Skip to primary content
Skip to secondary content

Didymus Judas Thomas' Hipocritical Oath Blog

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

Didymus Judas Thomas' Hipocritical Oath Blog

Main menu

  • Home
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • 1
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 1998 (1/15/1998)
  • 1999 (2/1999) Volume 74 Number 2 pg. 137 – 3 pgs.
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • About
  • List of Articles

Tag Archives: SBM

Cancer: It’s what’s Best for Business (WW3 – World War Hypocrisy)

Posted on December 14, 2013 by didymusjudasthomas
Reply

20131217-101211.jpg
David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., F.A.C.S., is a racist and a natural born killer

That’s right !

Dr. Gorski hates #cancer

He’s a bigot when it comes to breast cancer

Gorski sleeps, breathes, and blogs about breast cancer

He is an academic surgical oncologist specializing in breast surgery and oncologic surgery (Surgical Oncology Attending) at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, Michigan specializing in breast cancer surgery, where he also serves as team leader for the Breast Cancer Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Center, Co-Chair, Cancer Committee, Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Center, medical director of the Alexander J. Walt Comprehensive Breast Center at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Center (2010-present), Co-Leader of the Breast Cancer Biology Program, and the American College of Surgeons Committee on Cancer (ACS CoC) Cancer Liaison Physician as well as Associate Professor of Surgery at the Wayne State University School of Medicine; Faculty (2008-present), and member of the faculty of the Graduate Program in Cancer Biology at Wayne State University, MiBOQI project director (clinical champion) for Karmanos Cancer Center, site project director of the Michigan Breast Oncology Quality Initiative, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, a partnership between Karmanos and the University of Michigan, the new program co-director (Co-Medical Director) of the Michigan Breast Oncology Quality Initiative (MiBOQI); a state-wide initiative to improve the quality of breast cancer care using evidence-based guidelines, serves as the co-director of the Comprehensive Breast Center and is co-leader of the Breast Cancer Biology Program at Karmanos and Wayne State University School of Medicine, a Wayne State University Physician Group surgeon and chief of the Section of Breast Surgery (Breast Surgery Section) for the Wayne State University School of Medicine (2009-present), serves as an associate professor of surgery and Oncology at Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan, and Treasurer and on the Board of Directors, and also serves the Institute for Science in Medicine as head of its childhood immunization committee

Prior to joining Karmanos and Wayne State University School of Medicine, was an associate professor of surgery at The Cancer Institute of New Jersey and the UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, NJ, as well as a member of the Joint Graduate Program in Cell & Developmental Biology at Rutgers University in Piscataway, N.J.

1984 – Graduation with Honors and High Distinction in Chemistry

1994 – MetroHealth Medical Center Resident Research

He attended the University of Michigan Medical School, received his B.S. in chemistry from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, medical degree (M.D.) from the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, University of Chicago Fellowship, Surgical Oncology, Case Western Reserve University / University Hospitals Case Medical Center Internship, General Surgery, Case Western: Reserve University / University Hospitals Case Medical Center Residency, General Surgery, and received his Ph.D. in cellular physiology at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio

1998 – American Board of Surgery

Assistant Professor of Surgery UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey

1999 – 2006: Assistant Professor of Surgery

1999 – 2008: Active, Surgical Oncology and General Surgery

2005 – 2006: Active, Surgical Oncology and General Surgery

2007 – American Society of Clinical Oncology Advanced Clinical Research

2007 – Conquer Cancer Foundation of ASCO and Breast Cancer Research Foundation Advanced Clinical Research Award in Breast Cancer

2006 – 2008: Associate Professor of Surgery

Faculty, General Surgery, St. Peter’s University Hospital, New Brunswick, New Jersey

Attending Surgeon, Trauma Services, Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, Illinois

2015 – Michigan State Medical License (Active through)

2015 – Ohio State Medical License (Active through)

Managing Editor of the Science-Based Medicine weblog, as well as a once-weekly contributor

SBM exists to take a skeptical, science-based view of medicine in general and in particular the infiltration of pseudoscientific practices into medicine, even in academic medical centers

These entities must have felt lucky to add a University of Michigan alum to their toolbox, a wolverine; a creature also known as a glutton or skunk bear

Who would doubt that Gorski would be a glutton for punishment when it comes to raising a big stink about breast cancer issues ?

Surely he was aware: Detroit, Michigan; the most populous city in the state of Michigan, with a population of 701,475 (2012) (9,883,360 – Michigan), 575,321 (81.4%) being African American (Black); a little less than six times the national average (82.7% – 2010 / about 83% – 2012) (Michigan – 14.2% – 2010), 369,616 Females (52.7% – 2012 / 53% – 2010) (Michigan 50.9%)

No doubt he knew that the most recent American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures, noted:
——————————————————————
• Studies have documented unequal receipt of prompt, high-quality treatment for African American women compared to white women

• African Americans more likely to be diagnosed at later stage of disease when treatment choices are more limited and less effective

• African Americans and other racial minorities are underrepresented in clinical trials, which makes it more difficult to assess efficacy of cancer therapies among different racial/ethnic groups

• African Americans have highest death rate and shortest survival of any racial and ethnic group in US for most cancers

• Life expectancy lower for African Americans than whites among women (77.2 vs. 80.9 years)

• Higher death rate in African American women compared to white women occurs despite lower cancer incidence rate

• Racial difference in overall cancer death rates is due largely to cancers of the breast and colorectum in women

• African American women have higher death rates overall and for breast and several other cancer sites

• African Americans continue to have lower 5-year survival overall:
69% – whites
60% – African Americans
and for each stage of diagnosis for most cancer sites

• Evidence aggressive tumor characteristics more common in African American than white women
——————————————————————
Gorski worked tirelessly to address the problem, by appearing on TV, radio, Internet radio, in articles and on his blogs

Soon, the locals were remarking about the “Gorski Patient Group” web-site which was set up to display anecdotal stories of breast cancer patients who were “cured” by Gorski

How has his hard work paid off ?
——————————————————————
Are these Dr. David H. Gorski’s “success stories” ?
——————————————————————
African American women breast cancer death rates per 100,000 (MICHIGAN)
—————————————————————–
34.3☝2005_-_2009 (State with 11 most) 2013-2014
33.8👇2003_-_2007 (State with 11 most) 2011-2012
34.7👇2001_-_2005 (State with 17 most) 2009-2010
35.4👇2000_-_2003 (State with 19 most) 2007-2008
36.2👇1997_-_2001 (State tied with 20 most) 2005-2006
——————————————————————
BREAST CANCER
——————————————————————
WHITE-INCIDENCE-MICHIGAN (per 100,000)
——————————————————————
118.7👇2006_-_2010 (2013-2014)
120.1👇2004_-_2008 Incidence (2011-2012)
124.3👇2002_-_2006 (2009-2010)
129.9👇2000_-_2004 (2007-2008)
133.9☝1998_-_2002 (2005-2006)
132.1☝1996_-_2000 (2003-2004)
——————————————————————
WHITE-MORTALITY-MICHIGAN (per 100,000)
——————————————————————
22.8👇2006_-_2010 (2013-2014)
23.4👇2003_-_2007 Mortality (2011-2012)
23.8👇2002_-_2006 (2009-2010)
24.6👇2000_-_2004 (2007-2008)
25.9👇1998_-_2002 (2005-2006)
27.3👇1996_-_2000 (2003-2004)
——————————————————————
AFRICAN AMERICAN-INCIDENCE-MICHIGAN (per 100,000)
——————————————————————
119.4☝2006_-_2010 (2013-2014)
119.2👇2004_-_2008 Incidence (2011_-_2012)
121.0☝2002_-_2006 (2009-2010)
119.0👇2000_-_2004 (2007-2008)
120.6👇1998_-_2002 (2005-2006)
121.4☝1996_-_2000 (2003-2004)
——————————————————————
AFRICAN AMERICAN-MORTALITY-MICHIGAN (per 100,000)
——————————————————————
34.3☝2006_-_2010 (2013-2014)
33.8👇2003_-_2007 Mortality (2011-2012)
34.6👇2002_-_2006 (2009-2010)
35.0👇2000_-_2004 (2007-2008)
36.0👇1998_-_2002 (2005-2006)
36.9👇1996_-_2000 (2003-2004)
——————————————————————
HISPANIC-INCIDENCE-MICHIGAN (per 100,000)
——————————————————————
80.1👇2006_-_2010 (2013-2014)
92.7☝2004_-_2008 Incidence (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
HISPANIC-MORTALITY-MICHIGAN (per 100,000)
——————————————————————
15.8☝2006_-_2010 (2013-2014)
14.26☝2003_-_2007 Mortality (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
INCIDENCE-MICHIGAN (per 100,000) COMBINED
——————————————————————
119.4☝2006_-_2010 AFRICAN AMERICAN (2013-2014)
118.7👇2006_-_2010 WHITE (2013-2014)
80.1👇2006_-_2010 HISPANIC (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
MORTALITY-MICHIGAN (per 100,000) COMBINED
——————————————————————
34.3☝2006_-_2010 AFRICAN AMERICAN (2013-2014)
22.8👇2006_-_2010 WHITE (2013-2014)
15.8☝2006_-_2010 HISPANIC (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
MICHIGAN – Estimated New Breast Cancer Cases:
——————————————————————
8,140☝2013 (State with 8th most)
7,710👇2012 (State with 8th most)
7,890☝2011 (State with 8th most)
7,340☝2010 (State with 8th most)
6,480☝2009 (State with 8th most)
6,120👇2008 (State with 9th most)
7,210👇2005 (State with 9th most)
7,270👇2004 (State with 9th most)
7,500☝2003 (State with 8th most)
7,300☝2002 (State with 8th most)
——————————————————————
Are these Dr. David H. Gorski’s “success stories” ?
——————————————————————
MICHIGAN – Estimated Breast Cancer Deaths:
——————————————————————
1,360☝2013 (State with 8th most)
1,350☝2012 (State with 8th most)
1,320 – 2011 (State with 9th most)
1,320👇2010 (State with 10th most)
1,350☝2009 (State with 9th most)
1,310 👇2008 (State with 9th most)
1,320 👇2007 (State with 9th most)
1,360 👇2006 (State with 9th most)
1,380☝2005 (State with 9th most)
1,350👇2004 (State with 9th most)
1,400 – 2003 (State tied with 8th most)
1,400☝2002 (State tied with 8th most)
——————————————————————
MICHIGAN – Cancer Incidence Rates
——————————————————————
120.3 – 2013 (State with 32nd most)
120.3👇2012 (State with 30th most)
122.2👇2011 (State with 24th most)
124.2👇2010 (State with 17th most)
127.0👇2009 (State with 11th most)
128.8👇2008 (State with 13th most)
129.4👇2007 (State tied with 18th most)
132.4👇2006 (State with 14th most)
133.5☝2005 (State with 13th most)
132.0☝1996_-_2000 (State with 14th most) 2004
129.8☝1995_-_1999 (State with 23rd most)(31st State’s) 2003
109.9👇1994_-_1998 Michigan – Cancer Incidence Rates (2002)
132.0☝1996_-_2000 (State with 14th most) (2004)
129.8☝1995_-_1999 (State with 23rd most) (2003)
109.9☝1994_-_1998 (State with 20th most) (2002)
——————————————————————
MICHIGAN – Cancer Death Rates:
——————————————————————
24.0👇2013 (State tied with 11th most)
24.4👇2012 (State tied with 13th most)
24.5👇2011 (State tied with 16th most)
25.1👇2010 (State tied with 12th most)
25.3👇2009 (State tied with 17th most)
25.8👇2008 (State tied with 18th most)
26.6👇2007 (State tied with 14th most)
27. 5 – 2006 (State tied with 12th most)
27.5👇2005 (State tied with 13th most)
28.4👇1996_-_2000 (State tied with 14th most) (2004)
29.5☝1995_-_1999 (State tied with 14th most) 2003
24.8☝1994_-_1998 (State with 14th most) 2002
——————————————————————
The problem, is that, when the Hippocratic Oath
was mentioned, Gorski may have opted for the Hypocrite Oath

Rather than address the BILLIONS of dollars in fines which Big Pharma racked up, and Pharma’s seeming dedication to getting members of the unwitting public, to take medications for symptoms which they were not approved for; and thus possibly experience adverse effects those drugs cause, Gorski chose to NOT comment about his goose that might lay the golden (parachute) nest egg

Instead, he tried the Tricky-Dicky trickle-down theory of Hackademic Mudicine (“Quackademic Medicine”); which did NOT work when Richard Milhous (“War on Cancer”) Nixon was told:

“There’s a cancer on the Presidency”

What Gorski seems hilariously oblivious to, is that his opprobrium; to turn a phrase, applies to him:
——————————————————————
(.3:16)
——————————————————————
When he mentions:

“ineffective and potentially harmful medical practices that were not, that are not supported by evidence”

he may as well be saying, in regards to surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation:

“ineffective and potentially harmful medical practices that were, that are supported by evidence“

(the evidence that they do NOT work for everyone)
——————————————————————
(.3:42)
——————————————————————
To use his own words, he seems:

“confused, at best”
——————————————————————
(.4:45)
——————————————————————
He also displays:

“an animosity toward reason”
——————————————————————
(.4:49)
——————————————————————
“Nothing’s changed within 30 years

If anything, it’s worse”
——————————————————————
(.6:45)
——————————————————————
He states:

“Alternative = unproved”

There goes “Alternative Rock,” or the “alternative” to an attempted Gorski joke: “happiness is a warm gun”

I’m somewhat surprised that Gorski has yet to classify antineoplastons as “Homeopathy: Ultra-diluted chemotherapy”
——————————————————————
(28:15)
——————————————————————
But he does rant that rival Cleveland Clinic where he had his residency, has been infiltrated by the Q.M.
——————————————————————
(39:10)
——————————————————————
And that his alma-mater, the University of Michigan has also queued in the “Quackademic” line
——————————————————————
(44:00)
——————————————————————
He bemoans the mighty wolverine:

“Again my alma-mater”

“I hang my head in shame”
——————————————————————
(44:10)
——————————————————————
And to add injury to insult, his “former employer,” UMDNJ (University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey)-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, has also been bitten by the Quackademic Duck

I’m sure Gorski will be able to formulate a usual factoid #fail for his #failure to “cure” cancer, vis-a-vis “Orac”, the literary Hack, braying in the wilderness and awaiting his Red Badge of Courage

Maybe “too many people copulating” in Detroit, or too many Louisiana hurricane Katrina survivors added to the sandbox

Is Gorski a racist ?

That’s up to all the African American women in Detroit, Michigan, to decide

Maybe he’s just a really bad hypocrite

NOr, maybe he needs to spend less time on the “hypocuresy,” and more time on the “CURE”

Maybe the African American women of Detroit, Michigan, and the United States of America should ask Gorski:

What have you done for me lately ?
——————————————————————

20131218-150634.jpg
——————————————————————
“And, make no mistake about it, antineoplastons (ANPs) are chemotherapy, no matter how much Burzynski tries to claim otherwise”
——————————————————————
NO, Gorski, the United States’ 5th Circuit Court of Appeals claimed that antineoplastons (ANPs) are:

“…an unapproved drug, not ordinary “chemotherapy”

no matter how much YOU try to claim otherwise

What are you ?

A Saul Green closet communist who does NOT believe what the United States’ Federal Courts rule ?

20131218-150702.jpg
——————————————————————

20131218-150719.jpg
——————————————————————
“Indeed, it was a blatant ploy, as Burzynski’s lawyer, Richard Jaffe, acknowledged, referring to one of his clinical trials as a “joke” and the others as a way to make sure there was a constant supply of new cancer patients to the Burzynski Clinic“
——————————————————————

20131218-155354.jpg
——————————————————————
” … 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“

“As a result of the expansion of Dr. Burzynski’s medical practice, the financial condition of the medical practice has improved Dr. Burzynski’s ability to fund the Company’s operations”
——————————————————————
GorskGeek, my citations, references, and / or links, beat your NON-citations, NON-references, and / or NON-links
======================================
AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY:
CANCER FACTS & FIGURES (2002-2014)

======================================
2002_-_2003 – 1 of every 4 deaths
======================================
Deaths – United States of America
——————————————————————
2013 – almost 1,600 a day
2002-2012☝1,500+ a day
——————————————————————
Expected to Die – United States
——————————————————————
2013☝580,350_-_(3,160 more than 2012)
2012☝577,190
_-_(5,240 more than 2011)
2011☝571,950
_-_(2,460 more than 2010)
2010☝569,490
_-_(7,150 more than 2009)
2009👇562,340_-_(3,310 less than 2008)
2008☝565,650_-_(6,000 more than 2007)
2007👇559,650_-_(5,180 less than 2006)
2006👇564,830_-_(5,450 less than 2005)
2005☝570,280_-_(6,580 more than 2004
2004☝563,700
_-_(7,200 more than 2003)
2003☝556,500
_-_(6,000 more than 2002)
2002
☝555,500
——————————————————————
Estimated All Cancer Deaths (Women)
——————————————————————
2013👇273,430 (1,940 less than 2012)
2012☝275,370 (3,850 more than 2011)
2011☝271,520 (1,230 more than 2010)
2010☝270,290 (490 more than 2009)

2009👇269,800 (1,730 less than 2008)
2008☝271,530 (1,430 more than 2007)
2007👇270,100 (3,460 less than 2006)
2006👇273,560 (1,440 less than 2005)
2005☝275,000 (2,190 more than 2004)
2004☝272,810 (2,210 more than 2003)
2003☝270,600 (3,300 more than 2002)
2002
_-_267,300
——————————————————————
Estimated cancer deaths – African Americans expected to die from cancer:
——————————————————————
2013👇64,645 – 22.6% (2013-2014)
2011☝65,540 (About) (2011-2012)
2009☝63,360 (About) (2009-2010)
2007☝62,780 (About) (2007-2008)

——————————————————————
Estimated Breast Cancer Deaths (Women)
——————————————————————
2013☝39,620 (14%) (110 more than 2012)
2012👇39,510 (14%) (10 less than 2011)
2011👇39,520 (15%) (320 less than 2010)
2010👇39,840 (15%) (330 less than 2009)
2009👇40,170 (15%) (310 less than 2008)
2008☝40,480 (15%) (20 more than 2007)
2007👇40,460 (15%) (2007-2008) (510 less than 2006)
2006☝40,970 (15%) (560 more than 2005)
2005☝40,410 (15%) (300 more than 2004)
2004☝40,110 (15%) (310 more than 2003)
2003☝39,800 (15%) (200 more than 2002)
2002
– 39,600 (15%)
——————————————————————
Estimated Deaths from Breast cancer expected to occur among African American women:
——————————————————————
6,080☝2013 – 19% (2013-2014)
6,040☝2011 – 19% (2011-2012)
6,020☝2009 – 19% (2009-2010)
5,830☝2007 – 19% (2007-2008)
5,640☝(2005-2006)

5,640 – 1969-2002 – 18.4% – 2005 (2005-2006)
======================================
New Cancer Cases Expected to be diagnosed – USA
——————————————————————
2013☝1,660,290 – (21,380 more than 2012)
2012☝1,638,910 – (42,240 more than 2011)
2011☝1,596,670 – (67,160 more than 2010)
2010☝1,529,560 – (49,810 more than 2009)
2009☝1,479,350 – (42,170 more than 2008)

2008👇1,437,180 – ( 7,740 less than 2007)
2007☝1,444,920 – (45,130 more than 2006)
2006☝1,399,790 – (26,880 more than 2005)
2005☝1,372,910 – ( 4,870 more than 2004)
2004☝1,368,030 – (33,930 more than 2003)
2003☝1,334,100 – (49,200 more than 2002)
2002
☝1,284,900
——————————————————————
Estimated New Cancer All (Women)
——————————————————————
2013☝805,500 – (14,760 more than 2012)
2012☝790,740 – (16,370 more than 2011)
2011☝774,370 – (34,430 more than 2010)
2010☝739,940 – (26,720 more than 2009)
2009☝713,220 – (21,220 more than 2008)
2008☝692,000 – (13,940 more than 2007)

2007👇678,060 – (1,450 less than 2006)
2006☝679,510 – (16,640 more than 2005)
2005👇662,870 – (5,600 less than 2004)
2004☝668,470 – (9,670 more than 2003)
2003☝658,800 – (11,400 more than 2002)
2002
_-_647,400
——————————————————————
Estimated New invasive Breast Cancer Cases: (Women)
——————————————————————
2013☝232,340 (29%) (5,470 more than 2012)
2012👇226,870 (29%) (11,610 less than 2011)
2011☝238,480 (30%) (31,390 more than 2010)
2010☝207,090 (28%) (14,720 more than 2009)
2009☝192,370 (27%) (9,910 more than 2008)
2008☝182,460 (26%) (3,980 more than 2007)

2007👇178,480 (26%) (2007-2008) (34,440 less than 2006)
2006☝212,920 (31%) (1,680 more than 2005)
2005👇211,240 (32%) (4,660 less than 2004)
2004☝215,900 (32%) (4,600 more than 2003)
2003☝211,300 (32%) (7,800 more than 2002)
2002
_-_203,500 (31%)
——————————————————————
Estimated new cases – new cancer cases expected to be diagnosed among African Americans:
——————————————————————
2013☝176,620 (2013-2014)
2011☝168,900 (About) (2011-2012)

2009👇150,090 (About) (2009-2010)
2008☝182,460 (26%)
2007_-_152,900 (About) (2007-2008)

——————————————————————
Estimated new cases of in situ breast cancer expected to occur:
——————————————————————
64,640☝(2013) (1,340 more than 2012)
63,300☝(2012) (5,650 more than 2011)
57,650☝(2011) (3,640 more than 2010)

54,010👇(2010) (8,270 less than 2009)
62,280👇(2009) (5,490 less than 2008)
67,770☝(2008) (5,740 more than 2007-2008)
62,030☝(2007-2008) (50 more than 2006)
61,980☝(2006) (3,490 more than 2005-2006)

58,490👇(2005-2006) (900 less than 2004)
59,390☝(2004) (3,690 more than 2003)
55,700☝(2003) (1,400 more than 2002)
54,300☝(2002)

——————————————————————
Estimated New Cancer Cases – African Americans – Breast
——————————————————————
2013☝27,060 – 33% (2013-2014)
2011☝26,840 – 34% (2011-2012)
2009☝19,540 – 25% (2009-2010)
2007☝19,010 – 27% (2007-2008)

19,240 – 1979-2001 – 29.9% – 2005 (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Estimated new cases of in situ breast cancer expected to occur = detection of below # of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS):
——————————————————————
54,944 (2013)
85% (2003-2012)
88% (2002)

1998-2002 accounted for about 85% of in situ breast cancers diagnosed (2005-2006)
1980-2001 – Incidence rates of DCIS increased more than sevenfold in all age groups, although greatest in women 50 and older (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH
——————————————————————
2013 – breast cancer expected to be most commonly diagnosed cancer in women
——————————————————————
BREAST CANCER – 2nd
——————————————————————
2013 – Breast cancer 2nd most common cause of cancer death among African American women, surpassed only by lung cancer (2009-2012)
(2007)
——————————————————————
2003 – Breast cancer is 2nd among cancer deaths in women

2002-2003: 2nd leading cause of death

2002 – Breast cancer 2nd leading cause of death
————————————-
Breast cancer most common cancer among African American women

34% – (2011-2012)
25% – (2009-2010)
2007
——————————————————————
2011 – New Cases
(2011-2012)

New Cases: Breast cancer most commonly diagnosed cancer among African American women
——————————————————————
BREAST CANCER – AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN
——————————————————————
34% – African American women most common cancer (2011-2012)

African American Women Most common cancer (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2005 – African American women – more likely to die from at any age
——————————————————————
ESTIMATED WOMEN BREAST CANCER DEATHS
——————————————————————
19% – number of cancer deaths breast cancer in women (2007-2012)
——————————————————————
since 1990 – Death rates from breast cancer steadily decreased in women (2009-2010)

since 1990 – death rate from breast cancer in women decreased (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
1.9% – 2000-2009 cancer mortality rate for women of all races combined declined annually (2012-2013)
——————————————————————
1990-2006 – death rate from breast cancer in women decreased (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2.2% – 1990-2004 cancer mortality rate for women of all races combined decreased annually (2007-2008)

decline larger among younger age groups (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
2.3% – 1990-2002 rate decreased annually – percentage of decline larger among younger age groups (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2.3% – 1990-2000 breast cancer death rates decreased annually (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1992-1998 – mortality rates declined significantly

largest decreases in younger women, both white and black (2002)
——————————————————————
1.6% – 1975-1991 – Breast Cancer Death Rates Increased annually (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
0.4% – 1975-1990 – breast cancer death rates increased annually (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
0.4% – 1975-1990 death rate for all races combined increased annually (2005-2008)
——————————————————————
rate for women of all races combined decreased annually (2007-2008)

decline larger among younger age groups (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
BREAST CANCER – OLDER WOMEN
——————————————————————
Older women much more likely to get breast cancer than younger women
——————————————————————
% FEMALE BREAST CANCER DEATH RATES (age)
——————————————————————
97% – 1998-2002 – age 40 and older (2005-2008)
96% – 1996-2000 – age 40 and older (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
WOMEN YOUNGER than 50
——————————————————————
3.0% – under age of 50 – Mortality from breast cancer declined faster for women (annually from 2005-2009) regardless of race/ethnicity (2013)
——————————————————————
2.3% – 1990-2001 Breast Cancer Death Rates decrease

largest decrease in < 50 (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
3.7% – 1991-2000 under 50 breast cancer Death rates decreased (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
3.3% – 1990-2004 – death rates decreased per year among women younger than 50 (2005c-2008)
——————————————————————
2.3% – 1990-2002 Death rates from breast cancer declined average per year in all women combined, with larger decreases in younger (<50 years) women (2006)
——————————————————————
WOMEN 50 and older
——————————————————————
1.2% – 50 and older – decrease in breast cancer death rates smaller in African American than white women (2009-2010)
——————————————————————
2.0% – 50 and older – 1990-2004 – death rates decreased per year among women (2005-2008)
——————————————————————
WHITE WOMEN
——————————————————————
2.1% – 2000-2009 – breast cancer death rates declined per year in white women
——————————————————————
2.6% – 1992-2000 – breast cancer Death rates Whites (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2.4% – 1990-2004 female breast cancer death rates declined per year in whites (2005-2008)
——————————————————————
early 1980’s – Breast Cancer Death Rates equal – African American / White (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN – ALL CANCERS
——————————————————————
1.5% – since 1999 – Death rates among women (African Americans for all cancers combined) per year have been decreasing (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN BREAST CANCER DEATHS
——————————————————————
black women more likely to die of breast cancer than white women (2012-2013)
——————————————————————
2005-2006 African American women more likely to die from breast cancer at every age
——————————————————————
41% – 2005-2009 African American women had higher death rate than white women despite lower incidence rate

39% – 2003-2007 – African American women had higher death rate than white women, despite lower incidence rate (2011-2012)

difference accounts for more than one-third (37%) of overall cancer mortality disparity between African American and white women (2011-2012)

37% – 2001-2005 – African American women had higher death rate than white women (2009-2010)

higher breast cancer mortality rate among African American women compared to white women occurs despite lower incidence rate (2009-2010)

difference accounts for more than one-third (37%) of overall cancer mortality disparity between African American and white women (2009-2010)

higher breast cancer mortality rate among African American women compared to white women occurs despite lower incidence rate (2007)

notable, striking divergence in long-term breast cancer mortality rates trends between African American and white women (2005-2008)

36% – by 2004 – death rates higher in African Americans than white women (2007-2008)
37% – by 2002 – death rates higher in African American women than white women (2005-2006)
36% – 2000-2003 – death rates higher in African American women than white women (2007)

difference accounts for one-third of excess cancer mortality experienced by African American women compared to white women (2007)

32% – 2000 – Breast Cancer Death rate higher in African American women even though had lower incidence rates (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN – 50 and older
——————————————————————
1.2% – 50 and older – 1992-2012 – per year – women (2011-2012)

2.0% – 50 and older – Breast Cancer Death Rates – per year (2009-2010)
——————————————————————
1.2% – 50 and older – decrease in breast cancer death rates smaller in African American than white women (2009-2010)

1.1% – 50 and older – 1991-2007 – African American women Breast cancer death rates declined annually (2007)

2.0% – 50 and older – 1990-2000 – breast cancer Death rates decreased (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1990 – 50 and older – Breast Cancer Death Rates Increase predominantly due to
——————————————————————
AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN – under 50
——————————————————————
2.0% – 1992-2012 – decrease larger in women under 50 – declined thereafter per year (2011-2012)

1.9% – 1992-2009 – decrease larger in women under 50 – declined thereafter per year (2009-2010)

resulted in growing disparity

3.3% per year – larger decreases in women younger than 50 – Breast Cancer Death Rates (2009-2010)
——————————————————————
1.9% – 1991_-_2007 – decrease larger in women under 50 – African American women Breast cancer death rates declined annually per year
——————————————————————
AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN
——————————————————————
2000-2009 – death among females, rate of decline similar

As result, overall racial disparity narrowed
——————————————————————
2000-2009 death rate declined faster among African Americans females rate of decline than whites

1.5% – 2000-2009 African Americans females rate of decline per year (2013-2014)

1.4% – 2000-2009 whites rate of decline per year (2013-2014 )
——————————————————————
1.4% – 2000-2009 – breast cancer death rates declined more slowly per year in African American women
——————————————————————
1990-2002
African American women benefited less than white women from advances (2005-2008)
——————————————————————
1.1% – breast cancer death rates African Americans (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1.6% – 1995-2004 – female breast cancer death rates declined per year in African Americans (2007-2008)

1.0% – 1990-2002 female breast cancer death rates declined per year – African Americans (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
early 1990s – Death rates among African Americans for all cancers combined have been decreasing (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
breast cancer death rates have declined more slowly in African American women compared to white women, which has resulted in growing disparity (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
gap much smaller among women
racial difference in overall cancer death rates due largely to cancers of breast and colorectum in women

racial disparity has widened for breast cancer in women (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
early 1980s – disparity in breast cancer death rates between African American and white women began in (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
early 1980s – breast cancer death rates for white and African American women approximately equal (2007)
——————————————————————
30% – early 1980’s-2000 – disparity between African American and white Deaths (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
early 1980s – disparity in breast cancer death rates between African American and white women appeared (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
early 1980s – breast cancer death rates for white and African American women

similar (2011-2014)

equal (2009-2010)

early 1980’s – Breast Cancer Death Rates equal – African American / White (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1.5% – 1975-1992 – Breast cancer death rates among African American women increased annually (2009-2012)

1.6% – 1975-1991 – African American women Breast cancer death rates increased annually (2007)
——————————————————————
1975-2007 – death rates for all cancers combined continued to be substantially higher among African Americans than whites (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN BREAST CANCER DEATH RATE RATIOS per 100,000 women
——————————————————————
35.4 – African American – 1997-2001 – Breast Cancer Death Rate Ratios per 100,000 (2005-2006)

26.4 – White – 1997-2001 – Breast Cancer Death Rate Ratios per 100,000 (2005-2006)

1.3 – African American / White Ratio – 1997-2001 – Breast Cancer Death Rate Ratios per 100,000 (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
HISPANIC / LATINA WOMEN
——————————————————————
2.4% – 1995-2004 female breast cancer death rates declined per year in Hispanics / Latinas (2007-2008)
1.8% – 1990-2002 female breast cancer death rates declined per year in Hispanics / Latinas (2005-2006)
1.4% – breast cancer Death rates Hispanics (2005-2006)

1990-2002
women of other racial and ethnic groups benefited less than white women from advances (2005-2008)
——————————————————————
ASIAN AMERICAN / PACIFIC ISLANDER WOMEN
——————————————————————
1995-2004 female breast cancer death rates remained unchanged among Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders (2007-2008)

1.1% – breast cancer Death rates Asian and Pacific Islanders (2005-2006)

1.0% – 1990-2002 female breast cancer death rates declined per year – Asian Americans / Pacific Islanders (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1990-2002
women of other racial and ethnic groups benefited less than white women from advances (2005-2008)
——————————————————————
AMERICAN INDIAN / ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN
——————————————————————
1995-2004 female breast cancer death rates remained unchanged among American Indians / Alaska Natives (2007-2008)

1990-2002 female breast cancer death rates did not decline in American Indian / Alaska Natives (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1990-2002
women of other racial and ethnic groups benefited less than white women from advances (2005-2008)
——————————————————————
breast cancer Death rates American Indian and Alaska Native – constant (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
DEATHS – 2007-2008
——————————————————————
40,460 – Deaths – All ages (2007-2008)
23,510 – Deaths – 65 and older (2007-2008)
16,950 – Deaths – Younger than 65 (2007-2008)
31,320 – Deaths – 55 and older (2007-2008)
9,140 – Deaths – Younger than 55 (2007-2008)
37,630 – Deaths – 45 and older (2007-2008)
2,830 – Deaths – Younger than 45 (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
MORTALITY (DEATH) RATES
——————————————————————
31.0 – Black – Mortality – 1992-1998 – Mortality Rates* by Site, Race, and Ethnicity (2002)

24.3 – White – Mortality – 1992-1998 – Mortality Rates* by Site, Race, and Ethnicity (2002)

14.8 – Hispanic – Mortality – 1992-1998 – Mortality Rates* by Site, Race, and Ethnicity (2002)

12.4 – American Indian / Alaskan Native – Mortality – 1992-1998 – Mortality Rates* by Site, Race, and Ethnicity (2002)

11.0 – Asian / Pacific Islander – Mortality – 1992-1998 – Mortality Rates* by Site, Race, and Ethnicity (2002)
——————————————————————
WHITE WOMEN – MORE LIKELY TO DEVELOP BREAST CANCER
——————————————————————
Combining all age groups, white (non-Hispanic) women more likely to develop breast cancer than black women
——————————————————————
PROBABILITY of DEVELOPING BREAST CANCER in NEXT 10 YEARS (Age)
——————————————————————
20
——————————————————————
20 – 0.05% – 1 in 2,152 – Probability of developing Breast Cancer in next 10 years (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
20 – 0.05% – 1 in 1,985 – 2000-2002 probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years: † (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
20 – 0.05% – 1 in: 1,837 – probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
30
——————————————————————
30 – 0.44% – 1 in: 229 (2000-2002) probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years: † (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
30 – 0.43% – 1 in: 234 – probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
30 – 0.40% – 1 in 251 – Probability of developing Breast Cancer in next 10 years (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
40
——————————————————————
40 – 1.46% – 1 in: 68 (2000-2002) probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years: † (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
40 – 1.45% – 1 in 69 – Probability of developing Breast Cancer in next 10 years (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
40 – 1.43% – 1 in: 70 – probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
50
——————————————————————
50 – 2.78% – 1 in 36 – Probability of developing Breast Cancer in next 10 years (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
50 – 2.73% – 1 in: 37 (2000-2002) probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years: † (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
50 – 2.51% – 1 in: 40 – probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
60
——————————————————————
60 – 3.82% – 1 in: 26 (2000-2002) probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years: † (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
60 – 3.81% – 1 in 26 – Probability of developing Breast Cancer in next 10 years (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
60 – 3.51% – 1 in: 28 – probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
70
——————————————————————
70 – 4.31% – 1 in 23 – Probability of developing Breast Cancer in next 10 years (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
70 – 4.14% – 1 in: 24 (2000-2002) probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years: † (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
70 – 3.88% – 1 in: 26 – probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
LIFETIME RISK
——————————————————————
13.2% – 1 in 8 – 2005-2006 Currently, woman living in US has, or, lifetime risk of developing breast cancer
——————————————————————
13.22% – Lifetime risk – 1 in: 8 – 2000-2002 probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years: † (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
12.28% – Lifetime risk – 1 in: 8 – probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
AFRICAN AMERICAN LIFE EXPECTANCY
——————————————————————
2007 – life expectancy lower for African Americans than whites among women

(76.5 vs. 80.6 years) (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
DEVELOPING INVASIVE BREAST CANCER
——————————————————————
1 in 8 – 2013 – chance of developing invasive breast cancer during lifetime
——————————————————————
1 in 8 – 12.3% – Currently, woman living in US has lifetime risk of developing breast cancer (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
about 1 in 11 – 1975
——————————————————————
1 in 11 – 1970s – lifetime risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
result of rounding to nearest whole number, small decrease in lifetime risk (from 1 in 7.47 to 1 in 7.56) led to change in lifetime risk from 1 in 7 previously reported in Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2003-2004 and Cancer Facts & Figures 2005 to current estimate of 1 in 8

Overall, lifetime risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer gradually increased over past 3 decades (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
INVASIVE BREAST CANCER – by age (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
178,480 – All ages
72,520 – 65 and older
105,960 – Younger than 65
124,300 – 55 and older
54,180 – Younger than 55
162,330 – 45 and older
16,150 – Younger than 45
——————————————————————
INVASIVE BREAST CANCER – by # (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
178,480 – All ages
162,330 – 45 and older
124,300 – 55 and older
105,960 – Younger than 65
72,520 – 65 and older
54,180 – Younger than 55
16,150 – Younger than 45
——————————————————————
INVASIVE BREAST CANCER
——————————————————————
0.3% – 1987-2002 – Incidence Trends: increased per year (2005-2006)
————————————-
—————————–
4% (almost) – 1980-1987 – increased (almost +4% a year) Incidence Trends (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
age 40-49
——————————————————————
Since 1987 – age 40-49 – incidence rates of invasive breast cancer have slightly declined (2005-2006)

3.5% – 40-49 (age) – 1980-1987 – incidence rates of invasive breast cancer increased among women per year – Incidence Trends: Invasive Breast Cancer (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
age 50 and older
——————————————————————
Since 1987 – 50 and older – incidence rates of invasive breast cancer have continued to increase among women, though at much slower rate (2005-2006)

4.2% – 50 and older – incidence rates of invasive breast cancer increased among women per year – Incidence Trends: Invasive Breast Cancer (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Under 40
——————————————————————
Under 40 – remained essentially constant (2005-2006)

Since 1987 – younger than 40 – relatively little change in incidence rates of invasive breast cancer in women (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Invasive Breast Cancer
——————————————————————
1975-2000 – Invasive Breast Cancer (2005-2006):

4% – 40 and older – increased 1980-1987 then stabilized (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1992-2002 – overall incidence rates did not change significantly among whites, African Americans, and Hispanics / Latinas (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1.3% – Hispanics – increased overall (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
0.9% – Whites – increased overall (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
African Americans – stabilized (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Asian Americans / Pacific Islanders
——————————————————————
2.1% – 1992-2002 – Asian and Pacific Islanders – overall incidence rates increased overall (2005-2006)

1.5% – 1992-2002 – Asian Americans / Pacific Islanders – overall incidence rates increased per year (2005-2006)

trends in invasive female breast cancer incidence rates (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
American Indian / Alaska Natives
——————————————————————
3.7% – American Indian / Alaska Native – decreased overall (2005-2006)

3.5% – 1992-2002 – American Indian / Alaska Natives – overall incidence rates decreased per year (2005-2006)

trends in invasive female breast cancer incidence rates (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
essentially constant – Incidence Trends
——————————————————————
1973-1980 – essentially constant – Incidence Trends (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
African Americans more likely to be diagnosed at later stage of disease when treatment choices are more limited and less effective (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
MEDIAN AGE of DIAGNOSIS
——————————————————————
62 – median age of diagnosis for -white women
——————————————————————
57 – median age of diagnosis for African American women
——————————————————————
DIAGNOSIS at LOCAL STAGE
——————————————————————
61% – breast cancers diagnosed among white women at local stage (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
51% (Only about half) – of breast cancers diagnosed among African American women are local stage (2011-2014)
——————————————————————
MEDIAN AGE AT TIME OF BREAST CANCER DIAGNOSIS
——————————————————————
61 – 2000_-_2004 median age at time of breast cancer diagnosis (2007-2008)
61 – 1998_-_2002 median age at time of breast cancer diagnosis
——————————————————————
61 – means 50% of women who developed breast cancer were 61 or younger (2007-2008)
50% of women who developed breast cancer were age 61 or younger 1998_-_2002
——————————————————————
61 – 50% were older than 61 when diagnosed (2007-2008)

50% were older than age 61 when diagnosed 1998_-_2002
——————————————————————
2005_-_2009 % / age DIAGNOSED with BREAST CANCER
——————————————————————
61 – median age for breast cancer diagnosis

0.0% – under age 20
1.8% – between 20-34
9.9% – between 35-44
22.5% – between 45-54
24.8% – between 55-64
20.2% – between 65-74
15.1% – between 75-84
5.7% – 85+
——————————————————————
2005_-_2009 % / age DIAGNOSED with BREAST CANCER by % (SEER, 2012)
——————————————————————
24.8% – between 55-64
22.5% – between 45-54
20.2% – between 65-74
15.1% – between 75-84
9.9% – between 35-44
5.7% – 85+
1.8% – between 20-34
0.0% – under age 20
——————————————————————
IN SITU BREAST CANCER – by age (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
62,030 – All ages
21,510 – 65 and older
40,520 – Younger than 65
37,110 – 55 and older
24,920 – Younger than 55
54,390 – 45 and older
7,640 – Younger than 45
——————————————————————
IN SITU BREAST CANCER – by # (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
62,030 – All ages
54,390 – 45 and older
40,520 – Younger than 65
37,110 – 55 and older
24,920 – Younger than 55
21,510 – 65 and older
7,640 – Younger than 45
——————————————————————
NEW CASES – IN SITU BREAST CANCER
——————————————————————
increase observed in all age groups, although greatest in women 50 and older (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
Since 2000 – incidence rates of in situ breast cancer leveled off among women 50 and older (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
Since 2000 – incidence rates of in situ breast cancer have continued to increase in younger women (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
80% – 2000-2004 – Most in situ breast cancers are ductal carcinoma (DCIS), which accounted for about 80% of in situ breast cancers diagnosed (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
2000-2004 – Lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) less common than DCIS, accounting for about 10% of female in situ breast cancers diagnosed (2007-2008)

Similar to DCIS, overall incidence rate of LCIS increased more rapidly than incidence of invasive breast cancer (2007-2008)

increase limited to women older than age 40 and largely to postmenopausal women (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
1998-2002 accounting for female in situ breast cancers diagnosed (2005-2006):

12% – Lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) less common than DCIS

Similar to DCIS, overall incidence rate of LCIS increased more rapidly than incidence of invasive breast cancer

increase limited to women older than 40 and largely to postmenopausal women
——————————————————————
1980s and 1990s – Incidence rates of in situ breast cancer increased rapidly (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
New cancer cases in women expected to be newly diagnosed among African Americans:
——————————————————————
2013 – 82,080 (About)
——————————————————————
19% – breast cancer in women (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
2002 – Breast cancer ranks 2nd among cancer deaths in women
——————————————————————
2002-2003: 2nd leading cause of death
——————————————————————
African American women expected to die from cancer:
——————————————————————
African Americans have the highest death rate and shortest survival of any racial and ethnic group in the US for most cancers
(2007-2014)
African Americans have the highest mortality rate of any racial and ethnic group in the US for most cancers
(2005-2006)
——————————————————————
higher death rate in African
American women compared to white women occurs despite lower cancer incidence rate (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
African American women have higher death rates overall and for breast and several other cancer sites (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
15% – 2009 – death rate for all cancers combined continued to be higher in African American women than in white women (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
racial difference in overall cancer death rates is due largely to cancers of the breast and colorectum in women (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
overall racial disparity in cancer death rates decreasing (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
16% – 2007 – death rate for all cancers combined higher in African American women than white women (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
37% – by 2002 – death rates higher in African Americans than white women (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
since early 1990s – death rates among African Americans for all cancers combined have been decreasing (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
30% – early 1980’s–2000 – Deaths disparity between African American and white (2005–2006)
——————————————————————
1975-2009 – Despite declines, death rates for all cancers combined continued to be higher among African Americans than whites (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
1992-2014 – Breast cancer death rates among African American women declined
——————————————————————
1.4% per year – 2000-2009 – breast cancer death rates declined more slowly in African American women
——————————————————————
2.1% per year – 2000-2009 – breast cancer death rates declined white women
——————————————————————
early 1980s – breast cancer death rates for white and African American women similar
——————————————————————
1975-1992 – Breast cancer death rates among African American women increased
resulted in growing disparity
——————————————————————
through 1998 – breast cancer incidence rates among young white women continued to increase more slowly (2002)
——————————————————————
1980s – 4.5% per year increase (2002)
——————————————————————
As result, overall racial disparity narrowed (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
1992-1998 – mortality rates declined significantly – largest decreases in younger women, both white and black (2002)
——————————————————————
1992-1998 – Incidence and Mortality Rates* by Site, Race, and Ethnicity (2002)
——————————————————————
Incidence
——————————————————————
115.5 – White
101.5 – Black
78.1 – Asian / Pacific Islander
50.5 – American Indian / Alaskan Native
68.5 – Hispanic
——————————————————————
Mortality
——————————————————————
31.0 – Black
24.3 – White
14.8 – Hispanic
12.4 – American Indian / Alaskan Native
11.0 – Asian / Pacific Islander
——————————————————————
Cancer Facts & Figures for African Americans 2005-2006
——————————————————————
1995-2000 (2001) – Diagnosed
Female breast (2005-2006)
:
——————————————————————
Localized
——————————————————————
64% – White (2005-2006)
53% – African American (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Regional
——————————————————————
35% – African American (2005-2006)
28% – White (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Distant
——————————————————————
9% – African American (2005-2006)
5% – White (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Unstaged
——————————————————————
3% – African American (2005-2006)
2% – White (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2005-2006 – Cancer Incidence Rates Ratios per 100,000 (1975-2001)
——————————————————————
1997-2001 – Breast (2005-2006)
143.2 – White (2005-2006)
118.6 – African American (2005-2006)
0.8 – African American / White Ratio (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2005-2006 – Cancer Death Rate Ratios per 100,000
——————————————————————
1997-2001 – Breast (2005-2006)
35.4 – African American (2005-2006)
26.4 – White (2005-2006)
1.3 – African American / White Ratio (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Most common cancer among African American Women (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
17% lower incidence rate in African American than White (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
under 40 – higher incidence rate in African American than White (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
25 years incidence:
——————————————————————
1999-2001 – leveling off (2005-2006)
1986-1999 – less rapid increase (2005-2006)
1978-1986 – rapid increase (2005-2006)
1975-1978 – stable (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Breast Cancer Death Rates Increased (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
1975-1991 – + 1.6% – annually (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1991 – decided annually: particularly in women younger than 50 (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Breast Cancer Death Rates (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
early 1980’s – equal – African American / White (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2000 – 32% – higher African American (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Death rate higher in African American even though had lower incidence rates (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Rate per 100,000
——————————————————————
White
African American
Asian or Pacific Islander
Hispanic
American Indian or Alaska Native
——————————————————————
1996-2000 – Incidences:

140.8 – White
121.7 – African American
97.2 – Asian or Pacific Islander
89.8 – Hispanic
58 – American Indian or Alaska Native
——————————————————————
1996-2000 – Deaths

35.9 – African American
27.2 – White
17.9 – Hispanic
14.9 – American Indian or Alaska Native
12.5 – Asian or Pacific Islander
——————————————————————
Estimated New In Situ Cases:
——————————————————————
2003_-_100 – < 30
2005 – 1,600 – Under 40
2003 – 2,100 – 30-39
2005 – 56,890 – 40 and older
2005 – 13,760 – Under 50
2003 -12,600 – 40-49
2005 – 44,730 – 50 and older
2005 – 37,040 – Under 65
2003 – 15,700 – 50-59
2005 – 21,450 – 65 and older
2003 – 11,500 – 60-69
2003 – 10,100 – 70-79
2003 – 3,500 – 80 +
2005 – 58,490 – All ages
TOTAL
2003 – 55,700
——————————————————————
2003_-_100 – 0.2%
2003 – 2,100 – 3.8%
2003 – 12,600 – 22.6%
2003 – 15,700 – 28.2%
2003 – 11,500 – 20.6%
2003 – 10,100 – 18.1%
2003 – 3,500 – 16.3
TOTAL
2003 – 100.0%
——————————————————————
Estimated New Invasive Cases:
——————————————————————
2003 – 1,000 – < 30
2005 – 9,510 – Under 40
2003 – 10,500 – 30-39
2005_-_201,730 – 40 and older
2005 – 45,780 – Under 50
2003 – 35,500 – 40-49
2005_-_165,460 – 50 and older
2005_-_123,070 – Under 65
2003 – 48,700 – 50-59
2005 – 88,170 – 65 and older
2003 – 43,100 – 60-69
2003 – 45,600 – 70-79
2003 – 27,000 – 80 +
2005_-_211,240 – All ages
TOTAL
2003 – 55,700 –
——————————————————————
2003 – 1,000 – 0.5%
2003 – 10,500 – 5.0%
2003 – 35,500 – 16.8%
2003 – 48,700 – 23.0%
2003 – 43,100 – 20.4%
2003 – 45,600 – 21.6%
2003 – 27,000 – 12.8%
TOTAL
2003 – 100.00%
——————————————————————
Deaths:
——————————————————————
2003_-_100 – < 30
2005 – 1,110 – Under 40
2003 – 1,300 – 30-39
2005 – 39,300 – 40 and older
2005 – 5,590 – Under 50
2003 – 4,300 – 40-49
2005 – 34,820 – 50 and older
2005 – 17,470 – Under 65
2003 – 7,000 – 50-59
2005 – 22,940 – 65 and older
2003 – 7,400 – 60-69
2003 – 9,500 – 70-79
2003 – 10,100 – 80 +
2005 – 40,410 – All ages
TOTAL
2003 – 39,800
——————————————————————
2003_-_100 – 0.3%
2003 – 1,300 – 3.3%
2003 – 4,300 – 10.8%
2003 – 7,000 – 17.6 %
2003 – 7,400 – 18.6%
2003 – 9,500 – 23.9%
2003 – 10,100 – 25.4%
TOTAL
2003 – 100.0
——————————————————————
1990 – Increase since predominantly due to women 50 and older
——————————————————————
1998-2002 accounting for female in situ breast cancers diagnosed (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
12% – Lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) less common than DCIS

Similar to DCIS, overall incidence rate of LCIS increased more rapidly than incidence of invasive breast cancer

increase limited to women older than 40 and largely to postmenopausal women
——————————————————————
1990-2001 (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
2.3% – decrease
largest decrease in < 50
——————————————————————
1998-2002 women aged 40 and older (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
95% – new cases
97% – breast cancer deaths
——————————————————————
1996-2000 Women 40 and older (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
94% – New Cases
96% – Deaths
——————————————————————
0.3% per year – Incidence rates declined slightly among white females (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
1996-2002 (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
20-24 – 1.3 per 100,000 lowest incidence rate – 1998-2002 (2005-2006)

20-24 – 1.4 per 100,000 lowest incidence rate – 1996-2000 (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
75-79 – 496.6 per 100,000 highest incidence rate – 1998-2002 (2005-2006)

75-79 – 499.0 per 100,000 highest incidence rate – 1996-2000 (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2005-2006
•
White women higher incidence of breast cancer than African American women after 35

African American women slightly higher incidence rate before 35

African American women more likely to die from breast cancer at every age
——————————————————————
2005

White – higher incidence rate than African American women after 40

African American – slightly higher incidence rate before 40

African American women – more likely to die from at any age
——————————————————————
2005-2006 incidence and death rates from breast cancer lower among women of other racial and ethnic groups than white and African American women
——————————————————————
2000-2009 – stable among African American females (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
1975-1980 essentially constant (2005-2006)
1980-1987 + almost 4% per year (2005-2006)
1987-2002 + 0.3% per year (2005-2006)
•
Incidence Trends
Invasive Breast Cancer (2005-2006)
:

1973-1980 – essentially constant (2005-2006)
1980-1987 – + almost 4% year (2005-2006)
1987-2000 – 0.4% year (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1980-1987 incidence rates of invasive breast cancer increased among women (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
40-49 (3.5% per year) (2005-2006)
50 and older (4.2% per year) (2005-2006)
Since 1987
50 and older – rates have continued to increase among women , though at much slower rate (2005-2006)

40-49 -rates have slightly declined (2005-2006)

younger than 40 – relatively little change in incidence rates of invasive breast cancer in women (2005-2006)

1975-2000 – Invasive Breast Cancer (2005-2006):

4% – 40 and older increased 1980 – 1987 then stabilized (2005-2006)

Under 40 – remained essentially constant (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2005-2006 trends in invasive female breast cancer incidence rates:
——————————————————————
1992-2002
(1.5% per year) – overall incidence rates increased in Asian Americans / Pacific Islanders (2005-2006)

(3.5% per year) – decreased in American Indian/Alaska Natives (2005-2006)

did not change significantly among whites, African Americans, and Hispanics/Latinas (2005-2006)

1992-2000 – Invasive (2005-2006):

2.1% – Asian and Pacific Islanders – increased overall (2005-2006)
1.3% – Hispanics – increased overall (2005-2006)
0.9% – Whites – increased overall (2005-2006)
3.7% – American Indian and Alaska Native – decreased overall (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
African Americans – stabilized (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
since 1990 – death rate from breast cancer in women decreased (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1975-1990
0.4% – death rate for all races combined increased annually (2005-2006)
•
1990-2002
2.3% – rate decreased annually
percentage of decline larger among younger age groups (2005-2006)

1990-2002
3.3% – death rates decreased per year among women younger than 50 (2005-2006)

2.0% – per year among women 50 and older (2005-2006)

African American women and women of other racial and ethnic groups have benefited less than white women from advances (2005-2006)

1990-2002 female breast cancer death rates declined (2005-2006):

2.4% – per year – whites (2005-2006)
1.8% – per year – Hispanics/Latinas (2005-2006)
1.0% – per year – African Americans and Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders (2005-2006)

did not decline in American Indian/ Alaska Natives (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
life expectancy lower for African Americans than whites among women (77.2 vs. 80.9 years) (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
As result, overall racial disparity narrowed (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
striking divergence in long-term mortality trends between African American and white females (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
early 1980s – disparity in breast cancer death rates between African American and white women appeared (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1975-1990 – Death (2005-2006):
0.4% – increased annually (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1990-2000
2.3% – decreased annually (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1991-2000
3.7% – under 50 decreased (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1990-2000
2.0% – 50 and older decreased (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1992-2000 – Death (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
2.6% – Whites (2005-2006)
1.4% – Hispanics (2005-2006)
1.1% – African Americans (2005-2006)
1.1% – Asian and Pacific Islanders (2005-2006)
American Indian and Alaska Native – constant (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Probability of developing Breast Cancer in next 10 years:
——————————————————————
Age
——————————————————————
20 – 0.05% – 1 in 2,152 (2005-2006)
20 – 0.05% – 1 in 1,985 – 2000-2002 (2005-2006)†
——————————————————————
30 – 0.40% – 1 in 251 (2005-2006)
30 – 0.44% – 1 in: 229 – 2000-2002 (2005-2006)†
——————————————————————
40 – 1.45% – 1 in 69 (2005-2006)
40 – 1.46% – 1 in: 68 – 2000-2002 (2005-2006)†
——————————————————————
50 – 2.78% – 1 in 36 (2005-2006)
50 – 2.73% – 1 in: 37 – 2000-2002 (2005-2006)†
——————————————————————
60 – 3.81% – 1 in 26 (2005-2006)
60 – 3.82% – 1 in: 26 – 2000-2002 (2005-2006)†
——————————————————————
70 – 4.31% – 1 in 23 (2005-2006)
70 – 4.14% – 1 in: 24 – 2000-2002 (2005-2006)†
——————————————————————
Lifetime Probability (%) of Developing or Dying from Invasive Cancers by Race and Sex
——————————————————————
Developing

12.73 (1 in 8) – White (%) 2007-2009 (2013-2014)

10.87 (1 in 9) – African American (%) 2007-2009 (2013-2014)

Dying

3.25 (1 in 31) – African American (%) 2007-2009 (2013-2014)

2.73 (1 in 37) – White (%) 2007-2009 (2013-2014)

2005-2006 Currently, woman living in US has 13.2%, or 1 in 8, lifetime risk of developing breast cancer (2013-2014)

result of rounding to nearest whole number, small decrease in lifetime risk (from 1 in 7.47 to 1 in 7.56) led to change in lifetime risk from 1 in 7 previously reported in Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2003-2004 and Cancer Facts & Figures 2005 to current estimate of 1 in 8

2005-2006: Overall, lifetime risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer gradually increased over past 3 decades (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
13.22% – Lifetime risk – 1 in: 8
Comparison of Cancer Incidence Rates between African Americans and Whites
——————————————————————
123.2 – White Rate* 2005-2009 (2013-2014)
121.7 – White Rate* 2003-2007 (2011-2012)
130.6 – White Rate* 2001-2005 +
——————————————————————
118.1 – African American Rate* 2005-2009 (2013-2014)
114.7 – African American Rate* 2003-2007 (2011-2012)
117.6 – African American Rate* 2001-2005 +
——————————————————————
-5.1 – Difference† 2005-2009 (2013-2014)
-7.0 – Absolute Difference† 2003-2007 (2011-2012)
-13.1 – Absolute Difference† 2001-2005 +
——————————————————————
0.96 – Rate Ratio‡ 2005-2009 (2013-2014)
0.94 – Rate Ratio‡ 2003-2007 (2011-2012)
0.90 – Rate Ratio‡ 2001-2005 +

*Rates per 100,000 age adjusted to 2000 US standard population

†Difference is rate in African Americans minus rate in whites

†Absolute difference is rate in African Americans minus rate in whites

‡Rate ratio is unrounded rate in African Americans divided by unrounded rate in whites

‡Rate ratio is rate in African Americans divided by rate in whites based on 2 decimal places

+ Source: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, 17 SEER Registries 2000-2005, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 2008
——————————————————————
Comparison of Cancer Death Rates between African Americans and Whites
——————————————————————
31.6 – African American Rate* 2005-2009
32.4 – African American Rate* 2003-2007 (2011-2012)
33.5 – African American Rate* 2001-2005 +
——————————————————————
22.4 – White Rate* 2005-2009
23.4 – White Rate* 2003-2007 (2011-2012)
24.4 – White Rate* 2001-2005 +
——————————————————————
9.2 – Difference† 2005-2009
9.0 – Absolute Difference† 2003-2007 (2011-2012)
9.1 – Absolute Difference† 2001-2005 +
——————————————————————
1.41 – Rate Ratio‡ 2005-2009
1.39 – Rate Ratio‡ 2003-2007 (2011-2012)
1.37 – Rate Ratio‡ 2001-2005 +

*Rates per 100,000 and age adjusted to 2000 US standard population

†Difference is rate in African Americans minus rate in whites

†Absolute difference is rate in African Americans minus rate in whites

‡Rate ratio is unrounded rate in African Americans divided by unrounded rate in whites

‡Rate ratio is rate in African Americans divided by rate in whites based on 2 decimal places

+ Source: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, 17 SEER Registries 2000-2005, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 2008
——————————————————————
Stage Distribution for Selected Cancers in African Americans and Whites

Stage Distribution African Americans and Whites
——————————————————————
Localized
——————————————————————
61% – White 2002-2008
61% – White 1999-2006
62% – White 1996-2004 +
——————————————————————
51% – African American 2002-2008
51% – African American 1999-2006
51% – African American 1996-2004 +
——————————————————————
Regional

38% – African American 2002-2008
39% – African American 1999-2006
37% – African American 1996-2004 +
——————————————————————
32% – White 2002-2008
32% – White 1999-2006
31% – White 1996-2004 +
——————————————————————
Distant
——————————————————————
8% – African American 2002-2008
8% – African American 1999-2006
10% – African American 1996-2004 +
——————————————————————
5% – White 2002-2008
5% – White 1999-2006
6% – White 1996-2004 +
——————————————————————
Unstaged
——————————————————————
3% – African American 2002-2008
3% – African American 1999-2006
3% – African American 1996-2004 +
——————————————————————
2% – White 2002-2008
2% – White 1999-2006
2% – White 1996-2004 +
——————————————————————
+ Source:
Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, 17 SEER Registries, 1973-2005, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 2008
——————————————————————
Probability of Developing Invasive Cancers Over Selected Age Intervals among African Americans by Sex +

Probability of Developing Invasive Cancers:
——————————————————————
Birth to 39 (%):
——————————————————————
0.53 (1 in 189) 2003-2005 * +
0.44 (1 in 229) 1998–2000 (2004)
0.44 (1 in 228) 1997–1999 (2003)
0.44 (1 in 229) 1996–1997 (2002)
——————————————————————
40 to 59(%):
——————————————————————
3.56 (1 in 28) – 40 to 59(%) 2003-2005 * +
4.14 (1 in 24) 1998–2000 (2004)
4.17 (1 in 24) 1997–1999 (2003)
4.17 (1 in 24) 1996–1997 (2002)

2.96 (1 in 34) – 60 to 69 (%) 2003-2005 * +
——————————————————————
60 to 79 (%):
——————————————————————
7.53 (1 in 13) 1998–2000 (2004)
7.14 (1 in 14) 1997–1999 (2003)
7.14 (1 in 14) 1996–1997 (2002)

5.44 (1 in 18) – 70 and Older (%) 2003-2005 * +
——————————————————————
Birth to Death (%)
——————————————————————
9.91 (1 in 10) – Birth to Death (%) 2003-2005 * +
13.36 (1 in 7) 1998–2000 (2004)
13.3 (1 in 8) 1997–1999 (2003)
12.5 (1 in 8) 1996–1997 (2002)

*For people free of cancer at beginning of age interval

+ Source:
DevCan:
Probability of Developing or Dying of Cancer Software, Version 6.3.0. Statistical Research and Applications Branch, National Cancer Institute, 2008
——————————————————————
2005-2006 Currently, woman living in US has 13.2%, or 1 in 8, lifetime risk of developing breast cancer (2013-2014)

result of rounding to nearest whole number, small decrease in lifetime risk (from 1 in 7.47 to 1 in 7.56) led to change in lifetime risk from 1 in 7 previously reported in Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2003-2004 and Cancer Facts & Figures 2005 to current estimate of 1 in 8
——————————————————————
2005-2006: Overall, lifetime risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer gradually increased over past 3 decades (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
5-YEAR SURVIVAL RATE – ALL
——————————————————————
Survival after diagnosis of breast cancer continues to decline after 5 years (2009-2010)

Survival after diagnosis of breast cancer continues to decline beyond 5 years (2006)
——————————————————————
5-YEAR RELATIVE SURVIVAL LOWER
——————————————————————
5-year relative survival lower among women with more advanced stage at diagnosis (2007-2008)

5-year relative survival lower among women with more advanced stage of disease at diagnosis (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2005-2006 African American women with breast cancer less likely than white women to survive 5 years:
——————————————————————
90% – white
76% – African American
——————————————————————
Likely to survive 5 years (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
88% – White
74% – African American
——————————————————————
5-YEAR SURVIVAL RATE – ALL STAGES – COMBINED
——————————————————————
89% – survival rate at 5 years for all stages combined (2009-2010)
——————————————————————
88% – all stages combined – 5 year
——————————————————————
77% – all stages combined – 10 year
——————————————————————
5-YEAR RELATIVE SURVIVAL RATE for ALL CANCERS COMBINED
——————————————————————
63% – 2004
62% – 2002-2003
——————————————————————
5-year Relative Survival Rates* for Cancers by Race and Stage

Five-year Relative Survival Rates* for Cancers by Race and Stage at Diagnosis

Five-Year Relative Survival Rates

5-year Relative Survival Rates (1995-2000 (2001) diagnosed) SEER 1975–2001 (2004)
——————————————————————
Localized
——————————————————————
99% – White 2002-2008 (2013-2014)
61% – White 1999-2006 (2011-2012)
99% – White 1996-2004 +
98% – White 1995–2000 (2005–2006)
——————————————————————
93% – African American 2002-2008 (2013-2014)
51% – African American 1999-2006 (2011-2012)
93% – African American 1996-2004 +
91% – African American 1995–2000 (2005–2006)
——————————————————————
Regional
——————————————————————
85% – White 2002-2008 (2013-2014)
32% – White 1999-2006 (2011-2012)
85% – White 1996-2004 +
82% – White 1995–2000 (2005–2006)
——————————————————————
73% – African American 2002-2008 (2013-2014)
39% – African American 1999-2006 (2011-2012)
72% – African American 1996-2004 +
68% – African American 1995–2000 (2005–2006)
——————————————————————
Distant
——————————————————————
25% – White 2002-2008 (2013-2014)
5% – White 1999-2006 (2011-2012)
29% – White 1996-2004 +
27% – White 1995–2000 (2005–2006)
——————————————————————
15% – African American 2002-2008 (2013-2014)
8% – African American 1999-2006 (2011-2012)
17% – African American 1996-2004 +
15% – African American 1995–2000 (2005–2006)
——————————————————————
All Stages
——————————————————————
90% – White 2002-2008 (2013-2014)
2% – White 1999-2006 (2011-2012)
90% – White 1996-2004 +
56% – White 1995–2000
(2005–2006)
——————————————————————
78% – African American 2002-2008 (2013-2014)
3% – African American 1999-2006 (2011-2012)
77% – African American 1996-2004 +
50% – African American 1995–2000 (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
*Survival rates based on patients diagnosed 2002-2008 followed through 2009

*Survival rates based on patients diagnosed 1999-2006 followed through 2007

Survival rates based on patients diagnosed 1996 – 2004 followed through 2005 +

Local:
invasive cancer confined entirely to organ of origin

Regional:

malignant cancer either

1) extended beyond limits of organ of origin directly into surrounding organs or tissues

2) involves regional lymph nodes by way of lymphatic system

3) both regional extension and involvement of regional lymph nodes

Distant:

malignant cancer spread to parts of body remote from primary tumor either by direct extension or by discontinuous metastasis to distant organs, tissues, or via lymphatic system to distant lymph nodes

+ Source:
Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, 17 SEER Registries, 1973-2005, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 2008
——————————————————————
Considering all races, 5-year relative survival:

98% – localized disease
81% – regional disease
26% – distant-stage disease

Larger tumor size at diagnosis associated with decreased survival
among women of all races with regional disease, 5-year relative survival:

92% – tumors less than or equal to 2.0 cm
77% – tumors 2.1-5.0 cm
65% – tumors greater than 5.0 cm
——————————————————————
OVERALL 5-YEAR CANCER SURVIVAL RATE (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
55% – 1995-2000 (2005-2006)
27% – 1960-1963 (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
5-YEAR RELATIVE SURVIVAL RATES
——————————————————————
89% – 5 year relative survival rates for women diagnosed with breast cancer after diagnosis (2007-2008)
88% – 5 year relative survival rates for women diagnosed with breast cancer after diagnosis (2005-2006)
87% – 5 year Breast Cancer Survival Rates after Diagnosis (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
age 75 + – 5 year relative survival rate among women diagnosed with breast cancer
——————————————————————
88% – 75 and older (2005-2006)
86% – 75 and over (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
age 65 + – 5 year relative survival rate among women diagnosed with breast cancer
——————————————————————
89% – 65-74 (2005-2006)
88% – 65 and over (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
5-year relative survival rate among women diagnosed with breast cancer
——————————————————————
88% – 55-64 (2005-2006)
89% – 40-74 (2005-2006)
87% – 45-54 (2005-2006)
83% – 45 (less than) (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
40 and older – 5-year relative survival rate
——————————————————————
89% – 40 and older – 5-year relative survival rate slightly lower among women diagnosed with breast cancer (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
younger than 40 – 5-year relative survival rate
——————————————————————
82% – before 40 – slightly lower among women diagnosed with breast cancer (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
82% – younger than 40 – slightly lower among women diagnosed with breast cancer before age 40 – may be due to tumors in age group being more aggressive (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
All – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis
——————————————————————
86% – 1992-1997 (2002) – 1974-1997
78% – 1983-1985 (2002) – 1974-1997
75% – 1974-1976 (2002) – 1974-1997
——————————————————————
WHITE WOMEN
——————————————————————
69% – white women (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
62% – white women (2007)
——————————————————————
90% – 1999-2006 white women (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
90% – 1996-2004 white women – 5-year relative survival rate for breast cancer diagnosed (2009-2010)
——————————————————————
90% – white women with breast cancer to survive 5 years (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
5-year survival greater among white women (2007)
——————————————————————
90% – 2002-2008 – overall 5-year relative survival rate for breast cancer diagnosed among white women
——————————————————————
88% – White women – Likely to survive 5 years (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
81% – White women – 5 year survivors: relative 5 year survival rate (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
62% – 1996-2004 – white women – 5-year relative survival rate for breast cancer diagnosed (2009-2010)
——————————————————————
90% – 1996-2002 – whites (2007) – 1974-1997 – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis (2002)
——————————————————————
90% – 1996-2002 – White – 5-Year Relative Survival – Breast 2007 (2007-2008) +
——————————————————————
89% – 1995-2000 – White – 5-year Relative Survival (1995-2000 (2001) Diagnosis) SEER 1975-2001 (2004) (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
87% – 1992-1997 – White – 1974-1997 – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis (2002)
——————————————————————
79% – 1983-1985 – White – 1974-1997 – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis (2002)
——————————————————————
75% – 1974-1976 – White – 1974-1997 – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis (2002)
——————————————————————
AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN
——————————————————————
78% – black women still living 5 years after getting disease (SEER, 2012)
——————————————————————
78% – 1999-2006 – 5-year relative survival rate for breast cancer diagnosed among African American women Survival and Stage at Distribution (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
76% – African American – 5 year survivors relative 5 year survival rate (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
74% – African American – Likely to survive 5 years (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
60% – African Americans – continue to have lower 5-year survival than whites overall and for each stage of diagnosis for most cancer sites (2013-2014)

African Americans continue to be less likely than whites to survive 5 years at each stage of diagnosis for most cancer sites (2009-2010)

Within each stage, 5-year survival also lower among African American women (2009-2010)

78% – 2002-2008 – overall 5-year relative survival rate for breast cancer diagnosed among African American women

77% – African American women with breast cancer less likely than white women to survive 5 years (2007-2008)
76% – African American women with breast cancer less likely than white women to survive 5 years 2005-2006

60% – 2002-2008 – overall 5-year relative survival rate among African Americans improved (2013-2014)

59% – 1999-2006 – African Americans continue to be less likely than whites to survive 5 years at each stage of diagnosis for most cancer sites (2011-2012)

58% – 1996-2004 – overall 5-year relative survival rate among African Americans improved (2009-2010)

77% – 1996-2002 – 5-Year Relative Survival – Breast – African American 2007 (2007-2008) +
77% – 1996-2002 – African American women (2007) – 1974-1997 – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis (2002)

72% – 1992-1997 – Black – 1974-1997 – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis (2002)

63% – 1983-1985 – Black – 1974-1997 – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis (2002)

63% – 1974-1976 – Black – 1974-1997 – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis (2002)

27% – 1960-1963 – overall 5-year relative survival rate among African Americans improved (2009-2014)
——————————————————————
1996-2002 – 5-Year Relative Survival – Breast 2007 – (Based on cancer patients diagnosed 1996-2002 followed through 2003) (2007-2008) +

(Source: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, 17 SEER Registries, 1975-2003, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 2006) (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
relative survival rates for women diagnosed with breast cancer (2005-2006):
•
88% – 5 years after diagnosis (2005-2006)
80% – 10 years (2005-2006)
71% – 15 years (2005-2006)
63% – 20 years (2005-2006)
•
Breast Cancer Survival Rates after Diagnosis:
•
87% – 5 years (2005-2006)
77% – 10 years (2005-2006)
63% – 15 years (2005-2006)
52% – 20 years (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2005-2006 – 5-year relative survival rate slightly lower among women diagnosed with breast cancer before age 40
•
may be due to tumors in age group being more aggressive and less responsive to hormonal therapy:
•
82% – younger than 40 (2005-2006)
89% – 40 – 74 (2005-2006)
88% – 75 and older (2005-2006)
•
5 year relative survival rate (2005-2006):
•
83% – < 45
87% – 45 – 54
88% – 55 – 64
89% – 65 – 74
88% – 65 and over
86% – 75 and over
——————————————————————
5 year survivors
relative 5 year survival rate (2005-2006)
:
•
81% – White
76% – African American
——————————————————————
10 year survivors after diagnosis
relative 5 year survival rate (2005-2006)
:
——————————————————————
87% – White
85% – African American
——————————————————————
LOCALIZED CANCER INCIDENCE RATES RATIOS per 100,000 (1975-2001) – 1995-2000 (2001) – Diagnosed Female breast (2005-2006): Localized – Of all breast cancers diagnosed 2005-2006
——————————————————————
143.2 – White
118.6 – African American

0.8 – African American / White Ratio
——————————————————————
2005-2006
1995-2000 – 5-year Relative Survival (1995-2000 (2001) Diagnosis) SEER 1975-2001 (2004)
89% – White (2005-2006)
75% – African American (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2005-2006
1995-2000 – 5-year Relative Survival Rates (1995-2000 (2001) diagnosed) SEER 1975-2001 (2004)
Female breast
——————————————————————
Localized
——————————————————————
98% – White (2005-2006)
91% – African American (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Regional
——————————————————————
82% – White (2005-2006)
68% – African American (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Distant
——————————————————————
27% – White (2005-2006)
15% – African American (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Unstaged
——————————————————————
56% – White (2005-2006)
50% – African American (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
LOCALIZED 5-YEAR RELATIVE SURVIVAL RATES (1995-2000 (2001) diagnosed) SEER 1975-2001 (2004) Female breast (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
98% – 1995-2000 – White
91% – 1995-2000 – African American
——————————————————————
LOCALIZED
——————————————————————
98% – 2010 – 5-year relative survival for localized breast cancer (malignant cancer that has not spread to lymph nodes or other locations outside breast) has increased (2009-2010)

98% – localized disease: 5-year relative survival – Considering all races (2007-2008)

98% – 2006 – 5-year relative survival for localized breast cancer (cancer not spread to lymph nodes or other locations outside breast) increased

98% – localized disease – 2005-2006 5-year relative survival lower among women with more advanced stage of disease at diagnosis: Considering all races

98% – 2005 – 5 year relative survival for localized

97% – 2004 – 5-year relative survival for localized breast cancer (cancer not spread to lymph nodes or other locations outside breast) increased

96% – 2002 – 5-year relative survival for localized breast cancer (cancer not spread to lymph nodes or other locations outside breast) increased

99% – 1996-2002 White – localized (2007-2008) *

94% – 1996-2002 African American – localized (2007-2008) *

80% – 1950s – 5-year relative survival for localized breast cancer (malignant cancer that has not spread to lymph nodes or other locations outside breast) has increased (2009-2010)

80% – 1950s – 5-year relative survival for localized breast cancer (cancer not spread to lymph nodes or other locations outside breast) increased (2006)

72% – 1940s – 5-year relative survival rate for localized breast cancer (cancer not spread to lymph nodes or other locations outside breast) increased (2002)
——————————————————————
5-year relative survival rate for breast cancer diagnosed at local stage
——————————————————————
77% – 1996-2004 – African American women – 5-year relative survival rate for breast cancer diagnosed at local stage (2009-2010)
——————————————————————
LOCALIZED
——————————————————————
62% – 1996-2002 White – Localized – Stage Distribution – Female breast (2007-2008)

64% – White – Localized (2005–2006)

64% – 1995-2000 (2001) – White: Diagnosed Female breast (2005-2006): Localized – Of all breast cancers diagnosed

5% – 1995-2000 (2001) – White: Diagnosed Female breast (2005-2006): Localized – Of all breast cancers diagnosed

52% – 1996-2002 African American – Localized – Stage Distribution – Female breast (2007-2008)

53% – African American – Localized (2005–2006)

53% – 1995-2000 (2001) – African American: Diagnosed Female breast (2005-2006): Localized – Of all breast cancers diagnosed
——————————————————————
REGIONAL 5-YEAR RELATIVE SURVIVAL RATES (1995-2000 (2001) diagnosed) SEER 1975-2001 (2004) Female breast (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
82% – 1995-2000 – White
68% – 1995-2000 – African American
——————————————————————
REGIONALLY
——————————————————————
84% – cancer spread regionally, current 5-year survival (2009-2010)

84% – regional disease – 5-year relative survival: Considering all races (2007-2008)

81% – regional disease – 5-year relative survival lower among women with more advanced stage of disease at diagnosis: Considering all races 2005-2006

85% – 1996-2002 White – Regional (2007-2008) *

80% – cancer spread regionally

78% – 2002 – 5-year relative survival rate: breast cancer spread regionally

72% – 1996-2002 African American – Regional (2007-2008) *
——————————————————————
36% – 1996-2002 African American – Regional: Stage Distribution – Female breast (2007-2008)

30% – 1996-2002 White – Regional: Stage Distribution – Female breast (2007-2008)

35% – African American – Regional (2005–2006)

35% – 1995-2000 (2001) – African American: Diagnosed
Female breast (2005-2006): Regional – Of all breast cancers diagnosed

28% – White – Regional (2005–2006)
——————————————————————
REGIONAL TUMORS
——————————————————————
94% – Larger tumor size at diagnosis also associated with decreased survival among women of all races with regional disease, 5-year relative survival for tumors less than or equal (2007-2008)

92% – tumors less than or equal to 2.0 cm – Larger tumor size at diagnosis associated with decreased survival among women of all races with regional disease, 5-year relative survival

77% – tumors 2.1-5.0 cm – Larger tumor size at diagnosis associated with decreased survival among women of all races with regional disease, 5-year relative survival

65% – tumors greater than 5.0 cm – Larger tumor size at diagnosis associated with decreased survival among women of all races with regional disease, 5-year relative survival
——————————————————————
DISTANT
——————————————————————
27% – women with distant spread (metastases) 5-year survival (2009-2010)

27% – 1995-2000 – White – Distant 5-year Relative Survival Rates (1995-2000 (2001) diagnosed) SEER 1975-2001 (2004) Female breast (2005-2006)

27% – distant-stage disease: 5-year relative survival, Considering all races (2007-2008)

26% – distant metastasis

26% – distant-stage disease – 2005-2006 5-year relative survival lower among women with more advanced stage of disease at diagnosis: Considering all races

28% – 1996-2002 White – Distant (2007-2008) *

21% – 2002 – 5-year relative survival rate: breast cancer distant metastasis

16% – 1996-2002 African American – Distant (2007-2008) *

15% – 1995-2000 – African American – Distant 5-year Relative Survival Rates (1995-2000 (2001) diagnosed) SEER 1975-2001 (2004) Female breast (2005-2006)

28% – 1995-2000 (2001) – White: Distant – Diagnosed Female breast (2005-2006): Of all breast cancers diagnosed
——————————————————————
9% – 1996-2002 African American – Distant – Stage Distribution African Americans – Female breast (2007-2008)

9% – African American – Distant (2005–2006)

9% – 1995-2000 (2001) – African American: Diagnosed
Female breast (2005-2006): Localized – Of all breast cancers diagnosed

6% – 1996-2002 White – Distant – Stage Distribution Whites – Female breast (2007-2008)

5% – White – Distant (2005–2006)
——————————————————————
UNSTAGED
——————————————————————
56% – 1996-2002 – Unstaged – White (2007-2008) *

56% – 1995-2000 – White – Unstaged 5-year Relative Survival Rates (1995-2000 (2001) diagnosed) SEER 1975-2001 (2004) Female breast (2005-2006)

50% – 1995-2000 – Unstaged – African American – 5-year Relative Survival Rates (1995-2000 (2001) diagnosed) SEER 1975-2001 (2004) Female breast (2005-2006)

45% – 1996-2002 – Unstaged – African American (2007-2008) *
——————————————————————
3% – 1996-2002 African American – Unstaged – Stage Distribution Whites – Female breast (2007-2008)

3% – African American – Unstaged (2005–2006)

3% – 1995-2000 (2001) – African American: Unstaged – Of all breast cancers diagnosed – Diagnosed
Female breast (2005-2006)

2% – 1996-2002 White – Unstaged – Stage Distribution Whites – Female breast (2007-2008)

2% – White – Unstaged (2005–2006)

2% – 1995-2000 (2001) – White: Diagnosed Female breast (2005-2006): Unstaged – Of all breast cancers diagnosed
——————————————————————
ALL – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis
——————————————————————
90% – 1999-2006 (2011) – 1975-2006
87% – 1992-1999 (2004)
87% – 1992-1999 (2004) – 1974-1999
86% – 1974-1998 (2003)
86% – 1992-1998 (2003) – 1974-1998
86% – 1992-1997 (2002) – 1974-1997
79% – 1984-1986 (2011) – 1975-2006
78% – 1983-1985 (2004)
78% – 1983-1985 (2004) – 1974-1999
78% – 1983-1985 (2002) – 1974-1997
75% – 1975-1977 (2011) – 1975-2006
78% – 1974-1998 (2003)
75% – 1974-1976 (2004)
75% – 1974-1976 (2004) – 1974-1999
75% – 1974-1976 (2002) – 1974-1997
——————————————————————
WHITE WOMEN – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis
——————————————————————
91% – 1999-2006 (2011) – 1975-2006
90% – 1996-2002 (2007)
88% – 1992-1999 (2004)
88% – 1992-1999 (2004) – 1974-1999
88% – 1992-1998 (2003) – 1974-1998
88% – 1974-1998 (2003)
87% – 1992-1997 (2002) – 1974-1997
81% – 1984-1986 (2011) – 1975-2006
79% – 1983-1985 (2004)
79% – 1983-1985 (2004) – 1974-1999
79% – 1983-1985 (2002) – 1974-1997
76% – 1975-1977 (2011) – 1975-2006
75% – 1974-1976 (2004)
75% – 1974-1976 (2004) – 1974-1999
75% – 1974-1976 (2002) – 1974-1997
——————————————————————
AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis
——————————————————————
78% – 1999-2006 (2011) – 1975-2006
77% – 1996-2002 (2007)
74% – 1992-1999 (2004)
74% – 1992-1999 (2004) – 1974-1999
73% – 1992-1998 (2003) – 1974-1998
73% – 1974-1998 (2003)
72% – 1992-1997 (2002) – 1974-1997
65% – 1984-1986 (2011) – 1975-2006
64% – 1983-1985 (2004)
64% – 1983-1985 (2004) – 1974-1999
63% – 1983-1985 (2002) – 1974-1997
63% – 1974-1998 (2003)
63% – 1974-1976 (2004)
63% – 1974-1976 (2004) – 1974-1999
63% – 1974-1976 (2002) – 1974-1997
62% – 1975-1977 (2011) – 1975-2006
——————————————————————
COMBINED – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis
——————————————————————
91% – 1999-2006 – White Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
90% – 1999-2006 – All – 1975-2006 (2011)
90% – 1996-2002 – White Women (2007)
87% – 1992-1997 – White Women – 1974-1997 (2002)
86% – 1992-1997 – All – 1974-1997 (2002)
81% – 1984-1986 – White Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
79% – 1984-1986 – All – 1975-2006 (2011)
79% – 1983-1985 – White Women – 1974-1997 (2002)
78% – 1999-2006 – African American Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
78% – 1983-1985 – All – 1974-1997 (2002)
77% – 1996-2002 – African American Women (2007)
76% – 1975-1977 – White Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
75% – 1975-1977 – All – 1975-2006 (2011)
75% – 1974-1976 – All – 1974-1997 (2002)
75% – 1974-1976 – White Women – 1974-1997 (2002)
72% – 1992-1997 – African American Women – 1974-1997 (2002)
65% – 1984-1986 – African American Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
63% – 1983-1985 – African American Women – 1974-1997 (2002)
63% – 1974-1976 – African American Women – 1974-1997 (2002)
62% – 1975-1977 – African American Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
——————————————————————
COMBINED by YEAR – 1974-1997 – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis
——————————————————————
91% – 1999-2006 – White Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
90% – 1999-2006 – All – 1975-2006 (2011)
78% – 1999-2006 – African American Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
——————————————————————
90% – 1996-2002 – White Women (2007)
77% – 1996-2002 – African American Women (2007)
——————————————————————
87% – 1992-1997 – White Women (2002)
86% – 1992-1997 – All (2002)
72% – 1992-1997 – African American Women (2002)
——————————————————————
81% – 1984-1986 – White Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
79% – 1984-1986 – All – 1975-2006 (2011)
65% – 1984-1986 – African American Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
——————————————————————
79% – 1983-1985 – White Women (2002)
78% – 1983-1985 – All (2002)
63% – 1983-1985 – African American Women (2002)
——————————————————————
76% – 1975-1977 – White Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
75% – 1975-1977 – All – 1975-2006 (2011)
62% – 1975-1977 – African American Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
——————————————————————
75% – 1974-1976 – All (2002)
75% – 1974-1976 – White Women (2002)
63% – 1974-1976 – African American Women (2002)
——————————————————————
Stages (%) – 5-Year Relative Survival Rates by Stage at Diagnosis
——————————————————————
97.0% – 1992-1999 – Local (2004)
97% – 1992-1998 – Local (2003)
96% – 1992-1997 – Local (2002)
——————————————————————
88% – 2006 – All Stages (2006)
86.6% – 1992-1999 – All Stages (2004)
86% – 1992-1998 – All Stages (2003)
86% – 1992-1997 – All Stages (2002)
——————————————————————
81% – Regional (2006)
78.7% – 1992-1999 – Regional (2004)
78% – 1992-1998 – Regional (2003)
78% – 1992-1997 – Regional (2002)
——————————————————————
26% – 2006 – distant metastases (2006)
23.3% – 1992-1999 – Distant (2004)
23% – 1992-1998 – Distant (2003)
21% – 1992-1997 – Distant metastases (2002)
——————————————————————
*
——————————————————————
1996-2002 – 5-Year Relative Survival Rates (5-year relative survival rate among cancer patients diagnosed 1996-2002 followed through 2003) *

Female breast – (Source: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, 17 SEER Registries, 1973-2003, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 2006) (2007-2008)

Local:

invasive cancer confined entirely to organ

Regional:

malignant cancer

1) extended beyond limits of organ of origin directly into surrounding organs or tissues

2) involves regional lymph nodes by way of lymphatic system

3) has both regional extension and involvement of regional lymph nodes

Distant:

cancer spread to parts of body remote from primary tumor either by direct extension or by discontinuous metastasis to distant organs, tissues, or via lymphatic system to distant lymph nodes

Source:

Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, 17 SEER Registries, 1975-2003, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 2006 (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
5-YEAR SURVIVAL – INVASIVE BREAST CANCER
——————————————————————
90% – 2002-2008 – women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer still living 5 years after getting disease (SEER, 2012)
——————————————————————
10-YEAR SURVIVAL RATES
——————————————————————
Caution should be used when interpreting 10-year survival rates since they represent detection and treatment circumstances 5-17 years ago and may underestimate expected survival based on current conditions (2009-2010)

Caution should be used when interpreting long-term survival rates since they reflect experience of women treated using past therapies and do not reflect recent trends in early detection or advances in treatment (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
87% – White – 10 year survivors after diagnosis relative 5 year survival rate (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
85% – African American – 10 year survivors after diagnosis relative 5 year survival rate (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
81% – 10 year – relative survival rates for women diagnosed with breast cancer (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
80% – 10 year – survival rate for all stages combined (2009-2010)
——————————————————————
80% – 10 years after diagnosis – relative survival rates for women diagnosed with breast cancer (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
77% – 10 year – Breast Cancer Survival Rates after Diagnosis (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
15-YEAR SURVIVAL RATE
——————————————————————
73% – 15 year – relative survival rates for women diagnosed with breast cancer (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
71% – 15 years after diagnosis – relative survival rates for women diagnosed with breast cancer (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
63% – 15 years – Breast Cancer Survival Rates after Diagnosis (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
20-YEAR SURVIVAL RATE
——————————————————————
63% – 20 years after diagnosis – relative survival rates for women diagnosed with breast cancer (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
52% – 20 years – Breast Cancer Survival Rates after Diagnosis (2005-2006)
======================================
Breast Cancer
American Cancer Society
Cancer Facts & Figures (2002-2014)

======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[A] – .7/30/2013, Tuesday – Karmanos Cancer Center’s Dr. David Gorski appointed program co-director of Michigan Breast Oncology Quality Initiative:
——————————————————————
http://www.karmanos.org/News/Default.aspx?sid=1&nid=359
======================================
[B] – .7/30/2013 – Dr. Gorski named co-director of Michigan Breast Oncology Quality Initiative:
——————————————————————
http://prognosis.med.wayne.edu/article/dr-gorski-named-codirector-of-michigan-breast-oncology-quality-initiative
======================================
[C] – 07/30/2013 – Dr. Gorski named co-director of Michigan Breast Oncology Quality Initiative : ——————————————————————
http://www.wsupgdocs.org/news-and-media/WayneStateContentPage.aspx?nd=1293&news=515
======================================
[D] – 2/1/2011 – Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Center Names Dr. David Gorski Leader of Breast Multidisciplinary Team:
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Center has named David Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., leader of the Breast Multidisciplinary Team (MDT), effective Tuesday, Feb. 1
——————————————————————
http://m.prnewswire.com/news-releases/barbara-ann-karmanos-cancer-center-names-dr-david-gorski-leader-of-breast-multidisciplinary-team-115018114.html
======================================
[E] – 11/2/2011, Wednesday – Make the Right Move:
——————————————————————
http://www.karmanos.org/News/breast-cancer-specialists
======================================
[F]
——————————————————————
http://cancerbiologyprogram.med.wayne.edu/faculty/gorski.php
======================================
[G] – Research Interest:
——————————————————————
http://www.wsusurgery.com/research-team-dr-gorski/
======================================
[H]
——————————————————————
http://wsusurgery.com/facultyc3/david-gorski/
——————————————————————
http://www.wsusurgery.com/facultyc3/david-gorski/
======================================
[I]
——————————————————————
http://wsusurgery.com/research-team-dr-gorski/
——————————————————————
http://www.wsusurgery.com/research-team-dr-gorski/
======================================
[J]
——————————————————————
http://karmanos.org/Physicians/Details.aspx?sid=1&physician=70
——————————————————————
http://www.karmanos.org/Physicians/Details.aspx?sid=1&physician=70
======================================
[K]
——————————————————————
http://sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/
——————————————————————
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/
======================================
[L]
——————————————————————
http://www.scienceinmedicine.org/fellows/GorskiD.html
——————————————————————
http://scienceinmedicine.org/fellows/GorskiD.html
======================================
[M]
——————————————————————
http://sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
——————————————————————
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
======================================
[N]
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence
======================================
[O]
——————————————————————
http://ncas.org/2013/02/mar-9-david-h-gorski-quackademic.html?m=1
——————————————————————
http://www.ncas.org/2013/02/mar-9-david-h-gorski-quackademic.html?m=1
======================================
[P]
——————————————————————
http://whybiotech.com/?p=3808
——————————————————————
http://www.whybiotech.com/?p=3808
======================================
[Q]
——————————————————————
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gorski
======================================
[R] – Breast Cancer Research – Dr. Gorski:
——————————————————————
http://www.wsusurgery.com/breast-cancer-research-dr-gorski/
======================================
[S] – Selected Publications:
——————————————————————
http://www.wsusurgery.com/selected-publications-dr-gorski/
======================================
[T] – Lab Photos:
——————————————————————
http://www.wsusurgery.com/lab-photos-dr-gorski/
======================================
[U]
——————————————————————
https://www.doximity.com/pub/david-gorski-md
======================================
[V] – Detroit, Michigan population
——————————————————————
http://www.worldpopulationstatistics.com/detroit-population-2013/
======================================
[W]
——————————————————————
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26/2622000.html
======================================
[X]
——————————————————————
http://www.city-data.com/city/Detroit-Michigan.html
======================================
[Y] – 11/13/2013 – The War on Cancer (I don’t think it means, what you think it says it means) #Winning?:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/httpcancer-orgacsgroupscontentepidemiologysurveilancedocumentsdocumentacspc-036845-pdf/
======================================
[Z] – 3/9/2013 – Quackademic Medicine: How pseudoscience is infiltrating medical academia.”
——————————————————————
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mewOSMNgfGQ&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DmewOSMNgfGQ
======================================
[]
——————————————————————
http://www.nixonlibrary.gov/forresearchers/find/tapes/excerpts/watergate.php
——————————————————————
http://whitehousetapes.net/transcript/nixon/cancer-presidency
——————————————————————
http://m.washingtonpost.com/politics/cancer-on-the-presidency/2012/06/08/gJQAp24LOV_video.html
——————————————————————
http://www.history.com/speeches/nixon-and-dean-discuss-watergate
======================================
2013-2014 Breast Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-040951.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-040951.pdf

——————————————————————
2013-2014 Cancer Facts & Figures for African Americans
——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-036921.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-036921.pdf

——————————————————————
2012-2014 Cancer Facts & Figures for Hispanics / Latinos
——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-034778.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-034778.pdf

======================================
2013 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/cancerfactsfigures/cancer-facts-figures-2013
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/cancerfactsfigures/cancer-facts-figures-2013
——————————————————————
2013-2014 Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-040951.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-040951.pdf

——————————————————————

——————————————————————
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac.21203/full
——————————————————————
2013
——————————————————————

Click to access breast-cancer-facts-2012.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access breast-cancer-facts-2012.pdf

——————————————————————
2012-2013 Survivorship
——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-033876.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-033876.pdf

——————————————————————
2013 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-036845.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-036845.pdf

——————————————————————
2013 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2013/index
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2013/index
======================================
2011-2012 Breast Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/breastcancerfactsfigures/breast-cancer-facts-and-figures-2011-2012
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/breastcancerfactsfigures/breast-cancer-facts-and-figures-2011-2012
——————————————————————
Breast Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/breast-cancer-facts-figures
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/breast-cancer-facts-figures
——————————————————————
2012 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-031941.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-031941.pdf

——————————————————————
2012 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2012/index
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2012/index
——————————————————————
2012 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/cancerfactsfigures/cancer-facts-figures-2012
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/cancerfactsfigures/cancer-facts-figures-2012
——————————————————————
2011-2012 Cancer Facts & Figures for African Americans
——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-027765.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-027765.pdf

======================================
2011 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-029771.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-029771.pdf

——————————————————————
2011 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/cancerfactsfigures/cancer-facts-figures-2011
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/cancerfactsfigures/cancer-facts-figures-2011
——————————————————————
2009-2011 Cancer Facts & Figures for Hispanics / Latinos
——————————————————————

Click to access ffhispanicslatinos20092011.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access ffhispanicslatinos20092011.pdf

======================================
2010
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/breastcancerfactsfigures/breast-cancer-facts-figures-2009-2010
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/breastcancerfactsfigures/breast-cancer-facts-figures-2009-2010
——————————————————————
2009-2010 Breast Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

Click to access f861009final90809pdf.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access f861009final90809pdf.pdf

——————————————————————
2010 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-024113.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-024113.pdf

——————————————————————
2010 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2010/index
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2010/index
——————————————————————
2009-2010 Cancer Facts & Figures for African Americans
——————————————————————

Click to access cffaa20092010pdf.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access cffaa20092010pdf.pdf

======================================
2009
——————————————————————
http://www.komenstlouis.org/site/DocServer/DiversityAsianPacific.pdf?docID=222
——————————————————————
2009-2010 Cancer Facts & Figures for African Americans
——————————————————————

Click to access cffaa20092010pdf.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access cffaa20092010pdf.pdf

——————————————————————
2009 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

Click to access 500809webpdf.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access 500809webpdf.pdf

——————————————————————
2009 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2009/index
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2009/index
——————————————————————
2009 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/cancerfactsfigures/cancer-facts-figures-2009
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/cancerfactsfigures/cancer-facts-figures-2009
======================================
Breast Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://www.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/breastcancerfactsfigures/
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/breastcancerfactsfigures/
——————————————————————
2007-2008 Breast Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

Click to access bcfffinalpdf.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access bcfffinalpdf.pdf

——————————————————————
Cancer Facts and Statistics
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/index
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/index
——————————————————————
2008 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/allcancerfactsfigures/index
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/allcancerfactsfigures/index
——————————————————————
2008 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2008/index
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2008/index
——————————————————————
2008 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

Click to access 2008cafffinalsecuredpdf.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access 2008cafffinalsecuredpdf.pdf

——————————————————————
2008 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

Click to access worldcancer.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access worldcancer.pdf

——————————————————————
Global
——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-027766.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-027766.pdf

——————————————————————
2008 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2008/index
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2008/index
——————————————————————
Cancer Facts and Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/allcancerfactsfigures/index
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/allcancerfactsfigures/index
======================================
2007-2008 Breast Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

Click to access bcfffinalpdf.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access bcfffinalpdf.pdf

——————————————————————

——————————————————————
http://komen.org/BreastCancer/BreastFactsReferences.html
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
http://ww5.komen.org/BreastCancer/BreastFactsReferences.html
——————————————————————
2007 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

Click to access caff2007pwsecuredpdf.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access caff2007pwsecuredpdf.pdf

——————————————————————
2007 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2007/index
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2007/index
——————————————————————
2007 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/cancerfactsfigures/cancer-facts-figures-2007
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/cancerfactsfigures/cancer-facts-figures-2007
——————————————————————
2007-2008 Cancer Facts & Figures for African Americans
——————————————————————

Click to access caff2007aaacspdf2007pdf.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access caff2007aaacspdf2007pdf.pdf

——————————————————————
2006-2008 Cancer Facts & Figures for Hispanics / Latinos
——————————————————————

Click to access caff2006hisppwsecuredpdf.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access caff2006hisppwsecuredpdf.pdf

======================================
2006 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

Click to access caff2006pwsecuredpdf.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access caff2006pwsecuredpdf.pdf

——————————————————————
2006 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/cancerfactsfigures/cancer-facts-figures-2006
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/cancerfactsfigures/cancer-facts-figures-2006
——————————————————————
2005-2006 Breast Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/breastcancerfactsfigures/breast-cancer-facts–figures-2005-2006
——————————————————————
2005-2006 Breast Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

Click to access caff2005brfacspdf2005pdf.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access caff2005brfacspdf2005pdf.pdf

——————————————————————
2005-2006 Breast Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/breastcancerfactsfigures/breast-cancer-facts–figures-2005-2006
——————————————————————
2005-2006 Cancer Facts & Figures for African Americans
——————————————————————

Click to access caff2005aacorrpwsecuredpdf.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access caff2005aacorrpwsecuredpdf.pdf

======================================
2005 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

Click to access caff2005f4pwsecuredpdf.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access caff2005f4pwsecuredpdf.pdf

——————————————————————

——————————————————————
http://worldwidebreastcancer.com/learn/breast-cancer-statistics-worldwide/
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
http://www.worldwidebreastcancer.com/learn/breast-cancer-statistics-worldwide/
——————————————————————
Cancer Facts and Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/allcancerfactsfigures/index
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/allcancerfactsfigures/index
——————————————————————
2005 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/cancerfactsfigures/cancer-facts-figures-2005
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/cancerfactsfigures/cancer-facts-figures-2005
======================================
2003-2004 Breast Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

Click to access caff2003brfpwsecuredpdf.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access caff2003brfpwsecuredpdf.pdf

——————————————————————
2004 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

Click to access CancerRates2004.pdf

======================================
2003
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/cancer/breastcancer/detailedguide/breast-cancer-references
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/cancer/breastcancer/detailedguide/breast-cancer-references
——————————————————————
2003 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

Click to access 2003_ACS_Cancer_Facts.pdf

======================================
2002 – American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-027766.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-027766.pdf

——————————————————————
2002 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

Click to access CancerFacts&Figures2002.pdf

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

Advertisement
Posted in American Cancer Society, Antineoplastons (ANP), bias, biased, BIG Pharma, critique, critiques, critiqued, critiquing, Gorski ScienceBlogs.com/Insolence ScienceBasedMedicine, Richard A. Jaffe, Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski, The Skeptics | Tagged "10-years", "5-year", "5th Circuit Court of Appeals", "academic surgical oncologist", "Advanced Clinical Research Award in Breast Cancer", "African American", "African Americans", "Alaska Native", "Alaskan Native", "Alexander J. Walt Comprehensive Breast Center", "alma-mater", "American Board of Surgery", "American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures", "American Cancer Society Cancer Facts and Figures", "American Cancer Society", "American College of Surgeons Committee on Cancer (ACS CoC)", "American College of Surgeons Committee on Cancer", "American Indian", "American Society of Clinical Oncology", "Ann Karmanos Cancer Center", "Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute", "antineoplastons (ANPs)", "Assistant Professor of Surgery", "Associate Professor of Surgery and Oncology at the Wayne State University School of Medicine, "associate professor of surgery and Oncology", "Associate Professor of Surgery", "Attending Surgeon", "B.S.", "Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Center / Institute", "Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Center", "Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute", "Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer", "Barbara Ann Karmanos", "Board of Directors", "Breast Cancer Biology Program", "Breast Cancer Facts and Figures", "Breast Cancer Multidisciplinary Team (MDT)", "breast cancer", "Breast Surgery Section", "breast surgery", "Burzynski’s lawyer", "Cancer Committee", "Cancer Facts and Figures", "Cancer Liaison Physician for the American College of Surgeons Committee on Cancer", "Cancer Liaison Physician", "cancer therapies", "cancer.org/acs/", "cancer.org/acs/" "m.cancer.org/acs/", "cancer.org/acs/groups/", "cancer.org/acs/groups/content/", "cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurveilance/", "cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurveilance/documents/", "cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurveilance/documents/document/", "cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurveilance/documents/document/acspc-027766.pdf", "cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@nho/documents/document/caff2003brfpwsecuredpdf.pdf", "cancer.org/cancer/breastcancer/detailedguide/breast-cancer-references", "cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/cancerfactsfigures/cancer-facts-figures-2005", "Cancer: It’s what’s Best for Business (WW3 – World War Hypocrisy) | Didymus Judas Thomas' Hipocritical Oath Blog https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/12/14/cancer-its-whats-good-, "Cancer: It’s what’s Best for Business (WW3 – World War Hypocrisy) | Didymus Judas Thomas' Hipocritical Oath Blog", "Case Western Reserve University", "Case Western", "cellular physiology", "Cleveland Clinic", "clinical champion", "clinical research", "Co-Chair", "co-director", "Co-Leader", "Co-Medical Director", "Company’s operations”, "Comprehensive Breast Center", "Conquer Cancer Foundation", "D.H. Gorski", "DH Gorski", "Dr. Burzynski's", "Dr. David Gorski", "Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski", "Dr. Gorski", "ethnic group", "evidence-based", "five-year", "General Surgery", "Graduate Program in Cancer Biology", "H.H.H.", "head of its childhood immunization committee", "HHH", "high-quality", "hormonal therapy", "http://cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurveilance/", "http://cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurveilance/documents/", "http://cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurveilance/documents/document/", "http://cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurveilance/documents/document/acspc-027766.pdf", "http://cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@nho/documents/document/caff2003brfpwsecuredpdf.pdf", "http://cancer.org/cancer/", "http://cancer.org/cancer/breastcancer/" "http://m.cancer.org/cancer/breastcancer/" "http://cancer.org/cancer/breastcancer/detailedguide/", "http://cancer.org/cancer/breastcancer/detailedguide/", "http://cancer.org/cancer/breastcancer/detailedguide/breast-cancer-references", "http://cancer.org/research/", "http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/", "http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/allcancerfactsfigures/" "http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/allcancerfactsfigures/", "http://m.cancer.org/", "http://m.cancer.org/acs/", "http://m.cancer.org/acs/groups/", "http://m.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/", "http://m.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurveilance/", "http://m.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurveilance/documents/", "http://m.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurveilance/documents/document/", "http://m.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurveilance/documents/document/acspc-027766.pdf", "http://m.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@nho/documents/document/caff2003brfpwsecuredpdf.pdf", "http://m.cancer.org/cancer/", "http://m.cancer.org/cancer/breastcancer/", "http://m.cancer.org/cancer/breastcancer/detailedguide/", "http://m.cancer.org/cancer/breastcancer/detailedguide/breast-cancer-references", "http://m.cancer.org/research/", "http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/", "https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/12/14/cancer-its-whats-good-for-business/", "Hunter Hearst Helmsley", "in situ breast cancer", "Institute for Science in Medicine", "It’s what’s Best for Business", "Joint Graduate Program in Cell & Developmental Biology at Rutgers University in Piscataway, "Karmanos Cancer Center", "life time", "Long-term", "Lutheran General Hospital, "m.cancer.org/", "m.cancer.org/acs/", "m.cancer.org/acs/groups/", "m.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/", "m.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurveilance/", "m.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurveilance/documents/", "m.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurveilance/documents/document/", "m.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurveilance/documents/document/acspc-027766.pdf", "Managing Editor", "medical degree (M.D.)", "Medical Director of the Alexander J. Walt Comprehensive Breast Center", "medical director", "medical practice", "member of the faculty of the Graduate Program in Cancer Biology", "Michigan Breast Oncology Quality Initiative", "Michigan State Medical License", "National Geographic", "natural born killer", "new program co-director", "NON-citations", "NON-links", "NON-references", "Ohio State Medical License", "once-weekly", "Pacific Islander", "Physician Group surgeon", "project director", "Q.M.", "Quackademic Duck", "Red Badge of Courage", "Richard Milhous Nixon", "Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, "Saul Green", "School of Medicine", "Science-Based Medicine weblog", "Science-Based", "ScienceBasedMedicine . org", "site project director", "six times the national average", "St. Peter’s University Hospital, "state-wide", "Stephanie McMahon", "success stories”, "Surgical Oncology and General Surgery", "Surgical Oncology", "team leader", "The Cancer Institute of New Jersey", "The Cerebral Assassin", "Trauma Services", "Treasurer for the Institute for Science in Medicine", "trickle-down", "Tricky-Dicky", "Triple H", "U.S.", "Ultra-diluted", "UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, "United States of America", "University Hospitals Case Medical Center Internship", "University Hospitals Case Medical Center Residency", "University of Chicago Fellowship", "University of Michigan Medical School", "University of Michigan", "University of Michigan" Gorski http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gorski, "vis-a-vis", "W.W.E.", "War on Cancer", "Wayne State University School of Medicine", "Wayne State University School", "Wayne State University", "web-site", "whyquit.com/", "woman's", "Women’s", "World War Hypocrisy", "World Wrestling Entertainment", "www.pink-ribbon-pins.com/", "www.pink-ribbon-pins.com/CancerRates2004.pdf", "www.uhmsi.com/", "www.uhmsi.com/docs/", "www.uhmsi.com/docs/CancerFacts&Figures2002.pdf", "www.whyquit.com/", "www.whyquit.com/studies/", "www.whyquit.com/studies/2003_ACS_Cancer_Facts.pdf", #ACS, #FAIL, #sciencebasedmedicine, #TripleH, #UniversityofMichigan, #WWE, 2nd, @gorskon, @oracknows, @ScienceBasedMed, ability, able, about, academic, Academically, accounted, accounting, acknowledged, active, add, added, address, advanced, advances, Adverse, African, again, age, ages, aggressive, Alaska, Alaskan, ALL, Almost, also, ALTERNATIVE, although, alum, American, AmericanCancerSociety, among, anecdotal, animosity, Ann Arbor, annual, annually, ANP, antineoplaston, antineoplastons, any, anything, appeared, appearing, applies, approved, articles, ASCO "Breast Cancer Research Foundation", Asian, assess, associate, associated, attempted, attended, attending, awaiting, aware, “Alternative Rock“, “Big Pharma”, “cure” cancer, “former employer, “Gorski Patent Group”, “Our only goal is to promote high standards of science in medicine”, “Quackademic” line, “too many people copulating”, ” "UMDNJ (University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey)", bad, based, bear, beat, been, being, believe, bemoans, benefited, best, between, beyond, BIG, bigot, billions, Birth, Births, bitten, Black, blatant, blogs, Both, braying, breast, Breast Cancer Facts & Figures", breasts, breathes, Burzynski Clinic, Cancer, Cancer Facts & Figures", cancer.org., cancerous, cancers, carcinoma, care, cases, cause, Caution, Center, centers, change, changed, characteristics, Chemistry, chemotherapeutic, CHEMOTHERAPY, Chief of the Section of Breast Surgery", choices, chose, circumstances, citation(s), city, Claim, claimed, classify, Cleveland, Clinical Trials, closet, colorectum, combine, combined, comes, comment, common, communist, compared, condition, conditions, confused, Considering, constant, continue, continued, Contributor, creature, critique, critiqued, critiques, Critiquing, CURE, cured, current, Currently, D.", D.H.", David Gorski, David H. Gorski, day, DCIS, dead, death, deaths, decade, decades, decided, decideMaybe, decline, declined, decreases, decreasing, dedication, Despite, detection, Detroit, develop, developed, developing, DH", diagnose, diagnosed, diagnoses, diagnosing, diagnosis, die, dies, difference, different, difficult, disease, disparity, display, displays, Distant, Distinction, divergence, documented, does, dollars, doubt, Dr. David H. Gorski, drugs, ductal, due, dying, each. stage, early, effective, Effects, efficacy, egg, entities, equal, essential, essentially, estimate, estimated, estimates, ethnic, Ethnicity, even, every, everyone, evidence, exists, expanded, expansion, expect, expectancy, expected, experience, F.A.C.S.", Facebook, FACS", factoid, faculty, Failure, FDA, Federal Courts, felt, Female, Females, financial, fines, formulate, from, fund, gene, general, getting, glutton, god, Golden, goose, GorskGeek, Gorski, gradually, Graduation, greater, greatest, groups, guidelines, gun, Hackademic, hang, happiness, hard, harm, harmful, Has, hates, have, head, high, higher, highest, hilariously, Hippocratic, his, Hispanic, Hispanics, Homeopathy, Honors, hormonal, how, http//www.sciencebasedmedicine.org, http://cancer.org/, http://cancer.org/acs/, http://cancer.org/acs/groups/, http://cancer.org/acs/groups/content/, http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/cancerfactsfigures/cancer-facts-figures-2005, http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/allcancerfactsfigures/index, http://cancerbiologyprogram.med.wayne.edu/, http://cancerbiologyprogram.med.wayne.edu/faculty/, http://cancerbiologyprogram.med.wayne.edu/faculty/gorski.php, http://karmanos.org/Physicians/Details.aspx?sid=1&physician=70, http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/cancerfactsfigures/cancer-facts-figures-2005, http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/allcancerfactsfigures/index, http://med.wayne.edu/, http://med.wayne.edu/surgery/, http://med.wayne.edu/surgery/faculty/DGorski.html, http://ncas.org/2013/02/mar-9-david-h-gorski-quackademic.html?m=1, http://pink-ribbon-pins.com/, http://prognosis.med.wayne.edu/article/dr-gorski-named-codirector-of-michigan-breast-oncology-quality-initiative, http://sciencebasedmedicine.org, http://sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/, http://sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/, http://scienceblogs.com/, http://scienceblogs.com/Insolence, http://uhmsi.com/, http://uhmsi.com/docs/, http://uhmsi.com/docs/CancerFacts&Figures2002.pdf, http://whybiotech.com/?p=3808, http://wsusurgery.com/facultyc3/david-gorski/, http://wsusurgery.com/research-team-dr-gorski/, http://www.cancerbiologyprogram.med.wayne.edu/, http://www.cancerbiologyprogram.med.wayne.edu/faculty/, http://www.cancerbiologyprogram.med.wayne.edu/faculty/gorski.php, http://www.karmanos.org/Physicians/Details.aspx?sid=1&physician=70, http://www.med.wayne.edu/, http://www.med.wayne.edu/surgery/faculty/, http://www.med.wayne.edu/surgery/faculty/DGorski.html, http://www.ncas.org/2013/02/mar-9-david-h-gorski-quackademic.html?m=1, http://www.pink-ribbon-pins.com/, http://www.pink-ribbon-pins.com/CancerRates2004.pdf, http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/, http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/, http://www.scienceblogs.com/, http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence, http://www.uhmsi.com/, http://www.uhmsi.com/docs/, http://www.uhmsi.com/docs/CancerFacts&Figures2002.pdf, http://www.whybiotech.com/?p=3808, http://www.whyquit.com/, http://www.whyquit.com/studies/, http://www.whyquit.com/studies/2003_ACS_Cancer_Facts.pdf, http://www.wsusurgery.com/facultyc3/david-gorski/, http://www.wsusurgery.com/research-team-dr-gorski/, https://mobile.twitter.com/, https://mobile.twitter.com/gorskon, https://mobile.twitter.com/oracknows, https://mobile.twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz, https://mobile.twitter.com/ScienceBasedMed, https://twitter.com/, https://twitter.com/gorskon, https://twitter.com/oracknows, https://twitter.com/ScienceBasedMed, https://www.twitter.com/gorskon, https://www.twitter.com/oracknows, https://www.twitter.com/ScienceBasedMed, hurricane, Hypocrite, hypocuresy, I, Illinois", immunotherapy, improve, improved, incidence, Incidences, include, increase, increased, increases, Indeed, Indian, ineffective, infiltrated, infiltration, initiative, injury, instead, insult, Internet, interpreting, into, invasive, Islander, issues, joining, joke, just, Karmanos, Katrina, knew, known, largely, larger, largest, later, Latinas, LCIS, leading, led, less, leveling, LIES. Orac, life, Lifetime, likely, limited, link(s), literary Hack, little, loaded, Lobular, local, localized, locals, locations, Louisiana, lower, lucky, lymph, M.D.", makes, matter, may, Maybe, MD", medical, medications, medicine, member, members, mentioned, Mentions, metastases, MetroHealth, MiBOQI, Michigan, might, mighty, minorities, mistake, more, mortal, Mortality, most, much, Mudicine, must, my, N.J.", NatGeo, Native, nearest, needs, nest, new, New Brunswick, New Jersey", newly, NJ", nodes, noted, nothing, number, oath, oblivious, occur, occurs, off, Ohio", old, older, oncologic, oncology, opprobrium, opted, options, Orac, Oracolyte, Oracolytes, ordinary, other, others, otherwise, outside, over, overall, own, Pacific, paid, Parachute, Park Ridge, particular, Particularly, partnership, past, patients, percentage, Ph.D, Pharma, PhD, phrase, ploy, population, populous, possibly, postmenopausal, potential, potentially, practice, practices, predominantly, present, Presidency, prior, Probability, Probable, problem, Professor", prompt, pseudoscientific, public, punishment, Quackademic Medicine, Quality, queued, race, races, racial, racist, racked, RADIATION, radio, raising, ranks, rant, rapid, rate, Rates, rather, Ratio, Ratios, really, Reason, receipt, receive, received, recent, References, referring, regards, Regional, regionally, relative, relatively, remained, remarking, represent, requirements, research, residency, Resident, Respectful Insolence, Response, responsive, result, Richard Jaffe, risk, risks, rival, rounding, rule, saying, SBM, scienceblogs, seeming, seems, SEER, serves, set, sevenfold, several, Sex, shame, shortest, should, significantly, since, site, sites, Skeptical, skunk, sleeps, slightly, slowly, somewhat, soon, specialize, specializing, spend, spread, stabilized, Stable, stage, stages, State, states, stink, stories", story, striking, studies, success, such chemotherapy, supply, supported, sure, surely, surgery, Surgical, surprised, survival, survivors, symptoms, take, targeted, than, their, theory, therapy, these, they, through, thus, tied, time, tirelessly, told, toolbox, total, toward, traditional, Treasurer, treatment, Trends, tried, tries, try, tumor, tumors, turn, TV, Twitter, UMDNJ, unapproved, Under”, underestimate, underrepresented, unequal, United States, unproved, Unstaged, unwitting, USA, use, used, using, usual, utilize, view, was, well, well member, were, WHAT, when, where, which, white, white woman, whites, who, whole, wilderness, with, within, wolverine, women, words, work, worked, worse, would, wtraditional cancer treatment options in order to be eligible to participate in the Company’s Antineoplaston clinical trials“, WW3, Year, Years, yet, young, younger | Leave a reply

Stupendous Stupendity Stupifies Scienceblogs . com/Insolence

Posted on November 25, 2013 by didymusjudasthomas
Reply

——————————————————————
#12 – AntipodeanChic – 11/22/2013
——————————————————————
“Sorry to state the obvious – but those Burzynski folks are just the epitome of class, aren’t they?”
——————————————————————
In reference to Hannah’s Hickman line:
——————————————————————
“I have to wonder now whether my liver is missing a peptide or two…
Slightly OT for this thread, but the other day I was finally able to make myself watch “Hannah’s Anecdote””

“I’m afraid I couldn’t really discern any adequate sterile field & I have NEVER heard of these kinds of lines being inserted while the patient is only mildly sedated“
——————————————————————
What mind-numbing numbskullness

AntipodeanChic exhibits “Oracness” asininity
——————————————————————
12/13/2011 – Day 3 – Tuesday
Burzynski Clinic

Valium

(as much local anesthetic as could give her w/o knocking her out)

catheter – Hickman line
——————————————————————
“Sorry to state the obvious – but those “Spinning Bowel Movement” (SBM) folks are just the epitome of white-trash, aren’t they?”
======================================
Hannah Bradley REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – 11/22/2013 – Is anyone attending the 4th Quadrennial Meeting of the Society of Neuro-Oncology in San Francisco right now?:
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/11/22/is-anyone-attending-the-4th-quadrennial-meeting-of-the-society-of-neuro-oncology-in-san-francisco-right-now/
======================================
[2] – 10/25/2013 – Hannah Bradley – I Feel Empowered, In Control Of My Body: Four Women On Fighting Cancer With Alternative Therapies http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10383724/I-feel-empowered-in-control-of-my-body-four-women-on-fighting-cancer-with-alternative-therapies.html
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/25/hannah-bradley-i-feel-empowered-in-control-of-my-body-four-women-on-fighting-cancer-with-alternative-therapies-httpwww-telegraph-co-ukhealth10383724i-feel-empowered-in-control-of-my-body-fo/
======================================
[3] – 11/2/2013 – Critiquing: Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski’s cancer “success” stories:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/02/critiquing-dr-stanislaw-burzynskis-cancer-success-stories/
======================================
[4] – 11/11/2013 – “The Amazing Meeting” (I don’t think it means, what you think it says it means): 2 Intellectually and Ethically Challenged Individuals, Twaddle at TAM 2013:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/www-amazingmeeting-com-www-randi-org-lanyrd-com2013tam-forums-randi-orgforumdisplay-php/
======================================
[5] – 11/14/2013 – Critiquing: Why we fight for patients (Why we fight your patience) TAM 2013, TAM2013, “The Amazing Meeting” 2013 #TAM2013 http://www.theamazingmeeting.com
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/14/tam-2013-tam2013-tam2013-the-amazing-meeting-2013-the-amazing-meeting-httptheamazingmeeting-com-httpwww-theamazingmeeting-com/
======================================
[6] – 11/19/2013 – Critiquing: Stanislaw Burzynski in USA Today: Abuse of clinical trials and patients versus the ineffectiveness of the FDA and Texas Medical Board (Hyperactivity versus Hypernatremia, and Hannah Bradley):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/19/httpscienceblogs-cominsolence20131115stanislaw-burzynski-in-usa-today-abuse-of-clinical-trials-and-patients-versus-the-ineffectiveness-of-the-fda-and-texas-medical-board-2/
======================================

Posted in Bradley, Hannah (Pete Cohen), critique, critiques, critiqued, critiquing, Gorski ScienceBlogs.com/Insolence ScienceBasedMedicine, Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski, The Skeptics | Tagged "adequate sterile field", "Alexander J. Walt Comprehensive Breast Center", "American College of Surgeons Committee on Cancer", "Ann Karmanos Cancer Center", "Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute", "Associate Professor of Surgery and Oncology at the Wayne State University School of Medicine, "Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Center / Institute", "Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute", "Cancer Liaison Physician for the American College of Surgeons Committee on Cancer", "Critiquing: Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski’s cancer success stories https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/02/critiquing-dr-stanislaw-burzynskis-cancer-success-stories/", "Critiquing: Stanislaw Burzynski in USA Today: Abuse of clinical trials and patients versus the ineffectiveness of the FDA and Texas Medical Board (Hyperactivity versus Hypernatremia, "Critiquing: Why we fight for patients (Why we fight your patience) TAM 2013, "D.H. Gorski", "DH Gorski", "Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski", "FINALLY, "Hannah Bradley – I Feel Empowered, "Hannah Bradley", "Hannah's Anecdote", "Hickman Line", "Institute for Science in Medicine", "Is anyone attending the 4th Quadrennial Meeting of the Society of Neuro-Oncology in San Francisco right now? http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/11/22/is-anyone-attending-the-4th-quadrennial-meeti, "local anesthetic", "Medical Director of the Alexander J. Walt Comprehensive Breast Center", "member of the faculty of the Graduate Program in Cancer Biology", "mildly sedated“, "mind-numbing", "National Geographic", "ScienceBasedMedicine . org", "Stupendous Stupendity Stupifies Scienceblogs . com/Insolence", "Treasurer for the Institute for Science in Medicine", "University of Michigan" Gorski http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gorski, "Wayne State University School of Medicine", "Wayne State University", "white-trash", #sciencebasedmedicine, #TAM2013, @gorskon, @oracknows, @ScienceBasedMed, able, Academically, afraid, and Hannah Bradley): https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/19/httpscienceblogs-cominsolence20131115stanislaw-burzynski-in-usa-today-abuse-of-clinical-trials-and-patients-versus-the-in, AntipodeanChic, asininity, “Our only goal is to promote high standards of science in medicine”, “Spinning Bowel Movement”, “The Amazing Meeting (I don’t think it means, being, Burzynski Clinic, catheter, Chief of the Section of Breast Surgery", class, D.", D.H.", David Gorski, David H. Gorski, Detroit, DH", discern, epitome, exhibits, FACS", folks, Gorski, http//www.sciencebasedmedicine.org, http://cancerbiologyprogram.med.wayne.edu/, http://cancerbiologyprogram.med.wayne.edu/faculty/, http://cancerbiologyprogram.med.wayne.edu/faculty/gorski.php, http://karmanos.org/Physicians/Details.aspx?sid=1&physician=70, http://med.wayne.edu/, http://med.wayne.edu/surgery/, http://med.wayne.edu/surgery/faculty/DGorski.html, http://ncas.org/2013/02/mar-9-david-h-gorski-quackademic.html?m=1, http://prognosis.med.wayne.edu/article/dr-gorski-named-codirector-of-michigan-breast-oncology-quality-initiative, http://sciencebasedmedicine.org, http://sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/, http://sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/, http://scienceblogs.com/, http://scienceblogs.com/Insolence, http://whybiotech.com/?p=3808, http://wsusurgery.com/facultyc3/david-gorski/, http://wsusurgery.com/research-team-dr-gorski/, http://www.cancerbiologyprogram.med.wayne.edu/, http://www.cancerbiologyprogram.med.wayne.edu/faculty/, http://www.cancerbiologyprogram.med.wayne.edu/faculty/gorski.php, http://www.karmanos.org/Physicians/Details.aspx?sid=1&physician=70, http://www.med.wayne.edu/, http://www.med.wayne.edu/surgery/faculty/, http://www.med.wayne.edu/surgery/faculty/DGorski.html, http://www.ncas.org/2013/02/mar-9-david-h-gorski-quackademic.html?m=1, http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/, http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/, http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/ “Our only goal is to promote high standards of science in medicine”, http://www.scienceblogs.com/, http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence, http://www.whybiotech.com/?p=3808, http://www.wsusurgery.com/facultyc3/david-gorski/, http://www.wsusurgery.com/research-team-dr-gorski/, https://mobile.twitter.com/, https://mobile.twitter.com/gorskon, https://mobile.twitter.com/oracknows, https://mobile.twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz, https://mobile.twitter.com/ScienceBasedMed, https://twitter.com/, https://twitter.com/gorskon, https://twitter.com/oracknows, https://twitter.com/ScienceBasedMed, https://www.twitter.com/gorskon, https://www.twitter.com/oracknows, https://www.twitter.com/ScienceBasedMed, In Control Of My Body: Four Women On Fighting Cancer With Alternative Therapies http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10383724/I-feel-empowered-in-control-of-my-body-four-women-on-fighting-cancer-with-alt, inserted, knocking, lines, liver, M.D.", MD", Michigan, missing, myself, NatGeo, NEVER heard, numbskullness, obvious, Orac, Oracness”, Oracolyte, Oracolytes, OT, patient, peptide, Ph.D, PhD, reference, Respectful Insolence, SBM, scienceblogs, slightly, sorry, State, stupendity, stupendous, stupifies, The Amazing Meeting 2013 #TAM2013 http://www.theamazingmeeting.com https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/14/tam-2013-tam2013-tam2013-the-amazing-meeting-2013-the-amazing-meeting-httpt, thread, Twaddle at TAM 2013 https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/www-amazingmeeting-com-www-randi-org-lanyrd-com2013tam-forums-randi-orgforumdisplay-php/", Twitter, Valium, watch, what you think it says it means): 2 Intellectually and Ethically Challenged Individuals, whether, wonder | Leave a reply

Critiquing: Eric Merola and Stanislaw Burzynski respond to the FDA findings and the USA TODAY story. Hilarity ensues

Posted on November 21, 2013 by didymusjudasthomas
Reply

20131122-162057.jpg
GorskiGeek starts 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’s jacked July jabberwocky 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 pseudononsense pseudononscience 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 bad mainstream 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” ?

20131121-193922.jpg

20131121-193942.jpg
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 ?

GorskGeek Inspector 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 trial Burzynski’s attorney, 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 11/15/2013 article [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
——————————————————————
GorskGeek dreamsicles:
——————————————————————
“I’ve deconstructed these, and many more, of Merola’s nonsense over the last two years”

20131122-160735.jpg
“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 counterhackattacking Eric 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 GorskGeek has no clothes

Since I’ve dealt with so many of the tropes included in GorskGeek’s not-so-little rant, I hardly see the need to repeat myself

However, as a breast cancer surgeon’s skeptic, I find one of GorskGeek’s lies 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]
——————————————————————

20131123-144212.jpg
——————————————————————
“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]
——————————————————————

20131123-154326.jpg
——————————————————————
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
——————————————————————
GorskGeek claims:
——————————————————————
“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

GorskGeek claims that Josia died 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”
——————————————————————
GorskGeek flummoxes in that he erred to elucidate that the “rash” which Hannah
experienced, even entailed epilepsy anti-seizure medication [4]

GorskGeek gambols the gabroni gambit by giving nothing but glib reasons for his genetically challenged gestation of Hannah’s vlogs after gears up for Great Britain

Yes, GorskGeek is gabless about Hannah’s progress 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’s rant 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’s sorry article
——————————————————————
GorskGeek blowshard and long about the FDA Form 483′s findings, but does NOT heed his massive failure to be persuaded that:

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

“The FDA has not yet issued final conclusions”
——————————————————————
Who would doubt that if GorskGeek were to blog about Burzynski’s 1997 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]
——————————————————————
GorskGeek idolizes the Burzynski Research Institute (BRI) IRB, because of Burzynski’s scientific 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)”

GorskGeek falls flat face first for failing to show this phenomenon has factually happened [11]

GorskiGeek, looks like back to the drawerin’ board for you !
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – 11/18/2013 – Eric Merola and Stanislaw Burzynski respond to the FDA findings and the USA TODAY story. Hilarity ensues:
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/11/18/eric-merola-and-stanislaw-burzynski-respond-to-the-fda-findings-and-the-usa-today-story-hilarity-ensues/
======================================
[2] – 11/18/2013 – The Burzynski Empire strikes
——————————————————————
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-burzynski-empire-strikes-back/
======================================
[3] – 11/11/2013 – “The Amazing Meeting” (I don’t think it means, what you think it says it means): 2 Intellectually and Ethically Challenged Individuals, Twaddle at TAM 2013:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/www-amazingmeeting-com-www-randi-org-lanyrd-com2013tam-forums-randi-orgforumdisplay-php/
======================================
[4] – 11/19/2013 – Critiquing: Stanislaw Burzynski in USA Today: Abuse of clinical trials and patients versus the ineffectiveness of the FDA and Texas Medical Board (Hyperactivity versus Hypernatremia, and Hannah Bradley):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/19/httpscienceblogs-cominsolence20131115stanislaw-burzynski-in-usa-today-abuse-of-clinical-trials-and-patients-versus-the-ineffectiveness-of-the-fda-and-texas-medical-board-2/
======================================
[5] – 2/18/2013 – Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski’s cancer “success” stories:
——————————————————————
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/stanislaw-burzynskis-cancer-success-stories/
======================================
[6] – 6/14/2010 – In which Dr. Gorski once again finds himself a target of the “pharma shill” gambit
——————————————————————
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/in-which-i-am-once-again-in-the-crosshairs-of-age-of-autisms-pharma-shill-machine-gun/
======================================
[7] – 11/29/2011 – Burzynski The Movie: Is Stanislaw Burzynski a pioneering cancer researcher or a quack?:
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/11/29/burzynski-the-movie-subtle-its-not/
======================================
[8] – 2/18/2013 – As Josh Duhamel shills for the Burzynski Clinic, Eric Merola prepares to carpet bomb the blogosphere with nonsense:
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/02/18/as-josh-duhamel-shills-for-the-burzynski-clinic-eric-merola-prepares-to-carpet-bomb-the-blogosphere-with-nonsense/
======================================
[9] – 9/25/2013 – Critiquing: National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc. – NCAHF News: JURY NULLIFICATION THWARTS BURZYNSKI CONVICTION:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/25/critiquing-national-council-against-health-fraud-inc-ncahf-news-jury-nullification-thwarts-burzynski-conviction/
======================================
[10] – 7/2/2013 – Burzynski: Institutional Review Board (IRB):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/burzynski-institutional-review-board-irb/
======================================
[11] – 11/20/2013 – Critiquing: Stanislaw Burzynski in USA Today: Abuse of clinical trials and patients versus the ineffectiveness of the FDA and Texas Medical Board (swell inflammation phenomenon):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/20/httpscienceblogs-cominsolence20131115stanislaw-burzynski-in-usa-today-abuse-of-clinical-trials-and-patients-versus-the-ineffectiveness-of-the-fda-and-texas-medical-board-3/
======================================

Posted in bias, biased, Bradley, Hannah (Pete Cohen), Gorski ScienceBlogs.com/Insolence ScienceBasedMedicine, Institutional Review Board (IRB), Richard A. Jaffe, Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski, The Skeptics, USA TODAY | Tagged "103.9° F", "136-145 mEq/L", "1997 criminal trial", "205 mEq/L", "234 mEq/L", "34 counts of mail fraud", "40 counts of violating Food and Drug Administration regulations", "A look at a doctor's cancer claims", "ad hocs", "ad hominem comparisons", "ad hominem fallacy", "ad nauseum", "Alexander J. Walt Comprehensive Breast Center", "American College of Surgeons Committee on Cancer", "Ann Karmanos Cancer Center", "Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute", "anti-seizure", "As Josh Duhamel shills for the Burzynski Clinic, "Associate Professor of Surgery and Oncology at the Wayne State University School of Medicine, "Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Center / Institute", "Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute", "black hole”, "brain cancer", "brain cells", "Burzynski II", "Burzynski The Movie", "Burzynski The Movie: Is Stanislaw Burzynski a pioneering cancer researcher or a quack? http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/11/29/burzynski-the-movie-subtle-its-not/", "Burzynski: Institutional Review Board (IRB) https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/burzynski-institutional-review-board-irb/", "Cancer Liaison Physician for the American College of Surgeons Committee on Cancer", "child's", "contempt-of-court charge", "Critiquing: National Council Against Health Fraud, "Critiquing: Stanislaw Burzynski in USA Today: Abuse of clinical trials and patients versus the ineffectiveness of the FDA and Texas Medical Board (Hyperactivity versus Hypernatremia, "Critiquing: Stanislaw Burzynski in USA Today: Abuse of clinical trials and patients versus the ineffectiveness of the FDA and Texas Medical Board (swell inflammation phenomenon) http://stanislawrajmu, "D.H. Gorski", "David GorskGeek", "David Gorski’s Financial Pharma Ties", "DH Gorski", "Doctor accused of selling false hope to families" http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/15/stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-controversy/2994561/, "Dr, "Dr. Burzynski", "Dr. Burzynski's", "Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski", "Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski", "Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski’s cancer success stories http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/stanislaw-burzynskis-cancer-success-stories/", "Dr. Whitaker", "Dr. Whitaker’s", "drawerin’ board", "elevated sodium levels in the blood", "Eric Merola and Stanislaw Burzynski respond to the FDA findings and the USA TODAY story. Hilarity ensues http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/11/18/eric-merola-and-stanislaw-burzynski-respond-to-th, "Experts dismiss doctor’s cancer claims", "fact-checking”, "Families run out of hope, "final conclusions”, "G.B.", "gears up", "GorskGeeks’s", "Great Britain", "Hannah Bradley", "Hannah's Anecdote", "hashtag Failed", "He-Man", "high fevers", "highfalutin’", "Hilarity ensues: https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/21/httpscienceblogs-cominsolence20131118eric-merola-and-stanislaw-burzynski-respond-to-the-fda-findings-and-the-usa-today-story, "hit parade", "human interest", "I.R.B.", "In which Dr. Gorski once again finds himself a target of the pharma shill gambit http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/in-which-i-am-once-again-in-the-crosshairs-of-age-of-autisms-pharma-shill-machine-, "inoperable brain tumor", "Institute for Science in Medicine", "Jake Crosby", "Jerry Mosemak", "Joseph Goebbels", "Josh Duhamel", "Josia Cotto", "Liz Szabo's", "mainstream news outlet", "Medical Director of the Alexander J. Walt Comprehensive Breast Center", "member of the faculty of the Graduate Program in Cancer Biology", "Michael Stravato", "months-long", "Mr. Merola", "Na+", "National Geographic", "non-deconstruction", "normal range", "not-so-little", "partial clinical hold", "people’s brain cells", "Pete Cohen", "piss-poor", "Pol Pot", "preliminary findings“, "propaganda chief", "rare, "Rick Jaffe", "Robert Hanashiro", "science based medicine", "ScienceBasedMedicine . org", "scientific", "serum sodium", "Shite Muslim Militia” piece, "six year old boy", "so-called pseudoprogression", "sodium levels", "survived a serum sodium (Na+) level of 234 mEq/L", "TAM 2013", "The Amazing Meeting 2013", "The Burzynski Empire strikes http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-burzynski-empire-strikes-back/", "The Skeptic", "Todd Plitt", "Treasurer for the Institute for Science in Medicine", "Twaddle-fest", "U.S.", "University of Michigan" Gorski http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gorski, "USA TODAY, "USA TODAY NEWS, "USA TODAY reporter Liz Szabo", "USA TODAY", "USA TODAY’s", "wax off", "wax on", "Wayne State University School of Medicine", "Wayne State University", "whack-n-hack", "What He Didn’t Tell You”, #FAILED, #FAILING, #fave, #sciencebasedmedicine, #TAM2013, @BurzynskiMovie, @gorskon, @oracknows, @ScienceBasedMed, absolutely, Academically, accept, accident, activity, actual, actually, addressing, administration, Adverse, Africans, against, agreement, agreements, albeit, allegations, amazing, and Hannah Bradley): https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/19/httpscienceblogs-cominsolence20131115stanislaw-burzynski-in-usa-today-abuse-of-clinical-trials-and-patients-versus-the-in, anecdotes, anticancer, antineoplastons, antivaccine, anyone, anywhere, apex, apologize, approach, argue, arguing, argument, arguments, article, articles, asking, ASS, assassination, ASSmuchness, ATTACK, attacks, attorney, autopsy, “ad hominems", “cherry-pick”, “Eric Merola and Stanislaw Burzynski respond to the FDA findings and the USA TODAY story. Hilarity ensues”, “However, “months-long investigation”, “Our only goal is to promote high standards of science in medicine”, “rash, “science-based medicine” research, “sleeping in excess”, “slight of hand job”, “The Amazing Meeting (I don’t think it means, bad, badly, based, basis, battle, because, been, before, behavior, belief, belong, Biased, bit, blather, blog, bloggers, blogs, blood, blowshard, Board, bogus, boiled, Both, bowel, boy, brain, brand, breast, BRI, build, bulk, Burzynski Clinic, Burzynski Research Institute, CALLING, CAN-01, CAN-1, Cancer, cancers, capped, case, challenged, character, characteristic, Chief of the Section of Breast Surgery", child, CHILDREN, chills, citation(s), Claim, claims, cleaners, climax, Clinical Trial, Clinical Trials, clothes, collusion, colonoscopy, coming, comments, common, compelling, compilation, complete, compliance, conclude, concluding, conclusion, Conspiracy Theory, contain, copy, could, counterhackattack, counterhackattacking, counterhackfensive, course, cowards, critical, criticize, critique, critiqued, Critiquing, cured, D.", D.H.", David Gorski, David H. Gorski, dealt, death, deconstruct, deconstructed, defense, definition, demonstrate, denies, depth, despicable, destroy, detailed, Detroit, develop, DH", dictionary, die, died, difference, directly, discredit, display, disturbance, documentary, documented, does, doubt, downplay, Dr. David H. Gorski, drawing, dreamsicles, drug, due, during, dust, each, elevated, else, elucidate, embedded, emotion, enough, ensues, entailed, entitled, epilepsy, Eric Merola, Eric Merola prepares to carpet bomb the blogosphere with nonsense http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/02/18/as-josh-duhamel-shills-for-the-burzynski-clinic-eric-merola-prepares-to-carpet-bomb-the-b, erred, essence, even, events, every, everything, evidence, exactly, example, excellent, expect, experienced, experimentation, experts, explain, explaining, eyes, F.D.A., face, facilitation, FACS", factually, Fahrvergnügen, Failure, fairly, fairy, fallacy, falls, families, famous, fanboy, Fanectdotes, favorite, FDA, fearing, feature, feeling, fever, fictionalize, fighting, figured, filters, finding, findings, firmly, first, fit, fittingly, flat, flu, flummoxes, follow, food, Food and Drug Administration, form, found, funny, gabless, gabroni, Gadgets, gambit, gambits, gambols, Gannett, gassticulates, genetically, gerbil, germinating, gestation, gesticulates, giving, gleefully, glib, gloat, gloats, god, going, GONE TOMORROW", goofs, Gorski, GorskiGeek, gratuitously, greatest, group, Gubment, guidelines, H2O, hacademic, HACK, hackery, hacks, hallowed, halls, happened, harangues, harassing, hardly, hashtag, having, heed, helped, hence, herself, high, highest, Hilarity, hipocracy, history, Hitler, hits, holistically, hopes, horrible, how, http//www.sciencebasedmedicine.org, http://cancerbiologyprogram.med.wayne.edu/, http://cancerbiologyprogram.med.wayne.edu/faculty/, http://cancerbiologyprogram.med.wayne.edu/faculty/gorski.php, http://karmanos.org/Physicians/Details.aspx?sid=1&physician=70, http://med.wayne.edu/, http://med.wayne.edu/surgery/, http://med.wayne.edu/surgery/faculty/DGorski.html, http://ncas.org/2013/02/mar-9-david-h-gorski-quackademic.html?m=1, http://prognosis.med.wayne.edu/article/dr-gorski-named-codirector-of-michigan-breast-oncology-quality-initiative, http://sciencebasedmedicine.org, http://sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/, http://sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/, http://scienceblogs.com/, http://scienceblogs.com/Insolence, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/11/18/eric-merola-and-stanislaw-burzynski-respond-to-the-fda-findings-and-the-usa-today-story-hilarity-ensues/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/21/httpscienceblogs-cominsolence20131118eric-merola-and-stanislaw-burzynski-respond-to-the-fda-findings-and-the-usa-today-story-hilarity-ensues/, http://usatoday.com/, http://usatoday.com/story/, http://usatoday.com/story/news/, http://usatoday.com/story/news/nation/, http://usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/15/, http://usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/15/burzynski-cancer-science/, http://usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/15/burzynski-cancer-science/2994731/, http://usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/15/jeanine-graf-cancer-children/, http://usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/15/stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-controversy/, http://usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/15/stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-controversy/2994561/, http://whybiotech.com/?p=3808, http://wsusurgery.com/facultyc3/david-gorski/, http://wsusurgery.com/research-team-dr-gorski/, http://www.cancerbiologyprogram.med.wayne.edu/, http://www.cancerbiologyprogram.med.wayne.edu/faculty/, http://www.cancerbiologyprogram.med.wayne.edu/faculty/gorski.php, http://www.karmanos.org/Physicians/Details.aspx?sid=1&physician=70, http://www.med.wayne.edu/, http://www.med.wayne.edu/surgery/faculty/, http://www.med.wayne.edu/surgery/faculty/DGorski.html, http://www.ncas.org/2013/02/mar-9-david-h-gorski-quackademic.html?m=1, http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/, http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/, http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/ “Our only goal is to promote high standards of science in medicine”, http://www.scienceblogs.com/, http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence, http://www.usatoday.com/, http://www.usatoday.com/story/, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/15/, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/15/burzynski-cancer-science/, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/15/burzynski-cancer-science/2994731/, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/15/jeanine-graf-cancer-children/2994675/ http://usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/15/jeanine-graf-cancer-children/2994675/ http://www.usatoday.co, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/15/stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-controversy/, http://www.whybiotech.com/?p=3808, http://www.wsusurgery.com/facultyc3/david-gorski/, http://www.wsusurgery.com/research-team-dr-gorski/, https://mobile.twitter.com/, https://mobile.twitter.com/gorskon, https://mobile.twitter.com/oracknows, https://mobile.twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz, https://mobile.twitter.com/ScienceBasedMed, https://twitter.com/, https://twitter.com/gorskon, https://twitter.com/oracknows, https://twitter.com/ScienceBasedMed, https://www.twitter.com/gorskon, https://www.twitter.com/oracknows, https://www.twitter.com/ScienceBasedMed, huckster, human, Hypernatremia, hypocrisy, idea, idolizes, ignorance, ignorant, ignored, impolitic, Inc. – NCAHF News: JURY NULLIFICATION THWARTS BURZYNSKI CONVICTION https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/25/critiquing-national-council-against-health-fraud-inc-ncahf-news-jury-null, included, including, Indeed, indicate, infatuation, infidel, infiltration, information, insinuating, inspection, inspector, instead, Institutional, Institutional Review Board, insults, investigate, investigation, IRB, issued, jabberwocky, jacked, jerking, journalism, justify, killed, knowledge, laments, large, lawyer, least, Lenin, lethal, lethargy, letter, level, levels, Lies, light, like, link(s), Liz Szabo, long, longer, loosely, lower, lying, M.D.", making, malicious, manipulate, massive, MD", mean, meantime, measured, medical, medical ethics, medication, medicine, member, members, Membership, memoir, metaphors, Michigan, might, millions, mind, minions, misinformation, mix, money after cancer treatments", months, monumental, most, mostly, movement, murdering, Mussolini, myopic, myself, Mythomaniac, named, NatGeo, NATION, Naturally, near, need, netted, never, news, nonsense”, normal, nose, nothing, numbers, observations, obviously, ODD, opportunity, Orac, Oracolyte, Oracolytes, over, paranoia, partner, patients, perfidy, perhaps, period, person, personal, persons, persuaded, Ph.D, pharyngula, PhD, phenomena, phenomenon, phonetic, picture, pieces, please, pleased, pocket, pointed, possibility, posterior, posts, precipitated, preemptively, pretends, pretty, previously, proboscis, proclaims, produce, progress, progressing, propaganda, propagandist, protections, provide, provides, Pseudo-Progression (psPD)", pseudononscience, pseudononsense, Pseudoprogression, pseudoresponse, Publications, question, quoted, quoting, range, rant, rashes, rather, reacted, read, reader, readers, reading, reads, realized, really, reasons, recall, rectum, References, referring, regular, regulating, repeat, report, reported, reports, represent, residency, respond, Response, responses, rest, result, review, reviews, Richard Jaffe, rules, salad, same, SBM, science, scienceblogs, see, seeing, seemingly, seems, seen, selectively, sense, sensibility, serious, serum, severe, shaking, shamelessly, share, shore, short, show, sidebars, significant, since, Skeptic, Skeptical, slaves, soapbox, Sodium, soldiers, someone, sorry, sorts, speech, spin, Stalin, Stanislaw Burzynski, Stanislaw R. Burzynski, starts, stick, story, strapped, stump, stunningly, stupendousmess, stupid, subject, suffered, support, supporters, suppositorsition, surgeon, surprised, surprisingly, survived, symptoms, talent, TAMmany, temerity, term, termed, terms, The Skeptics, therapy, think, thought, thousand, thousands, time, took, top, toxic, toxicities, toxicity, treatment, trial, trials, tries, trolls, tropes, twaddle, Twaddle at TAM 2013 https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/www-amazingmeeting-com-www-randi-org-lanyrd-com2013tam-forums-randi-orgforumdisplay-php/", Twitter, UK, Under”, unfortunately, ungratifying, unhealthy, unrelenting, unsuccessfully, untold, uphill, upon, USATODAY, USFDA, valid, very, videos, viscousness, vlogs, wanted, wastebasket, Water, waxes, way, weak, what you think it says it means): 2 Intellectually and Ethically Challenged Individuals, whom, wondered, Woo, word, worse, writing, yellow, YouTube | Leave a reply

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

Posted on October 18, 2013 by didymusjudasthomas
Reply

20131018-001112.jpg
——————————————————————
DJT – Didymus Judas Thomas
——————————————————————
BB – Bob Blaskiewicz
======================================
(0:12:00)
——————————————————————
DJT – Well a lot of the time I’m making fun of y’all’s favorite oncologist, the way he words his blogs, and uhmmm I cite specifically from the FDA, from from the National Cancer Institute, from these other scientific sources, from scientific publications

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

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

20130927-205944.jpg

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

— FW (@frozenwarning) March 14, 2013

20130927-212352.jpg

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

— Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) March 14, 2013

20130927-213845.jpg

20130927-222641.jpg

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

— Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) March 14, 2013

20130927-214725.jpg

20130927-222605.jpg

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

— Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) March 14, 2013

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

20130927-215629.jpg

20130927-222520.jpg

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

— Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) March 15, 2013

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

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

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

20131015-211323.jpg
======================================
5/8/2013 – “I’ve searched Burzynski’s publications”
======================================

20131015-213924.jpg
DJT – Oh yeah he says he’s read everything but uh you know he claims that he’s uhmmm reviewed, reviewed uh Burzynski’s personalized gene targeted therapy but he, but then just a few months ago he admitted, you know, I don’t know where Burzynski says which genes are targeted by antineoplastons

20131015-205255.jpg
And I pointed out which specific publications that Burzynski published, publications which specifically mention which genes are targeted by antineoplastons, and I said how can you claim that you’ve read and reviewed every Burzynski publication and you didn’t know which genes are targeted by antineoplastons when that’s specifically in the publications ?

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

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

20131017-230838.jpg

20131017-231725.jpg
======================================
Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) tweeted at 10:44am – 31 Jul 13:

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

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

20130927-230121.jpg

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

— Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) July 31, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20131017-220228.jpg
Well, I’ve pointed out where he’s done that and said “Hey, you said you were gonna ‘fess up to it”

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

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

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

“He has patients who are dying, you know”

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

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

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

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

People who know what they’re talking about”

To give him money to carry out his research”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey, I’ve said it to Gorski

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gorski gets that point completely wrong”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Do antineoplastons work, yes or no?,”

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

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

So, I am not going to take that seriously
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/04/september-28-2013-the-skeptics-burzynski-discussion-by-bob-blaskiewicz-21951/
======================================
[2] – Robert J. (don’t call me “Bobby”) Blaskiewicz’s #Epic Skeptic “Word-Salad” #Fail – September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/burzynski-timeline-2-3/
======================================
[3] – DJT’s Comments – September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/burzynski-timeline-2/
======================================
[4] – Critiquing David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/critiquing-david-h-gorski-md-phd-facs-www-sciencebasedmedicine-orgeditorial-staffdavid-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
======================================
[5] – Critiquing: Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski, M.D., Ph.D, L.I.A.R.:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/07/critiquing-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-m-d-ph-d-l-i-a-r/
======================================
[6] – Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, quickly realized that David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS is NOT doing something wrong when he LIES about Burzynski:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/wayne-state-university-detroit-michigan-quickly-realized-that-david-h-gorski-md-phd-facs-is-not-doing-something-wrong-when-he-lies-about-burzynski/
======================================
[7] – Critiquing: In which the latest movie about Stanislaw Burzynski “cancer cure”
is reviewed…with Insolence:

——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/critiquing-in-which-the-latest-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-cure-is-reviewed-with-insolence-2/
======================================
[8] – IMPORTANT: The live “debate” that wasn’t-A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/important-the-live-debate-that-wasnt-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/
======================================
[9] – Does David H. “Orac” Gorski, M.D., Ph.D, really CARE about Breast Cancer patients?:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/does-david-h-orac-gorski-m-d-ph-d-really-care-about-breast-cancer-patients/
======================================
[10] – Burzynski: “The Skeptics™” – Harming without Care:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/burzynski-the-skeptics-harming-without-care/
======================================

Posted in Bob Blaskiewicz (Robert J. Blaskiewicz @rjblaskiewicz), Debate ?, Gorski ScienceBlogs.com/Insolence ScienceBasedMedicine, Guy Chapman, Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski, The Skeptics | Tagged "Alexander J. Walt Comprehensive Breast Center", "all of those therapies, "American College of Surgeons Committee on Cancer", "Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Center / Institute", "Bay Clinical uh Research and Clinical Development", "Big Boy pants", "Bob Blaskiewicz Faux Skeptic Exposed!", "bring it on”, "Burzynski has a contingent of defenders who have targeted skeptics like me for special abuse, "Burzynski never explains which genes are targeted by antineoplastons", "Cardiff, "check me out", "Critiquing Dr David H. "Orac" Gorski, "Dan Buzzard", "David James", "Dianthus Medical", "Didnt take long for the Burzynski trolls to show up", "Dr. Gorski", "Eau Claire", "evidence of efficacy", "hide like a snake in the grass", "I'm calling you out", "if I had screwed up, "If it's true that #burzynski and his adman Merola have insinuated that parents are to blame for Amelia's death that's utterly disgusting", "In which the latest movie about Stanislaw Burzynski’s “cancer cure” is reviewed…with Insolence", "Institute for Science in Medicine", "My university quickly realized that I was not", "National Geographic", "National Health Service (NHS)", "Of course it's always possible that the money launderers are appearing as themselves in the #Burzynski advertisement", "Oh, "on my my show um had said things that were demonstratively untrue", "Own it, "Peter Bowditch", "phase 3 trials", "Rhys Morgan" Wales, "Robert J. (Bob) Blaskiewicz", "Science Based Medicine . org Editorial Staff", "ScienceBasedMedicine . org", "ScienceBlogs . com", "screwed up", "Section of Breast Surgery / Graduate Program in Cancer Biology", "Sheila Herron", "Skeptic Canary Show", "Stanislaw Burzynski versus the BBC", "Stanislaw Burzynski: A deceptive propaganda movie versus an upcoming news report", "The Council for Biotechnology Information", "the Merritts", "The new Doctor Who will be Stanislaw #Burzynski. He manages to continually avoid getting cornered and he gets away with murder", "The Poxes Blog", "The Skeptic Canary", "University of Michigan", "University of Wisconsin", "Unlike Mr. Merola, "Wayne State University School of Medicine", "Wayne State University", "Yes, "You are right now having a live debate in front of more than 10, #sciencebasedmedicine, #SkepticCanary, $30, . . really did exclude other possibilities of of of of yourself being wrong So if the FDA Well I’m not talking about the Guy Chapman What you off, 000 dollars and then she died Uhmmm, 000 dollars to start on a life-saving treatment for a child would be a steal, 000 people, 000 some odd dollars We same thing in the, 6, @Ac2cSheila, @bbc5live, @BorisOgon, @BurzynskiSaves I don't care what you think. My only concern is for the cancer patients. People like #burzynski make me sick", @DanBuzzard, @DianthusMed, @drpaulmorgan, @endless_psych, @FauxSkeptic, @frozenwarning, @gorskon, @IamBreastCancer, @medTek, @oracknows, @palMD, @RatbagsDotCom, @rjblaskiewicz, @SceptiGuy, @ScienceBasedMed, @StortSkeptic, @vGuyUK, @_JosephineJones, a # of us, a a good, a a is not progression of disease but is is inducement to to stay on, a ah a link to, a comment I guess uh that there are a lot of people who wanna talk to you (laughter) Uh, a fight over whether or not the parents should be allowed to continue treating this kid He was basically lying, a patient reporting that um uh getting worse is getting better How do you explain that ? Well that’s just a known side-effect, a possibility of what, a real effect, a respected peer-reviewed journal, a tiny fraction of that back from the insurance companies, a white paper called “Why do so many pase 3 clinical trials fail ? Uh, about what my motivations are and such I might as well put that out on the table just so it’s on the record, academic, according to to Guy iye he knows no other one Um, accountability, Adam Jacobs, additionally he charges immense amounts of money for this drug, admission, ah, ah have you read The Other Burzynski Patient Group ? So, Ahm, ahmmm what is your response say to the story of Amelia Saunders ? Okay, all the while, alright Now, alright Okay, alright then, also, also Uh, and, and also the bare minimum that that the larger medical community will accept uhhh as evidence, and and and, and and and that’s the thing we don’t, and and and what part of that’s not true Okay, and and uh Popehat, and and wont react well to pressure, and David points this out, and deserves to be out there That’s a long time when someone is dying Well, and failed, and have gotten nothin’ but grief from a lot of people, and he also said that the drug was FDA approved, and he hasn’t sent it along to mass approval, and he wanted to get a statement from the University The University of course ignored him, and he would earn every nickel of it Um, and his family", and his intellectual property So the FDA is protecting him, and his patients don’t leave his office, and I do wait to go back to the, and I will respond to it once I’ve taken a look at that, and I’ll go back to the, and I’ll I’ll draw an uh, and I’ll respond on your web-site Um, and if Burzynski were to demonstrate his efficacy, and immediately let me know that I was going to get smeared Um, and including, and it was ascribed to the tumor they might well not do it, and none has been published in its entirety for over 15 years When you consider that this is a, and nothing you have presented suggests that you would be more coherent in person", and often when we are talking about these cancers, and one of the questions that we had, and pits people who are doing standard cancer research, and radiation does seem to extend life, and separate those, and that kept her on uh treatment for a a another month so that could be another $7, and that was a Have you read Chase’s story It would stick with you, and that’s exactly what would show to us whether or not his rate is better, and that’s gone nowhere In fact, and that’s why the costs are so inflated Um, and then I’d be all for it I would say that right now, and then there are people who are really helping the disease I mean, and these people have extra things in their brains that probably won’t react well to swelling, and this, and this has been going on for decades Eh, and this is, and this is something that I’ve learned from from working uh with others on the Burzynski Patient Group is what’s it like to be a cancer patient, and to have no sense of how other people’s diseases progressed, and uh Eric Merola said that I had been um, and um uh a Gorski has had his accreditation board contacted, and Well, and why you can’t take that as necessarily being evidence of efficacy Ah, another thing is that uh the kind of cult that’s sprung up around Burzynski, approves uh phase 3 trials, are actually uh grateful, are approved, are painting a completely different picture How do you explain that ? Are they feeding these people their stories ? Are they feeding these people their stories Okay I’m going to go back, are you following the Hashtag, as a lump but extend life by uh quality of life for 3 months or something um in some cases but, as best as I can tell from an outsider, as enemies, as far as I can tell A every time that I and and and and, as far as I understand it The Lancet, as if they were signs of getting better Some people say that oh it’s a healing crisis or it’s progression of the disease Or other people say it’s breaking up in the middle, as this is going on Okay I’m doing, as you just pointed out, as you keep putting it, at least the sodium load that that that patients are asked to to carry, at some point, “I do know cancer science”, “I’ve searched Burzynski’s publications", “Look, “Okay, “Our only goal is to promote high standards of science in medicine”, “Personally, “Um, “which genes are targeted by antineoplastons“, “you know”, based on bad phase 2 trials Would that be, based on flawed phase 2, based on flawed phase 2 clinical trials That is therefor a real possibility in this case Yes you would But, basically, because in order to, because that case is grotesque The parents, because that means there allowed to go ahead and submit their material to another journal more quickly and get it out there Uhm, because we’re on a Google+ stream that that’s a lot of data it takes awhile to bring up my, been spreading mis truths about Burzynski", Blatherskitewicz, blog, Bob Blaskiewicz, Boris Ogon, bring it on” Check out these wounds But he’s never done that Instead he he he wants us to just take the words of of of of his apostles I don’t necessarily trust his apostles I don’t think that, Britain, but, but can #Burzynski time travel?", but I definitely recommend that you look at Jaffe’s book and you will see, but if there were other cases where this type of complication arose, but phase 2 was deficient so phase 3 fails Do you think that that could possibly have anything to do with why we’re not seeing the phase 3 advance He’s claimed He’s claimed That’s a different , but she wasn’t there for for very long but uh her condition deteriorated very rapidly Uhmmm, but that doesn’t mean that it didn’t have an effect on her And you can clearly tell, but the idea, but the reaction that we saw on the side of the Burzynski camp was that, but then it reaches a point where it’s a self-limited growth, but uhmmm, but we actually have people say Are there, but when it’s, but whether or not it it it had a genuine therapeutic effect is a different matter all together Um, but yeah, but you understand it’s not the FDA’s job to tell someone that their drug doesn’t work it’s it’s it’s up to Burzynski It’s up to Burzynski to show that his drug does work And it’s alwa, can get, case, Chapman has just updated me and he says um that it is, Claim, claimed, constantly, Conundrum, correct Oh, creating a black and white version of the world where there are good people and there are bad people There are people who are fighting the disease, David Gorski, David H. Gorski, Debate, definitely look at that Um, Detroit, did not understand the significance of this cyst that had opened up in, do an autopsy Um, do with the drug This this But, do you concede, do you concede that ? Well, do you have any sense of when these trials are going to be published ? From Laura ? Right When you, do you think that there is a uh uh conspiracy to keep Burzynski from publishing ? Right Right So, does, Dr. David H. Gorski, eg, eh, eh just based on what we’ve been able to find that patients have been reporting this for decades At some point, elevate uh the profile of his drug, especially Gorski, especially the brainstem gliomas That these cancers uh the cases resolved fairly quickly, ethical, even if in the aggregate their rates aren’t better It might work on some individuals tumors rather than on, even in principle, even people who, even people who support me have given me grief for this Um, even though the components cost pennies Um, exclusive rights to produce and sell this stuff, FACS a/k/a Orac", for a couple of years at least, for all the the phase 1 and phase 2 trials, for decades This doesn’t have anything to do with the, for me, for me to come around and promote Burzynski Um, for one of the most intractable diseases, forever Um, from any effect of antineoplaston, FW, go ahead Yeah, going back to Amelia, Gorski, Guy Chapman, Guy Chapman has just jumped in and said it looks like you forgot the phase 3 trial is withdrawn and none of the phase 2 trials were published Uhmmm, Guy Chapman has just um uh tossed in a a, guychapman, had a, had the same reading given to them Um, have demonstrated efficacy", have influenced the way in which these these trials were approved I I would say that it is a genuine con uh uh bit of confusion on the parts of Skeptics We don’t know why the phase 3 trial was appro, have you noticed the the, having pored over Burzynski’s publications", he controls all parts from identification to the creation of the drug uh to the diagnosing uh well he doesn’t do the diagnosing but he does um um prescribe and distribute, he could do that if if the other, he does all that vertically, he has an approved phase 3, he he’s done well to listen to Jaffe’s advice, he needs to get a publication in a uh, he said that he was gonna do, he should open up his uh research uh protocols um and just say, he’s never done that But if you think about that, he’s still on the, hello, her name escapes me at the moment Um, her name is, hey when when we talk about The Other Burzynski Patient Group, hi everyone Uhmmm, how can we possibly say without a single published trial he, however we can’t see, however we can’t see it because of proti protri proprietary uh protections that the FDA is giving to Burzynski, http//www.sciencebasedmedicine.org, http://anp4all.com, http://blog.rbutr.com/, http://cancerbiologyprogram.med.wayne.edu/faculty/gorski.php, http://josephinejones.wordpress.com/, http://lanyrd.com/2013/tam/sckkdy/, http://medicine.cf.ac.uk/person/prof-paul-morgan/, http://necss.org/speakers/bob-blaskiewicz/, http://prognosis.med.wayne.edu/article/dr-gorski-named-codirector-of-michigan-breast-oncology-quality-initiative, http://rbutr.com/, http://rhysmorgan.co/blog, http://sciencebasedmedicine.org, http://scienceblogs.com/Insolence, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/11/02/stanislaw-burzynski-fails-to-save-another-patient/, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/05/08/eric-merola-and-stanislaw-burzynskis-secret-weapon-against-the-skeptics-fabio-lanzoni-part-2/, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/05/31/on-helping-that-is-anything-but/, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/03/in-which-the-latest-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynskis-cancer-cure-is-reviewed-with-insolence/, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/04/stanislaw-burzynski-versus-the-bbc/, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/05/odds-and-ends-about-burzynski-clinic/, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/07/i-want-my-anp/, http://t.co/EHgW0hnLAc, http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW, http://the21stfloor.tumblr.com, http://thehoustoncancerquack.com/, http://thewelshboyo.wordpress.com, http://twentyfirstfloormirror.wordpress.com, http://virtualskeptics.com/, http://www.blogtalkradio.com/skepticcanary/, http://www.centerforinquiry.net/speakers/blaskiewicz_bob, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg, http://www.csicop.org/author/rblaskiewicz, http://www.dianthus.co.uk/blog/, http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/, http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics, http://www.karmanos.org/Physicians/Details.aspx?sid=1&physician=70, http://www.med.wayne.edu/surgery/faculty/DGorski.html, http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/, http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/, http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/peter-a-lipson-md/, http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/stanislaw-burzynski-propaganda-versus-news, http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence, http://www.skeptical.gb.net/, http://www.skepticalhumanities.com, http://www.thetwentyfirstfloor.com, http://www.thetwentyfirstfloor.com/?p=8146/, http://www.uwec.edu/Staff/blaskir/, http://www.wsusurgery.com/facultyc3/david-gorski/, http://www.wsusurgery.com/research-team-dr-gorski/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/07/critiquing-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-m-d-ph-d-l-i-a-r/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/04/university-of-michigan-where-is-alum-dr-david-h-orac-gorskis-grapefruits/ ====================================== � � � � � � � , https://thepoxesblog.wordpress.com, https://twitter.com/Ac2cSheila/status/186164592676843520, https://twitter.com/DanBuzzard/status/18611025740208537, https://twitter.com/frozenwarning/status/312141313451634688, https://twitter.com/gorskon/status/363147810620702721, https://twitter.com/palmd/status/325612864549310466, https://twitter.com/RatbagsDotCom/status/304050113834262528, https://twitter.com/StortSkeptic/status/363088970239840256, hurrah No, I, I am indeed very concerned with getting my facts correct”, I am still scrolling through looking for this story that I wanted to talk about Uh, I can’t say that, I consulted my lawyer and uh uh, I didn’t, I didn’t realize that he was also, I don’t exactly know if he was on the treatment the whole time Um, I don’t know if you’ve read Jaffe’s book There seems to have been a lot going on there you really should look at it because it’s it’s it’s kind of revealing Um, I don’t know what the state of that is right now Um, I don’t make any pretensions to make that my site proves anything I I I really don’t It’s not my job to prove anything It’s Burzynski’s job It is a researchers job to prove these things But , I don’t read your blog Uh um, I don’t remember the exact patient so I have to go back to my web-site to take a look at it Um Because we are, I don’t see anything Well it’s an invisible dragon Well okay, I don’t think he’s shown uh that he can carry off a uh a research program responsibly Uhmmm Well Oh he, I guess I’ll It should be in Amelia’s I I, I had my uh a couple weeks before Christmas my, I have to, I have to look into it That’s just, I I don’t think he’d be able to get one, I I think as far as I went was that she went, I just find that to be contradictory and and self-defeating Um, I mean that if it does have a a an improvement rate above uh other treatments That still has an improvement rate, I mean they’re there uhm uhhh but, I mean uh, I mean you have a right to do that but but I I’ve found that posting under a pseudonym diminishes my credibility —————————————————————— That’s a Red Her, I packed Amelia’s story with all the stories, I think, I think it is, I want to give them a a chance to address you as well Uhmmm, I want to point something else out to you Um, I want to turn this over to the people who are watching Um, I would, I would have admitted it", I'm calling out the institutions with which you have a professional relationship", I’ll look at that, I’ll look into that I hope somebody is writing all this down out there, I’m doing the 2 things at once and it’s um, I’m not assuming that —————————————————————— There is a correct here Exactly That’s the right answer You don’t know You don’t know You need to look , I’m not saying there were, I’ve seen any number of people looking at um, ideology and and the uh panaceas are are are to be and a variety of different types of causes um, if he could get a grant to study this stuff But, if his drug genuinely works, if if you think about it though, if in fact you don’t have to reach the full dosage in order to have uh severe side effects Ummm, if it works, if you look at the, if you look at the Luna ah Pettiguine uh uh story on The Other Burzynski Patient Group um you see that the doctor is absolutely horrified by the insane sodium load that that Burzynski’s patients are, if you were to learn, in, in a in a coma uh without possibility of reversal, in a uh uh brain dead uh for all intents and purposes, in and of itself That’s another comment Um, in Cody G’s story And then lastly and and the worst uh thing that we’ve seen, in fact in any one tumor you would, in fact just disoriented, in fact they were ecstatic They were delighted Um, in his parents living room for months Um, in millions of homes, in order to make sure that everybody who needs it can get, in particular a, in the case of, incorrectly, individual patient, institutions, is is, is is talking about the costs there Uhmmm, is that I am taking exactly no money from anyone for this, is that if Burzynski is the savior that he claims to be, is that you would be honest about this, is the hospital only expects to get a fraction, is to complete a phase 3 uh trial uh he started uh I believe was it just the one, is to keep it in house That seems, is up to uh Burzynski uh my uh David James @StortSkeptic on the ah he has asked everything that Burzynski does looks sort of like the behaviors of pseudo-science So what we’re saying uhhh he does uh, isn’t necessarily having anything to do with the efficacy of the drug That comes across very clearly Um, it, it depends on the type Some drugs it’s ethical to give something completely questionable, it it it doesn’t seem to me that necessarily an autopsy would be um a a done deal Um, it it still has an effect, it seems rather unrealistic Um, it was withdrawn this I think within the last week It doesn’t look like its going to happen, it’s actually a tumor that’s growing That record there, it’s ah as you could imagine it could be very difficult for the families to do that especially when they have ooh ah, it’s an extremely grim prognosis Uhhh and I worry that when they’re in that desperate state and especially let’s talk about the children, it’s incorporeal Well, it’s indistinguishable from something that’s not there And that kind of out, it’s it’s it’s not the FDA’s, it’s it’s the Doubting Thomas Um, it’s my responsibility as a reader”, it’s No, it’s prepared by Anastassios Retzios, Jesus says, Josephine Jones, just looked like someone had taken the piss out of her I mean, just so that you know, Keir Liddle, knowing these facts, L.I.A.R.", led to the ultimate demise, let me go back to the Twitter feed Um Well it sounds to me like they’re they’re not um, let me see No we don’t and it would be irresponsible to completely speculate on on, let me see Someone has just sent me a, let me see Well, let’s, let’s back up What would the FDA, let’s measure for the heat of the breath Well it’s heatless flame that it breathes And, let’s say, let’s uh spray paint it Well, let’s wait for for that to roll in, lets talk about these patients who report symptoms of getting worse, liars, lie, lied, lilady, London, M.D.", man I couldn’t imagine really going through this myself, Michigan, my, my site Let me Uhmmm Well, NatGeo, no matter what happens That turns his claims into something that’s unfalsifiable If I could give you an example of what unfalsifiable is Um, not a uh, not like the the Journal of Medical Hypothesis or things we just made up Um, now I never went on you know on to say ummm that uh she had uh reached therapeutic levels Uhmmm, o-kay Uh, of Haley, of of cancers, of people believing, often approves, oh my gosh, oh no it’s ah it’s floating Well, oh this is one of the very 1st ones that we did on the, ok, ok It doesn’t matter where It doesn’t matter where it comes from uh, ok let me tell you exactly what it will take, ok Let’s let’s back, ok ok well it’s well ok I can’t I can’t go in and read that right now Um, okay ? Um, okay There, on, on the site Uhmmm, on top of that, one has been finished, one of One of the problems that that doctors have in in this country when it comes to doing ummm antineoplastons studies to verify any any effect that uh Burzynski has uhhh I i think back to the one w, one of the things that that there there are 2 points to be made here Uhm, one question I’d wondered, one that is immune to uh criticism, onforb.es/11pwse9, only by proxy, open up his trials, or required to carry if they they go on it And we wondered if the sodium load was ah to great for someone who has a brain tumor, or that the growing has slowed after they’ve started Well, Orac, our favorite oncologist (laugh), over 60 opportunities to prove himself worth uh their confidence and hasn’t Um, Paul Morgan, people have been critical of of of Burzynski have faced retaliation for opposing him ah and intimidation, permission to investigate is not evidence of anything other than evidence of a valid protocol, Peter A. Lipson, Ph.D, Ph.D Is Anastassios Retzios reliable ? Um What, Professor", progress, prove something false, Put up or shut up, Quidama, r-but-r, rbutr, reaching therapeutic levels and having a biological effect on someone are are clearly different things in her case Uhmmm, Reason, reduce the size of some tumors some times Um, relat, replacement therapy Uh and there isn’t a doctor on the planet, reporting this excitedly, respectable journal that oncologists would read, right ? Okay Alright That that, right ? So, right ? They’re not sharing his trial designs because they are his trial designs, right ? Uhmmm, right ?", right? That the makeup of his drug that he’s distributing are his, S.", Samantha T in 2005 We see it again as far back as 1994, SBM, see, see this is the thing though The reason that site was started was because the people that don’t make it don’t have a voice And when you, seems only fair Um, she paid her $30, she uh the the difference in her conscious state was no noticeable for anyone to see Ummm, SkepticScared", so, so it, so it’s like you’ve lowered the bar for for evidence in a way that that you know oncologists don’t The the Right So, so it’s the question, so that we can go back and look at these claims later, so that’s, so the ANP is Orphan Drug status but is it Orphan Drug for glioma ? Is it sodium phenylbutyrate or is it the the versions of the drug, so this is, so this is the Doubting Thomas This is the Doubting Thomas Okay, so this is the one, so ummm I guess we can start with uhhh bit of a conversation Uhhh You’ve been on the Burzynski Hashtag for a long time – what’s you’re motivation ? Okay So what information have Skeptics poste, so we were wondering, some of the the most um I think the most serious charges is that we see a uh repeatedly in his uh uh stories of his patients, some of the things that have happened, someone has just sent a a note, something, something that we see over and over are patients reporting over and over that signs of getting worse are signs if getting better Um, sorry, surgeon, t, taken as far as I can tell as evidence of a conspiracy or that his name is is poison uh I mean, talk about me in his new movie, that, that 45% of phase 3 clinical trials fail due to deficient phase 2 design Um, that allows uh, that didn’t involve them ultimately somehow being responsible for it, that didnt have this massive side effect ? thats not necessary for other deactsylace inhibitors Well that sss I believe that that’s proposed by the researchers, that had opened up in the center of the tumor, that he can market to the entire world His business model as best I can tell, that he has an improved rate over Temodar or anything like that, that he should, that I could find um in what we’d written up already Um Hold on a sec She is a cute kid though Um, that I had been a be, that if there was the slightest hint that antineoplaston deficiency was a cause of cancer that it would make it into the literature, that in order to have a phase 3, that is there, that it depends on people paying money up front It doesn’t depend on him developing and taking away a viable drug, that it doesn’t work O-kay Um, that look really good on paper, that most people are, that oh well the tumor can keep on growing Th (laugh) that that that’s an invisible dragon, that one, that research oncologists would read I would need an completely independent group to replicate his findings, that seems to give him an instant out, that she was lethargic and a little bit out of it, that sometimes phase 3 trials, that suggests to me that there’s something else going on here Now, that that that it seems that there was a lot of political pressure applied to the FDA which may have been, that that the FDA is is somehow antagonistic toward him They’ve given him every opportunity, that that was the same guy So, that that’s what the tumor looks like People are reporting that the tumor is no longer growing, that the FDA, that the format of your blog does not make sense to us, that this particular pattern is, that um, that wasn’t indicated in the in the rejection letter in order to uh claim that it is is to go beyond the evidence which again we’re not really willing to do So, that we’d love to see, that when we have criticized this, that would be amazing, that would give another option to people, that would have a therapeutic effect on and that the risks outweigh the possible benefits of using this one particular drug Um, that you’re dealing with a quack Um, that’s been floated and research has been done on uh and might even be promising and uh what he’s saying is that cancer is caused by a lack of antineoplastons in the system and that basically what, that’s being left by patients, that’s Luna Pettiguine’s mother, that’s not necessarily true I mean uh when it when it comes to the case um I’ve i’ve talked to oncologists about this And when it comes to uh for instance in in this case it sounds like it was a, that’s not right But um, that’s what has Orphan Drug status Alright, that’s you know one of the major problems that this this cancer has is the location is such a pain to get to Uhm, the, the 1st inclination is to ascribe the death to, the 1st one is that major pharmaceutical companies that are getting this accelerated approval have a track record of producing results which Burzynski does not have Secondly, the ADR research . com issues in clinical research, the and let’s be very specific about this, the AS10 stuff or A1 or whatever it’s called ? Okay, the best, the best course of action was figured out, the business model that the Burzynski Clinic seems to depend on, the Chancellor of my University was contacted via e-mail, the comment, the common persons eye are these case series where he goes through and picks out people who have happened to have survived But what that doesn’t tell us is whether or not the antineoplaston had anyt, the design trial, the family, the new web-site by the Burzynski patients fighting back group, the other thing he could do, the outcome of that uh, the patients report that Burzynski himself told Chase uh Sammut The exact same thing Um, the phase 3 is is will be the gold standard, the positive outcomes, the proposed action as I understand it of the antineoplaston is that it’s a deacetylase inhibitor, the random weird rare but very real survive, the same diagnosis uh same prognosis was to, The Skeptics, the source of this ah of of those #’s that I just gave you, the the, the the base cost that that’s calculated is, the the family of Haley S., the the lawyer", the the the you know, the the things that you see on The Other Burzynski Patent Group, the the types of publications that he’s done, the the yeah I’ve never seen anyone say that the purpose of the antineoplastons is to cause uhhh, the thing on his web-site where if you make a donation to the clinic it goes directly to him ? Right You know, the thing that gets me over and over and over, the time between uh doublings in size decreases logarithmically Um, the tumor grows exponentially while the resources are available to it, the way that we got to this point, the ways in which, then be afraid Ummm, there, there are lots of people have lots of questions about me out there Uh, there are only a few cases of people recovering from that, there have been, there is an explanation for that, there there’s a lot to that Um, there was even a uh, there’s something that he asks for a a huge payment up front That’s something that’s been warned against for generations of uh by anti-quack um uh crusaders if if they’re asking for everything, therefor it works ? So what you’re saying is there’s nothing that would convince you now, these are all huge red flags, these people, these tumors are are completely uh heterogenous The idea that there’s gonna be one knockout, they do do this with other drugs, they say support the cure not the cancer Um, they’ll never publish us Uhm, they’re um uhhh, they’ve put the clinical hold on now because they now have evidence that somebody may have died because of the treatment Um, this, this is a a cancer, this is an important point too Um, this is exactly what will convince us to get on board the Burzynski train is the publication of these trials But even the preliminary trials, this is important This is really important though Wha, this is like basic tumor physiology that we’re talking about, this is not a minor thing for for for Skeptics This, this is your chance t, this treatment is working or this is not evidence that the treatment is working That’s pretty basic I mean we’re not, those are all backed uh by, those are very preliminary trials Uhmmm, those arguments hold very little weight with us He has a a an enormous house that’s valued in the tens of millions of dollars, throws up the the, to, to restrict the blood flow to the tumor and and and uh cause it to die that way, to that publication I can give you a minute to to go find it if that’s That would be good Uhmmm Well, to the to the, to the tumor, to yourself, Tweet, tweeted, uh, uh Antineoplastons has a better rate ? Right Right, uh but the way that you’d earlier phrased your uh your response to “could you possibly be proved wrong ?”, uh design, uh from outside scrutiny While you may imagine that that, uh Galileo’s You know what it’s called, uh hypothetical case of um uh proposed by Carl Sagan as the invisible dragon in your garage If you say you have have a dragon in your garage, uh journal, uh myself, uh no other institution has a 3 for 3 fail, uh not a medical specialist on the planet, uh one of the issues that Skeptics have with Burzynski is that in order to, uh report that’s very common from from patients is that the center of their solid tumors are breaking up One of the problems that we we we see is that that is more frequently a sign of ischemic necr, uh Rhys Morgan, uh that he has failed 3 different Institutional Review Board audits; this is Guy Chapman, uh that man eh can can can, uh uh uh publication in a peer-reviewed journal, uh Wayne Merritt, uhhh, uhhh the the question of The Lancet publication ehhh is par for the course, uhm uh, uhmmm, uhmmm what is the the ration the the something that I think a lot of of a lot of The Skeptics have been curious about when it comes to your your your blog and your behavior on-line uhhh is that that t, um . me see I’m just looking at other things that are coming in on the Hashtag right now Um, um at least as good as anything the Burzynski Patient Group has ever done Uhmmm, um Do you have any questions for me ? I’ve spent a lot of times asking questions of you Mhmm Guy Chapman, um So-kay, um that um it’s called um, um that would be shooting the messenger as opposed to dealing with the question, um those are all cited, um where we know that cancer has a a varied uh, ummm, ummm like nothing is true or false because a doctor says it is true or false Uhmmm it’s it’s it but when the entire medical community uhhh who are des are desperately are are every bit as tired of, unexpected survivals that occur, United Kingdom, up to and including harassing me at work by calling my university to complain about my online verbiage critical of Burzynski and implying that I am somehow doing something wrong", usually, Wales, was able to correctly determine that the Saunders family, was given to Justin B in 2006 A similar cyst in Lesley S’s story uh ah, was in 2006 Um, we do have this pattern, we don’t know why he’s getting a phase 3 And there’s a real story in that, we don’t understand exactly what you’re trying to do with it Could you kind of clarify that for us because it’s uhhh long and it’s it’s intense and there’s a lot of emotion behind it but w, we get extremely concerned about what’s happening Uhmmm, we just pointed out, we know what the outcome are fairly quickly Ummm, we often don’t realize that we’re not being honest with ourself I try to fight against it, we raised, we think Um, we would love to see him do this, we’re not talking about deactsylace inhibitors or anything like that were you’d really need to know something about This is, well, well at least the videos before the family took it down, well I don’t actually, well in that case the best response is “I don’t know” 1. Ah, well then, well then we’ll put flour down on the ground to see that it’s it it’s standing there And, what did I get wrong ? Uh was that Amelia and Luna ? Luna was the other one, what happens if the FDA occasionally op op opposes, what have we missed ? Well okay, what is the Didymus Judas Thomas reference to Oh, what it’s supposed to mean Alright, what part of, what part of that is not absolutely terrifying to you Well, what stuff would you like What stuff would you like me to do ? I generally, what they want to make sure that they at least get the standard care, what we would say, what would, what would convince you that you’re wrong So you’re saying because the Orphan Drug Designation and the face that there’s a phase 3, what would prove you wrong, what’s the word I’m looking for, when a patient is self-pay there is a self-pay price which is a more reasonable price Additionally, when I asked you, when it comes to ummm the rates of antineoplastons, when she’s talking about, when someone is not insured in in this country, when they get a speedy rejection from a uh uh, when you can’t falsify something When you cannot, when you only look at the at the, when you think about a major, when you whittle away, where he gets, where is alum Dr. David H. Orac Gorski’s Grapefruits ?", where the sole distributor of the therapy from his pharmacy Can you go ahead and send me that link that that I saw in the chat that you had uh posted a couple of times in the chat Could you send me th, whether or not, which actually, which is, which is actually something that snake oil salesmen do Another thing that that’s a red flag in Skeptic circles is that his one compound seems to be a sort of panacea for all sorts of different types, which is certainly one therapeutic approach that’s been, which is exactly in Burzynski’s favor to only look at the positive outcomes, which is like which we just pointed out was a was an invisible dragon Ultimately it would, which it, which slightly unspools DNA, which would allow uh proteins to get into a pair of damaged DNA And we have drugs that do that which carry a much lower sodium load Uh, who, who else was on there, who had died, who has identified at at as a contributing factor as a contributor to cancer or antineo or lack of antineoplastons So Why isn’t he, whose stories are every bit as important as the as the stories of the patients who have lived, why hasn’t Burzynski done anything to change that ? Right Well, why should we trust him when he has uh the sole uh the only person who had identified antineoplastons as a contributor to cancer when he is the sole manufacturer of the of the therapy uh when he is th, why why why not, why would you prefer that to to another drug if it did essentially the same thing, Wisconsin, with or without Burzynski Uhhh ummm, with with the Amelia story, would, would be apply to Federal grant That, would be to Burzynski’s benefit if there were other cases, would that cause any doubt in your mind ? About the efficacy of ANP Yeah, would that make you reconsider your position of the phase 3 being evidence that it works Uh um could you send me that link, wousa, www.whybiotech.com, yeah, yeah that’s a, yeah Um, you, you could say that these, you do not need to have a successful phase 2 ? When 45% of phase 3 fail because they have a deficient phase 2 design, you get a diagnosis of uh brainstem glioma the prognosis is very bad Uhmmm, you have these kids who are uh you know 2 and 3 and have had this, you know I’d hate to see my family go through this That these people are at what could be described as a low point, you know in the videos, you know maybe you haven’t reached a therapeutic dose level, you know that it’s an, you know the critique that, you know they they sign off on it but that is is, you know uh awful diagnosis and the parents are willing to do literally anything to keep their kids alive What protections are in place for patients as far as that these kids are and and their parents, you know uh sodium load will increase your blood pressure, you know Ummm, you know Well, you know where she had been up and about to in her bed kind of slurring and and, you know which includes radiation Um, you little bitch", you mentioned it yourself, you put your your, you said that the FDA hasn’t approved a phase 3 Well, you should be able to go over and verify that there’s a dragon in the garage So let’s say we go over to Carl Sagan’s garage and, you show me the, you understand that these doctors, you understand why they do that, you will see, you would think that a doctor would realize that perhaps what these patients are walking away with is inaccurate Why hasn’t that changed ? E wel that that that that’s not it This is this is like t, you you don’t need to reach full dosage ’cause the the full dosage for these ANP seem to be pretty high, you you it it is it taken as a, you you know your not going to speculate about the the FDA but then at every turn your invoking the FDA as being obstructionist I, you’re back Yeah Google+ is a little wonky sometimes But, you’re getting the outcome that you want This is the whole reason for going And it has nothing to do with the with the with the drugs Which is, you’re gonna get a skewed and inaccurate version of the efficacy of this particular drug Now lets lets lets go back and not talk about Laura, you’re talking, your going to know that going in, your hand inside the wound You know, yourself | Leave a reply

Search

Recent posts

  • Pete Cohen films Pat and Steve Clarkson January 15, 2014
  • Pete Cohen talks to Steve and Mary Jo Siegel January 14, 2014
  • Pete Cohen talks with Doug Olson January 10, 2014
  • Pete Cohen talks with Burzynski Patient January 8, 2014
  • Dr. Li-Chuan Chin, PhD, National Cancer Institute Scientist (1991-1997) talks about Dr. Burzynski and Antineoplastons January 6, 2014

Archives

Categories

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Follow Following
    • Didymus Judas Thomas' Hipocritical Oath Blog
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Didymus Judas Thomas' Hipocritical Oath Blog
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar