Critiquing: Joe Schwarcz: The cancer conspiracy unveiled

Joe Schwarcz ?

or

Joe Schmo ?

Our average Joe wrote a “crabby” piece in a SPECIAL TO THE (Montreal) GAZETTE JULY 31, 2013
http://www.montrealgazette.com/touch/story.html?id=8730138
Mr. Average Joe claims:

“Being in the science-communication business requires currency with both the scientific and pseudo-scientific gusts of information that blow through the Internet

Perhaps he’s getting a bad exchange rate when his piece crosses the border

Joe asserts:

“I subscribe to a large number…”

Well, reading his article lets the reader know what a “large number” of sundries he “subscribes to”

“[T]here is a conspiracy between “Big Pharma” and mainstream medicine to hide effective “natural” cancer cures from the public”

“Average” Joe mentions The Soviets, which is timely, since I have recently referred to Critics, Cynics, SkepTicks, The Skeptics™,
“#ScienceBasedMedicine” SkeptiCowards© as employing Soviet-style propaganda techniques; The Soviets apparently somehow had NOT managed to keep this crowning achievement from the West

“Average” Dr. Joe Show goes on to erupt:

“But you can take this to the bank

there is no conspiracy to keep cancer cures from the public

If you do want to look for a conspiracy, take a look at those who are trying to make a buck from promoting the notion that such a conspiracy exists”

what?! really? What??!! Really?? WHAT???!!! REALLY???

Hogwash!

Welcome to #MizTV and the #WhatFamily

Hey, Joe!

Explain THIS:
======================================
WikipediA or WikipediAin’t?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/wikipedia-or-wikipediaint/
======================================
Wikipedia, your Burzynski BIAS is showing:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/18/wikipedia-your-burzynski-bias-is-showing/
======================================
Wikipedia, you’ve sprung a Wiki Leak:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/wikipedia-youve-sprung-a-wiki-leak/
======================================
Wikipedia, do you serve up Mud Pies with your Wikipedia Lies ?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/31/wikipedia-do-you-serve-up-mud-pies-with-your-wikipedia-lies/
======================================
Forbes Learns a Lesson, but Not the Right One: Censorship and Bias re: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/05/forbes-learns-a-lesson-but-not-the-right-one-censorship-and-bias-re-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/
======================================
Is Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski Down and Out in Detroit and an Ethically Bankrupt Researcher ?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/23/is-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-down-and-out-in-detroit-and-an-ethically-bankrupt-researcher-2/
======================================
QUESTIONS the Critics and Cynics, “The Skeptics™” do NOT want to ANSWER:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/23/questions-the-critics-and-cynics-the-skeptics-do-not-want-to-answer/
======================================
@TheRock says: “Just Bring IT”
======================================
joe.schwarcz@mcgill.ca
Joe Schwarcz is director of McGill University’s Office for Science & Society (mcgill.ca/)

Critiquing: Peter “Head in Ditch” Bowditch @RatBags.com

Peter “Head in Ditch” Bowditch @RatBags.com is one of the SkepTicks, The Skeptics™ SkeptiCowards©, who, like Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski; of Wayne State University and Barbara Ann Kaplan Cancer Center / Institute in Detroit, Michigan “Fame” and Perfessor Robert J. (call me Bob) Blaskiewicz Blatherskitewicz Faux Skeptic Exposed! of University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire
“Fame” and Adam Jacobs of DianthusMed of Dianthus Medical Limited of London, United Kingdom “Fame” and @endless_psych and David James, et al., are too SkeptiCoward© to debate on-line or in person, but hide behind their keypads like a troll underneath a bridge
======================================
David James (@StortSkeptic) tweeted at 7:08pm – 1 Aug 13:

The new Doctor Who will be Stanislaw #Burzynski. He manages to continually avoid getting cornered and he gets away with murder.

——————————————————————
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 11:02pm – 1 Aug 13:

======================================
Funny how Gorski who posted this on his blog:
——————————————————————
Twitter

Gorski mentions an individual who posted tweets:
——————————————————————
“I will call you out publicly”
——————————————————————
“appears to be just a money laundry for a lying quack fraud”
——————————————————————
and:
——————————————————————
“when Laura dies #Burzynski will just move on to his next mark if she doesn’t run out of money first”
——————————————————————
BurzynskiSaves (@BurzynskiSaves) tweeted at 7:42pm – 25 Dec 11:

“@RatbagsDotCom:They will be even more vulnerable when Laura dies and #Burzynski forgets her and moves on to the next mark” #unconscionable https://twitter.com/BurzynskiSaves/status/151115741888909312
——————————————————————
Gee, willikers!

Is that YOU, Peter Bowditch (also known as HeadInDitch)?
@RatbagsDotCom

——————————————————————
But instead of calling someone out for being a twit and twitting:
——————————————————————
“Stanislaw #Burzynski. He manages to continually avoid getting cornered and he gets away with murder.”
——————————————————————
he simply twits back to them like the HACK he is
======================================
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/
======================================
You probably will NOT see that any of them have posted any comments to my blog anytime in the near future, because as has been stated before on #Forbes, The Skeptics™ want to control any debate, which is why the above type individuals block individuals like me from posting to their blogs, because they want their questions answered, but they do NOT want that type of dialogue to be the proverbial ““Two-Way Street”
======================================
Forbes Learns a Lesson, but Not the Right One: Censorship and Bias re: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics;
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/05/forbes-learns-a-lesson-but-not-the-right-one-censorship-and-bias-re-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/
======================================
For instance, they want to be able to post their Soviet-styled Dezinformatsiya without being held accountable for the veracity of the information on their blogs, Twitter, and elsewhere on Al Gore’s Internet

The difference between The Skeptics™ and I is that I actually believe in and practice “Freedom of Speech” while they block people’s comments because they do NOT have “The Right Stuff” and they can’t handle the truth, thank you, Jack Nicholson

If Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski had to explain WHY all 33 of the patients in this phase II (2) clinical trial DIED, I am sure “Orac” is god could come up with plenty of excuses why traditional medicine did NOT save them, but if those patients had been Burzynski patients and lived, then Gorski would try to make a lot of excuses why the “standard of care” that did NOT save them, saved them if they were under Burzynski’s care
======================================
1/1/2005 (11/24/2004) – Role of temozolomide after radiotherapy for newly diagnosed diffuse BRAINSTEM GLIOMA in children:

results of a multiinstitutional study (SJHG-98)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15565574
Cancer. 2005 Jan 1;103(1):133-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15565574
Cancer 103, 133-139
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.20741/abstract;jsessionid=6717837591CCC8FCBD8E46163808E221.d03t01
Cancer
Volume 103, Issue 1, pages 133–139, 1 January 2005
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.20741/full
Article first published online: 24 NOV 2004
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.20741

Department of Hematology-Oncology, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA
——————————————————————
Hypocrites
======================================
Gorski defines a “CRANK” as someone who does better research than he does
——————————————————————
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 3:24am – 14 Jul 13:

@Funkmon @HoracioHornblow Ha ha. It’s the rather pathetic crank Didymus Judas Thomas. That guy couldn’t buy a clue. #Burzynski

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

The Lancet Oncology Peer Review Team D-12-01519: #FAIL

Eric Merola revealed in Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II (2), at (1:29:53), that The Lancet Oncology Peer Review Team D-12-01519, in 2 hours 8 minutes and 51 seconds, refused to publish Burzynski’s 11/26/2012 phase 2 clinical trial Progression-Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS) re patients 8 – 16 years after diagnosis, results
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/critiquing-in-which-the-latest-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-cure-is-reviewed-with-insolence-2/
Here is the “back story” involving the Critics, Cynics, “The Skeptics™”, SkeptiCowards©
======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 5:12pm – 20 Dec 12:

@drpaulmorgan @dianthusmed Pick a medical journal Paul…

======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 5:28pm – 20 Dec 12:

@BurzynskiMovie @dianthusmed 1. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2. The Lancet Oncology. 3. New England Journal of Medicine. (1/2)

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 4:26am – 16 Feb 13:

@dianthusmed @annacapunay #burzynski ask the Lancet, Adam.

======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
John (@JohnDaily15) tweeted at 1:18pm – 16 Feb 13:

@BurzynskiMovie @dianthusmed @annacapunay if u want 2 see burzynski published data then ask the Lancet to pull their socks up @endless psych
https://twitter.com/JohnDaily15/status/303047378246705153
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 1:54pm – 17 Feb 13:

@SceptiGuy @sdmack Asked the Lancet yet Guy? #burzynski

======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 2:32pm – 18 Feb 13:

@gorskon @mrhawkes @BurzynskiSaves Ask the Lancet why it is not published, Gorski.

======================================
THE #Burzynski TWITTER WAR (#TwitterWar)
======================================
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 3:45pm – 20 Dec 12:

——————————————————————
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 4:30pm – 20 Dec 12:

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:32pm – 20 Dec 12:

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:33pm – 20 Dec 12:

@drpaulmorgan Maybe if we tell him name of a good journal, he’ll pretend #burzynski published in it in his next movie?

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Alan Henness (@zeno001) tweeted at 4:33pm – 20 Dec 12:

——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:34pm – 20 Dec 12:

——————————————————————
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 4:37pm – 20 Dec 12:

——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:39pm – 20 Dec 12:

——————————————————————
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 4:40pm – 20 Dec 12:

——————————————————————
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Burzynski: Japan publications:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/burzynski-japan/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Burzynski and AACR (American Association for Cancer Research):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/burzynski-and-aacr-american-association-for-cancer-research/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:41pm – 20 Dec 12:

======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 5:12pm – 20 Dec 12:

@drpaulmorgan @dianthusmed Pick a medical journal Paul…

======================================
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 5:28pm – 20 Dec 12:

@BurzynskiMovie @dianthusmed 1. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2. The Lancet Oncology. 3. New England Journal of Medicine. (1/2)

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 5:31pm – 20 Dec 12:

——————————————————————
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 5:32pm – 20 Dec 12:

——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 2:46am – 16 Feb 13:

======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 4:26am – 16 Feb 13:

@dianthusmed @annacapunay #burzynski ask the Lancet, Adam.

======================================
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:59am – 16 Feb 13:

@BurzynskiMovie And why, pray tell, do you think the Lancet would know about #burzynski’s trials? Are you claiming he submitted there?

——————————————————————
Phil Harris (@Phil_Harris10) tweeted at 8:33am – 16 Feb 13:

@dianthusmed @annacapunay BurzynskiMovie Please explain why you refer to ‘The Lancet’ for info on #burzynski studies?

——————————————————————
Phil Harris (@Phil_Harris10) tweeted at 8:44am – 16 Feb 13:

@dianthusmed @BurzynskiMovie @annacapunay Can’t see any positive reference to #burzynski in the Lancet. What’s their point

——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 8:54am – 16 Feb 13:

@Phil_Harris10 I’m guessing @BurzynskiMovie thinks if he says #burzynski’s published in the Lancet, the fanbois will just believe it

——————————————————————
MedTek (@medtek) tweeted at 9:17am – 16 Feb 13:

@dianthusmed @Phil_Harris10 I suspect @BurzynskiMovie is saying that the Lancet has refused to publish #burzynski?

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
John (@JohnDaily15) tweeted at 1:18pm – 16 Feb 13:

@BurzynskiMovie @dianthusmed @annacapunay if u want 2 see burzynski published data then ask the Lancet to pull their socks up @endless psych
https://twitter.com/JohnDaily15/status/303047378246705153
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Steve Mack (@sdmack) tweeted at 6:32am – 17 Feb 13:

——————————————————————
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 6:41am – 17 Feb 13:

——————————————————————
Steve Mack (@sdmack) tweeted at 7:42am – 17 Feb 13:

——————————————————————
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 9:24am – 17 Feb 13: .

======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 1:54pm – 17 Feb 13:

@SceptiGuy @sdmack Asked the Lancet yet Guy? #burzynski

======================================
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:28pm – 17 Feb 13:

@BurzynskiMovie If #Burzynski’s reference style is “have you asked the Lancet yet?” that might explain why he his publications are rejected

——————————————————————
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:30pm – 17 Feb 13:

——————————————————————
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:35pm – 17 Feb 13:

——————————————————————
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:37pm – 17 Feb 13:

——————————————————————
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:44pm – 17 Feb 13:

——————————————————————
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 1:05pm – 18 Feb 13:

——————————————————————
BurzynskiSaves (@BurzynskiSaves) tweeted at 1:24pm – 18 Feb 13:

——————————————————————
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 2:11pm – 18 Feb 13:

——————————————————————
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 2:15pm – 18 Feb 13:

——————————————————————
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 2:16pm – 18 Feb 13:

——————————————————————
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 2:30pm – 18 Feb 13:

======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 2:32pm – 18 Feb 13:

@gorskon @mrhawkes @BurzynskiSaves Ask the Lancet why it is not published, Gorski.

======================================
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:32pm – 18 Feb 13:

——————————————————————
THE #Burzynski TWITTER WAR (#TwitterWar)
——————————————————————
Alan Henness @zeno001
Phil Harris @Phil_Harris10
Keir Liddle @endless psych
Guy Chapman @SceptiGuy
Adam Jacobs Dianthus Medical @dianthusmed
Dr. Paul Morgan @drpaulmorgan
MedTek @medtek
Dr. David H. Gorski (@gorskon)

——————————————————————
The majority of the above twits have tweeted on Twitter since the movie was available, and NONE of them have the “testicular fortitude” to provide a reason that The Lancet’s excuse for NOT publishing, is acceptable, including Dr. Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan), who suggested The Lancet

Eric Merola:

“All I can say to everyone reading this:”

“Think for yourself”

“Question everything, including me and my films”

@JoeRogan,

Question THIS!!!

“Joe Rogan Questions Everything”

@SyFy
======================================
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 4:30pm – 20 Dec 12:
@dianthusmed Neither claim having any evidence to support them. #Burzynski
——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:32pm – 20 Dec 12:
@drpaulmorgan I’d still love to know why @BurzynskiMovie is asking about journals. Guess we’ll have to wait until he’s asked his boss
——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:33pm – 20 Dec 12:
@drpaulmorgan Maybe if we tell him name of a good journal, he’ll pretend #burzynski published in it in his next movie?
——————————————————————
Alan Henness (@zeno001) tweeted at 4:33pm – 20 Dec 12:
@dianthusmed @drpaulmorgan @BurzynskiMovie That might take a while…
——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:34pm – 20 Dec 12:
@zeno001 @drpaulmorgan @BurzynskiMovie Yeah. Well, I’m certainly not holding my breath
——————————————————————
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 4:37pm – 20 Dec 12:
@dianthusmed @BurzynskiMovie I think it’s just obfuscation.
——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:39pm – 20 Dec 12:
@drpaulmorgan @BurzynskiMovie Yes, very likely. All designed to distract from important stuff on #burzynski, like bit.ly/vbUfgo
——————————————————————
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 4:40pm – 20 Dec 12:
@dianthusmed Like all those registered* Japanese trials? #Burzynski
*not registered anywhere
——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:41pm – 20 Dec 12:
@drpaulmorgan If by “registered”, you mean “fictitious”, then yes, exactly like that #burzynski
======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 5:12pm – 20 Dec 12:
@drpaulmorgan @dianthusmed Pick a medical journal Paul…
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 5:28pm – 20 Dec 12:
@BurzynskiMovie @dianthusmed 1. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2. The Lancet Oncology. 3. New England Journal of Medicine. (1/2)
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 5:32pm – 20 Dec 12:
@BurzynskiMovie @dianthusmed Do you want me to go on? How about #Burzynski picks from this list impactfactor.weebly.com/oncology.html
——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 2:46am – 16 Feb 13:
@annacapunay I see you’re supporting #burzynski. Can you explain why he won’t publish his data? 61 trials registered, none published. Why?
======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 4:26am – 16 Feb 13:
@dianthusmed @annacapunay #burzynski ask the Lancet, Adam.
======================================
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 4:59am – 16 Feb 13:
@BurzynskiMovie And why, pray tell, do you think the Lancet would know about #burzynski’s trials? Are you claiming he submitted there?
——————————————————————
Phil Harris (@Phil_Harris10) tweeted at 8:33am – 16 Feb 13:
@dianthusmed @annacapunay BurzynskiMovie Please explain why you refer to ‘The Lancet’ for info on #burzynski studies?
——————————————————————
Phil Harris (@Phil_Harris10) tweeted at 8:44am – 16 Feb 13:
@dianthusmed @BurzynskiMovie @annacapunay Can’t see any positive reference to #burzynski in the Lancet. What’s their point
——————————————————————
Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 8:54am – 16 Feb 13:
@Phil_Harris10 I’m guessing @BurzynskiMovie thinks if he says #burzynski’s published in the Lancet, the fanbois will just believe it
——————————————————————
MedTek (@medtek) tweeted at 9:17am – 16 Feb 13:
@dianthusmed @Phil_Harris10 I suspect @BurzynskiMovie is saying that the Lancet has refused to publish #burzynski?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
John (@JohnDaily15) tweeted at 1:18pm – 16 Feb 13:
@BurzynskiMovie @dianthusmed @annacapunay if u want 2 see burzynski published data then ask the Lancet to pull their socks up @endless psych
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Steve Mack (@sdmack) tweeted at 6:32am – 17 Feb 13:
2013 – Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II (Feb 16, 2013 Trai…: youtu.be/wGJpDNrcSEo via @YouTube
——————————————————————
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 6:41am – 17 Feb 13:
@sdmack Extended paean to a man who has conducted over 60 trials and published none, then wonders why the medical world does not believe him
——————————————————————
Steve Mack (@sdmack) tweeted at 7:42am – 17 Feb 13:
@SceptiGuy
——————————————————————
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 9:24am – 17 Feb 13:
@sdmack Point refuted a thousand times. Most are conference proceedings or not peer reviewed. No credible per-reviewed #Burzynski pubs.
======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 1:54pm – 17 Feb 13:
@SceptiGuy @sdmack Asked the Lancet yet Guy? #burzynski
======================================
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:28pm – 17 Feb 13:
@BurzynskiMovie If #Burzynski’s reference style is “have you asked the Lancet yet?” that might explain why he his publications are rejected
——————————————————————
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:30pm – 17 Feb 13:
@BurzynskiMovie ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=(…+”Lancet”[Journal]
——————————————————————
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:35pm – 17 Feb 13:
@BurzynskiMovie Obviously you don’t mean ow.ly/hNgfB as it is in no way an endorsement of #Burzynski or his methods.
——————————————————————
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:37pm – 17 Feb 13:
@BurzynskiMovie You probably meant this extremely well argued piece: ow.ly/hNgla – directly relevant to #Burzynski.
——————————————————————
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy) tweeted at 2:44pm – 17 Feb 13:
@dianthusmed @Phil_Harris10 @drpaulmorgan @medtek ow.ly/hNgE1 (not a study, an editorial, makes no claim to judgment re validity)
——————————————————————
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 1:05pm – 18 Feb 13:
Most abstracts submitted to conferences get a poster presentation. Were #burzynski abstracts for talks? I doubt it. @SceptiGuy @sdmack
——————————————————————
BurzynskiSaves (@BurzynskiSaves) tweeted at 1:24pm – 18 Feb 13:
@gorskon So there’s no peer-reviewed literature by #Burzynski in this list?Please say yes.. please say yes.. burzynskiclinic.com/publications.h… @sdmack
——————————————————————
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 2:11pm – 18 Feb 13:
@gorskon @SceptiGuy @sdmack Yes, many were (ex: Neuro-Oncology). You’d know that if you understood definition of *research*. #burzynski
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 2:16pm – 18 Feb 13:
——————————————————————
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 2:15pm – 18 Feb 13:
Funny, @BurzynskiMovie, but many of those #burzynski “studies” don’t show up on searches of PubMed. Not a good sign. @SceptiGuy @sdmack
——————————————————————
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 2:16pm – 18 Feb 13:
Funny, but no one I know ever said that #burzynski has “no” peer-reviewed studies. Learn to read, @BurzynskiSaves. @sdmack
——————————————————————
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 2:30pm – 18 Feb 13:
It’s easy for #burzynski to shut his critics up: Publish the data and show that it supports ANPs! @mrhawkes @BurzynskiSaves @BurzynskiMovie
======================================
Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) tweeted at 2:32pm – 18 Feb 13:
@gorskon @mrhawkes @BurzynskiSaves Ask the Lancet why it is not published, Gorski.
======================================

Critiquing: In which Orac does Stanislaw Burzynski propagandist Eric Merola a favor…

“Orac” / Dr. David H. Gorski posted his lame 6/3/2013 excuse for a review of Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II (2), and I critiqued it:

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/
7/17/2013 Gorski pushed out his “best” effort:

In which Orac does Stanislaw Burzynski propagandist Eric Merola a favor…
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/07/17/in-which-orac-does-stanislaw-burzynski-propagandist-eric-merola-a-favor/
After my Epic Sharknado Deconstruction of “Orac’s” “review,” I thought it only fair to continue the feeding frenzy with a Burzynski Texas Tornado

Believe it or not, I’m going to do “Dr.” Gorski (who particularly likes me, to the point of thinking, apparently, that I’m a white research supremacist) a favor

“Dr.” Gorski, as you recall, is a supposed “Doctor,” oncologist, breast cancer specialist, cancer (cough-cough) “researcher” who was responsible for two dubious propaganda reviews about documentary films which Eric Merola made re: Stanislaw Burzynski, the cancer doctor who has used “antineoplastons” to treat cancer without having published any final clinical trial evidence that they do what he claims, since his 1st completed phase II (2) clinical trial in 2009

However, no worries

M. D. Anderson did a clinical trial in 2006 and did NOT publish the final results until 6-7 years later, 2/13/2013

Based on that criteria, Burzynski has until 2016-2017 to publish

Back in 2010, Merola released the first of a dynamic duo of films, the first of which was called Burzynski The Movie: Cancer Is A Serious Business (as Gorski likes to call it, by adding an “A” in the title)

The sequel, the slightly less pretentiously titled Burzynski: Cancer Is A Serious Business, Part 2 (as Gorski again likes to call it with the “A”), was then released June 1 on various pay-per-view modes

As has been pointed out, it’s better than the first, and it features direct attacks on The Skeptics™, or SkeptiCowards©, if you will, who had the temerity to criticize Burzynski and Merola over the last couple of years with their school-yard bully attacks, NOT having the intestinal testicular fortitude to back up their claims with any citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) in support of their blatherskite, which they found worthy enough to defend on my blog

Merola is apparently trying to recreate the success of his previous strategy, which involved letting people watch the movie online for free for limited periods of time on websites like Mercola.com

I link directly to the Mercola.com link to the second Burzynski movie, because I want to give Mercola more Google juice than he already has

The movie was, however, on Vimeo until July 20:

BURZYNSKI: CANCER IS SERIOUS BUSINESS, PART II (2013) from BurzynskiMovie on Vimeo
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/07/13/burzynski-cancer-film.aspx
If you want to see what the fuss was about and whether my criticisms of The Skeptics™, or SkeptiCowards©, were valid, now’s your chance

If you want to see the highlighted attack on The Skeptics™ SkeptiCowards©, it begins around 1:19 h into the movie

Yes, I’m encouraging you to watch Burzynski 2

It’s a beautiful example of all the things that Gorski tried to inculcate #TAM2013 attendees against

Indeed, dissecting this magnum opus is an excellent way to teach oneself critical thinking, much as dissecting creationist tripe is

Unfortunately, Gorski is unable to do this, because individuals like me, exist and will NOT let him get away with his disingenuous hack attacks

Other key points include:

Laura Hymas interview and the recording of her discussion with her oncologist (approximately 0:28 h in)

This section is horrifying (to Gorski, at least) to watch, as he can’t help but feel how dicey and ethical the situation that poor UK NHS oncologist found himself in with Hymas and her family demanding that he help her be part of one of Burzynski’s “clinical trials” by agreeing to be the local physician and agreeing to order various scans

The end of the story of Amelia Saunders (approximately 0:58 h in)

This is one where Merola caused Gorski true revulsion, as he basically implied that Amelia died because her parents took her off the antineoplastons

Or you can read what Eric Merola REALLY posted on Twitter:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/18/fact-checking-httpthehoustoncancerquack-com/
Hideaki Tsuda’s clinical trial (approximately 1:31 h in)

Gorski wonders why he hasn’t yet published, just like he wonders why Burzynski hasn’t published, but Gorski, SkeptiCoward© that he is, can NOT seem to explain why The Lancet Oncology Peer Review Team D-12-01519 refused to publish Burzynski’s 11/26/2012 (1:29:53) phase 2 clinical trial Progression-Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS) re patients 8 – 16 years after diagnosis, results

Those of you who watch it, let Gorski know what you think

Those of you who can only watch part of it, let Gorski know what you think of that section

Remember, though, Gorski will BLOCK you if you question HIS infallibility, because he and his “Oracolytes” would rather comment on things that have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Burzynski, like:

“it is possible to link without boosting google rankings through the “no-follow command”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nofollow I learned about this from Bob Blaskiewicz, who proposed that we use this when linking to dubious websites in our posts”

Gorski makes unreliable excuses for NOT doing research re Burzynski, so I did it for him

Burzynski: Complete Response, Partial Response, Stable Disease, Progressive Disease, Objective Response, and Response:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/04/burzynski-complete-response-partial-response-stable-disease-progressive-disease-objective-response-and-response/
Burzynski: Progression-Free Survival (PFS):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/04/burzynski-progression-free-survival/
Antineoplastons: Adverse Effects:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/antineoplastons-adverse-effects/
Burzynski: Acknowledgements, Authors, and Co-Investigators:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/03/burzynski-acknowledgements/
Burzynski: Institutional Review Board (IRB):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/burzynski-institutional-review-board-irb/
And because Gorski and others do NOT seem to understand how antineoplastons (ANP) A10 (Atengenal) and AS2-1 (Astugenal) work, I provide the relevant Burzynski publications and page #’s for them to review:
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/scientific-publications.html
======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials
16. 2003 (BT-11)
Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma: a preliminary report.
DRUGS IN R&D
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12718563
Drugs in R and D
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12718563
(Drugs in Research and Development)
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/960.pdf
Drugs R D. 2003;4(2):91-101
Drugs in R&D 2003;4:91-101

Pg. 92
Antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 are synthetic derivatives of phenylacetate (PN) acid, glutamine and isoglutamine

A10 is sterile solution of sodium phenylacetylisoglutiminate (isoPG) in 4 : 1 ratio

Antineoplaston AS2-1 is sterile solution of sodium phenylacetate (PN) and phenylacetylglutaminate (PG) in 4 : 1 ratio

Pg. 97
Discussion
Pg. 99

======================================
Review Articles on Clinical Trials:
1. 3/2004
The Present State of Antineoplaston Research
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/994.pdf
Integrative Cancer Therapies 2004;3:47-58
Volume 3, No. 1, March 2004
DOI: 10.1177/1534735-403261964
Volume 3 Number 1 March 2004

Pg. 47
Pg. 48
Mechanism of Action of Antineoplaston
Pg. 49
Pg. 50

The reason for 50% Progressive Disease (PD) in studies is long dose-escalation process, which extends to more than a month’s time period, before the optimal dosage is reached

Pg. 56
Conclusion

======================================
Case Reports:
4. 9/2004 (Special Exception (SE) to BT-11 Study (ST))
Long-term survival and complete response of a patient with recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioblastoma multiforme
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1145.pdf
Integrative Cancer Therapies 2004;3:257-261
Volume 3, Number 3 September 2004
DOI: 10.1177/1534735404267748

Pgs. 257-258
Pg. 260
Discussion
Pg. 261

======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
2. 10/2004
Phase II study of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in recurrent glioblastoma multiforme
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1218.pdf
Neuro-Oncology. 2004; 6: 384
Volume 6 Issue 4 October 2004
Abstracts from the Society for Neuro-Oncology Ninth Annual Meeting, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, November 18-21, 2004

Pg. 385
======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
3. 10/2004 (Study (ST) and Special Exception (SE))
Long-term survivals in phase II studies of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in patients with diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1219.pdf
Neuro-Oncology. 2004; 6: 386
Volume 6 Issue 4 October 2004

Antineoplastons (ANP) consist of 3 active ingredients including sodium salts of phenylacetylglutamine (PG), phenylacetylisoglutimine (isoPG), and phenylacetic acid (PN)

Preclinical data supports that the mechanism of antineoplastic activity in DBSG, involves interruption of signal transmission in the RAS, (PN) AKT2, and TGFB1 (PG) pathways, activation of p53 and p21 tumor suppressor genes (PN) and apoptosis (PG and isoPG)

======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
17. 2004 (BT-13 and BT-23)
Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in children with recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma :
a preliminary report
DRUGS IN R&D
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15563234
Drugs in R and D
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15563234
(Drugs in Research and Development)
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1194.pdf
Drugs R D. 2004;5(6):315-26
Drugs R&D 2004;5(6):315-326.

Pg. 316
Pg. 324
Discussion

======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
18. 6/2005 (CAN-01 and BT-12)
Burzynski, S.R., Weaver, R.A., Janicki, T., Szymkowski, B., Jurida, G., Khan, M., Dolgopolov, V.
Long-term survival of high-risk pediatric patients with primitive neuroectodermal tumors treated with Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15911929
Integr Cancer Ther. 2005 Jun;4(2):168-77
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15911929
Integrative Cancer Therapies 2005;4(2):168-177
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1220.pdf
DOI: 10.1177/1534735405276835
http://m.ict.sagepub.com/content/4/2/168.long?view=long&pmid=15911929
Volume 4 Number 2 June 2005

Pg. 168
Pg. 174
Discussion
Pgs. 175-176

======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
19. 3/2006 (BT-03, BT-11, BT-18, and CAN-01)
Targeted therapy with Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 of high grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem glioma.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16484713
Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Mar;5(1):40-7
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16484713
Integrative Cancer Therapies 2006;5(1):40-47
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/5825.pdf
DOI: 10.1177/1534735405285380
http://m.ict.sagepub.com/content/5/1/40.long?view=long&pmid=16484713

Pgs. 40-41
Pg. 46
Discussion
Conclusion

======================================
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:
8. 10/2006
Treatment of multicentric brainstem gliomas with antineoplastons (ANP) A10 and AS2-1.
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/2105.pdf
Neuro-Oncology. 2006; 8:466.
Volume 8 Issue 4 October 2006
Abstracts for the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO)

Pg. 466
Antineoplastons (ANP) are synthetic analogues of naturally occurring phenylacetylglutamine (PG), phenylacetylisoglutimine (isoPG), and phenylacetate (PN)

======================================
Review Articles on Clinical Trials:
3. 12/2007
Recent clinical trials in diffuse intrinsic brainstem glioma. Cancer Therapy 2007; 5, 379-390.
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/5692.pdf
Review Article
Cancer Therapy Vol 5, 379-390, 2007
http://www.cancer-therapy.org/CT/v5/B/HTML/42._Burzynski,_379-390.html
Volume 5 Number 2 December, 2007

Pg. 381
Pg. 384
E. Multitargeted therapy

======================================
Interim Reports on Clinical Trials:
11. 10/2008
(BT-8 – PATIENTS WITH ANAPLASTIC ASTROCYTOMA)
(BT-15 – ADULT PATIENTS WITH ANAPLASTIC ASTROCYTOMA)
Phase II study of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in patients with newly diagnosed anaplastic astrocytoma:
A preliminary report
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/7853.pdf
Volume 10 Issue 5 October 2008
Neuro-Oncology 2008; 10:821
Abstracts for the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Society for Neuro-Oncology, November 20-23, 2008

Pg. 821

Antineoplastons (ANP) are synthetic analogs of naturally occurring phenylacetylglutamine (PG), phenylacetylisoglutimine (isoPG), and phenylacetate (PN)

Antineoplastons (ANP) is a multi-targeted therapy affecting signal transduction, the cell cycle, the TCA cycle, and apoptosis

======================================
Interim Reports on Clinical Trials:
12. 12/2008
(BT-8 – PATIENTS WITH ANAPLASTIC ASTROCYTOMA)
(BT-15 – ADULT PATIENTS WITH ANAPLASTIC ASTROCYTOMA)
Phase II study of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 infusions (ANP) in patients with recurrent anaplastic astrocytoma
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/7898.pdf
Neuro-Oncology 2008; 10:1067
Volume 10 Issue 6 December 2008
Abstracts for the Eighth Congress of the European Association for Neuro-Oncology (EANO), Sept. 12-14, 2008, Barcelona, Spain

Antineoplastons (ANP) affects multiple targets, and its components have different mechanisms of action

A10 interferes with signaling in the AKT2 and MYCC pathways, blocks expression of TGFB1, activates the PTEN and MAD tumor suppressor genes, and normalizes nuclear transport by decreasing the expression of RANBP1, which may restore the activity of the mutated INI protein

AS2-1 interferes with signal transmission in the RAS and BCL2 pathways and activates expression of the tumor suppressors TP53 and p21

======================================
Case Reports:
1. 12/2009 (BT-11 Special Exception (SE))
Over a 10-year survival and complete response of a patient with diffuse intrinsic brainstem glioma (DBSG) treated with antineoplastons (ANP).
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/8638.pdf
Neuro-Oncology 2009; 11:923.
Volume 11 Issue 6 December 2009
Abstracts from the Third Quadrennial Meeting of the World Federation of Neuro-Oncology (WFNO) and the Sixth Meeting of the Asian Society for Neuro-Oncology (ASNO), May 11-14, 2009, Yokohama, Japan

Antineoplastons (ANP) is a multi-targeted therapy that is well tolerated with minimal and reversible adverse events and has multiple different mechanisms of action by affecting the AKT, RAS, TP53, p21, and PTEN pathways
======================================

QUESTIONS the Critics and Cynics, “The Skeptics™” do NOT want to ANSWER

1. One “Orac” (Dr. David H. Gorski @oracknows @sciencebasedmed @gorskon #sciencebasedmedicine
http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org)
claimed:


“Burzynski naturally has lots of excuses for why the trial failed and tried to blame the investigators, but his complaints are not convincing.”

When I requested that he respond to Burzynski’s comments re the study, he would NOT touch it with the proverbial ZZ Top

“Ten-Foot Pole”

What Critic, Cynic, or one of “The Skeptics™” is going to show more Bravery and Courage than “Orac”?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
2. If antineoplastons do NOT work, why, after Dvorit D. SAMID learned of them from Burzynski, did all the research, clinical studies, and phase I, phase II, and phase III clinical trials really start to get underway on
PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINATE (PAG or PG)
PHENYLACETATE (PN)

and
PHENYLBUTYRATE (PB)?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
3. This individual claims to be a “cancer researcher”

If this individual’s “research” is so poor as a “cancer researcher,” what does that say about “research” re the “War on Cancer”?

My review of C0nc0rdance:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/23/my-review-of-c0nc0rdance/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
4. This individual claims to be a “Doctor,” “oncologist,” “breast cancer specialist,” and “cancer researcher”

If this individual’s “research” is so poor as a “cancer researcher,” what does that say about “research” re the “War on Cancer”?

Paging Doctor David H. Gorski, Paging Doctor David H. Gorski: There’s Mud in your Ears … Doktor Gorski?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/28/paging-doctor-david-h-gorski-paging-doctor-david-h-gorski-theres-mud-in-your-ears-doktor-gorski/
He did NOT even refer to the below publication by Burzynski regarding “Treatment of Recurrent Triple-Negative Breast Cancer:”

8/2011 – Successful Treatment of Recurrent Triple-Negative Breast Cancer with Combination of Targeted Therapies
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownload.aspx?DOI=10.4236/jct.2011.23050
Journal of Cancer Therapy, 2011, 2, 372-376
doi:10.4236/jct.2011.23050 Published Online August 2011
(http://www.SciRP.org/journal/jct)
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
5. Critics, Cynics, “The Skeptics™” state that Burzynski is NOT an oncologist, but can offer no explanation as to why this is supposedly “relevant,” they cannot explain if oncologists are somehow “better” than biochemists, nor do they want to answer the question:

“Does Burzynski work with any oncologists, and are any of them listed on his phase II clinical trial publications”?

http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/scientific-publications.html
Interim Reports on Clinial Trials:

16. 2003

DRUGS IN R&D
Drugs in R and D
(Drugs in Research and Development)

BT-11

BRAIN STEM GLIOMA

Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic BRAIN STEM GLIOMA:

a preliminary report.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12718563
Burzynski, S.R.
Lewy, R.I.
Weaver, R.A.
Axler, M.L.
Janicki, T.J.
Jurida, G.F.
Paszkowiak, J.K.
Szymkowski, B.G.
Khan, M.I.
Bestak, M.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12718563
Drugs R D. 2003;4(2):91-101
Drugs in R&D 2003;4:91-101
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/960.pdf
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
6. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) Panorama program indicated that 776 Burzynski patients with brain tumours were treated in trials before 2008
http://t.co/nFpwlQg275
15.5% (120) survived more than 5 years

Critics, Cynics, “The Skeptics™”, what’s your survival rate?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
7. March 29, 1996

Then United States Food and Drug Administration Commissioner, David A. Kessler told the American people:

1. We will eliminate unnecessary paperwork … that used to delay or discourage … cancer research … by non-commercial clinical investigators

2. The … FDA’s initiatives … will allow …the agency … to rely on smaller trialsfewer patients … if there is evidence … of partial response in clinical trials

I don’t want to get into any particular … agent … except let me point out … that … the information needs to be part … of clinical trials

3. We will accept … less information … up front –

4. we’re going to require further study AFTERapproval … because the science … has matured

5. The important – point … is that information needs to be gathered … through scientific means … through clinical – trials … and I think – that’s … that’s very important uhh very … important point

You can’t … just … use an agent here – or there … you have to use it … as part of a clinical trial … so we can get information … on whether the drug works

6. The uhh agency has … many … trials … has has approved trials … for patients … with antineoplastons

7. We are committed to providing expanded accessavailabilityfor American patients for any drugthere’s reason to believemay work
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/antineoplastons-has-the-fda-kept-its-promise-to-the-american-people
——————————————————————
A. What is the FDA’s definition of “unnecessary paperwork”?

B. What is the FDA’s definition of “smaller trials”?

C. What is the FDA’s definition of “fewer patients”?

D. What is the FDA’s definition of “evidence … of partial response“?

E. What is the FDA’s definition of “less information … up front”?

F. What is the FDA’s definition of “we’re going to require further study AFTER … approval”?

G. What is the FDA’s definition of “We are committed to providing expanded access … availability … for American patients for any drug … there’s reason to believe … may work”?

https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/what-is-misdirection-critiquing-antineoplastons-has-the-fda-kept-its-promise-to-the-american-people/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
8. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) Panorama program indicated that 776 Burzynski patients with brain tumours were treated in trials before 2008
http://t.co/nFpwlQg275
Is that what the FDA means by:

rely on … fewer patients?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
9. 4/27/2013 (37:20) Fabio stated that
Burzynski had provided the FDA with 2.5 million pages of clinical trial documents

Is that what the FDA means by:

“unnecessary paperwork”?

and

“less information … up front”?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
10. Is this what the FDA means by:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/what-is-misdirection-critiquing-antineoplastons-has-the-fda-kept-its-promise-to-the-american-people/
if there is evidence … of partial response in clinical trials?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
11. Why was the United States Food and Drug Administration requiring that radiation be used in the Phase 3 Clinical Trial when Burzynski has shown better results with antineoplastons when radiation is NOT used?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
12. Who wants to defend the excuse that The Lancet gave for NOT Publishing the documentation which Burzynski sent to them, which is referred to in Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business, Part II?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
13. Review Articles on Clinical Trials: 2. 2006 – Treatments for Astrocytic Tumors in Children: Current and Emerging Strategies. Pediatric Drugs 2006;8:167-178.
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/1252.pdf
2006 Adis – Pediatr Drugs 2006; 8 (3)

pg 174

2.3. Targeted Therapy

1652 adults
335 children
[147]


indicates 1,799 Burzynski patients

Is that what the FDA means by:

rely on … fewer patients?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
13. The FDA approved phase III (3) clinical trials for Antineoplastons A10 (Atengenal) and AS2-1 (Astugenal); which means that they have shown evidence of effectiveness, yet they have NOT granted Accelerated Approval for them, even though they have done so for other treatments which had NOT yet published the final results of phase II (2) clinical trials, and which did NOT have as good Complete Response, Partial Response, Stable Disease, Minor Response, Progressive Disease, Objective Response, Progression-Free Survival, etc., rates:

Burzynski: Why has the FDA NOT granted Accelerated Approval for Antineoplastons A10 (Atengenal) and AS2-1 (Astugenal) ?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/burzynski-why-has-the-fda-not-granted-accelerated-approval-for-antineoplastons-a10-astengenal-and-as2-1-astugenal/

(Additional QUESTIONS being added)

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
References:

1.

Post #73 – Didymus Judas Thomas

At the Tu-Quack Center Oracles of Deny to Respond tree

1/30/2013

Post #52 – Orac

“You do realize that that means that the Mayo trial failed to find evidence of efficacy, just as I said, don’t you?”

“The default of a finding like that is that there is no evidence of efficacy, not that failure to have adequate numbers to show an effect means that there’s an effect there”

“If SRB wants to convince skeptics that his treatments work better than conventional therapy, let him publish the evidence in a peer-reviewed journal in a manner that it can be independently verified”

“Thus far, he has failed to do so.”

Orac, I thoroughly enjoyed; with a dismissive limp wrist, you posted:

“Burzynski naturally has lots of excuses for why the trial failed and tried to blame the investigators, but his complaints are not convincing.”
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/21/quoth-joe-mercola-i-love-me-some-burzynski-antineoplastons
Now, why don’t you tackle those ?’s?

1. “[T]he study tested a dosing regimen known to be ineffective.”

2. “[D]osages used in the study “were meant for the treatment of a single small lesion…”

3. “5 of the 6 evaluable patients had either multiple nodules or tumors larger than” said single small lesion.

4. “As the provider,” SRB “strongly suggested to the NCI that these patients receive a much higher dose, consistent with their greater tumor load.”

5. “[T]he study was closed when” SRB “insisted that the NCI either increase the dosage or inform the patients that the drug manufacturer believed that the treatment was unlikely to be effective at the dosages being used (letter to Dr M. Sznol, NCI, on 4/20/1995).”

6. “A review of the clinical data in the article … proves the validity of” SRB’s “position” per SRB

7. “Their study patients had extremely low plasma antineoplaston levels.”

8. SRB’s “phase 2 study dosage regimen produced plasma phenylacetylglutamine levels that are 35 times greater, phenylacetylisoglutamine levels 53 times greater, and phenylacetate levels 2 times greater than those reported…’”

9. “The clinical outcomes reported … based on their inadequate dosage schedule, differ dramatically from” SRB’s “phase 2 studies in which a higher dosage regimen was used.”

10. “They reported no tumor regression. In contrast, in 1 of” SRB’s “ongoing studies on protocol BT-9, 4 of 8 evaluable patients with astrocytoma had objective responses.’”

11. “The difference in outcomes is primarily due to the difference in dosage schedules,” per SRB

12. “Another factor that may have caused a lack of response in the study by … is that the duration of treatment was too brief.”

13. “Almost all the patients in their study received treatment for less than 30 days.”

14. “1 patient received only 9 days of treatment.”

15. “The current studies indicate that objective tumor responses are usually observed after 3 months of therapy.”

16. “An additional 8 months of treatment is usually needed to obtain a maximal therapeutic effect.”

17. “[A]mbiguities in the response evaluation and analysis in the article…”

a) “In 2 patients, tumor necrosis was attributed to “radionecrosis.””

b) “However, such an interpretation is clouded by the fact that antineoplaston-induced necrosis can be indistinguishable from radionecrosis.”

c) “Moreover, the analysis … could have highlighted the 2 patients with recurrent glioblastoma who survived for more than I year.”

d) “This is of interest because these patients typically have a life expectancy of 3 to 6 months.”

18. “It is regrettable that, at the time of the study … the sponsor, NCI, decided against the higher dosing regimen that I proposed and closed the study.”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/stanislaw-rajmund-burzynski-m-d-ph-d-and-freedom-of-speech/
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/
Post #85 – Orac – April 28, 2013

“Well, DJT tried to comment last night and got caught in the moderation trap.”

“I’m not letting DJT through.”

“He’s been banned for very good reason, and I will not rescind the ban.”
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/04/26/all-truth-comes-from-public-debate-a-corollary-to-crank-magnetism/
My below blog contained a copy of the comment I submitted to his blog:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/important-the-live-debate-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/
All Mr. Hinton would have to do is ask “Orac” to respond to my post 73 on his blog, and it would be all over, since “Orac” has adopted his “Hold the Mayo” attitude, and shows no indication that he would ever be brave enough to touch it with the proverbial ZZ Top

“Ten Foot Pole”

because he’s probably aware of what would happen if he did

One of “Orac’s” “Oracolytes” posted on Forbes (#Forbes):
onforb.es/11pwse9

http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW
“I already offered you a forum on a science blog to debate with a real respected surgical oncologist, with a guarantee that he never moderates the “debate”.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics
IMPORTANT: The live “debate”-A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/important-the-live-debate-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/
This is Dr. David H. Gorski’s blog

Dr. Gorski censored (blocked) my comments

We are supposed to believe that he’s now NOT going to block someone’s comments???
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/04/26/all-truth-comes-from-public-debate-a-corollary-to-crank-magnetism/
#66 – Didymus Judas Thomas

IMPORTANT: The live “debate”-A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics | Didymus Judas Thomas’ Hipocritical Oath Blog

April 27, 2013

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Seriously ? Gorski ? Let’s remember that it is YOU who would NOT answer my questions, and instead inacted your “Hold the Mayo” posture re post 73

Let’s review your

“deconstructed his “evidence” in depth before” claim

1/21/2013 Orac posted THIS blog:

“Quoth Joe Mercola:

I love me some Burzynski antineoplastons

Posted by Orac on January 21, 2013″

” … In particular, a multicenter phase II trial carried out by investigators at the Mayo Clinic was a big failure, with a median survival of 5.2 months in patients with anaplastic oligoastrocytoma, anaplastic astrocytoma, or glioblastoma multiforme that had recurred after radiation therapy”

“Burzynski naturally has lots of excuses for why the trial failed and tried to blame the investigators, but his complaints are not convincing”
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/21/quoth-joe-mercola-i-love-me-some-burzynski-antineoplastons
I challenged “Orac” about this and this reply was posted which included my point at the beginning of the reply:

1/29/2013

“An excellent explanation of how dubious Stanislaw Burzynski’s activities are”

Posted by Orac on January 28, 2013
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/28/an-excellent-explanation-of-how-dubious-stanislaw-burzynskis-activities-are
Post #52 – Orac

January 29, 2013

“CONCLUSION: Although we could not confirm any tumor regression in patients in this study, THE SMALL SAMPLE SIZE PRECLUDES DEFINITIVE CONCLUSIONS ABOUT TREATMENT EFFICACY.”

“You do realize that that means that the Mayo trial failed to find evidence of efficacy, just as I said, don’t you?”

“The default of a finding like that is that there is no evidence of efficacy, not that failure to have adequate numbers to show an effect means that there’s an effect there”

“If SRB wants to convince skeptics that his treatments work better than conventional therapy, let him publish the evidence in a peer-reviewed journal in a manner that it can be independently verified”

“Thus far, he has failed to do so”

I responded to Orac, quoting his reply at the beginning of my reply:

Post #73 – Didymus Judas Thomas

At the Tu-Quack Center Oracles of Deny to Respond tree

January 30, 2013

Post #52 – Orac

“You do realize that that means that the Mayo trial failed to find evidence of efficacy, just as I said, don’t you?”

“The default of a finding like that is that there is no evidence of efficacy, not that failure to have adequate numbers to show an effect means that there’s an effect there”

“If SRB wants to convince skeptics that his treatments work better than conventional therapy, let him publish the evidence in a peer-reviewed journal in a manner that it can be independently verified”

“Thus far, he has failed to do so”

Orac, I thoroughly enjoyed; with a dismissive limp wrist, you posted:

“Burzynski naturally has lots of excuses for why the trial failed and tried to blame the investigators, but his complaints are not convincing.”
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/21/quoth-joe-mercola-i-love-me-some-burzynski-antineoplastons
Now, why don’t you tackle those ?’s?

[SOURCE: Feb. 1999 Mayo Clinic Publication pg 2, 3 PDF]
http://burzynskimovie.com/images/stories/transcript/Documents/Feb99MayoClinicPubANP.pdf
2/1999 – A10 and AS2-1 – Phase II – Mayo Clinic Proceedings http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10069350
Phase II Study of Antineoplastons A10 (NSC 648539) and AS2-1 (NSC 620261) in Patients With Recurrent Glioma Objective:
http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)63835-4/fulltext
To assess the pharmacokinetics, toxicity, and efficacy of antineoplastons A10 (NSC 648539) and AS2-1 (NSC 620261)
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0025-6196(11)63835-4
Design:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025619611638354
We initiated a phase II trial in order to determine whether evidence of antitumor activity of A10 and AS2-1 could be documented
http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0025-6196/PIIS0025619611638354.pdf
Comment in Jun; 74 (6): 641-2
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2796.2003.01098.x/full
Mayo Clin Proc 74(2):9 (1999)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2796.2003.01098.x/references
1999 Elsevier Ltd.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1046/j.1365-2796.2003.01098.x/asset/j.1365-2796.2003.01098.x.pdf?v=1&t=hbs6xce2&s=3423e3cd1955667e8e8cdf33323faf0bd85b6a29
DOI: 10.4065/74.2.137
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1046/j.1365-2796.2003.01098.x/asset/j.1365-2796.2003.01098.x.pdf?v=1&t=hbrndkdf&s=e0af2d3bfb13841852d92a839d3a4932a5f4bb48
Mayo Clin Proc 1999; 74: 137–45

Burzynski responded by pointing out:

6/1999 – A10 and AS2-1 – SRB http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10377942
Efficacy of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1
S R Burzynski
Mayo Clin Proc 74 (6): 641-2 (1999),
Mayo Clin Proc. 1999 Jun; 74 (6): 641-2 Comment on Mayo Clin Proc. 1999 Feb; 74 (2): 137-45 PMID .10377942 Elsevier Science
http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)64143-8/fulltext
Mayo Clinic Proc. 1999; 74: 641–642 (letter) 74 (6): 641-2
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0025-6196(11)64143-8
Mayo Clin Proc 74 (6): 1 (1999), 1999 Elsevier Ltd.
http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0025-6196/PIIS0025619611641438.pdf
DOI: 10.4065/74.6.641

This was responded to:

6/1999 – Mayo Clin Proc 74(6):2 (1999), DOI: 10.4065/74.6.641-a
http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)64144-X/fulltext
Mayo Clinic Proceedings
Volume 74, Issue 6 , Pages 641-642, June 1999
http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0025-6196/PIIS002561961164144X.pdf
References:

1. SAMID D , Shack S, Sherman LT. Phenylacetate: a novel nontoxic inducer of tumor cell differentiation. Cancer Res . 1992; 52:1988–1992
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1372534/

http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/52/7/1988.abstract

http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/52/7/1988.full.pdf

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/52/7/1988
2. Danesi R, Nardini D, Basolo F, Del Tacca M, SAMID D . Myers CEo Phenylacetate inhibits protein isoprenylation and growth of the androgen-independent LNCaP prostate cancer cells transfected with the T24 Ha-ras oncogene. Mol Pharmacal. 1996; 49:972–979
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8649357/

http://m.molpharm.aspetjournals.org/content/49/6/972.long
3. Chang SM, Kuhn LG, Robins HI, et al. Phase II study of phenylacetate in patients with recurrent malignant glioma: a North American Brain Tumor Consortium report. J Clin Oneal. 1999; 17:984–990
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10071293/

http://m.jco.ascopubs.org/content/17/3/984.long
4. Thibault A, Cooper MR, Figg WD, et al. (SAMID D). A phase I and pharmacokinetic study of intravenous phenylacetate in patients with cancer. Cancer Res. 1994; 54:1690–1694
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8137283/

http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/7/1690.abstract

http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/7/1690.full.pdf

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/54/7/1690
PII: S0025-6196(11)64144-X

doi: 10.1016/S0025-6196(11)64144-X

1999 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research.
Elsevier Inc.

The above four (4) references in the response to Burzynski might be relevant if all that antineoplastons consisted of was phenylacetate

Phenylacetylglutaminate (PAG or PG) and Phenylacetate (PN) are metabolites of Phenylbutyrate (PB) and are constituents of antineoplaston AS2-1

Antineoplastons AS2-1 and AS2-5 are DERIVED FROM A10

AS2-1=4:1 mixture of PHENYLACETIC ACID (PA) and Phenylacetylglutamine (PAG or PG)

National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Antineoplastons
General Information:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/healthprofessional/page2
This is “what would happen” if “Orac” did have the “Bravery,” “Courage,” “Gumption,” “Intestinal Fortitude,” “Testicular Fortitude,” to address this issue:
http://burzynskimovie.com/images/stories/transcript/Documents/BurzynskiTriesToExposeNCI.pdf
Burzynski: Managing social conflict in complementary and alternative medicine research: the case of antineoplastons:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/burzynski-managing-social-conflict-in-complementary-and-alternative-medicine-research-the-case-of-antineoplastons/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
2.
Antineoplastons: Phenylacetylglutaminate (PG or PAG), Phenylacetate (PN), and Phenylbutyrate (PB):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/17/phenylacetylglutaminate-pg-or-pag-phenylacetate-pn-and-phenylbutyrate-pb/
Phenylacetylglutamine (PG or PAG):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/18/phenylacetylglutamine-pg-or-pag/
Phenylacetate (PN):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/18/phenylacetate-pn/
Phenylbutyrate (PB):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/18/phenylbutyrate-pb/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

The #Burzynski (B.S.) Bump Rap

Yo …

Let me tell you how it’s DONE

We don’t get paid to do IT

We just do it for FUN

We fact-check your SH*T

Until the morning SUN

We know we have you on the RUN

‘Cause you hide behind your keypad SON

We know your “C”-RAP

Because it came out from between your BUNS

And we “Smell What You’re COOKIN’”

And out it COMES

The same ol’ cr*p that rolls right off the tip of your TONGUE

Do you really believe your own HYPERBULL?

Or are you really that DUMB?

I KNOW, who I AM

I AM, Number ONE

I KNOW, who I AM

I don’t fit into your “Master Plan”

(Piss-Off)

I KNOW, who I AM

I AM Number ONE

I KNOW, who I AM

I AM, Number ONE

wiki-wiki-wiki

That’s right WIKIPEDIA

You’re NOT Number ONE

(I got HIS Number)

You threw your MUD

Then hid behind a Black-Hole SUN

You dished out your MUD-BATH

Did you think you had WON?

A Yellow-Journalism AWARD?

(THAT’s just Piss-Poor)

WikipedBiaS!

Did you say WikipediAin’t your SON?

Holy “C”-RAP!!

Did You See THAT!!!

All dressed up wearing your best CummerBUND

Did you think you could get away with thumbin’ your Nose at your own THUMB?

Dum, Dum Dum DUMB

Well here I COME

Like a little TRICKER-TREATER

Get outta here with your SCHTICK!!!

Oh NO, Here comes PETER

Yo, What’s THAT in his HAND?

I don’t think it’s a water METER

Maybe he caught another BOTTOM FEEDER!!!

Yo Yo Ma, I heard it was just another TWITTER TWEETER

Yo, Yo, Yo, YOU want “NEW” INSOLENCE?

I don’t need your “Cult” of “MUD”

“M”isinformation

“U”ndereducated

“D”isinformation

MIS-DIS-INFORMATION

Doctor DISSIMULATION

You’re the Metastasis of Misinformation

The scourge of a NATION

I heard you liked “HUSTLER”

Which explains your problem with Mental Master-Debation

Mel Brooks just called and said “HELLO BALLS”

But I heard your head was on VACATION

“You can’t handle the TRUTH”

If we got you on #MizTV

It’d be like: “really?, Really??, REALLY???”

YO

“You Can’t “C” Me”

You couldn’t handle an Epic Rap Battle of HIS-STORY

You’ve got delusions of “C”-Rappin’ with #Eminem on #MTV

Your #TedNugents #Nugents would be on display for the Whole World Wide Web to SEE

Maybe you should hurry up and run back home to your M-O-M-M-IEEE!!!

I KNOW, who I AM

I AM, Number ONE

I don’t fit into your “Master Plan”

I AM, Number ONE

(It’s better to be Pissed-OFF than Pissed-ON “little man”)

I KNOW, who I AM

I AM, Number ONE

Hey Ho “SkeptiCowards©”

Is THAT all you’ve GOT?

You remind me of Ike TURNER

Was THAT your best SHOT?

Maybe ya betta stay at HOME

Sittin’ on the POT

Until you solve that PROBLEM

That requires too much THOUGHT

Like how to answer a QUESTION

Or “Where are your FACTS?”

Because you’ve been runnin’, hidin’, and DODGIN”

After you had another Faux Tu-Quoque ATTACK

All I hear from some of youse MOUTHS

Is Quack-ack-ack-ack-ACK

I thought Billy Joel warned YOU

Bout having a Heart Attack-ack-ack-ack-ACK

This is the “Home of the BRAVE”

(Maybe you should “Learn to SWIM”)

Before you start to Hack-ack-ack-ack-ACK

George Washington cut down a Cherry TREE

(Was THAT your Cherry-Pickin’ Tree? Whoa is ME!)

They say Lizzie Borden gave her mother 40 Whack-ack-ack-ack-ACKS

• I KNOW, who I AM

I AM, Number ONE

I don’t fit into your “Master Plan” ?

I AM, who I AM

I KNOW, who I AM

I AM, Number ONE

I KNOW who I AM

I AM Number ONE

Oh NO! Here comes Peter AGAIN – FLEA!!

Did he really rob himself to pay PAUL?

I heard him mumble something ’bout CaliCultication

And another Brick in the WALL

Mary told me he denied himself THRICE

As he was trying to Break Down The WALLS

If we don’t hurry up we’ll be LATE

For the World Premiere of the New MONSTER’s BALLS

Lil’ Johnny’s got a DATE

With the New Kids Down the HALL

And we’re going to the “Stones'” CONCERT

We’re gonna throw some BACK

So ya betta’ duck YA’LL

Here’s comes some more Roberta FLACK

Now that wall doesn’t seem so TALL

They’re comin’ to America’s CALL

Now, why is #CMPunk a #Heyman Guy PAUL?

• I KNOW, who I AM

I AM, Number ONE

Your “Master Plan” is like a yellowed Bed Pan

I AM, who I AM

I KNOW, who I AM

I AM, Number ONE

I KNOW who I AM

I AM Number ONE

Oh NO !

Anyone heard ’bout what happens when Birds ATTACK?

Look Out BELOW!

The sky changes from 50 shades of Grey

To #Metallica #FadeToBLACK

Rockapocalypse !!!

@TheRock said #ItDoesntMatter

What BBC Spam-o-rama

the “Riddler” wannabe

or Blatherskitewicz SAID

Your #DavidBowie 15 seconds of #Fame

has you #BurningDownTheHouse with your #TalkingHEADS

#Jabroni

Critics and Cynics

“The Skeptics™”

I thought you had Grapefruits

like @VinceMcMahon

But all you’ve got is #FruityPebbles

like @JohnCena

I feel so ROBbed Van DAMN !!!

what ! What !! WHAT !!!

is your GOAL?

You wouldn’t touch”IT”with a #ZZTop #TenFootPOLE

Your #Garbage smells #Special

#NineInchNails #HeadLikeAHole ?

Your Salem Witch Trial

#HistoryOfTheWorld PartI

was FROZEN

BORING

#PinkFloyd #ComfortablyNUMB

Like a #SuperTramp

You #HideInYourShell

You Blatherskite without a CLUE

Who the … are YOU ?

#WhoAreYou ?

#TheWHO ?

#WeKnowThatTheHypnotizedNeverLie
http://youtu.be/zYMD_W_r3Fg #BloodyWellRight you SEE ?
http://t.co/IY53fEpnBu
You talk about “deconstruction”

#AWESOME

@TripleH #TimeToPlayTheGame ?

#MMA ?

#UFC ?

#WWE ?

Like #KidRock sings

“And this is for the Questions that don’t have any Answers”

U can’t out “C”-Rap ME

Yo #Eminem

May I Have Your Attention PLEASE ?

This ain’t about ME

It’s about the F-D-A
redd.it/1h2slh
and Dr. Stanislaw Rajmund #BURZYNSKI

• I KNOW, who I AM

I AM, Number ONE

I KNOW, who I AM

I AM, who I AM

I KNOW, who I AM

I AM, Number ONE

I KNOW who I AM

I AM Number ONE

“The Skeptics™” Doctor David H. Gorski is one of the “SkeptiCowards©” (I kid you not): Houston, We Have a Problem

The loquacious Dr. David H. Gorski is one of a number of bona fide card-carrying “SkeptiCowards©” (I kid you not)

One has to wonder, when does he (“Orac” @gorskon @oracknows @sciencebasedmed #sciencebasedmedicine) find time to be the so-called ‘self-proclaimed’ “CANCER RESEARCHER” when he’s devoting so much time to his precious blogs?
(http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence)

(http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org)
And, is his devotion to his “Oracolytes” having a deleterious effect on his ability to do the proper “fact-checking” required of his:

Misinformation

Disinformation

MisDisInformation

Misdirection

Dissimulation

Non-Citation(s)

Non-Reference(s)

Non-Link(s)

blatherskitewicz

Dr. Gorski is:

“The Metastasise of MisDisInformation”

“The Doctor of Dissimulation”

He ejaculated this:

Burzynski The Movie: Is Stanislaw Burzynski a pioneering cancer researcher or a quack?

Posted by Orac on November 29, 2011
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/11/29/burzynski-the-movie-subtle-its-not/
Stanislaw Burzynski: A pioneering cancer researcher or a quack?

Posted by Orac on December 12, 2012
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/12/12/stanislaw-burzynski-a-pioneering-cancer-researcher-or-a-quack/
“…it’s basically one big conspiracy theory…”

Dr. Gorski raises the issue of “conspiracy theory,, but then is too much of a SkeptiCoward©” (I kid you not), to address that as an issue

As I’ve said before of the “good” Dr. Gorski:

1. Lead

2. Follow, or

3. Get Out of the Way

and he is content to choose “3.”

When men were men:
http://redd.it/1fiok2
When Men Were Men:
http://www.reddit.com/tb/1fiok2
“The Skeptics” Theme Song:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/25/the-skeptics-theme-song/
Orac and the Cult of “Misinformation” (Part III):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/orac-and-the-cult-of-misinformation-part-iii/
IMPORTANT: The live “debate”-A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/important-the-live-debate-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/
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/
Thawing out “The Skeptics” @FrozenWarning (FrozenBoring):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/01/thawing-out-the-skeptics-frozenwarning-frozenboring/

Doctor David H. Gorski: This Is Your Life (Brought to you by “Mud” Life – For that refreshing MudBeer taste)

“The Skeptics” Theme Song
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/25/the-skeptics-theme-song/
“The Skeptics”

“The Metastasis of MisDisInformation”

“The Doctor of Dissimulation”

THIS is your Life:
http://www.med.wayne.edu/surgery/faculty/DGorski.html
Dr. Gorski, from your bio we know the following:

Title: “Assistant Professor of Surgery”

Specialty: Breast surgery, surgical oncology

In Practice Since: 1999

Patient Appointment Scheduling: Accepts Children: No

Dr. Gorski:

Is your specialty “Brainstem Glioma, inoperable tumor is of high-grade pathology (HBSG), anaplastic astrocytoma, anaplastic HBSG, glioblastoma(s), recurrent diffuse intrinsic glioblastomas and anaplastic astrocytomas of the brainstem, diffuse intrinsic tumors, recurrence, recurrent and progressive tumors in children aged <4y, children less than 4 years old with inoperable brain stem gliomas, high-grade, recurrent and progressive brain stem glioma, high-grade, recurrent, and recurrent and progressive DBSG, brain tumors, Treatment of diffuse, intrinsic brainstem glioma in children"?

No

Is your specialty “recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma”?

No

Is your specialty “incurable recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma”?

No

Is your specialty “pilocytic astrocytoma, low-grade astrocytoma, astrocytoma grade 2, DBSG, low- grade astrocytoma in children”?

No

Is your specialty “visual pathway glioma”

No

Is your specialty “recurrent disease or high risk”

No

Is your specialty “high-risk pediatric patients with primitive neuroectodermal tumors”?

No

Dr. Gorski, I think we have a pattern developing here, ya know?

Dr. Gorski, why should anyone care what your biased opinion of Dr. Burzynski is, ya know?

I don’t know

No … No, No, I mean … I have a blog
(http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence)

Dr. Gorski, moving on

According to your bio you have been a co-author; though as some of “The Skeptics” might point out, NOT the firstly named author, on:
http://cancerbiologyprogram.med.wayne.edu/faculty/gorski.php
Selected Publications:

1. Chen Y, Leal AD, Patel S, Gorski DH

The homeobox gene GAX activates p21WAF1/CIP1 expression in vascular endothelial cells through direct interaction with upstream AT-rich sequences

J Biol Chem. 2007 Jan 5;282(1):507-17. PMCID: PMC1865102

2. Chen Y, Gorski DH

Regulation of angiogenesis through a microRNA (miR-130a) that down-regulates antiangiogenic homeobox genes GAX and HOXA5.

Blood. 2008;111(3):1217-26. PMCID: PMC2214763

3. Chen Y, Banda M, Speyer CL, Smith JS, Rabson AB, Gorski DH

Regulation of the expression and activity of the antiangiogenic homeobox gene GAX/MEOX2 by ZEB2 and microRNA-221.

Mol Cell Biol. 2010;30(15):3902-13. PMCID: PMC2916411

4. Chen Y, Rabson AB, Gorski DH

MEOX2 regulates nuclear factor-kappaB activity in vascular endothelial cells through interactions with p65 and IkappaBbeta.

Cardiovasc Res. 2010;87(4):723-31. PMCID: PMC2920806

5. Speyer CL, Smith JS, Banda M, Devries JA, Mekani T, Gorski DH

Metabotropic glutamate receptor-1: a potential therapeutic target for the treatment of breast cancer.

Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011 Jun 17. [Epub ahead of print]

Dr. Gorski, why should anyone care what your biased opinion of Dr. Burzynski is, based on your specialty being breast cancer, ya know?

I don’t know

No … No, No, No, I mean … I have a blog
(http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org)

Dr. Gorski, Dr. Linus Pauling, winner of two (2) Nobel Prizes; including one (1) in his “specialty” of chemistry, was of the “opinion” that quasicrystals did NOT exist

Professor Daniel Shechtman proved Dr. Pauling (“There is no such thing as quasicrystals, only quasi- scientists.”) wrong, and won a Nobel Prize in that same field of “specialty,” chemistry

Dr. Gorski, have you won a Nobel Prize, and why should anyone care what your biased opinion of Dr. Burzynski is, ya know?

I don’t know

No … No, No, No, No, I mean … I have blogs
(http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence)
(http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org)

Dr. Gorski, where is YOUR antineoplaston clinical study?

� � � � � � � � � � � � �
Burzynski – The Antineoplaston Randomized Japan Phase II Clinical Trial Study:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/burzynski-the-antineoplaston-randomized-japan-phase-ii-clinical-trial-study
� � � � � � � � � � � � �
Review Article: Antineoplastons:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/review-article-antineoplastons
� � � � � � � � � � � � �
Burzynski updates Scientific Publications page:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/burzynski-updates-scientific-publications-page
� � � � � � � � � � � � �
Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski Publications:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/stanislaw-rajmund-burzynski-publications
� � � � � � � � � � � � �
Burzynski: China antineoplaston publications:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-china-antineoplaston-publications
� � � � � � � � � � � � �
Burzynski and China / Taiwan, ROC:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/burzynski-china-taiwan-roc
� � � � � � � � � � � � �
Burzynski, Ming-Cheng Liau, and Gi-Ming Lai:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/02/24/burzynski-ming-cheng-liau-gi-ming-lai
� � � � � � � � � � � � �
Burzynski, China, and Dvorit D. Samid:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/burzynski-china-dvorit-d-samid
� � � � � � � � � � � � �
Burzynski and Taiwan, ROC:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/burzynski-taiwan-roc
� � � � � � � � � � � � �
Burzynski, Hideaki Tsuda (Japan), and the p53 gene
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/burzynski-hitoshi-tsuda-japan-and-the-p53-gene
� � � � � � � � � � � � �
Burzynski: Japan antineoplaston publications:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/burzynski-japan
� � � � � � � � � � � � �
Burzynski: Egypt antineoplaston publications:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-egypt-antineoplaston-publication
� � � � � � � � � � � � �
Antineoplastons, which were first described by Burzynski:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/antineoplastons-which-were-first-described-by-burzynski
� � � � � � � � � � � � �
Burzynski: Russia antineoplaston publications:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-russia-antineoplaston-publications
� � � � � � � � � � � � �
Burzynski: South Korea antineoplaston publications:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-south-korea-antineoplaston-publications
� � � � � � � � � � � � �
Burzynski: Poland antineoplaston publications:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-poland-antineoplaston-publications

Dr. Gorski, one last question

In the spirit of Dr. Pauling, do you believe there is no such thing as Skeptics, only SkeptiCowards©?
http://redd.it/1f6meh
Paging Doctor David H. Gorski, Paging Doctor David H. Gorski: There’s Mud in your Ears … Doktor Gorski?
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/28/paging-doctor-david-h-gorski-paging-doctor-david-h-gorski-theres-mud-in-your-ears-doktor-gorski/

“The Skeptics” Theme Song

🚫”The Skeptics”🚫
🎵”Theme Song”🎵

What happens when one of “The Skeptics” is put in the uncomfortable position of having to do an Anthony Jeselnik and Defend Your Tweet,” or when the SkeptiCowards are “called out” on any of their plethora of:

Misinformation

Disinformation

MisDisInformation

Misdirection

Non-Citation(s)

Non-Reference(a)

Non-Link(s)

blatherskitewicz’?

Their de Facto response becomes:

“I wouldn’t touch it with a ten-foot pole”

That li’l ol’ band from Tejas – ZZTop

“The Skeptics™” Theme Song
Lyricized:
🎶
“A few years back when I was a WEE WEE Li’l Lass,

“My P.E. Teacher would always kick me outta the P.E. class,”

“Sent me to the Golden Showers early for acting like Piss-Poor, White Trash,”

“Kids were skeptical of me and would always kick me in my A$$ets”

“Were low and PETA wouldn’t accept my limited Application,”

“I thought “Houston, Hell, or High Water” shoulda headed for the United Nations,”

“Billy Gibbons, Dusty Hill, Frank Beard, ZZ Top – my brain was on Vacation,”

“Trooper stopped me for “Drivin” While Blind” and gave me a “Don’t Mess With Texas” Citation”
🎶🎵
“Hmmm…”
🎵 🎶 🎶 🎶 🎵
“I wouldn’t touch it with a Ten-Foot Pole”

“Who knew all these years later, I’d prove I didn’t learn a thing in School,”

“Only thing I had to look forward to was being like Motley Fool,”

“My head was in Mississippi, Mississippi Mud, Rio Grande Mud, like fingers ’round my Neck,”

“Mush mouth and misdirection were the name of my SkeptiCoward game, that’s Correct,”

“Wouldn’t know one if I saw one – facts ‘n figures … ‘Rithmatic … funds were Low,”

“Word on the street was being a ‘Skeptic‘ was easy but my scrambled brain just didn’t Know,”

“But it sounded better than hangin’ out on the street corner with just Larry, Curly, and Moe,”

“They tol’ me if anyone asked ’bout any citation, reference, or link – just say:”

“What’s wrong with You?”
🎶🎵

🎵 🎶 🎶 🎶 🎵
“I wouldn’t touch it with a Ten-Foot Pole”
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
🎵 🎶 🎵 🎶 🎵
“I wouldn’t touch it with a Ten-Foot Pole”
🎶 🎵 🎶
You just don’t know what shape I’m in … yeah

“The Skeptics™” (SkeptiCowards©) SHRIEK