s critics is, quite frankly, insulting to them and to me.”
—————————————————————— Gorski fails to mention the very “questionable ethics” of his intrepid research bud Bob [11]
—————————————————————— Gorski rants:
“I don’t know what sort of attacks on the UK bloggers who produce the bulk of the skeptical blog posts about Burzynski are coming in Burzynski II, but when it comes to me no doubt Merola is referring to this bit of yellow journalism in 2010 from an antivaccine propagandist named Jake Crosby, entitled David Gorski’s Financial Pharma Ties:”
“What He Didn’t Tell You”
——————————————————————
Does Gorski provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support his claim that it’s:
“UK bloggers who produce the bulk of the skeptical blog posts about Burzynski” ?
“What He Didn’t Tell You” ?
NO
—————————————————————— Gorski blots:
“Predictable and tiresome attacks aside, Pete and Hannah’s video made me curious about the specific success stories that Merola will focus on as “proof” that Burzynski is on to something; so I decided I should look into their stories”
“On the surface to those not familiar with cancer they do look like success stories”
“If one digs deeper, the true story is a lot murkier”
—————————————————————— Doctor “G” omits, that once “one digs deeper”, HIS“story is a lot murkier”
—————————————————————— Gorski A.D.D.s:
“More importantly, as I will show, even if they really are success stories—which is not at all clear—they do not constitute convincing evidence of the general efficacy of Burzynski’s antineoplastons, nor do they justify what I consider to be Burzynski’s highly unethical behavior.”
—————————————————————— More importantly, as I will show, is what I consider to be Gorski’s highly unethical behavior
—————————————————————— Gorski flails away:
“I will start with Hannah Bradley’s story because I’ve watched the entire 40 minute video Hannah’s Anecdote (whose title is even more appropriate than perhaps Pete Cohen imagined when he made it)”
“The documentary ends triumphantly several months after the events portrayed during the bulk of the film with Hannah apparently having had a complete response to Burzynski’s antineoplaston therapy:”
——————————————————————
Let me just first say something before I begin my usual analysis
I love these reviews 😘
I really do
Yes, it’s true that GorsGeek can be a bit annoying with his seeming desire to validate everything he flogs about some perceived “offender,”as being applicable to him, but I want GorskGeek and “HOrac” to be able to live a long and full life together, growing old in each other’s company
I really do
In fact, I’d love to hang with these two and maybe buy them a pint or two at their local pub (except that it’s pointed out multiple times that GOrackGeek should no longer drink alcohol)
“Such is not my intent, but what are skeptics supposed to do?”
“Shy away from undertaking a dispassionate analysis of patient anecdotes used to promote dubious cancer therapies for fear of what patients will say?”
—————————————————————— Gorski, it might actually help IF you knew how to do a proper “dispassionate analysis” 😐
—————————————————————— Gorski cites from the Team Hannah blog
“Hannah’s treatment options are very limited and her life expectancy is for this type of tumour is normally around 18 months and this is why I started a mission to find people who had the same condition and are still alive today”
“I managed to track down a number of these people to speak to them.”
“In his movie, Pete points out that these people all led back to Burzynski“
Gorski interjects:
“Of course, as I’ve said before, dead patients don’t produce testimonials for alternative cancer cures“
——————————————————————
One wonders why Gorski even makes this comment as the number of patients Pete contacted re Burzynski’s “alternative cancer” cure, were obviously NOT dead 😮
—————————————————————— Gorski segues on to:
“Not long after they appear at the Burzynski Clinic, they meet with doctors there who tell them that Hannah’s most recent MRI scan showed progression of her tumor (around 8:30 in the movie)”
“Now, I’m not a radiologist, much less a neuroradiologist, but I wondered at all the enhancement on the superficial area of the brain, just under where her neurosurgeon must have raised the bone flap to remove what he could of the tumor“
“One wonders if much of the remaining enhancement could be still post-surgical and post-radiation change“
“Certainly, the tumor is cystic-appearing, and after surgery such cysts would likely shrink and be reabsorbed even if the tumor were to keep growing”
—————————————————————— Gorski, if you were NOT in a such a rush to post your blog article “ad homineming” Josh Duhamel, you could have taken the time to do proper “cancer research” and maybe listen to the 9/24/2012 @YouTube video of Pete Cohen talking with Neurosurgeon (Consultant) Juan F. Martinez-Canca (20:31)
After all, HE is an actual NEUROSURGEON
——————————————————————
——————————————————————
Or you could read the transcript I made of the video [12]
——————————————————————
Or you could have contacted him and asked questions http://www.neurokonsilia.com/About-Us.html
—————————————————————— Gorski tangents:
“Be that as it may, there were a number of things I found very interesting in this video”
“First, I notice that nowhere was there anything mentioned about enrolling Hannah on a clinical trial“
—————————————————————— Gorski, if you had let Hannah know you were going to do your article about her, she might have churned her 4/4/2013 article out faster just for you, where she advises:
“Luckily I was able to take part in a phase 2 clinical trial in Texas, USA”[13]
—————————————————————— Gorski stupefies:
“Given what a thorough videographer Pete obviously is, I find this omission very curious”
“Certainly, given how much detail he’s used in this video and in his vlogs I’d expect that if the subject of clinical trials was mentioned he would have included it”
—————————————————————— Gorski, if you were NOT so busy “getting the popcorn” as you “watched the entire 40 minute video Hannah’s Anecdote”, you might have actually noticed at (7:14):
—————————————————————— 12/12/2011 – Day 2 – Monday
Meeting with Dr. Yi and Dr. Greg Burzynski at Burzynski Clinic
—————————————————————— Dr. Greg Burzynski – “We have permission to start you on the antineoplastons”
“Mhmm”
Dr. Greg Burzynski – “which as you know are in the final stages of drug approval”
“Yeah”
Dr. Greg Burzynski – “Dr. Yi is the oncologist on this case”
—————————————————————— Gorski, did you SEE THAT ?
An ONCOLOGIST at the Burzynski Clinic, working with Burzynski
(No wonder you left that out !)
—————————————————————— Gorski ejects:
“The other thing that struck me was just how much Burzynski is full of it when he advertises antineoplastons as not being chemotherapy and, more importantly, as being nontoxic“
“At least a third of the video consisted of the difficulties that Hannah had with her treatment, including high fevers, a trip to the emergency room, and multiple times when the antineoplaston treatment was stopped“
“She routinely developed fevers to 102° F, and in one scene her fever reached 103.9° F“
“She felt miserable, nauseated and weak“
“I’ve seen chemotherapy patients suffer less”
—————————————————————— Gorski whines:
“I’ve seen chemotherapy patients suffer less”, but this is purely “anecdotal”
“At least a third of the video consisted of the difficulties that Hannah had with her treatment”
Let’s do the math, shall we ?
——————————————————————
In America (48 days)
12/11/2011 (Sunday) – 1/27/2012 (Friday)
[4:52 – 35:43]
—————————————————————— Burzynski Clinic 47 days – (7 weeks)
12/12/2011 (Monday) – 1/26/2012 (Thursday)
[5:37 – 35:43]
—————————————————————— 12/13/2011 (Tuesday) Day 3
after catheter – Hickman line surgery
(painful / really painful) [10:30]
—————————————————————— 12/14/2011 (Wednesday) Day 4
(feeling wrecked / absolutely wrecked) [10:52]
—————————————————————— 12/24/2011 (Saturday) Day 14
fever
bad breathing
uncontrollable chills couldn’t stop shivering all Saturday night [18:10]
—————————————————————— 12/25/2011 (Sunday) Day 15
fever
flu symptoms
bad breathing
headache
in bed
absolutely exhausted
little bit of swelling back of head [18:10]
—————————————————————— 12/27/2011 (Tuesday) Day 17
temp 102
temp down / up [19:04]
—————————————————————— 12/28/2011 (Wednesday) Day 18
exhausted
close to breaking / cracking [19:04]
—————————————————————— 12/29/2011 (Thursday) Day 19
hospital – E.R.
“I’m at my wits end”
“I don’t feel I can take anymore” [20:07]
—————————————————————— 12/30/2011 (Friday) Day 20
last week up & down
fever
chills
shaking
viral infection
bacterial infection
had to go to E.R. [20:22]
—————————————————————— 12/31/2011 (Saturday) Day 21
fever in middle of night
flu-like symptoms
temp 102 [21:53]
—————————————————————— 1/1/2012 (Sunday) Day 22
feel drunky
felt like completely drunk
double vision
Nurse said anti-seizure drug she hadn’t taken before
bit shaky [22:34]
—————————————————————— 1/15/2012 (Sunday) Day 36
antibiotics 1st day [24:33]
—————————————————————— 1/16/2012 (Monday) Day 37
over 102 Monday night
antibiotics 2nd day [25:24]
—————————————————————— 1/17/2012 (Tuesday) Day 38
fever
temp 101.8
throat infection
antibiotics been on 3 days [25:24]
—————————————————————— 1/20/2012 (Friday) Day 41
fever 104 (103.9) Friday night [26:54]
—————————————————————— 1/21/2012 (Saturday) Day 42
temp up to 104 (103.9)
Dr. on-call – Ibuprofen
102.5
yesterday afternoon (blood) rash ? [27:50]
—————————————————————— 1/23/2012 (Monday) Day 44
some itch [28:35] ======================================
47 days – Burzynski Clinic 31 days – treatmentNOTmentioned 16 days – treatment mentioned ====================================== 12/25/2011 (Sunday) Day 15 off ANP [18:10]
—————————————————————— 12/27/2011 (Tuesday) Day 17 back on ANP off ANP – temp 102
temp down / up [19:04]
—————————————————————— 12/28/2011 (Wednesday) Day 18 on ANP much smaller dose [19:04]
—————————————————————— 12/29/2011 (Thursday) Day 19
hospital – E.R. [20:07]
—————————————————————— 12/30/2011 (Friday) Day 20
last week up & down off on off on off ANP [20:22]
—————————————————————— 12/31/2011 (Saturday) Day 21
temp 102 [21:53]
—————————————————————— 1/15/2012 (Sunday) Day 36
antibiotics 1st day [24:33]
—————————————————————— 1/16/2012 (Monday) Day 37
over 102 Monday night
antibiotics 2nd day [25:24]
—————————————————————— 1/17/2012 (Tuesday) Day 38
temp 101.8 off ANP (If 102 take off ANP)
antibiotics been on 3 days [25:24]
—————————————————————— 1/20/2012 (Friday) Day 41
fever 104 (103.9) Friday night [26:54]
—————————————————————— 1/21/2012 (Saturday) Day 42 off ANP – temp up to 104 (103.9)
102.5 [27:50] ====================================== 5 – off ANP
May have beenoff ANP5 to 6 days out of 47? ====================================== 12/27/2011 (Tuesday) Day 17
temp 102
temp down / up [19:04]
—————————————————————— 12/29/2011 (Thursday) Day 19
hospital – E.R. [20:07]
—————————————————————— 12/31/2011 (Saturday) Day 21
temp 102 – in middle of night [21:53]
—————————————————————— 1/16/2012 (Monday) Day 37
temp over 102 Monday night
antibiotics 2nd day [25:24]
—————————————————————— 1/17/2012 (Tuesday) Day 38
temp 101.8
antibiotics been on 3 days [25:24]
—————————————————————— 1/20/2012 (Friday) Day 41
temp 104 (103.9) Friday night [26:54]
—————————————————————— 1/21/2012 (Saturday) Day 42
102.5 [27:50] ====================================== 6 days – temperature mentioned
temp 102 – temp down / up – 12/27/2011 102 in middle of night – 12/31/2011 102+ Monday night – 1/16/2012 temp 101.8 – 1/17/2012 104 (103.9) Friday night – 1/20/2012 102.5 – 1/21/2012 ====================================== Gorski scatterbrains on:
“I was also very puzzled at how the Burzynski Clinic could allow a cancer patient to linger with a fever of 102° F and sometimes higher, accompanied by shaking chills, in a temporary lodging without admitting her to the hospital“
——————————————————————
Does Gorski provide any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support his claim ?
“It’s not clear what sort of workup was done to evaluate Hannah either, what her white blood cell count was, or what her other labs were“
“Did they draw blood cultures?”
“Did they get urinalyses and cultures?”
“Did they do chest X-rays to rule out pneumonia?”
—————————————————————— Gorski, maybe you should have asked Wayne Dolcefino
Or maybe you should have gone to the Burzynski Clinic
Oh, wait
You think you know everything and could NOT learn anything by going there 😅
—————————————————————— Gorski at least gets one thing correct:
“It’s all very unclear, other than that she apparently was given some antibiotics at some point”
—————————————————————— 1/15/2012 Monday Day 36 antibiotics 1st day
—————————————————————— 1/16/2012 Tuesday Day 37 antibiotics 2nd day
—————————————————————— 1/17/2012 (Tuesday) Day 38 antibiotics been on 3 days
—————————————————————— Gorski wonders:
“Did she have the flu, given her flu-like symptoms, or was this due to her antineoplaston therapy?“
—————————————————————— Gorski, why not “speculate” like “The Skeptics™” usually do ?
—————————————————————— 12/24/2011 (Saturday) Day 14 fever
bad breathing
shivering all night
—————————————————————— 12/25/2011 (Sunday) Day 15 flu symptoms
breathing
headache
uncontrollable chills couldn’t stop off ANP absolutely exhausted
in bed
little bit of swelling back of head
—————————————————————— 12/27/2011 (Tuesday) Day 17 back on ANP temp 102 – off ANP temp down / up
—————————————————————— 12/28/2011 (Wednesday) Day 18 on ANP much smaller dose exhausted – close to breaking / cracking
—————————————————————— 12/29/2011 (Thursday) Day 19 hospital – E.R.
—————————————————————— 12/30/2011 (Friday) Day 20 last week up & down off on off on off fever
chills
shaking
viral infection
bacterial infection
—————————————————————— 12/31/2011 (Saturday) Day 21 temp 102 – fever in middle of night
Dr. SRB thinks flu-like symptoms or tumor actually breaking down
—————————————————————— 1/16/2012 (Monday) Day 37 temp 102+ Monday night
—————————————————————— 1/17/2012 (Tuesday) Day 38 throat infection temp 101.8 – fever – off ANP antibiotics been on 3 days
—————————————————————— 1/20/2012 (Friday) Day 41 104 (103.9) – fever – Friday night
—————————————————————— 1/21/2012 (Saturday) Day 42 temp up to 104
Dr. on-call – Ibuprofen 102.5 – off ANP yesterday afternoon rash
—————————————————————— Gorski ponders:
“The reaction of the clinic staff (i.e., rather blasé, even though at one point Hannah clearly demonstrates a change in mental status, appearing “drunk” and complaining of double-vision) made me wonder if this sort of problem was a common occurrence”
—————————————————————— Gorski, what’s the matter ?
Did you grab another handful of popcorn ?
—————————————————————— 1/1/2012 (Sunday) Day 22Burzynski Clinic feel drunky
felt like completely drunk
double vision
bit shaky Nurse said anti-seizure drug she hadn’t taken before [22:34]
—————————————————————— Gorski, what are some of the side-effects of “anti-seizure” medications ?
dizziness
double-vision
drowsiness
imbalance
loss of coordination
Problems with motor skills
Problems with tasks requiring sustained performance
nausea
slurred speech
staggering
mental disturbances
serious mood changes
—————————————————————— http://umm.edu/health/medical/reports/articles/epilepsy
—————————————————————— Gorski continues his assault on the popcorn:
“At another point, Pete and Hannah come to believe that the fevers might have been due to the tumor breaking down, which strikes me as implausible”
—————————————————————— Gorski, if it “strikes” you “as implausible”, then why did you ask, above ?
“Did she have the flu, given her flu-like symptoms, or was this due to her antineoplaston therapy?“
—————————————————————— 12/31/2011 (Saturday) Day 21 temp 102 – fever in middle of night Dr. SRB thinks flu-like symptoms OR tumor actually breaking down [21:53]
—————————————————————— Gorski blunders along:
“Later, she develops an extensive rash“
—————————————————————— 1/23/2012 (Monday) Day 44 Pete sent pic to Dr. SRB who gave name from pic and Pete verified [28:35]
—————————————————————— Gorski bumbles onward:
“It’s difficult to tell for sure what it is at the resolution of the video, but it looks like erythema multiforme, which is generally an allergic rash”
“What’s the most likely cause of such a rash?”
“Guess”
“Erythema multiforme is usually a drug reaction”
—————————————————————— Gorski, what can cause “Erythema multiforme” ?
“Does this mean that Burzynski’s antineoplaston treatment worked for Hannah?“
“Sadly, the answer is:”
“Not necessarily”
“It might have”
“It might not have”
“Why do I say this?”
“First, she didn’t have much residual disease after surgery and radiotherapy, and in fact it’s hard to tell how much is tumor and how much is postop and radiation effect“
—————————————————————— Gorski, I think it’s safe to say that neurosurgeon Dr. Martinez knows much better than you and your speculation
—————————————————————— Gorski
“Second, the median survival for anaplastic astrocytoma (which is a form of glioma) is around 2 to 3 years, and with different types of radiation therapy five year survival is around 15% or even higher”
—————————————————————— Gorski provides a link to a site which advises [14]:
High-grade tumors grow rapidly and can easily spread through the brain“
High-grade tumors are much more aggressive and require very intensive therapy
All patients with high-grade astrocytomas receive both radiation therapy and chemotherapy regardless of age
Prognosis is poor in this group of patients
—————————————————————— Gorski’s 2nd linked source advises [15]:
These highly aggressive tumors often occur in young adults and typically recur or progress to a grade 4 glioblastoma within several years of diagnosis, despite treatment with surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy
Tumor more resistant to therapy and patients have shorter median survival of only 2 to 3 years
—————————————————————— Gorski’s 3rd link [16] showcases his lame research as one has to read through almost the entire article to find the reference, which directs the reader to yet another publication [17]:
Gorski FAILS to advise the reader that the 2002 study is titled:
“Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) for previously untreated malignant gliomas“
Hannah Bradley’s WAS previously treated
Gorski also FAILS to advise the reader if this study included patients with grade 3 or 4 tumors
—————————————————————— Gorski claims:
“Thus, long term survival for patients with astrocytomas is not so rare that Hannah’s survival is so unlikely that the most reasonable assumption has to be that it was Burzynski’s treatment that saved her”
—————————————————————— Gorski, nice claim, but you did NOT really prove it
—————————————————————— Gorski suspects:
“More likely, Hannah is a fortunate outlier, although it’s hard for me to say even that because, at only two years out from her initial diagnosis, she’s only just reached the lower end of the range of reported median survival times for her disease”
—————————————————————— Gorski, the operative word is “outLIER”
Gorski then goes all “conspiracy theory” about a supposed “cryptic Facebook post”, a “vlog entry no longer exists”, “Hannah and Pete supposedly being “evasive”, “using vague terms”, a “little blip”, and “lack of new scans”
Next, little green “popcorn munchin'” men 👽
—————————————————————— 3/4/2013 Gorski drops “conspiracy theory, part II” on an unsuspecting audience [19]:
Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski’s cancer “success” stories update: Why is the release of the Burzynski sequel being delayed?
It’s no secret that I happen to NOT be on several mailing lists of “The Skeptics™”whose dedication to science is—shall we say?—questionable
As I delved deeper, I learned that Gorski’s evidence for the “questioning” of the anticancer efficacy of “antineoplaston therapy” doesn’t hold up; that his “questioning” of “personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy” is anything but; and that he’s an orphan now in what appears to me to be a strategy to bypass restrictions on his use of proper “cancer research “
The CliffsNotes version for those who don’t want to read Gorsack’s previous lengthy post is that he claims Hannah’s tumor, an astrocytoma (which is a form of glioma) did indeed appear to regress, but that regression can likely be explained by the surgery and radiation therapy that she had
Even then, however, he claims it would not be evidence that the antineoplastons saved her because there are occasional complete remissions in this tumor type, and long term survivors, although uncommon, are not so uncommon that Hannah must be evidence that antineoplastons are so miraculously effective that they saved her when conventional medicine could not
Gorski’s claims are anecdotal, as he failed miserably to provide the necessary citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) to support his claims
Gorski claims:
“I try very hard not to cross that line, and I think I’ve been successful, for instance, here”
But I proved again, above, how he fails and fails again with his “amateurish” attempts at proper “cancer research”
Similarly, Gorski realizes that it is very effective to appeal to emotions and cast Burzynski’s as heartless
Gorski inserts other Burzynski patients into his posts about Pete and Hannah
—————————————————————— GORSKI FAIL #1 – “One notes that Burzynski’s protocol requires at least 18 months of near-continuous infusion of high doses of his antineoplastons“
—————————————————————— GORSKI FAIL #2 – “The new claim is that Burzynski isn’t making patients pay for his antineoplastons (see question #13 in Merola’s FAQ), just for “clinical management” (as if that weren’t incredibly transparent) Vindication”
—————————————————————— GORSKI FAIL #3 – “First, I notice that nowhere was there anything mentioned about enrolling Hannah on a clinical trial“
—————————————————————— GORSKI FAIL #4 – “Certainly, given how much detail he’s used in this video and in his vlogs I’d expect that if the subject of clinical trials was mentioned he would have included it“
—————————————————————— GORSKI FAIL #5 – “The reaction of the clinic staff (i.e., rather blasé, even though at one point Hannah clearly demonstrates a change in mental status, appearing “drunk”and complaining of double-vision) made me wonder if this sort of problem was a common occurrence”
—————————————————————— GORSKI FAIL #6 – Well, I could add more … 🙂
——————————————————————
My apologies to the following co-authors if you ever had to check the “cancer research” of one: Gorski D., Gorski DH, D H Gorski,
