OUCHIE !!!

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

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

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

But I digress

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

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

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

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

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

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

40.6¢ – .12/31/2011 (3 months ended)

Afterwards, a 1.6¢ rise:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – 12/2/2013 – Robert J. (don’t call me “Bobby”) “Bob” (I’m NOT a doctor, I just pretend that I’m one on The Other Burzynski Patient Group (TOBPG)) Blaskiewicz Blatherskitewicz’s Burzynski “IS big pharma”::
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/12/02/robert-j-dont-call-me-bobby-bob-im-not-a-doctor-i-just-play-like-im-one-on-the-other-burzynski-patient-group-tobpg-blaskiewicz-blatherskitewicz/
======================================
[2] – 11/26/2013 – United States Department of Justice (DOJ) versus BIG Pharma: BIG Pharma fought the law, and the law won ?:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/26/united-states-department-of-justice-versus-big-pharma-big-pharma-fought-the-law-and-the-law-won/
======================================
2013

——————————————————————

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

——————————————————————
2013

——————————————————————

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

——————————————————————
2013

——————————————————————

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

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

——————————————————————

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

——————————————————————
2012

——————————————————————

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

——————————————————————
2012

——————————————————————

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

——————————————————————
2012

——————————————————————

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

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

——————————————————————

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

——————————————————————
2011

——————————————————————

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

——————————————————————
2011

——————————————————————

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

——————————————————————
2011

——————————————————————

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

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

——————————————————————

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

——————————————————————
2010

——————————————————————

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

——————————————————————
2010

——————————————————————

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

——————————————————————
2010

——————————————————————

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

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

——————————————————————

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

——————————————————————
2009

——————————————————————

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

——————————————————————
2009

——————————————————————

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

——————————————————————
2009

——————————————————————

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

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

Advertisement

Stupendous Stupendity Stupifies Scienceblogs . com/Insolence

——————————————————————
#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/
======================================

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

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” ?

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”

“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]
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
“In the meantime, I realized that seeing Josh Duhamel stick his proboscis firmly up Burzynski’s posterior was not enough to explain the disturbance that I was feeling“ [8]
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
GorskiGeek seems to have an unhealthy infatuation with ASS

My suppositorsition is that GorskiGeek, the highfalutin’ He-Man of hypocrisy, does wax on, wax off, waxes phonetic about ASS, because he is the apex of ASSmuchness
——————————————————————
In essence, he denies the toxicity of water in terms I’ve never seen anyone try to downplay before:

Water… is toxic?

This was perhaps the most stunningly malicious use of emotion to manipulate the reader in any of the propaganda pieces against H2O in history
——————————————————————
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/
======================================

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——————————————————————
Nowhere does it indicate that he “treated 8,000 patients” with antineoplastons
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
The question that Liz Szabo and USA TODAY should answer, is:

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

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

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

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

‘OK, is the diagnosis even correct?‘ ”

“Buckner said”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A: “Mhmm”

Q: but they’re still accepting people ?

A: “Yeah”

Q: on more like a special ?

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

A: “(compassion exception)”

A: “Uh, exceptions“

Q: That’s normal ?

A: “Yes”
“So”

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

Q: Right

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

——————————————————————
Oh, wait !!

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

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

My questions about the Merritt’s are:

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

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

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

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

PATIENTS WITH REFRACTORY MALIGNANCIES

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

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

Yeah

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

Mmm

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

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

“That’s completely unacceptable”

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

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

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

2. National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society: Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest [16]
——————————————————————
Then, ask the American Cancer Society, why is it that 10 years ago, estimated breast cancer deaths were expected to be 39,800 (15%), and this year it was 39,620 (14%), which is ONLY 180 LESS than 10 years ago ?
——————————————————————
Estimated Breast Cancer Deaths (Women)-USA
——————————————————————
2013☝39,620 (14%)
2012👇39,510 (14%)
2011👇39,520 (15%)
2010👇39,840 (15%)
2009👇40,170 (15%)
2008☝40,480 (15%)
2007👇40,460 (15%)
2006☝40,970 (15%)
2005👇40,410 (15%)
2004☝40,110 (15%)
2003☝39,800 (15%)
2002 – 39,600 (15%)
—————————————————————–
American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures (2002-2013)
—————————————————————–
And then ask the American Cancer Society, why is it that 10 years ago, the estimated NEW breast cancer cases were expected to be 211,300 (32%), and this year it was 232,340 (29%), which is 21,340 MORE than it was 10 years ago ?
——————————————————————
Estimated New Breast Cancer (Women) – USA
——————————————————————
2013☝232,340 (29%)
2012👇226,870 (29%)
2011☝238,480 (30%)
2010☝207,090 (28%)
2009☝192,370 (27%)
2008☝182,460 (26%)
2007👇178,480 (26%)
2006☝212,920 (31%)
2005👇211,240 (32%)
2004☝215,900 (32%)
2003☝211,300 (32%)
2002_-_203,500 (31%)
—————————————————————–
American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures (2002-2013)
——————————————————————
And after that, ask Susan G. Komen how much is spent on legal action to protect her brand, compared to how much is spent on breast cancer research and prevention ?
——————————————————————
Visco, the breast cancer advocate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, USA TODAY, for censoring my 18 comments

I guess you must be (“intellectual”) cowards

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

======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – 11/15/2013 – USA TODAY NEWS, NATION
Doctor accused of selling false hope to families
Liz Szabo, USA TODAY
——————————————————————
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/15/stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-controversy/2994561/
======================================
[2] – Mayo Clinic – 1999 – report: Lisa Merritt
——————————————————————
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/816819-mayo-clinic-1999-report.html
======================================
[3] – 2012 – former Burzynski web-site screenshots, Pg 3 of 62;
——————————————————————

Click to access burzynski_fdauntitled_promo_2012.pdf

======================================
[4] – 4/26/2013 – Burzynski: FDA requirements that cancer patients utilize more traditional cancer treatment options in order to be eligible to participate in the Company’s Antineoplaston CLINICAL TRIALS:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/burzynski-fda-requirements-that-cancer-patients-utilize-more-traditional-cancer-treatment-options-in-order-to-be-eligible-to-participate-in-the-companys-antineoplaston-clinical-trials/
======================================
[5] – 11/14/2013 – Critiquing: Why we fight for patients (Why we fight your patience) TAM 2013, TAM2013, “The Amazing Meeting” 2013 #TAM2013 http://www.theamazingmeeting.com
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/14/tam-2013-tam2013-tam2013-the-amazing-meeting-2013-the-amazing-meeting-httptheamazingmeeting-com-httpwww-theamazingmeeting-com/
======================================
[6] – Phenomenon – Brain Tumour Foundation of Canada
——————————————————————
http://www.braintumour.ca/1649/ask-the-expert-psuedo-progression-gbm
======================================
[7] – Pseudoprogression following chemoradiotherapy for glioblastoma multiforme
Can J Neurol Sci. 2010 Jan;37(1):36-42
——————————————————————
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20169771/
======================================
[8] – 9/19/2013 – Critiquing: National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) CancerNet “fact sheet” :
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/critiquing-national-cancer-institute-nci-at-the-national-institutes-of-health-nih-cancernet/
======================================
[9] – FDA Orphan Drug Designation
——————————————————————

Click to access PressRelease_12022008_BZYR(2).pdf

======================================
[10] – 11/7/2013 – Pete Cohen chats with Sonali Patil, Ph.D., Research Scientist at The Burzynski Clinic:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/07/pete-cohen-chats-with-sonali-patil-ph-d-research-scientist-at-the-burzynski-clinic/
======================================
[11] – 7/9/2013 – Burzynski: The Original 72 Phase II Clinical Trials:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/09/burzynski-the-original-72-phase-ii-clinical-trials/
======================================
[12] – 8/21/2013 – Critiquing David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/critiquing-david-h-gorski-md-phd-facs-www-sciencebasedmedicine-orgeditorial-staffdavid-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
======================================
[13] – 2003 – pg. 94
——————————————————————

Click to access 960.pdf

======================================
[14] – 3/1982 – Biometrics 1982; 38: 143-51
——————————————————————
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7082756/
======================================
[15] – 11/9/2013 – Pete Cohen chats with Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski – Interview #2:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/09/pete-cohen-chats-with-dr-stanislaw-burzynski-interwiew-2/
======================================
[16] – AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY: More Interested In Accumulating Wealth Than Saving Lives
——————————————————————

Click to access acs.pdf

======================================
[17] – 9/11/2013 – National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society: Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/national-cancer-institute-and-american-cancer-society-criminal-indifference-to-cancer-prevention-and-conflicts-of-interest/
—————————————————————
[18] – 11/13/2013 – The War on Cancer (I don’t think it means, what you think it says it means) #Winning?
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/httpcancer-orgacsgroupscontentepidemiologysurveilancedocumentsdocumentacspc-036845-pdf/
======================================
[19] – 4/24/2013 – Burzynski: HYPERNATREMIA:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/burzynski-hypernatremia/
======================================
[20] – 9/1999 – Pediatrics. 1999 Sep;104(3 Pt 1):435-9
——————————————————————
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10469766/
======================================

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

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

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

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

😉

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

How asinine 😝
——————————————————————
(18:20)
——————————————————————
David Gorski then has the temerity to suggest that Miller’s Children at Long Beach Memorial misdiagnosed Tori Moreno’s inoperable stage 4 BSG 😐

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

David Gorski has the chutzpah to pontificate that Dr. Fred Epstein in New York misdiagnosed Tori Moreno’s inoperable stage IV brainstem glioma 😡

David Gorski; who is a BREAST cancer oncology specialist, and NOT a BRAIN cancer oncology specialist, has the presumptiveness to speculate that 3 different medical opinions could have misdiagnosed Tori Moreno in August 1998; who was diagnosed with a very large tumor, about 3 inches in the largest diameter and located in the brain stem, which was too risky for surgery, and about which her parents were told by ALL 3, that Tori’s brain cancer was fatal and, she would die in a few days or at the most, 2-6 weeks, and that there was nothing that could be done, and was finally put on antineoplaston therapy in October, when she was about 3 ½ months old, and in such condition that they were afraid that she might die at any time, David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., FACS; who claims, “I do know cancer science” [3], has the audacity, because of his “book learnin'” to postulate his “science-based medicine theory”, but he obviously does NOT have the “balls” to name the medical institutions or doctors involved, whose opinions he disagrees with ☻
——————————————————————
(20:00)
——————————————————————
David Gorski; who has had the stupendity to state: “[I]f I had screwed up, I would have admitted it” [4], in the case of Hannah Bradley, who had a grade III anaplastic astrocytoma brain tumor, while noting that Hannah had epileptic seizures, he then serendipitously stupified the not-so-startling but nonetheless shocking revelations that he seemingly had fallen when climbing a tree, and been hit by every “stupid stick” on the way to reinforcing Newton’s Law of Gravity; whilst claiming that he had watched the entire movie about her trip to the Burzynski Clinic, but was inexplicably unable to determine that the reason Hannah experienced a “change in mood” and “double-vision”, was because, as stated in the movie, a nurse said it was because of a new anti-seizure drug she had NOT used before to control her epileptic seizures, and which was most likely responsible for the rash that Hannah developed, which GorskGeek acted clueless about [5] 😛
——————————————————————
If GorskGeek actually knew HOW to apply SCIENCE, he might be somewhat credible 😅

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

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

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

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

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

“we respect scientific method“ [6]

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

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

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

“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

Gentlemen, I start your Insolence 😇
——————————————————————
(1:30) [1]
——————————————————————
The “motto” of “The Amazing (Not so Much) Meeting” is “Fighting Fakers,” which is apropos, since I doubt that “Orac” the “Check my Facts” Hack of Dr. David H. Gorski, grasps the irony, that when I read some of his blog articles, you could easily switch his name with the name of some individual he is flogging, and the proverbial shoe fits, and:
——————————————————————
(1:40)
——————————————————————
“This is a guy who sometimes fools even, you know, physicians”
——————————————————————
(I couldn’t have said it better, myself) 😊
——————————————————————
(2:47)
——————————————————————
He states:

“There is a long segment about “The Skeptics”“

(applause) 😝
——————————————————————
(4:25)
——————————————————————
“His lawyer wrote a book”

“About a half of it is about Burzynski“ [4]
——————————————————————
6:00
——————————————————————
Gorski mentions that Burzynski noticed that there were higher levels of these chemicals in healthy people, than people with cancer
——————————————————————
Whereas, Burzynski is on record as having said [5]:

” . . . healthy people have abundance of these chemicals in blood
Cancer patients have varied to none“

I did NOT know before now, that GorskGeek thinks that “none” is a “level” 😶
——————————————————————
He continues:

AS2.1 – which is a chemical called phenylacetic acid, which is a byproduct of metabolism that turns into phenylacetylglutamine by the liver

A10 – soluble is basically the same thing
It breaks down to PAG
——————————————————————
WOW !

I thought it was: AS2 – 1 😊

They are “basically the same thing” ? 😳

What does Burzynski say ? [6]

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

PG and PN are naturally occurring in human body as result of metabolism of phenylalanine in liver and kidneys

formulation of antineoplaston AS2-1 is 4:1 mixture of synthetic PN and PG

A10 is 4:1 mixture of PG and iso-PG

That does NOT look like “basically the same thing” to me 😛

——————————————————————
(6:50)
——————————————————————
Gorski founders on:

“And these are substances which were actually studied in the ’50’s and ’60’s and not found to be particularly, um, promising, but, he didn’t know that then”
——————————————————————
GorskGeek has #FAILED miserably to prove that on his blogs [7] 😄
——————————————————————
(8:00)
——————————————————————
Gorski comments about Burzynski’s “animal testing,” “species specific” claims:

“There are ways of getting around that”
——————————————————————
But Gorski, again, has #FAILED miserably to prove it [8] 😅
——————————————————————
(12:00)
——————————————————————
Gorski makes lame excuses about the NCI phase II clinical trial [9] 😖
——————————————————————
(12:50)
——————————————————————
Gorski claims Burzynski was indicted for insurance fraud in the 1997 case 😱
——————————————————————
GorskGeek, care to try and prove that one also ? [10] 😃
——————————————————————
(14:25)
——————————————————————
Gorski then states that out of 61 trials on clinicaltrials . gov, “most” are “closed or unknown”
——————————————————————
GorskGeek #FAILED again 😁

At the time it was:

1 – Not Yet Recruiting
(OPEN)(Phase 3)
1 – COMPLETED
2 – WITHDRAWN
(Withdrawn due to slow enrollment)
7 – WITHDRAWN
(This study has been withdrawn prior to enrollment)
(9=WITHDRAWN)
10 – Recruiting
(10=OPEN)
40 – Active, not recruiting –
(40=CLOSED)
61 =TOTAL
——————————————————————
(15:20)
——————————————————————
Gorski attempts to go all “legal eagle”:

“Listen to Burzynski’s lawyer!”

“You listen to Burzynski’s lawyer; and, and I swear I don’t understand, like why Burzynski would let him, let his lawyer say stuff this damning in his own book, but he does”

“So, get a load of some of these quotes, referring to one of the clinical trials, he says:”

“It was a joke”

“. . . there could not be any possibility of meaningful data coming out of the so-called clinical trial, it was all an artifice, that, you know, designed so that they could continue giving the treatment“

“The FDA wanted all of his patients to be on an IND, so, that’s what we did”
——————————————————————
Gorski, attorney Rick Jaffe is an American, living in America NOT the formerly communist Poland

He can say whatever he wants

GorskGeek is NOT a lawyer 😓

And there’s an excellent reason why

Nor is he schooled in the proper usage of the English language

FACT:

” . . . the so-called clinical trial . . .”

Any human being with a modicum of intelligence about the English language, understands that the term “clinical trial” is singular, i.e. one

Burzynski’s lawyer is obviously referring to the CAN-1 clinical trial mentioned in Burzynski’s 11/25/1997 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing [11]

One trial that is retrospective is CAN-1 Clinical Trial
——————————————————————
CAN-1 PHASE II STUDY OF ANTINEOPLASTONS A10 AND AS2-1 IN

PATIENTS WITH REFRACTORY MALIGNANCIES

133 patients
——————————————————————
Clinical trial of patients treated by Dr. Burzynski through 2/23/1996

FDA has indicated it will not accept data generated by this trial since it was not a wholly prospective one
——————————————————————
Gorski continues his trend of #FAILURES when he mentions the additional types of treatments that Burzynski was offering, but he #FAILED to mention [12] 😂
——————————————————————
” … 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”
——————————————————————
(18:20)
——————————————————————
Gorski addresses the case of Tori Moreno
——————————————————————
Kim Moreno states:

“We originally were at Miller’s Children at Long Beach Memorial and then went to City of Hope“

“We also sent her MRI’s to Dr. Fred Epstein in New York to be looked at”

Gorski suggests that 3 different opinions could have misdiagnosed Tori Moreno

You can read an interview with Tori’s mother [13]
——————————————————————
(19:45)
——————————————————————
Gorski goes on to mention Burzynski patients going to Texas Children’s Hospital with hypernatremia issues
——————————————————————
Gorski, do you mean this ? [14]

The changing pattern of hypernatremia in hospitalized children

Department of Pediatrics, Texas Children’s Hospital, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
——————————————————————
(20:00)
——————————————————————
Gorski mangles the case of Hannah Bradley, who had a grade 3 anaplastic astrocytoma brain tumor

GorskGeek makes excuses like “spontaneous remission”, but then provides no citation, reference, or link to a case of such a tumor having spontaneously exhibited remission [15]
——————————————————————
(20:40)
——————————————————————
Gorski states that antineoplastons are chemotherapy
——————————————————————
No, Gorski, antineoplaston are:

“…an unapproved drug, not ordinary “chemotherapy“ [16] 😣
——————————————————————
(21:53)
——————————————————————
Gorski claims in regard to Burzynski’s personalized gene-targeted therapy:

” . . . gives to the patient without regard for synergistic toxicity“

“Boom, there you go”
——————————————————————
Gorski’s #FAIL rate continues, as Burzynski has stated that phase 2 and 3 publications are reviewed as part of this process [17]

Gorski, “BOOM, THERE YOU GO” ッ
——————————————————————
Gorski, you should hire out to the Democratic Party as their mascot, because you must be the biggest pompous ASS I’ve ever seen 😜

Gorski, my advice: don’t quit your day job, HACK 😷
——————————————————————
The #TAM2013 audience then has to suffer through 22:36 of the blatherskite of Robert J. (don’t call me Bobby) “Bob” Blaskiewicz Blatherskitewicz [2]

He blathers about the “dozen,” “17,” “16 dead,” “pancreatic cancer,” “Joseph, who was alive but died well within the life expectancy given his diagnosis,” “Joann, who was alive but died within a year of starting therapy,” “Irene S., who was dead within month,” “Maxine, who was already dead,” the “103 in 2011,” “63 in mid-June,” “17 on original 1999 site,” “about 3 added a year,” the “about 50 stories,” “1/10th of patient names gathered,” “Amelia S. – 7, tumor breaking up,” “Chase,” “Cody – 1994, 20 years ago, 2 visits, 6 weeks treatment breaking up,” “David,” “Janet, 3 – 5 yrs., oncologist, now dead, ovarian cancer,” “Pete took video down,” “8,000 patients,” “probable ischemic necrosis,” “13 yr. old, getting worse getting better, vomited – Marlene, nurse,” “Rory died 2005,” “Supatra, swelling, last wed., brain tumor,” “Side-effect, 2%, sodium load,” “Andrea, U.S. News and World Report, 30% chance recovery, glioblastoma, ANP in luggage, died on plane,” “Cathy wanted to be on ANP, Greg Burzynski, found out only brain tumor,” “Denise D. breast cancer,” and finally:
——————————————————————
(18:45)
——————————————————————
” … and light as many fires under his butt as we can“
——————————————————————
Mentions Rick Jaffe’s book Galileo’s Lawyer

IT’S ALL ABOUT THE PATIENTS [4]
——————————————————————
All you need to know about Blaskiewicz is:

“White man speak with forked tongue” [18]
——————————————————————
The 3rd video is a panel discussion, which includes “man-crush” tag-team [3]

Robert Blaskiewicz and David Gorski
——————————————————————
(8:00)
——————————————————————
Bob says:

“Yeah, I’m not that type of doctor“
——————————————————————
Bob, the correct answer for you, is:

“I’m NOT a doctor” QUACK
——————————————————————
(13:05)
——————————————————————
Gorski gabs that he’s a:

“Game of Thrones Geek”
——————————————————————
I just knew I was right, GorskGeek [19]
——————————————————————
(14:00)
——————————————————————
The only female panelist mentions “bureaucrats”, “wimps”, and “people without balls”
——————————————————————
2 out of 3 ain’t bad

She describes the Bob and David show to a T
——————————————————————
(15:00)
——————————————————————
The claim is made that a Burzynski physician appeared on the Burzynski Facebook page announcing results
——————————————————————
(16:00)
——————————————————————
Gorski #whines that the Texas Medical Board wasn’t successful in shutting Burzynski down because of “politics”
——————————————————————
LAUGHABLE
——————————————————————
(20:55)
——————————————————————
Gorski gives his usual excuse:

“He’s not an oncologist”
——————————————————————
GorskiGeek, that claim is as dead as apparently, quite a number of your brain cells [15]
——————————————————————
(34:40)
——————————————————————
Audience members are given the opportunity to speak, and this is the garbage served up:
——————————————————————
“Hi, this is Susan

Ah, don’t forget to mention that Wikipedia has been a major battlefield

We’ve had 23,000 views to the clinic’s page this last month, also rebutr . . .”
——————————————————————
“Control the flow of information”
——————————————————————
Gorski pipes up:

“What she said”
——————————————————————
(35:20)
——————————————————————
Blatherskitewicz chimes in:

“When it comes to Wikipedia can I just mention that is, that is, that that is so effective that Wikipedia was singled out in the most recent Burzynski movie“
——————————————————————
Gorski chirps:

“Yes”
——————————————————————
Bob yacks:

“as being controlled by evil skeptics“
——————————————————————
Gorski ejaculates:

“No, seriously”
——————————————————————
Bob bleats:

“No”

(applause)
——————————————————————
“You have to unleash the evil hoards of skeptics“

“Wahahaha” 👿
——————————————————————
Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski on Wikipedia:

“Simply don’t pay attention to it, because it, it’s not true”

“You won’t be able to, do any, clinical research which we do, without convincing evidence, especially when you have the most powerful agency in the government which is against you“

“So they would love to find something which is wrong with what we are doing”

“Ah, so the fact that they’ve, um, agreed that what we have has value, and they allow us to do phase 3 clinical trials it means that we are right”

“Because, uh, uh, nobody who didn’t have any, concrete evidence that it works, would be able to go as far”

“So whatever Wikipedia says, well, I don’t care for them“

(laughing) [5]
——————————————————————
Enlightening ?

Inspiring ?

Amazing ?

Hypocrites

Apparatchiks [20]
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – David Gorski – Why We Fight (Part I): Stanislaw Burzynski Versus Science-Based Medicine – TAM 2013 11/8/2013 (22:44)
——————————————————————

======================================
[2] – Robert Blaskiewicz – Why We Fight (Part II): It’s All About The Patients – TAM 2013 11/8/2013 (22:36)
——————————————————————

======================================
[3] – Medical Cranks And Quacks
TAM 2013 JREF
11/8/2013 (42:42)
——————————————————————

======================================
[4] – “Galileo’s Lawyer” Richard A. Jaffe, Esq.
——————————————————————
http://www.richardjaffe.com
======================================
[5] – 11/9/2013 – Pete Cohen chats with Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/09/pete-cohen-chats-with-dr-stanislaw-burzynski/
======================================
[6] – 6/2012 – Journal of Cancer Therapy, 2012, 3, 192-200 doi:10.4236/jct.2012.33028 Published Online June 2012, Pg. 192
——————————————————————

Click to access 9219.pdf

======================================
[7] – Burzynski: Oh, RATS!!!:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/26/the-lancet-oncology-peer-review-team-d-12-01519-fail-2/
======================================
[8] – Critiquing: How Stanislaw Burzynski became Burzynski the Brave Maverick Doctor, part 1:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/critiquing-how-stanislaw-burzynski-became-burzynski-the-brave-maverick-doctor-part-1/
======================================
[9] – 9/19/2013 – Critiquing: National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) CancerNet “fact sheet”:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/critiquing-national-cancer-institute-nci-at-the-national-institutes-of-health-nih-cancernet/
======================================
[10] – 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/
======================================
[11] – 7/9/2013 – Burzynski: The Original 72 Phase II Clinical Trials:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/09/burzynski-the-original-72-phase-ii-clinical-trials/
======================================
[12] – 4/26/2013 – Burzynski: FDA requirements that cancer patients utilize more traditional cancer treatment options in order to be eligible to participate in the Company’s Antineoplaston CLINICAL TRIALS:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/burzynski-fda-requirements-that-cancer-patients-utilize-more-traditional-cancer-treatment-options-in-order-to-be-eligible-to-participate-in-the-companys-antineoplaston-clinical-trials/
======================================
[13] – Tori Moreno
——————————————————————
http://www.cancerinform.org/aburzinterview2.html
======================================
[14] – 9/1999 – Pediatrics. 1999 Sep;104(3 Pt 1):435-9
——————————————————————
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10469766/
======================================
[15] – 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/
——————————————————————
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/
======================================
[16] – NOT ORDINARY CHEMOTHERAPY
——————————————————————
https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/27/27.F3d.153.93-2071.html
======================================
[17] – 9/4/2013 – University of Michigan, where is alum Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski’s Grapefruits ?:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/04/university-of-michigan-where-is-alum-dr-david-h-orac-gorskis-grapefruits/
======================================
[18] – 10/13/2013 – Why “The Skeptics™” Perfessor Robert J. (don’t call me “Bobby”) “Bob” Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) of University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire, “Fame,” is a Coward and a Liar:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/13/why-the-skeptics-perfessor-robert-j-dont-call-me-bobby-bob-blaskiewicz-rjblaskiewicz-of-university-of-wisconsin-eau-claire-fame-is-a-coward-and-a-liar/
======================================
[19] – 10/27/2013 – “The Skeptics™” Burzynski Bias, Censorship, Lies, and Alibi’s: September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/27/the-skeptics-lie-lied-lies-liars-lying-burzynski-bias-censorship-lies-and-alibis-september-28-2013-the-skeptics-burzynski-discussion-by-bob-blaskiewic/
======================================
[20] – 11/9/2013 – Wikipedia Articles:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/burzynski-timeline/
======================================

Critiquing: Dr. Burzynski is under attack, again. By Suzanne Somers

8/8/2013, 10:47:00 AM, Suzanne Somers posted an article re Burzynski
======================================
http://www.suzannesomers.com/Blog/post/Dr-Burzynski-is-under-attack-again.aspx
======================================
The Intellectual Cowards, The Skeptics™, SkeptiCowards©, who seem to be too afraid to bring their “debate” to my blog, unleashed their disingenuous Twitter Attack on @SuzanneSomers
======================================
I found it hilarious that MedTek accused Suzanne Somers of pulling a “Gorski”; posting tweets and then deleting them
======================================
[1]
——————————————————————

@gorskon Is @SuzanneSomers writing about same Burzynski I know of? The dangerous quack who takes money and provides unproven treatments?

— Miranda Radik (@radikmiranda) August 8, 2013

——————————————————————
Hmmmm. Looks like Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski (@gorskon @oracknows @sciencebasedmed) could use a little education about #Burzynski
——————————————————————
Critiquing: Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski and The Skeptics™
http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/critiquing-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-and-the-skeptics/
——————————————————————
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/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[2]
——————————————————————

Needs it about LOTS more! RT @gorskon Hmmm. Looks like @SuzanneSomers needs a little education about #Burzynski. http://t.co/FQiWVCQoCJ

— Michael Wosnick, PhD (@MichaelWosnick) August 8, 2013

——————————————————————
[3]
——————————————————————

@gorskon @SuzanneSomers 60% success rate? Where's that published then? Oh.. it's not. More like 0% success rate. #Burzynski

— Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) August 8, 2013

——————————————————————
[4]
——————————————————————

@gorskon @ScienceBasedMed @SuzanneSomers Doesn't Burzynksi use chemo for his patients?

— Heather McCall (@HPMcCall) August 8, 2013

——————————————————————
[5]
——————————————————————

Hello @SuzanneSomers, your blog says #burzynski has a 60% success rate in brain cancers. Where did that statistic come from?

— Adam Jacobs (@statsguyuk) August 8, 2013

——————————————————————
[6]
——————————————————————

@drpaulmorgan That would be my guess too. But will be interesting to see if she replies. Doubt she will, but you never know

— Adam Jacobs (@statsguyuk) August 8, 2013

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Dr. Paul Morgan, why is this unpublished when YOU suggested Burzynski publish in The Lancet Oncology ?
——————————————————————

@drpaulmorgan @dianthusmed Pick a medical journal Paul…

— Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) December 20, 2012

——————————————————————

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

— Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) December 20, 2012

——————————————————————
The Lancet Oncology Peer Review Team D-12-01519: #FAIL
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/25/the-lancet-oncology-peer-review-team-d-12-01519-fail/
——————————————————————
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151766968748442&id=318281183441&set=a.10150245001038442.345336.318281183441&_mn_=5&refid=17
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[7]
——————————————————————

@IamBreastCancer go to http://t.co/rkWQTv4VFT and read my blog about dr. Burzynski. Then click on survivor stories.

— Suzanne Somers (@SuzanneSomers) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
Quidama, Can you use your influence to help convince The Lancet Oncology to publish #Burzynski’s trial data? Cancer patients need complete and factual info.
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[8]
——————————————————————

@drpaulmorgan you are very wrong. Go to the source. Go to hs clinic. Talk to his cured patients.

— Suzanne Somers (@SuzanneSomers) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
Dr. Paul Morgan, why are #Burzynski’s trials results unpublished by The Lancet Oncology?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[9]
——————————————————————

@drpaulmorgan you seem to have a chip on your shoulder .

— Suzanne Somers (@SuzanneSomers) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[10]
——————————————————————

@drpaulmorgan what kind of doctor are you that you have so much time to hang out on twitter and post negatives. Go heal people.

— Suzanne Somers (@SuzanneSomers) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[11]
——————————————————————

@SuzanneSomers @drpaulmorgan You would as well if you understood the science and saw uneducated morons supporting this utter quack.

— David James (@StortSkeptic) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
David James, if anyone is an “uneducated moron”, it is YOU
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[12]
——————————————————————

@StortSkeptic I've done my research. Read Knockout. Dr Morgan is the loser quack

— Suzanne Somers (@SuzanneSomers) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[13]
——————————————————————

.@SuzanneSomers What “cured” patients? You clearly don’t understand science, medicine or evidence. Utterly clueless.

— Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[14]
——————————————————————

.@SuzanneSomers No, I just hate quacks who scam others with false hope, extorting money in the process and those who feed off them.

— Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[15]
——————————————————————

@drpaulmorgan @SuzanneSomers sgu w novella ripped into her a couple of years ago. Scary logic deficit.

— Rudy Hellzapoppin' (@RudyHellzapop) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[16]
——————————————————————

@SuzanneSomers Been doing that for years, including all day today. Plenty of time.

— Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[17]
——————————————————————

@SuzanneSomers Did you read the story of Amelia?

— Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) August 9, 2013

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Bob Blaskiewicz, did you read the story on Amelia ?
——————————————————————
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
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[18]
——————————————————————

@SuzanneSomers You know that's not actually how science works, right? Currently, no evidence for his claims. None.

— David James (@StortSkeptic) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[19]
——————————————————————

@SuzanneSomers LOL! What makes you think I’m a “loser quack”? Or is this another claim of yours made with no evidence? @StortSkeptic

— Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
Dr. Paul Morgan, you are a “loser quack” because you refuse to debate, like Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski, Bob Blaskiewicz, Adam Jacobs, etc.
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[20]
——————————————————————

@SuzanneSomers Do you not wonder why he's failed to publish properly once in 37 years, yet he happily charges the earth for trial entry?

— David James (@StortSkeptic) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
David James Do you not wonder why The Lancet Oncology failed to publish properly Burzynski’s trial results?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[21]
——————————————————————

@drpaulmorgan @SuzanneSomers I think she means that the patients were rolled in salt and slowly smoked to get the cancer out.

— Censorious Bot (@CensoriousBot) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[22]
——————————————————————

@StortSkeptic @SuzanneSomers Now, now David. We all know Biased Poorly Researched Documentaries are the new Peer-Reviewed Clinical Trials.

— Shaun Sellars (@TheWholeT00th) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[23]
——————————————————————

@TheWholeT00th Don't even joke with me. @SuzanneSomers and her fucking awful book and promotion means she probably has blood on her hands.

— David James (@StortSkeptic) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[24]
——————————————————————

Hey @SuzanneSomers, perhaps you missed my question yesterday. Where does your 60% success rate statistic for #burzynski come from?

— Adam Jacobs (@statsguyuk) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[25]
——————————————————————

@dianthusmed @SuzanneSomers Maybe she should have a read of this: http://t.co/szihU3JbD6 It's a real Knockout.

— David James (@StortSkeptic) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[26]
——————————————————————

MT @dianthusmed: Hey @SuzanneSomers, Where does your 60% success rate statistic for #burzynski come from? Mendacity? @_JosephineJones

— Tetenterre (@Tetenterre) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[27]
——————————————————————

@drpaulmorgan you are not a Real Doctor. I googled. you have no authority. You have never interviewed ,or visited the Burzynski clinic

— Suzanne Somers (@SuzanneSomers) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[28]
——————————————————————

Susanne Somers thinks she can erase her idiotic tweets. She's wrong. Typical #burzynski shill. pic.twitter.com/pqm3KcKpGq

— MedTek (@medtek) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[29]
——————————————————————

.@SuzanneSomers Clueless. Where did you look? I'm in the UK, on the GMC register. Don't need to visit #Burzynski to see his publications.

— Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[30]
——————————————————————

I don't think @SuzanneSomers is going to say where she got her "60% success rate for #burzynski" statistic. Funny, that. #madeupstats

— Adam Jacobs (@statsguyuk) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[31]
——————————————————————

@drpaulmorgan @SuzanneSomers #Burzynski A thread to be remembered. Science vs. ??? pic.twitter.com/ws5Cf8DxIA

— Jim Friedman (@JimFriedman) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[32]
——————————————————————

@JimFriedman Must be embarrassing for @SuzanneSomers to fail in such a basic task. But, then again…..

— Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[33]
——————————————————————

@medtek Has she deleted that tweet? Oh dear! Absolutely epic fail.

— Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[34]
——————————————————————

@drpaulmorgan She deleted the entire conversation.

— MedTek (@medtek) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[35]
——————————————————————

@medtek @drpaulmorgan Strange. I can still see the tweet.

— Adam Jacobs (@statsguyuk) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[36]
——————————————————————

@SuzanneSomers @drpaulmorgan as you are expert in qualifications Suzanne, can you find #burzynski oncologist specialist qualification?

— JCmacc (@JCmacc1) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
As you are expert in qualifications JCmacc, can you explain #burzynski’s co-author’s oncologist specialist qualification on his phase II clinical trial preliminary reports publications?
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[37]
——————————————————————

@dianthusmed @drpaulmorgan Look at her timeline.

— MedTek (@medtek) August 9, 2013

—————————————————
—————
[38]
——————————————————————

@medtek @drpaulmorgan This is what it looks like to me pic.twitter.com/lcoeQBqGIx

— Adam Jacobs (@statsguyuk) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[39]
——————————————————————

@dianthusmed @drpaulmorgan Ah, indeed. Twitter did a weird tabby thing.

— MedTek (@medtek) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[40]
——————————————————————

Apologies, Ms. Somers did NOT delete her idiotic tweet. #Burzynski

— MedTek (@medtek) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[41]
——————————————————————

@medtek @dianthusmed Maybe that she's blocked you.

— Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[42]
——————————————————————

@drpaulmorgan @dianthusmed No, Twitter defaults to the "no replies" tab, which I didn't even know was there. Tweetdeck is being a bitch too

— MedTek (@medtek) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[43]
——————————————————————

@drpaulmorgan @dianthusmed Being blocked is *never* a deterrent 😉

— MedTek (@medtek) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[44]
——————————————————————

@medtek @dianthusmed @drpaulmorgan weird tabby thing http://t.co/WguijJ9m1J (Sorry. That was irresistable.)

— Alice (@PenguinGalaxy) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[45]
——————————————————————

@medtek @drpaulmorgan @dianthusmed Tweets still all there for me too.

— kayray (@ktibus) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[46]
——————————————————————

@ktibus @drpaulmorgan @dianthusmed It was totally me.

— MedTek (@medtek) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[47]
——————————————————————

@medtek @dianthusmed Oh, of course not!

— Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[48]
——————————————————————

@dianthusmed @SuzanneSomers @_JosephineJones look at her www site – another magic supplement pusher. No wonder she supports quacks

— Angus Sawyer (@ogoffan) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[49]
——————————————————————

@ogoffan @dianthusmed @SuzanneSomers Indeed

— Laura Thomason (@_JosephineJones) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[50]
——————————————————————

@medtek @drpaulmorgan I see @SuzanneSomers’ Google skills are just as poor as her Google Scholar skills. Yes, Dr Morgan is a real doctor.

— Matthew Berryman (@mjberryman) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[51]
——————————————————————

@SuzanneSomers @drpaulmorgan Have you looked at that link? Before you get in an unproductive spat, please do.

— Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[52]
——————————————————————

FAIL RT @SuzanneSomers: @drpaulmorgan you are not a Real Doctor. I googled. you have no authority…

— Milton Mermikides (@miltonline) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[53]
——————————————————————

“@SuzanneSomers: @drpaulmorgan you are not a Real Doctor. I googled. you have no authority. " Says the actress….to the Doctor. LOL!

— Nick Bennett (@peds_id_doc) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[54]
——————————————————————

@SuzanneSomers And this is why your Google research is rubbish. You are wrong about @drpaulmorgan and you are wrong about quack #burzynski

— FW (@frozenwarning) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[55]
——————————————————————

.@SuzanneSomers writes that Dr. #Burzynski is under attack! 4 general rebuttals added to rbutr: http://t.co/ya5H51cgjT @IDoubtIt @gorskon

— rbutr (@rbutrcom) August 9, 2013

——————————————————————
[56]
——————————————————————

.@SuzanneSomers @drpaulmorgan I'm a real cancer doctor, and I know that #Burzynski's "personalized" therapy is bogus. http://t.co/iwhewg5N4Y

— David Gorski (@gorskon) August 10, 2013

——————————————————————
David H. “Orac” Gorski, M.D., Ph.D, if you are a “cancer doctor” with a Ph.D, why did you NOT know this?
——————————————————————
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/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[57]
——————————————————————

@gorskon When you were watching Three's Company as a kid, did you ever think you'd be tweeting with Chrissy? 🙂

— K Smith (@K_Smith_MI) August 10, 2013

——————————————————————
[58]
——————————————————————

.@HPMcCall @suzannesomers Why yes. Yes, #Burzynski uses lots of chemotherapy on his patients. http://t.co/chz5UDBJhO

— David Gorski (@gorskon) August 10, 2013

——————————————————————
[59]
——————————————————————

@gorskon I'm just wondering why anyone would take medical "advice" from Chrissy.

— Leslie Allen (@Geologygeek) August 10, 2013

——————————————————————
[60]
——————————————————————

@K_Smith_MI Chrissy hasn't responded yet; so technically I am Tweeting at her. My guess is that she'll block me.

— David Gorski (@gorskon) August 10, 2013

——————————————————————
[61]
——————————————————————

Maybe I should point out to @SuzanneSomers that I gave a talk to 1000 people about #Burzynski in July. 🙂 #TAM2013 @stortskeptic

— David Gorski (@gorskon) August 10, 2013

——————————————————————
[62]
——————————————————————

@gorskon @SuzanneSomers You gave a talk to several thousand with @rjblaskiewicz back in May 🙂 http://t.co/1PI9xZBOVm #burzynski

— David James (@StortSkeptic) August 10, 2013

——————————————————————
David James, do you mean THIS garbage?
——————————————————————
Critiquing the #SkepticCanary: “The Skeptics™” (SkeptiCowards©) Bob Blatherskitewicz and the so-called, “self-proclaimed” “CANCER RESEARCHER”:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/critiquing-the-skepticcanary-the-skeptics-skepticowards-bob-blatherskitewicz-and-the-so-called-self-proclaimed-cancer-researcher/
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[63]
——————————————————————

True, but it wasn't in person on stage. 🙂 #Burzynski @StortSkeptic @suzannesomers @rjblaskiewicz

— David Gorski (@gorskon) August 10, 2013

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
What was that Gorski ?
——————————————————————

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

— Burzynski Movie (@BurzynskiMovie) February 18, 2013

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[64]
——————————————————————

.@gorskon @drpaulmorgan is #burzynski the guy who took homeless people's pee & found something 'magic' in it & now sells it?

— Cigal MD MSc FAAP (@motek42) August 10, 2013

——————————————————————
[65]
——————————————————————

Lord save us from another celebrity who thinks she is a doctor "Looks like @SuzanneSomers needs a little education" http://t.co/Ro86MnI1Jx”

— Deirdre Bonnycastle (@Bonnycastle) August 10, 2013

——————————————————————
[66]
——————————————————————

Watching the side commentary in the argument between @gorkson and @SuzanneSomers is depressing. She's wrong about Burzynski, … BUT …

— arclight (@arclight) August 10, 2013

——————————————————————
[67]
——————————————————————

@arclight The real problem is that people would ever consider taking medical advice from a celebrity. Even a celebrity doctor.

— Leslie Allen (@Geologygeek) August 10, 2013

——————————————————————
[68]
——————————————————————

@drpaulmorgan oh crumbs, not that guy again! #burzynski @SuzanneSomers

— Corinne. (@PricklyEmu) August 10, 2013

——————————————————————
[69]
——————————————————————

@motek42 @gorskon The very same. Much more sophisticated operation these days, but that's roughly how he started.

— Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) August 10, 2013

——————————————————————
[70]
——————————————————————

@PricklyEmu @SuzanneSomers The very same. #Burzynski Can't give ANPs to any new patients, which is great news. Merola's movie has bombed.

— Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) August 10, 2013

——————————————————————
[71]
——————————————————————

Heated argument with a friend last night re: #Burzynski, a #cancer quack profiting from ppl desperate 4 hope http://t.co/RdT9OVNQot

— Miss Calculating (@PlantLeidy) August 10, 2013

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

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
——————————————————————
======================================
[1] willradik (@willradik) tweeted at 2:38pm – 8 Aug 13:

@gorskon Is @SuzanneSomers writing about same Burzynski I know of? The dangerous quack who takes money and provides unproven treatments?
======================================
[2] Dr. Michael Wosnick (@MichaelWosnick) tweeted at 2:55pm – 8 Aug 13:

Needs it about LOTS more! RT @gorskon Hmmm. Looks like @SuzanneSomers needs a little education about #Burzynski. suzannesomers.com/Blog/post/Dr-B…
======================================
[3] Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 3:23pm – 8 Aug 13:

@gorskon @SuzanneSomers 60% success rate? Where’s that published then? Oh.. it’s not. More like 0% success rate. #Burzynski
======================================
[4] Heather McCall (@HPMcCall) tweeted at 3:39pm – 8 Aug 13:

@gorskon @ScienceBasedMed @SuzanneSomers Doesn’t Burzynksi use chemo for his patients?
======================================
[5] Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 3:54pm – 8 Aug 13:

Hello @SuzanneSomers, your blog says #burzynski has a 60% success rate in brain cancers. Where did that statistic come from?
======================================
[6] Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 3:57pm – 8 Aug 13:

@drpaulmorgan That would be my guess too. But will be interesting to see if she replies. Doubt she will, but you never know
======================================
[7] Suzanne Somers (@SuzanneSomers) tweeted at 11:33am – 9 Aug 13:

@IamBreastCancer go to Suzannesomers.com and read my blog about dr. Burzynski. Then click on survivor stories.
======================================
[8] Suzanne Somers (@SuzanneSomers) tweeted at 11:34am – 9 Aug 13:

@drpaulmorgan you are very wrong. Go to the source. Go to hs clinic. Talk to his cured patients.
======================================
[9] Suzanne Somers (@SuzanneSomers) tweeted at 11:44am – 9 Aug 13:

@drpaulmorgan you seem to have a chip on your shoulder .
======================================
[10] Suzanne Somers (@SuzanneSomers) tweeted at 11:45am – 9 Aug 13:

@drpaulmorgan what kind of doctor are you that you have so much time to hang out on twitter and post negatives. Go heal people.
======================================
[11] David James (@StortSkeptic) tweeted at 12:47pm – 9 Aug 13:

@SuzanneSomers @drpaulmorgan You would as well if you understood the science and saw uneducated morons supporting this utter quack.
======================================
[12] Suzanne Somers (@SuzanneSomers) tweeted at 12:48pm – 9 Aug 13:

@StortSkeptic I’ve done my research. Read Knockout. Dr Morgan is the loser quack
======================================
[13] Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 12:49pm – 9 Aug 13:

.@SuzanneSomers What “cured” patients? You clearly don’t understand science, medicine or evidence. Utterly clueless.
======================================
[14] Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 12:51pm – 9 Aug 13:

.@SuzanneSomers No, I just hate quacks who scam others with false hope, extorting money in the process and those who feed off them.
======================================
[15] Rudy Hellzapoppin’ (@RudyHellzapop) tweeted at 12:51pm – 9 Aug 13:

@drpaulmorgan @SuzanneSomers sgu w novella ripped into her a couple of years ago. Scary logic deficit.
======================================
[16] Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 12:52pm – 9 Aug 13:

@SuzanneSomers Been doing that for years, including all day today. Plenty of time.
======================================
[17] Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) tweeted at 12:53pm – 9 Aug 13:

@SuzanneSomers Did you read the story of Amelia?
======================================
[18] David James (@StortSkeptic) tweeted at 12:54pm – 9 Aug 13:

@SuzanneSomers You know that’s not actually how science works, right? Currently, no evidence for his claims. None.
======================================
[19] Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 12:54pm – 9 Aug 13:

@SuzanneSomers LOL! What makes you think I’m a “loser quack”? Or is this another claim of yours made with no evidence? @StortSkeptic
======================================
[20] David James (@StortSkeptic) tweeted at 12:56pm – 9 Aug 13:

@SuzanneSomers Do you not wonder why he’s failed to publish properly once in 37 years, yet he happily charges the earth for trial entry?
======================================
[21] Censorious Bot (@CensoriousBot) tweeted at 12:56pm – 9 Aug 13:

@drpaulmorgan @SuzanneSomers
I think she means that the patients were rolled in salt and slowly smoked to get the cancer out.
======================================
[22] Shaun Sellars (@TheWholeT00th) tweeted at 1:13pm – 9 Aug 13:

@StortSkeptic @SuzanneSomers Now, now David. We all know Biased Poorly Researched Documentaries are the new Peer-Reviewed Clinical Trials.
======================================
[23] David James (@StortSkeptic) tweeted at 1:16pm – 9 Aug 13:

@TheWholeT00th Don’t even joke with me. @SuzanneSomers and her fucking awful book and promotion means she probably has blood on her hands.
======================================
[24] Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 1:25pm – 9 Aug 13:

Hey @SuzanneSomers, perhaps you missed my question yesterday. Where does your 60% success rate statistic for #burzynski come from?
======================================
[25] David James (@StortSkeptic) tweeted at 1:32pm – 9 Aug 13:

@dianthusmed @SuzanneSomers Maybe she should have a read of this: …erburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com It’s a real Knockout.
======================================
[26] Tetenterre (@Tetenterre) tweeted at 2:02pm – 9 Aug 13:

MT @dianthusmed: Hey @SuzanneSomers, Where does your 60% success rate statistic for #burzynski come from?
Mendacity?
@_JosephineJones
======================================
[27] Suzanne Somers (@SuzanneSomers) tweeted at 2:53pm – 9 Aug 13:

@drpaulmorgan you are not a Real
Doctor. I googled. you have no authority. You have never interviewed ,or visited the Burzynski clinic
======================================
[28] MedTek (@medtek) tweeted at 2:56pm – 9 Aug 13:

Susanne Somers thinks she can erase her idiotic tweets. She’s wrong. Typical #burzynski shill. pic.twitter.com/pqm3KcKpGq
======================================
[29] Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 2:57pm – 9 Aug 13:

.@SuzanneSomers Clueless. Where did you look? I’m in the UK, on the GMC register. Don’t need to visit #Burzynski to see his publications.
======================================
[30] Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 3:11pm – 9 Aug 13:

I don’t think @SuzanneSomers is going to say where she got her “60% success rate for #burzynski” statistic. Funny, that. #madeupstats
======================================
[31] Jim Friedman (@JimFriedman) tweeted at 3:12pm – 9 Aug 13:

@drpaulmorgan @SuzanneSomers #Burzynski A thread to be remembered. Science vs. ??? pic.twitter.com/ws5Cf8DxIA
======================================
[32] Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 3:15pm – 9 Aug 13:

@JimFriedman Must be embarrassing for @SuzanneSomers to fail in such a basic task. But, then again…..
======================================
[33] Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 3:32pm – 9 Aug 13:

@medtek Has she deleted that tweet? Oh dear! Absolutely epic fail.
======================================
[34] MedTek (@medtek) tweeted at 3:34pm – 9 Aug 13:

@drpaulmorgan She deleted the entire conversation.
======================================
[35] Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 3:36pm – 9 Aug 13:

@medtek @drpaulmorgan Strange. I can still see the tweet.
======================================
[36] JCmacc (@JCmacc1) tweeted at 3:36pm – 9 Aug 13:

@SuzanneSomers @drpaulmorgan as you are expert in qualifications Suzanne, can you find #burzynski oncologist specialist qualification?
======================================
[37] MedTek (@medtek) tweeted at 3:36pm – 9 Aug 13:

@dianthusmed @drpaulmorgan Look at her timeline.
======================================
[38] Dianthus Medical (@dianthusmed) tweeted at 3:38pm – 9 Aug 13:

@medtek @drpaulmorgan This is what it looks like to me pic.twitter.com/lcoeQBqGIx
======================================
[39] MedTek (@medtek) tweeted at 3:38pm – 9 Aug 13:

@dianthusmed @drpaulmorgan Ah, indeed. Twitter did a weird tabby thing.
======================================
[40] MedTek (@medtek) tweeted at 3:39pm – 9 Aug 13:

Apologies, Ms. Somers did NOT delete her idiotic tweet. #Burzynski
======================================
[41] Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 3:43pm – 9 Aug 13:

@medtek @dianthusmed Maybe that she’s blocked you.
======================================
[42] MedTek (@medtek) tweeted at 3:43pm – 9 Aug 13:

@drpaulmorgan @dianthusmed No, Twitter defaults to the “no replies” tab, which I didn’t even know was there. Tweetdeck is being a bitch too
======================================
[43] MedTek (@medtek) tweeted at 3:54pm – 9 Aug 13:

@drpaulmorgan @dianthusmed Being blocked is *never* a deterrent 😉
======================================
[44] Alice Sheppard (@PenguinGalaxy) tweeted at 3:54pm – 9 Aug 13:

@medtek @dianthusmed @drpaulmorgan weird tabby thing imgur.com/1pQudGQ (Sorry. That was irresistable.)
======================================
[45] kayray (@ktibus) tweeted at 3:58pm – 9 Aug 13:

@medtek @drpaulmorgan @dianthusmed Tweets still all there for me too.
======================================
[46] MedTek (@medtek) tweeted at 3:59pm – 9 Aug 13:

@ktibus @drpaulmorgan @dianthusmed It was totally me.
======================================
[47] Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 4:10pm – 9 Aug 13:

@medtek @dianthusmed Oh, of course not!
======================================
[48] Angus Sawyer (@ogoffan) tweeted at 4:12pm – 9 Aug 13:

@dianthusmed @SuzanneSomers @_JosephineJones look at her www site – another magic supplement pusher. No wonder she supports quacks
======================================
[49] Josephine Jones (@_JosephineJones) tweeted at 4:22pm – 9 Aug 13:

@ogoffan @dianthusmed @SuzanneSomers Indeed
======================================
[50] Matthew Berryman (@mjberryman) tweeted at 4:44pm – 9 Aug 13:

@medtek @drpaulmorgan I see @SuzanneSomers’ Google skills are just as poor as her Google Scholar skills. Yes, Dr Morgan is a real doctor.
======================================
[51] Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) tweeted at 3:15pm – 9 Aug 13:

@SuzanneSomers @drpaulmorgan Have you looked at that link? Before you get in an unproductive spat, please do.
======================================
[52] Milton Mermikides (@miltonline) tweeted at 3:55pm – 9 Aug 13:

FAIL RT @SuzanneSomers: @drpaulmorgan you are not a Real
Doctor. I googled. you have no authority…
======================================
[53] Nick Bennett (@peds_id_doc) tweeted at 4:59pm – 9 Aug 13:

“@SuzanneSomers: @drpaulmorgan you are not a Real
Doctor. I googled. you have no authority. ”
Says the actress….to the Doctor. LOL!
======================================
[54] FW (@frozenwarning) tweeted at 5:37pm – 9 Aug 13:

@SuzanneSomers And this is why your Google research is rubbish. You are wrong about @drpaulmorgan and you are wrong about quack #burzynski
======================================
[55] rbutr (@rbutrcom) tweeted at 6:00pm – 9 Aug 13:

.@SuzanneSomers writes that Dr. #Burzynski is under attack! 4 general rebuttals added to rbutr: rbutr.com/rbutr/WebsiteS… @IDoubtIt @gorskon
======================================
[56] David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 10:35pm – 9 Aug 13:

.@SuzanneSomers @drpaulmorgan I’m a real cancer doctor, and I know that #Burzynski’s “personalized” therapy is bogus. sciencebasedmedicine.org/suzanne-somers…
======================================
[57] K Smith (@K_Smith_MI) tweeted at 10:38pm – 9 Aug 13:

@gorskon When you were watching Three’s Company as a kid, did you ever think you’d be tweeting with Chrissy? 🙂
======================================
[58] David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 10:38pm – 9 Aug 13:

.@HPMcCall @SuzanneSomers Why yes. Yes, #Burzynski uses lots of chemotherapy on his patients. sciencebasedmedicine.org/stanislaw-burz…
======================================
[59] Leslie Allen (@Geologygeek) tweeted at 10:40pm – 9 Aug 13:

@gorskon I’m just wondering why anyone would take medical “advice” from Chrissy.
======================================
[60] David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 10:41pm – 9 Aug 13:

@K_Smith_MI Chrissy hasn’t responded yet; so technically I am Tweeting at her. My guess is that she’ll block me.
======================================
[61] David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 10:43pm – 9 Aug 13:

Maybe I should point out to @SuzanneSomers that I gave a talk to 1000 people about #Burzynski in July. 🙂 #TAM2013 @StortSkeptic
======================================
[62] David James (@StortSkeptic) tweeted at 10:50pm – 9 Aug 13:

@gorskon @SuzanneSomers You gave a talk to several thousand with @rjblaskiewicz back in May 🙂 blogtalkradio.com/skepticcanary/… #burzynski
======================================
[63] David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 10:54pm – 9 Aug 13:

True, but it wasn’t in person on stage. 🙂 #Burzynski @StortSkeptic @SuzanneSomers @rjblaskiewicz
======================================
[64] Cigal MD MSc FAAP (@motek42) tweeted at 11:18pm – 9 Aug 13:

.@gorskon @drpaulmorgan is #burzynski the guy who took homeless people’s pee & found something ‘magic’ in it & now sells it?
======================================
[65] Deirdre Bonnycastle (@Bonnycastle) tweeted at 11:30pm – 9 Aug 13:

Lord save us from another celebrity who thinks she is a doctor “Looks like @SuzanneSomers needs a little education” suzannesomers.com/Blog/post/Dr-B…”
======================================
[66] arclight (@arclight) tweeted at 12:01am – 10 Aug 13:

Watching the side commentary in the argument between @gorkson and @SuzanneSomers is depressing. She’s wrong about Burzynski, … BUT …
======================================
[67] Leslie Allen (@Geologygeek) tweeted at 12:25am – 10 Aug 13:

@arclight The real problem is that people would ever consider taking medical advice from a celebrity. Even a celebrity doctor.
======================================
[68] Corinne (@PricklyEmu) tweeted at 1:37am – 10 Aug 13:

@drpaulmorgan oh crumbs, not that guy again! #burzynski @SuzanneSomers
======================================
[69] Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 4:42am – 10 Aug 13:

@motek42 @gorskon The very same. Much more sophisticated operation these days, but that’s roughly how he started.
======================================
[70] Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan) tweeted at 5:24am – 10 Aug 13:

@PricklyEmu @SuzanneSomers The very same. #Burzynski Can’t give ANPs to any new patients, which is great news. Merola’s movie has bombed.
======================================
[71] Leila Ghaddab (@LeilaGhaddab) tweeted at 5:32am – 10 Aug 13:

Heated argument with a friend last night re: #Burzynski, a #cancer quack profiting from ppl desperate 4 hope sciencebasedmedicine.org/burzynski-succ…
======================================

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)

Click to access 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

Click to access 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

Click to access 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

Click to access 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

Click to access 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)

Click to access 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

Click to access 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

Click to access 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.

Click to access 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.

Click to access 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

Click to access 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

Click to access 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).

Click to access 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
======================================