Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski, Stanislaw R. Burzynski, Stanislaw Burzynski, Stan R. Burzynski, Stan Burzynski, S. R. BURZYNSKI, S. Burzynski, Arthur Burzynski, Hippocrates Hypocrite Hypocrites Critic Critics Critical HipoCritical
I gave Liz Szabo and USA TODAY the chance to act like a Spike Lee joint and “Do the Right Thing”, the same day their article came out [1]
I gave them the opportunity to prove that their article was a legitimate piece of journalism with some semblance of integrity, and NOT just akin to one of “The Skeptics™ phoned-in “rubber-stamped” yellow journalism hit pieces
Instead, it seems that Liz Szabo and / or USA TODAY decided to act as if they had rolled a Spike Lee joint
I sent an e-mail with 2 editorial corrections, and only one (correcting Lisa Merritt’s comment link from taking the reader to the 1999 Mayo Clinic report instead of to her comments), was corrected [2]
The 2nd correction which they #FAILED to do, earns them well deserved INSOLENCE
——————————————————————
The articleclaims:
—————————————————————— “Burzynski, 70, calls his drugs “antineoplastons” and says he has given them to more than 8,000 patients since 1977.”
——————————————————————
——————————————————————
However, if you select the “8,000 patients” link, the referenced page does NOT indicate that at all [2]
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— It advises:
—————————————————————— “That same year, Dr. Burzynski founded his clinic in Houston where he’s since treated over 8,000 patients.”[3]
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— Nowhere does it indicate that he “treated 8,000 patients” with antineoplastons
——————————————————————
——————————————————————
The question that Liz Szabo and USA TODAY should answer, is:
1. Who is your “fact-checker”, and 2. are they smarter than a 5th grader ?
——————————————————————
In fact, Burzynski’s 2002 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing advises:
” … in 1997, his medical practice was expanded to include traditional cancer treatment options such as chemotherapy, gene targeted therapy, immunotherapy and hormonal therapy in response to FDA requirements that cancer patients utilize more traditional cancer treatment options in order to be eligible to participate in the Company’s Antineoplaston clinical trials”[4]
——————————————————————
The article continues:
—————————————————————— “Individual success stories can be misleading, said Arthur Caplan, a professor and head of the division of bioethics at NYU Langone Medical Center”
——————————————————————
The question Arthur Caplan should be asking is:
Why has the United States Food and Drug Administration required Burzynski’s clinical trial patients to fail conventional therapies; such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation, BEFORE they are allowed to be treated with antineoplaston therapy ?
If the F.D.A. did NOT impose these restrictions upon Burzynski’s clinical trials, then the question Arthur Caplan raises would be moot
——————————————————————
The article quotes Dr. Jan Buckner as saying:
—————————————————————— “When I hear a story that is way out of the norm, the first question I ask is,
‘OK, is the diagnosis even correct?‘ ”
“Buckner said”
“If the diagnosis wasn’t right to start with, it doesn’t matter what the treatment was.”
“Brain tumors are notoriously difficult to diagnose, Buckner says”
“When dealing with rare brain cancer, doctors may disagree about how to interpret imaging results up to 40% of the time”
——————————————————————
I wonder if Dr. Jan Buckner would agree with David Gorski; who is a BREAST cancer oncology specialist, and NOT a BRAIN cancer oncology specialist, who has the presumptiveness to speculate that 3 different medical opinions could have misdiagnosed Tori Moreno in August 1998; who was diagnosed with a very large tumor, about 3 inches in the largest diameter and located in the brain stem, which was too risky for surgery, and about which her parents were told by ALL 3, that Tori’s brain cancer was fatal and, she would die in a few days or at the most, 2-6 weeks, and that there was nothing that could be done, and was finally put on Burzynski’s antineoplaston therapy in October, when she was about 3 ½ months old, and in such condition that they were afraid that she might die at any time, David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., FACS; who claims, “I do know cancer science”, has the audacity, because of his “book learnin'” has the temerity to postulate his “science-based medicine theory” that Miller’s Children at Long Beach Memorial misdiagnosed Tori Moreno’s inoperable stage 4 BSG
David Gorski has the gall to profer that City of Hope misdiagnosed Tori Moreno’s inoperable stage 4 brain stem glioma
David Gorski has the chutzpah to pontificate that Dr. Fred Epstein in New York misdiagnosed Tori Moreno’s inoperable stage IV brainstem glioma [5]
——————————————————————
The article then quotes Peter Adamson, chair of the Children’s Oncology Group:
—————————————————————— “But these therapies may have delayed benefits, taking weeks or months to shrink a tumor“
“So patients treated by Burzynski may credit him for their progress, just because he was the last doctor to treat them, says Peter Adamson, chair of the Children’s Oncology Group, an NCI-supported research network that conducts clinical trials in pediatric cancer“
“Conventional cancer treatment can also cause tumors to swell temporarily, due to inflammation“
“A patient who isn’t familiar with this phenomenon may assume her tumor is growing“
“When that swelling subsides, patients may assume it’s because of Burzynski, Adamson says”
——————————————————————
This is laughable
In support of this “phenomenon”, the article provides a link to a Canadian web-site [6]
The site posits:
—————————————————————— “RT/TMZ is now widely practiced and the standard of care for appropriately selected patients, we are learning more about the consequences of RT/TMZ”
“One phenomena, termed Pseudo-Progression (psPD)…”
——————————————————————
The problem is that this only applies to “Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM)”, and the article provides NO proof whatsoever, that any of Burzynski’s “Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM)” patients have taken “RT/TMZ”
——————————————————————
Additionally, the site cites the reference as:
Sanghera, Perry, Sahgal, et al., “Sunnybrook Health Sciences Odette Cancer Centre” (in press, Canadian Journal of Neuroscience)
(“In press” refers to journal articles which have been accepted for publication, but have not yet been published)
However, the journal article in question was published 1/2010, so it has NOT been “in press” for over 3 years and 7 months [7]
Get your act together, aye, Canada!
——————————————————————
The articlerants and raves on and on about FDA inspection reports from as far back as 1998, but at least they did quote Richard A. Jaffe:
“The FDA has not yet issued final conclusions”
——————————————————————
The article posts this ridiculous claim:
—————————————————————— “Yet the National Cancer Institute says there is no evidence that Burzynski has cured a single patient, or even helped one live longer“
——————————————————————
That’s NOT what this seems to suggest [8]
——————————————————————
Then the article quotes pediatric oncologist Peter Adamson, a professor of pediatrics and pharmacology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, in what will no doubt soon be known as a “classic”:
—————————————————————— “He’s a snake oil salesman,” says pediatric oncologist Peter Adamson, a professor of pediatrics and pharmacology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia”
——————————————————————
All I’d like to know is, which rock did this clown crawl out from under ?
Dr. Adamson, please advise which “snake oil” has been granted Orphan Drug Designation (“ODD”) from the United States Food and Drug Administration [9], and which “snake oil” has been approved for, and used in, phase III clinical trials ? [10]
—————————————————————— Q: Is it, it the phase 2 trial is finished ?
A:“Mhmm”
Q: but they’re still accepting people ?
A:“Yeah”
Q: on more like a special ?
A:“Special basis, and, um, sometimes compassionate grounds“
A:“(compassion exception)”
A:“Uh, exceptions“
Q: That’s normal ?
A:“Yes” “So”
A:“(Yes I guess it is a funding issue ?)”
Q: Right
A:“(Like FDA, during the 2nd phase of clinical trials they found the data to be, real, real one, and they gave him the ok to go for 3rd phase of clinical trials, but just to go through this process you would probably need $100,000)”
——————————————————————
——————————————————————
Oh, wait !!
Dr. Adamson, when you say “snake oil”, I take it you are referring to the low-dose chemotherapy that Burzynski uses ?
Dr. Adamson, do you know what a “hack” is ?
——————————————————————
In regards to the Merritt’s, the article has:
—————————————————————— “The couple say that Burzynski misled them about the type of treatment that would be offered, as well as the cost”
My questions about the Merritt’s are:
1. Where is their complaint to the Texas Medical Board ?
2. Where is their lawsuit ? Couldn’t they find an attorney to take their case pro bono ?
——————————————————————
The article continues:
—————————————————————— “Yet even Jaffe has acknowledged that the trial — now in its 17th year — was more about politics than science”
“In his 2008 memoirs, Galileo’s Lawyer, Jaffe called it “a joke.””
“”It was all an artifice, a vehicle we and the FDA created to legally give the patients Burzynski’s treatment,” Jaffe said“
——————————————————————
What Liz Szabo and her friends at USA TODAY fail to let the readers know, is that this only applied to one trial:
—————————————————————— Burzynski’s lawyer is obviously referring to the CAN-1 clinical trial mentioned in Burzynski’s 11/25/1997 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing [11]
—————————————————————— One trial that is retrospective is CAN-1 Clinical Trial
—————————————————————— CAN-1 PHASE II STUDY OF ANTINEOPLASTONS A10 AND AS2-1 IN
PATIENTS WITH REFRACTORY MALIGNANCIES
133 patients
—————————————————————— Clinical trial of patients treated by Dr. Burzynski through 2/23/1996
—————————————————————— FDA has indicated it will not accept data generated by this trial since it was not a wholly prospective one
——————————————————————
The article continues in the same vein:
——————————————————————
“In an interview, Burzynski said developing new drugs is complex and takes time”
“Yet the FDA has approved 108 cancer drugs since Burzynski began his trial”
—————————————————————— Ms. Szabo and “pals” conveniently “forgets” to educate their audience that Burzynski was using Fleming’s One-sample multiple testing procedure for phase II clinical trials [13], which requires that if the 1st 20 patients meet certain criteria, 20 additional patients are added [14]
—————————————————————— “Well, we cannot publish until the time is right” (laughs)
Yeah
“If you would like to publish the results of, of a 10 year survival, for instance”
Mmm
“Which we have
Nobody has over 10 year survival in malignant brain tumor, but we do, and if you like to do it right, it takes time to prepare it, and that’s what we do now
What we publish so far
We publish numerous, uh, publications which were, interim reports when we are still continuing clinical trials
Now we are preparing, a number of publications for final reports“[15]
——————————————————————
Then Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition makes an outlandish statement, which is quoted in the article:
—————————————————————— “Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition, describes the FDA’s tolerance of Burzynski as “outrageous.””
“They have put people at risk for a long time,” says Visco, an attorney and breast cancer survivor”
“That’s completely unacceptable”
“How can anyone look at these facts and believe that there is a real clinical trial going on … rather than just using the FDA and the clinical trial system to make money?”
——————————————————————
I have a suggestion for Ms. Visco
Take your hypocrisy and ask the American Cancer Society if they are still engaged in this kind of activity:
1.AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY: More Interested In Accumulating Wealth Than Saving Lives [15]
2.National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society: Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest [16]
——————————————————————
Then, ask the American Cancer Society, why is it that 10 years ago, estimated breast cancer deaths were expected to be 39,800 (15%), and this year it was 39,620 (14%), which is ONLY 180 LESS than 10 years ago ?
—————————————————————— Estimated Breast Cancer Deaths (Women)-USA
—————————————————————— 2013☝39,620 (14%)
2012👇39,510 (14%)
2011👇39,520 (15%)
2010👇39,840 (15%)
2009👇40,170 (15%) 2008☝40,480 (15%)
2007👇40,460 (15%) 2006☝40,970 (15%)
2005👇40,410 (15%) 2004☝40,110 (15%)
2003☝39,800 (15%)
2002 – 39,600 (15%)
—————————————————————– American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures (2002-2013)
—————————————————————–
And then ask the American Cancer Society, why is it that 10 years ago, the estimated NEW breast cancer cases were expected to be 211,300 (32%), and this year it was 232,340 (29%), which is 21,340 MORE than it was 10 years ago ?
—————————————————————— Estimated New Breast Cancer (Women) – USA
—————————————————————— 2013☝232,340 (29%)
2012👇226,870 (29%) 2011☝238,480 (30%)
2010☝207,090 (28%)
2009☝192,370 (27%)
2008☝182,460 (26%)
2007👇178,480 (26%) 2006☝212,920 (31%)
2005👇211,240 (32%) 2004☝215,900 (32%)
2003☝211,300 (32%)
2002_-_203,500 (31%)
—————————————————————– American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures (2002-2013)
——————————————————————
And after that, ask Susan G. Komen how much is spent on legal action to protect her brand, compared to how much is spent on breast cancer research and prevention ?
—————————————————————— Visco, the breast cancer advocate
“I do NOT know why it took YOU so long.”
——————————————————————
The article continues with:
—————————————————————— “Yet hypernatremia is one of antineoplastons’ most common side effects, known to doctors for two decades”
——————————————————————
Yet, “The Skeptics™” refuse to discuss:
—————————————————————— 2/13/2013 – The frequency, cost, and clinical outcomes of hypernatremia in patients hospitalized to a comprehensive cancer center
Over 3 month period in 2006 re 3,446 patients, most of the hypernatremia (90 %) was acquired during hospital stay [19]
Division of Internal Medicine, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
Department of General Internal Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
Division of Endocrinology, Mayo Clinic
—————————————————————— 9/1999 – The changing pattern of hypernatremia in hospitalized children [20]
Department of Pediatrics, Texas Children’s Hospital, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
——————————————————————
So, after all that, my question for USA TODAY is, does Liz Szabo, Michael Stravato, Jerry Mosemak or Robert Hanashiro have a journalism degree ?
Because if any of them do, the institution they obtained it from most be so proud of this piece of “fish wrap” you produced
Thank you, USA TODAY, for censoring my 18 comments
I guess you must be (“intellectual”) cowards
At least Forbes had the GRAPEFRUITS to post some of my comments
—————————————————————— You’ve just been served, INSOLENTLY
—————————————————————— USA TODAY, GONE TOMORROW
——————————————————————
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 . . .”
Anyhuman 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“
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
——————————————————————
6/7/2013 the Watford Observer published this article By Kathryn Snowdon [1]
“The mother of Luna Petagine has cast doubt on the expensive treatment the family sought in America during the Oxhey girl’s four-year battle with cancer“
—————————————————————— “Expensive treatment,”based on what objective criteria ? [2]
—————————————————————— “BBC Panorama this week aired an investigation into Doctor Stanislaw Burzynski’s cancer clinic in Texas, where hundreds of children – normally terminally ill – go and seek treatment”
“Luna, who was five-years-old when she died last year, was a patient at The Burzynski Clinic after her parents were told the physician could cure their daughter, despite Great Ormond Street Hospital doctors saying little more could be done for her”
—————————————————————— Why the conflicting statements ?
a)“her parents were told the physician could cure their daughter”
b)“The NHS are telling me my daughter’s going to die and this man is telling me that he thinks he can cure her.”
c)“He said he hoped to cure my daughter“
d)“The plan was to try and cure Luna.”
—————————————————————— “Luna’s mother, Lucy Petagine, of Raglan Gardens, said there was no doubt in her mind she was going to send her daughter to Dr Burzynski“
“Mrs Petagine said:”
“Of course I’m going to go with him
If anyone had knocked on my door and said
‘here if you try this it will work’
“then yeah I would have tried it because I was in desperation”
“The NHS are telling me my daughter’s going to die and this man is telling me that he thinks he can cure her.”
“Mrs Petagine added:”
“It was all about hope
He said he hoped to cure my daughter
The plan was to try and cure Luna.”
“In order to finance the treatment, which the family believed could be life-saving, more than £100,000 was raised and in September 2011 they travelled to America”
“However, Mrs Petagine said the treatment at The Burzynski Clinic was actually killing her daughter“
“She added:”
“The treatment was – what was happening – was actually killing Luna because it put this pressure on her brain stem.”
—————————————————————— Why did Mrs Petagine say that “the treatment at The Burzynski Clinic” … “was actually killing Luna” ?
Did someone tell her this, or was this her personal opinion ?
We know from Burzynski’s 3/2004 publication that:
“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” [3]
—————————————————————— “In response to Panorama’s questioning and claims that he was merely selling hope to vulnerable families, Dr Burzynski said:”
“Can you imagine that the US government… they would allow me to be here if I just sell hope?”
——————————————————————
Isn’t every cancer treatment “selling hope to vulnerable families”?
Isn’t every cancer clinical trial “selling hope to vulnerable families” ?
—————————————————————— “The treatment has not been approved by the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA)“
—————————————————————— 12/2008 – Burzynski’s publication advised:
“In 2004 the FDA granted orphan drug designation for antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 for the treatment of brainstem glioma” [4]
9/2012 – “The FDA granted Orphan Drug designation for Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 for the treatment of gliomas, in 2009″ [5]
—————————————————————— “A month into Luna’s therapy, an MRI revealed the tumour had grown, pressing on Luna’s brain stem and causing her breathing problems and facial palsy”
“Mrs Petagine said:”
“They said the tumour’s grown and we were like ‘how could it have grown this quickly, this doesn’t make sense’.”
——————————————————————
What does Mrs Petagine mean when she said:
‘how could it have grown this quickly, this doesn’t make sense’ ?
We know from [3] above, that the tumor is likely to grow before the medicine has reached it’s optimal dosage, and the tumor starts to decrease in size
—————————————————————— “Luna had to be admitted to intensive care in Texas Children’s Hospital“
“Mrs Petagine said:”
“Texas Children’s hate The Burzynski Clinic
“They said they have to clean up all his mess”
“The second you walk in the door they look at your child and they did actually say to us ‘are you a Burzynski family?’”
——————————————————————
If Texas Children’s actually does that with every child patient that comes in the door, that would be a really stupid bias to foist on some unsuspecting parent
—————————————————————— “Luna died in August last year”
——————————————————————
Unfortunately, the article does not tell the reader what happened ?
For years, Gorski has been able to comment on Burzynski’s “personalized gene targeted therapy” with impunity
It’s about time he received some personal attention, leading to heapin’ helpings of not-so-Respectful Insolence
All of the below articles by Gorski were tagged as having to do with:
personalized gene targeted cancer therapy, or mention it
—————————————————————— http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/tag/personalized-gene-targeted-cancer-therapy/
—————————————————————— I AM ADDING TO THIS AS I GO ALONG
====================================== [1] – 6/5/2013 – ” … in January the Burzynski Clinic removed all references to antineoplaston therapy on its website … “
—————————————————————— [2] – 8/4/2013 – I proved Gorski wrong since Burzynski’s scientific publications regarding antineoplaston therapy are on the Burzynski website
====================================== [1] – 6/5/2013 – “Three years should be plenty of time to line up clinical sites for a phase III trial”
“Of course, given that after three years the clinical trial hasn’t been opened, more than likely no reputable institution wants to partner with the Burzynski Research Institute, and ResearchPoint collected its checks”
—————————————————————— [3] – 7/18/2013 – This statement by Gorski is disingenuous since 6/3/2013 he reviewed Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II where this issue was addressed, and he made NO COMMENT about it in his review
Gorski can distort, exaggerate, and even lie to the public
====================================== [1] – 6/5/2013 – “Another interesting tidbit in the SEC filing is Burzynski’s report of the results of several of his clinical trials”
“They aren’t really “results’ per se, in that the information presented really isn’t provided in a form that really allows other investigators to evaluate it and potentially replicate it”
“Basically it’s a big table listing Burzynski Research Institute clinical trials”
“Of course, I realize that this is an SEC filing, not a scientific paper in the peer-reviewed literature, but if Burzynski has all this data to produce this table it boggles the mind that, given at least a decade and a half since these trials began, he hasn’t been able to publish any meaningful data thus far”
“That he hasn’t been able to do so is also a big red flag”
—————————————————————— [5] – 8/21/2013 – That Gorski has NOT been able to prove that the 4 Burzynski publications I refer to are NOT “meaningful data” is a big red flag
====================================== [6] – 6/4/2013 – “It’s a theme that is repeated throughout the report but that ignores the astounding level of sheer deception that goes on at the Burzynski Clinic, the allegations of overfilling, and how Burzynski has abused the clinical trial process to keep treating patients with antineoplastons without actually having to do the science that any other doctor would be required to do to validate a new treatment”
—————————————————————— [7] – 6/23/2013 – This is the 1st time I’ve seen Gorski allege “overfilling,” and I sure have NOT seen him provide any proof of that or that Burzynski is NOT doing “the science that any other doctor would be required to do to validate a new treatment”
If anyone is being “deceptive,” it seems to be Gorski
====================================== [6] – 6/4/2013 – Dr. Elloise Garside, a research scientists, echoes a lot of the questions I have, such as how Burzynski never explains which genes are targeted by antineoplastons, … “
—————————————————————— [8] – 8/7/2013 – Gorski has NO response for where I list where Burzynski “explains which genes are targeted by antineoplastons”
====================================== [6] – 6/4/2013 – ” … what the preclinical evidence supporting their efficacy are … “
—————————————————————— [9] – 3/16/2013 – Gorski does NOT mention where he’s reviewed “the preclinical evidence supporting their efficacy”
====================================== [6] – 6/4/2013 – ” … or what the scientific rationale is to expect that they might have antitumor activity”
—————————————————————— [10] – 8/8/2013 – Gorski reviewed “Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business” (Part I), but acts as if Dvorit D. Samid was NOT mentioned, and that he is NOT aware that the BurzynskiMovie website contains supporting documentation
I can’t let such statements go unchallenged
It means NadaZeroZip
====================================== [6] – 6/4/2013 – “In science, all that matters is what you publish, and Burzynski hasn’t published anything other than case reports, tiny case series, and unconvincing studies, mostly (at least over the last decade or so) in crappy journals not even indexed on PubMed”
—————————————————————— [5] – 8/21/2013 – I remain unimpressed that Gorski has NOT written a review of Burzynski’s 2003-2010 phase II clinical trial preliminary reports
====================================== [6] – 6/4/2013 – “Without a doubt, the most effective part of the story is the segment in which Dr. Jeanine Graf of the Texas Children’s Hospital is introduced”
“Dr. Graf is the director of the pediatric intensive care unit there and has taken care of lots of Burzynski patients, as her hospital is “just down the road” from the Burzynski Clinic and these unfortunate children are brought to her hospital when they decompensate”
“Indeed, coupled with this segment is an interlude where Luna Petagine’s mother complains that the staff there know and recognize Burzynski patients (and, she notes, hate the Burzynski Clinic)”
“Particularly damning is how Ms. Petagine said that the Texas Children’s Hospital Staff “were always cleaning up Burzynski’s messes.””
“Luna was brought to the Texas Children’s Hospital during her time in Houston, and the staff there recognized right away that she was a Burzynski patient because they had seen so many similar patients suffering the same complications before”
“It was also clear how much contempt the staff there had for the Burzynski Clinic”
“If there’s one thing Panorama did right in this report, it’s showing how seeing so many already dying children show up in our ICU because of hypernatremia due to antineoplaston therapy will do that”
“Perhaps the most devastating part of this segment was seeing Dr. Graf stating, point blank, that she’s never seen a Burzynski patient survive”
“True, she does point out that patients don’t come to her until they are in extremis, but the fact remains that she’s never seen any of them live”
—————————————————————— [11] – 4/24/2013 – What is so ridiculous about this is that Richard Bilton wanted numbers from Burzynski, but then when it came to this part of the documentary, he somehow forgets how to ask how many patients this applies to, and Gorski compounds this by trying to blame hypernatremia on antineoplaston therapy, but he refuses to explain how it is that in this Division of Internal Medicine / Department of General Internal Medicine, University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA, cancer study, over a 3 month period in 2006 re 3,446 patients, most of the HYPERNATREMIA (90 %) was acquired during hospital stay, and these patients were NOT on antineoplaston therapy
Arrogance, dismissiveness, and condescension make him his own worst enemy
====================================== [6] – 6/4/2013 – “Burzynski also pulls out the old trope that, if the FDA has been letting him use antineoplastons for 20 years in clinical trials if they weren’t safe and potentially effective, that the FDA wouldn’t let him “sell hope without evidence.””
“(Those of us following Burzynski for a while know, unfortunately, that that isn’t necessarily true.)”
—————————————————————— [12] – 4/25/2013 – “The FDA’s Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective” advises:
“[T]he emphasis in Phase 2 is on EFFECTIVENESS”
“Phase 3 studies begin if EVIDENCE of EFFECTIVENESS is shown in Phase 2″
The FDA has approved Burzynski’s phase 3 clinical trials, which means that antineoplastons have shown evidence of effectiveness, whether Gorski likes it or NOT
====================================== [6] – 6/4/2013 – ” … he goes on to repeat the same refrain he’s been repeating for the last decade or so about how he’s on the verge of publishing all the results that will convince everyone”
“One notes that we’re still waiting”
—————————————————————— [13] – 7/25/2013 – Gorski provides NO citation to support his statement, and, he did a review of “Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II,” but conveniently does NOT comment in his review about the refusal e-mail shown in the film, and its suspect content
====================================== [6] – 6/4/2013 – “Burzynski needs to publish, but I highly doubt that he will, at least not in a form that is informative to real oncologists”
—————————————————————— [5] – 8/21/2013 – I’m waiting for Gorski to prove that the 4 Burzynski publications I refer to are “NOT in a form that is informative to real oncologists”
Why don’t YOU cite a phase 2 clinical trial final publication that has substantially more data fields than the 4 publications I mention ?
====================================== [4] – 6/3/2013 – “I refer you to the link for my discussion of many of the problems with the movie”
“Here I will concentrate mainly on issues that I haven’t discussed before, because actually seeing Burzynski II was a revelation”
“(Yes, I put that sentence there on purpose, Eric Merola; quote mine it if you have the cojones)”
—————————————————————— [3] – 7/18/2013 – Gorski, don’t wait for Eric Merola to quote you
I’ve quoted you
Now let’s see if YOU have the cajones
MY review of your “review” should be a revelation to YOU
====================================== [4] – 6/3/2013 – “I’m referring to Chris Onuekwusi, a man who was diagnosed with stage I colon cancer”
“Instead of undergoing straightforward surgery that we know to have a high probability of success (which, I’ll also point out, can be done these days through minimally invasive laparoscopic techniques), Onuekwusi balked, as described in more detail than in the movie in this article on the Burzynski Patient Group website”
“He had even gone for a second opinion at one of the leading cancer centers in the world, the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, where the surgeon told him the same thing”
“He needed surgery first”
—————————————————————— [3] – 7/18/2013 – Mr. Onuekwusi did NOT want surgery
====================================== [4] – 6/3/2013 – “So what did Burzynski recommend instead of surgery?”
“He recommended a cocktail of three drugs given off-label:”
“Zolinza, Xeloda, and Avastin”
“Zolinza is vorinostat, a histone deacetylase inhibitor; Xeloda is capecitabine, which is a prodrug for 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), a pyrimidine analog that inhibits the enzyme thymidylate synthetase and thereby inhibits DNA synthesis to toxic effect in rapidly dividing cells; and Avastin is bevacizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody directed against vascular endothelial growth factor-A (VEGF-A)”
“As I described in a previous post about Burzynski’s “personalized, gene-targeted cancer therapy,” apparently Burzynski sent Onuekwusi’s tumor to Caris for testing”
====================================== [14] – 3/2010 – Burzynski advised that a blood or pathology specimen can be used for testing, and that results from a blood test can be obtained within 2 days, and used and refined by a pathology specimen within 2 to 3 weeks
====================================== [4] – 6/3/2013 – “Caris generated a report, as it always does, and Burzynski came up with a witches’ brew of new expensive targeted agents, all said to be “off-label.””
====================================== [15] – 5/17/2011 – Well, not exactly
Burzynski made it clear in part 2 of this interview that there is constant searches of medical literature (phase 2 and phase 3 publications) to research the medications to be used based on the cancer genes involved, and that they have worked on software so oncologists can use it to choose the best medications instead of reinventing the wheel and having to review the medical literature again
So, he does NOT come up with a “witches’ brew”
====================================== [4] – 6/3/2013 – “One of these drugs is just an old chemotherapy drug in a new form”
“Xeloda is, in essence, 5-FU, a chemotherapeutic drug that has been used to treat colorectal cancer, both as adjuvant chemotherapy and first-line therapy for metastatic disease, for over 40 years”
“There’s nothing really “targeted” about the drug except that it inhibits an enzyme, the way that many drugs do and have been known to do for decades”
“The advantage of Xeloda is that it can be administered orally, which is a good thing”
====================================== [16] – What Gorski fails to mention is that Xeloda (Capecitabine) is approved to be used alone or with other drugs to treat:
Stage III colon cancer in patients who have had surgery to remove cancer
May also apply to unapproved uses being studied
—————————————————————— [17] – fluoropyrimidine carbamate belonging to class of antineoplastic agents called antimetabolites
As prodrug, capecitabine is selectively activated by tumor cells to cytotoxic moiety, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU); subsequently, 5-FU is metabolized to 2 active metabolites, 5-fluoro-2-deoxyuridine monophosphate (FdUMP) and 5-fluorouridine triphosphate (FUTP) by tumor cells and normal cells
FdUMP inhibits DNA synthesis and cell division by reducing normal thymidine production, while FUTP inhibits RNA and protein synthesis by competing with uridine triphosphate for incorporation into RNA strand
====================================== [4] – 6/3/2013 – “Similarly, Avastin, although relatively new, is also commonly used for colorectal cancer, albeit usually for metastatic disease and not as adjuvant chemotherapy”
====================================== [18] – What Gorski fails to mention is that Avastin (Bevacizumab) is approved to be used alone or with other drugs to treat:
Colorectal cancer that has metastasized (spread to other parts of body)
May also apply to unapproved uses being studied
—————————————————————— [19] – A recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody directed against the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), a pro-angiogenic cytokine
Bevacizumab binds to VEGF and inhibits VEGF receptor binding, thereby preventing the growth and maintenance of tumor blood vessels
====================================== [4] – 6/3/2013 – “That leaves Zolinza, which is an HDAC inhibitor used to treat cutaneous T cell lymphoma”
====================================== [20] – What Gorski fails to mention is that Zolinza (Vorinostat) is a histone deacetylase inhibitor, approved for treatment of cutaneous manifestations of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) in patients with progressive, persistent, or recurrent disease
May also apply to unapproved uses being studied
—————————————————————— [21] – A synthetic hydroxamic acid derivative with antineoplastic activity
Vorinostat, a 2nd generation polar-planar compound, binds to catalytic domain of histone deacetylases (HDACs)
Allows hydroxamic moiety to chelate zinc ion located in catalytic pockets of HDAC, thereby inhibiting deacetylation and leading to accumulation of both hyperacetylated histones and transcription factors
Hyperacetylation of histone proteins results in upregulation of cyclin-dependant kinase p21, followed by G1 arrest
Hyperacetylation of non-histone proteins such as tumor suppressor p53, alpha tubulin, and heat-shock protein 90 produces additional anti-proliferative effects
Agent induces apoptosis and sensitizes tumor cells to cell death processes
Vorinostat crosses blood-brain barrier
====================================== [4] – 6/3/2013 – “One wonders if Burzynski included a second HDAC inhibitor, his second favorite drug after antineoplastons, sodium phenylbutyrate”
====================================== [22] – 11/19/2012 – Gorski, if you had done “exhaustive research” on Burzynski and “Gene-Targeted Cancer Therapy,” you would have viewed this @youtube video:
Texas Med. Bd. v. Dr. Burzynski – Gene-Targeted Cancer Therapy – Case Dismissed 11/19/2012
BurzynskiMovie
and you would have heard Mr. Onuekwusi say at 3:45, that he took phenylbutyrate (PB)
====================================== [4] – 6/3/2013 – “So, by Merola’s own description, what Burzynski did was to administer a toxic form of treatment that was probably not needed (chemotherapy) using drugs that were not approved for that indication, and apparently didn’t insist that the patient needed surgery”
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – Gorski publishes so much garbage that he may have forgotten his article where he posted:
“Then, there is also this video, produced by the Burzynski clinic itself:”
“At around the three minute mark, the announcer states:”
“We combine gene-targeting drugs and low dose chemo, if needed”
====================================== [4] – 6/3/2013 – “Now, it’s possible that the combination of drugs did eliminate the tumor”
====================================== Gorski, do you think that’s because as mentioned in [15], above, Burzynski would review publications like this ?
[24] – 8/23/2011 – A randomized, phase III trial of capecitabine [Xeloda] plus bevacizumab [Avastin] (Cape-Bev) versus capecitabine plus irinotecan plus bevacizumab (CAPIRI-Bev) in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: the AIO KRK 0110 trial/ML22011 trial [1st-line treatment of patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)]
—————————————————————— [25] – 11/2/2010 – Vorinostat [Zolinza] synergises with capecitabine [Xeloda] through upregulation of thymidine phosphorylase
—————————————————————— [26] – 4/2012 – Phase I–II study of vorinostat [Zolinza] plus paclitaxel and bevacizumab [Avastin] in metastatic breast cancer: evidence for vorinostat-induced tubulin acetylation and Hsp90 inhibition in vivo
—————————————————————— [4] – 6/3/2013 – “In my opinion, Burzynski deserves to have his medical license taken away on the basis of how he treated Chris Onuekwusi alone, not even considering all the other dubious things he’s done”
====================================== [27] – 8/27/2013 – In my opinion, Gorski deserves to have his medical license taken away on the basis of how he has misinformed, disinformed, and lied about Burzynski, not even considering all the other dubious things he’s done
====================================== [4] – 6/3/2013 – “All I can say is that Merola and Burzynski must not have searched very hard, because I quickly found a few … “
“Truly, Merola’s “exhaustive” research skills need some upgrading”
“It took me two minutes to find those articles”
====================================== [22] – 11/19/2012 – All I can say is that Gorski must NOT have searched very hard, because I quickly found this @youtube video about Dr. Burzynski – Gene-Targeted Cancer Therapy, which includes a segment on Burzynski’s cancer gene testing at 2:45
Truly, Gorski’s “exhaustive” research skills need some upgrading, since nowhere does it indicate that Burzynski was involved with doing Merola’s research
It took me 2 minutes to find this out
Seeing is believing?
To me seeing is knowing just how intellectually dishonest David Gorski is
====================================== [4] – 6/3/2013 – Seeing The Skeptics
“Particularly seemingly damning are a series of Tweets flashed on the screen saying things like the Hope for Laura fund (the fund set up by Laura Hymas to pay for her treatment at the Burzynski Clinic) “appears to be just a money laundry for a lying quack fraud” and “when Laura dies #Burzynski will just move on to his next mark if she doesn’t run out of money first.””
“I think I know whose Tweets these were”
“In fact, I’m sure I know whose Tweets these were, and all I can say to that person is this:”
“Zip it”
“Stop it”
“Put a sock in it”
“In fact, if I’m correct about whose Tweets these are I think I have already done so on Twitter when I’ve seen this person getting too close to attacking cancer patients”
“Still, as utterly insensitive and “dickish” as those Tweets were, they do not represent the majority of skeptics, but rather a few jerks”
“However, we as skeptics need to remember that a few jerks perceived (or painted) as attacking cancer patients can do immeasurable damage to the cause of science-based medicine”
“So if you’re one of those skeptics making comments like that, knock it off”
“If I see you doing it again, next time I will call you out publicly”
====================================== [28] – 2/19/2013 – Like this ?
——————————————————————
Of course it's always possible that the money launderers are appearing as themselves in the #Burzynski advertisement.
——————————————————————
And this ?
——————————————————————
BurzynskiSaves (@BurzynskiSaves) tweeted at 7:42pm – 25 Dec 11:
“@RatbagsDotCom:They will be even more vulnerable when Laura dies and #Burzynski forgets her and moves on to the next mark” #unconscionable https://twitter.com/BurzynskiSaves/status/151115741888909312
—————————————————————— [29] – 8/1/2013 – And like you called this guy out ?
——————————————————————
David James (@StortSkeptic) tweeted at 7:08pm – 1 Aug 13:
The new Doctor Who will be Stanislaw #Burzynski. He manages to continually avoid getting cornered and he gets away with murder.
The new Doctor Who will be Stanislaw #Burzynski. He manages to continually avoid getting cornered and he gets away with murder.
====================================== [4] – 6/3/2013 – “Then, there was the kicker”
“Eric Merola and Laura Hymas’ fiancé Ben Hymas called me a liar”
“Ben Hymas is quite mistaken in saying about me,”
““He’s lying to them.””
“Moreover, if I had screwed up, I would have admitted it”
“Indeed, part of the reason I looked into this so closely was because I wondered if somehow Merola had actually found a mistake I had made”
“You know the saying about the proverbial blind squirrel occasionally managing to find a nut?”
“It’s possible, albeit unlikely, and in fact there was no mistake”
“There is nothing in deceptive to change my assessment of what happened in the case of or my opinion of Eric Merola”
====================================== [3] – 7/18/2013 – As I said before, Gorski’s research skills leave much to be desired
Gorski is a hack and is only funny by accident because he has no filters
If anything, having seen his “review” of Burzynski II, my opinion of Gorski has plummeted even further, something I had thought possible
Gorski, so you got lucky like a blind squirrel and found an error
However, this does NOT change the fact that you’ve been proven to be a liar
Do you want me to subtract one of your lies from the tally ?
====================================== [30] – 5/9/2013 – “On what basis is he “targeting” his therapy?”
“As I’ve recounted before, Burzynski usually sends off blood and tissue samples to Caris for testing”
“The Caris Target Now™ test, which since my discussion of Burzynski’s “personalized therapy” appears to have been renamed Caris Molecular Intelligence and is now available at more levels of service (although its reports look much the same to me), is nothing unique to the Burzynski Clinic”
“Anyone who is willing to pay for it can have it, and the report will be the same”
“In any event, there is as yet no convincing evidence that the Caris tests (or any of the other competing tests) result in better outcomes”
====================================== [31] – 5/28/2013 – A key pillar of Gorski’s position on Burzynski’s “personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy” is that he alleges that he is “someone relatively knowledgeable about the state of personalized cancer therapy”
I can’t help but wonder why it is that he did NOT know the above information
Maybe he isn’t as knowledgeable about personalized cancer therapy and targeted therapies as he claims
(Oh, wait. He isn’t!)
That’s why when he wrote his “review” on Sheila Herron, he did NOT even refer to Burzynski’s publication:
—————————————————————— [32] – 8/2011 – Successful Treatment of Recurrent Triple-Negative Breast Cancer with Combination of Targeted Therapies
When it comes to Gorski’s “story writing” pal Robert J. “Bob” Blaskiewicz, I might allow for some leeway since he’s only a “Perfessor,” but with Gorski on the other hand, I’m not nearly so benevolent
In my ever-Insolent opinion, he and his propagandist are cynically using patients like human shields to deflect criticism
Activities I cannot countenance
====================================== [33] – 4/19/2013 – “I now think I probably know with around 95% certainty) and Didymus Judas Thomas (whose identity I’m probably about 75% sure of … also obsessively read anything posted about Eric Merola or Stanislaw Burzynski on any social media”
====================================== [34] – 4/19/2013 – Gorski has had over 4 months to say who he thinks I supposedly am, and so far he’s been a failure
But then again, as could be expected, he was wrong about his 2nd theory as well
Finally, I believe that people like Gorski are hypocrites, feeling free to paint Burzynski to their heart’s content (from what I’ve read about Burzynski on blogs, Twitterarticles, and elsewhere, posted by biased, disingenuous, “holier than thou” Skeptics, in them Burzynski is all but portrayed as Satan Incarnate) but running like whipped puppies to the Coward section when either they or Gorski are criticized, no matter how civil, reasonable, or science-based that criticism is (and my blog is all of the above)
The reason is, of course, clear
Having no convincing science, no convincing medicine, and no convincing evidence to support their hero’s antineoplastons hackery or “personalized MUD-targeted therapy for dummies,” they resort to Twitter thuggery
Same as it ever was
One more thing:
If Gorski and his crew of sycophants, toadies, and lackeys are offended by my opinion, my characterization of them that I have based on analyses of claims and observation of the behavior of them and their propagandist, they should try something different to shut me up
I have just the thing, too
Publishing the results of some of the responses to my blog for the scientific community comes to mind first
If Gorski really has the goods, as he and “The Skeptics” claim, then he can best shut me up by bringing the science—solid, convincing science, that is
I’ve said it before many times, and I’ll say it again:
I can be convinced by strong truthful and factual evidence
I have yet to see anything resembling strong evidence from Gorski
At least, if he has such evidence he hasn’t published it yet, preferring to publish a mixture of whiny blog articles where he takes a swipe at Burzynski, tiny-mind series, unimpressive basic science, and the like in bottom-feeding blog articles, some of which aren’t even indexed in PubMed
Nor is a conspiracy of cowardice—excuse me, “The Skeptics”—the reason why trying to ignore criticism will boomerang on “The Skeptics”
It’s all because of their own behavior and willingness to distort, misinform, and slime Burzynski
====================================== [35] – 1/14/2013 – “As you might recall, antineoplastons are chemicals that Burzynski found in the urine of cancer patients and that (or so he claims)”
====================================== [36] – 2/19/2013 – Seriously, Gorski ?
Where did you come up with that ?
After comparing the blood of healthy people to the blood of people with cancer, Dr. Burzynski found that people with cancer have lower amounts of a certain group of chemicals
====================================== [35] – 1/14/2013 – “None of this would have been too bad if only he had actually bothered to do the proper science and clinical trials to demonstrate that antineoplastons (1) have significant anti-cancer activity and (2) have acceptable levels of toxicity”
====================================== [10] – 8/8/2013 – Here’s (1)
—————————————————————— [37] – 2/19/2013 – And (2)
====================================== [35] – 1/14/2013 – “Oh, sure, he has a bunch of clinical trials listed on ClinicalTrials.gov, but virtually all of them are listed as having “unknown” status, and it’s unclear whether most, if any, of them are actually accruing”
====================================== [38] – 5/21/2011 – Cancer Breakthrough: 50-60% Success Rate, Cures the Incurable
May 21, 2011
12 phase 2 clinical trials have been successfully completed under supervision of FDA, and now conducting 3 phase 3 clinical trials
Or I can cite from Burzynski’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings re his phase 2 clinical trials like you did [1] – 6/5/2013
====================================== [35] – 1/14/2013 – “In any case, Merola named the sequel what he named it … along with a website full of a “sourced transcript” to be used by Burzynski minions and shills everywhere to attack any skeptic who dares to speak out”
====================================== [39] – Gorski, you should have used the “sourced transcript” so you didn’t end up embarrassing yourself as much as you have
Actually, no one who is an apologist for Dr. Gorski, a.k.a. “Orac,” who over years ago unleashed MUD-targeted therapy on unsuspecting cancer patients, much likes Burzynski
It’s not surprising
Basically, Gorski’s a hack
—————————————————————— [40] – Or, you can use this – Burzynski: The Movie — Illustrated Screenplay and Screencap Gallery (Nader Library):
====================================== [35] – 1/14/2013 – “Part of the reason that Eric Merola doesn’t like me, aside from the fact that I am willing to help publicize Bob Blaskiewicz’s present to Dr. Burzynski for his 70th birthday on January 23, is that I think that every so often I happen to run into stories about the bad science and unethical nature of Burzynski’s work, and I blog about it”
====================================== [41] – 3/26/2013 – Maybe Eric does NOT like you because part of that “present” was your “pal” saying:
“The Burzynski clinic is a place you go to die”
—————————————————————— [42] – 8/24/2013 – Gorski, where were you when these 374 children died of brain cancer in #ScienceBasedMedicine clinical trials ?
====================================== [35] – 1/14/2013 – “I also run into patient stories”
“Although I don’t cover them as systematically as Bob does, I like to think that what I lack in comprehensiveness of coverage I make up for with my in-depth knowledge of cancer science and treatment”
====================================== [43] – 8/31/2013 – Your “in-depth knowledge of cancer science and treatment” ?
You sure have NOT presented a very strong case for that
Is your “man-crush”, Robert J. “Bob” Blaskiewicz still adding false statements to his “stories” ?
====================================== [35] – 1/14/2013 – “There are a number of things about this documentary that one can learn if one is involved in caner care and knowledgeable about Stanislaw Burzynski”
“Indeed, he’s even taken credit for pioneering the concept of personalized cancer therapy based on genes and the concept that cancer is a genetic disease, claiming to have published a journal article about it 20 years ago, allegedly long before conventional scientists and oncologists even thought of it”
“The problem, of course, is that, as far as I can tell, he published no such paper and personalized therapy is a concept older than 20 years”
====================================== [44] – 7/26/2013 – Indeed, from my perspective Gorski’s an egomaniac, full of the arrogance of ignorance about things like Burzynski’s “personalized cancer therapy”, prone to contemptuously dismissing anyone who has the temerity to question the Great and Powerful “Orac” is god
Because I was able to find the publication with NO problem
“Orac’s” Oracolytes remind me of the “believer” who said:
“god said it, and I believe it, so that settles it”
Of course, “Orac” is Oz tends to clam up when questioned by people who are NOT likely to be sycophants, toadies, and lackeys
====================================== [35] – 1/14/2013 – “Given that these are all phase II studies, it’s hard to believe that the FDA would allow Burzynski to keep them open over 13 years, but apparently it has”
====================================== [45] – 7/26/2013 – Gorski, why don’t you ask the FDA?
3/29/1996 Then United States Food and Drug Administration Commissioner, David Kessler told the American people:
“The … FDA’s initiatives … will allow …the agency … to rely on smaller trials … fewer patients … if there is evidence … of partial response in clinical trials”
—————————————————————— [46] – 6/7/2013 – Then you could be like Blatherskitewicz and do this:
Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz)
6/3/13, 3:49 PM
@FauxSkeptic @bbc5live I believe he said, “Put up or shut up, you little bitch.” Something like that.
rjblaskiewicz: @bbc5live “I believe he said
“Put up or shut up
you little bitch”
BB: why not check with the @US_FDA
#Burzynski
BBC Panorama
====================================== [35] – 1/14/2013 – “Finally, why doesn’t Burzynski offer Seán his “personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy.””
“It probably wouldn’t be that big a deal to get the blocks of tissue from Seán’s biopsy and have them analyzed”
“Yes, inquiring minds do want to know”
====================================== [35] – 1/14/2013 – Gorski, why don’t you cite the applicable phase 2 and / or phase 3 clinical trial publications of FDA approved drugs for “inoperable brainstem glioma” ?
And while your at it, is the “girl from England” referred to in your article, the same one that is referred to in Burzynski 2 ?
====================================== [47] – 1/7/2013 – “That’s why I’m joining P.Z. Myers in asking you to help make Stanislaw Burzynski pay cold hard cash to a worthy cause
====================================== [41] – 3/26/2013 – Yes Gorski, your “pal” E.Z. P.Z. who wrote:
“The Burzynski clinic is a place you go to die”
He has no shame
But at least ya’ll raised money for a worthy cause while at the same time bringing attention to yourself and what I consider to be your incredibly unethical behavior
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – “In fact, from my perspective, it appears to me as though over the last few years Dr. Burzynski has pivoted”
“No longer are antineoplastons the center of attention at his clinic”
“Rather, these days, he appears to be selling something that he calls “personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy.””
====================================== [48] – 4/26/2013 – Gorski it’s great to see you’ve been paying attention
” … 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”
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – “Finally, around the 4:30 mark, we see Dr. Gregory Burzynski, Dr. Burzynski’s son, talking about genomic profiling of cancers and biomarkers in the blood and in circulating tumor cells. … plus a claim that surgery will no longer be necessary for surgery, what’s left over doesn’t sound too different from what quite a few “conventional” cancer researchers say about “personalized medicine.””
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – Gorski, “surgery will no longer be necessary for surgery” ?
Is this “attention to detail”” related to:
“because of the positions I hold at an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center” ?
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – “Clearly, the producer went to great lengths to make Burzynski’s lab look like any other molecular and cell biology lab–even like my lab”
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – Gorski, are you trying to suggest that the producer rented or bought equipment to produce this look ?
Do you know how ridiculous that sounds ?
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – “When we do this we have a very good chance to have positive results in most patients”
“SS: How many respond?”
“SB: About 85 per cent for whom we have the proper gene signature; about 15 percent do not respond”
“In our responders many of them have tumors which disappear completely and in others the tumors remain small”
“The problem is finding the genetic signature because for many of these different genetic signatures we don’t have blood tests…yet”
“Note that at the time this book was published, Dr. Burzynski was claiming that he could identify who would benefit from specific targeted therapies simply from blood tests”
“If he could do this for real, Burzynski could easily publish in high impact journals like Clinical Cancer Research, the Journal of Clinical Oncology, or another high impact clinical cancer journal”
“Heck, a result like that could probably make it into general medical journals, such as the New England Journal of Medicine or The Lancet, which have an even higher impact factor”
“If he were able to demonstrate that his method of testing tumors and picking targeted therapy could result in a complete response rate anywhere near 85% for breast cancer, even more so”
“If, as he claims later in the chapter, Dr. Burzynski has patients with pancreatic cancer and advanced liver cancer whose tumors have disappeared within two months after he began treatment, the same would be true”
“If, as Burzynski claims, he achieves a 50% complete response rate in advanced brain tumors, again, the same would be true”
“He doesn’t submit his results to these journals”
“Why not?”
====================================== [3] – 7/18/2013 – Gorski, why would Burzynski want to publish in The Lancet when you saw the lame excuse they gave in Burzynski 2 for NOT publishing Burzynski’s results; which YOU have refused to address ?
Maybe you could find out if you visited the Burzynski Clinic
Oh, wait
You’ve said that people do NOT need to go to the Clinic to learn things
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – “Gene-targeted cancer therapy is currently in its infancy and, except in rare situations outside of the existing currently validated biomarkers (such as HER2, ER, c-kit, and other genes for which targeted therapies exist) for the response of specific cancers, is not to be undertaken outside of the context of a clinical trial“
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – Gorski, that’s all well and good for you to write, but you provide NO citation, reference, or link in support of your statement, and you’ve proven that what you post can NOT be trusted
Try again
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – “Before discussing how the Burzynski Clinic does personalized cancer therapy, I think it’s worth looking at how real scientists do it right now”
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – Gorski, what are you implying ?
That Burzynski is NOT a “real scientist” ?
Because you stated:
“From the description above, it sounded very much to me as though Dr. Burzynski is combining various targeted agents with metronomic chemotherapy“
“I know a thing or two about metronomic chemotherapy, because I was involved in a project whose end result was to be the testing of metronomic chemotherapy against cancer and because the concept is a spinoff of the work of one of my scientific heros, the late Judah Folkman”
“Whether this is what Dr. Burzynski is doing or not with the chemotherapy part of his approach, I don’t know for sure, but it sure sounds like it“
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – “Now let’s take a look at how the Burzynski Clinic does it, at least as far as I can figure out from my various sources and from Ms. Trimble”
“In response to my query about personalized gene-targeted therapy offered by the Burzynski Clinic, Ms. Trimble stated that a gene expression analysis is performed, as well as mutational analysis, FISH, immunohistochemistry for selected genes and that a blood test is also performed to measure the “concentration of proteins which are products of most important oncogenes.””
“In addition, drugs are supposedly selected based on the patient’s clinical information, standard of care, FDA indication, data from phase II and III clinical trials“
====================================== [4] – 6/3/2013 – Gee Gorski
In your 6/3/2013 article you act as if you did NOT know this
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – “To support this claim, Ms. Trimble also sent me two papers from the Burzynski Clinic, both of which appeared in a journal I had never heard of before, the Journal of Cancer Therapy, which is clearly not indexed on PubMed because these papers never showed up when I searched PubMed for Burzynski”
“One described Burzynski’s approach for triple negative breast cancer (TNBC)”
====================================== [32] – 8/2011 – Gorski, why am I NOT surprised that you’re able to refer to this TNBC publication 12/13/2012, but when reviewing Sheila Herron’s TNBC case 5/28/2013, you completely ignored this publication, even though it specifically states:
“Here we report the successful treatment of metastatic TNBC with combination targeted therapy, and we discuss MDT for a group of 16 women including this patient, whose treatment was based on the same principle” (Pgs. 372-373)
How do you NOT provide a link to a previous article you wrote on the same subject, like you normally do ?
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – “It turns out that perhaps the best description of what “personalized” treatment means in Dr. Burzynski’s hands comes from the Texas Medical Board’s complaint against him, which can be found in over at the Ministry of Truth or at Casewatch”
“This complaint is based on the cases of two patients”
“First, here’s Patient A, who is described in the complaint thusly:”
“1. Patient A:”
“a. In approximately May of 2008, Patient A presented to Respondent with breast cancer that had metastasized to her brain, lung, and liver”
“b. Respondent prescribed a combination of five immunotherapy agents – phenylbutyrate, erlotinib, dasatinib, vorinostat, and sorafenib-which are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) for the treatment of breast cancer, and which do not meet the FDA’s regulations for the use of off-label drugs in breast cancer therapy”
“c. In combination with the five immunotherapy agents, Patient A was prescribed capecitabine, a chemotherapy agent”
“This is what’s known as “throwing everything but the kitchen sink” at the tumor without any thought of interactions, as most of these agents have no proven role in the treatment of breast cancer”
“For example, erlotinib (brand name: Tarceva) is used to treat pancreatic cancer and non-small cell lung cancer”
“It works by inhibiting the tyrosine kinase of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and is not FDA-approved for breast cancer”
“However, it’s not unreasonable to think that it could work in breast cancer, as EGFR is believed to be important in some breast cancers, which is why this is an area of active research”
“Dasatinib (trade name: Sprycel) is also a kinase inhibitor”
“It inhibits the Src family tyrosine kinase”
“Vorinostat is a histone deacetylase inhibitor approved for use against cutaneous T-cell lymphoma”
“Finally, Sorafenib is another tyrosine kinase inhibitor that inhibits the tyrosine kinases of different receptors, as well as raf kinases”
“The big problem with this sort of approach is that the more drugs you add, no matter how “targeted” they are, the more chance for interactions that increase toxicity, and throwing all these kinase inhibitors together in a cocktail with chemotherapy is a recipe for disaster, particularly because such cocktails haven’t been tested in proper phase I clinical trials to evaluate toxicity”
====================================== Gorski, you make it sound like you reviewed the medical literature and found NO phase I clinical trials were conducted, or NO combinations of some of these drugs were tested
But you do NOT reveal your research
I’m guessing you reviewed these pre 5/2008 publications, right ?
—————————————————————— [49] – 4/20/2007 – Phase III study:erlotinib in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer
—————————————————————— [50] – 5/2007 – randomized phase II study: sorafenib/erlotinib – advanced non-small-cell lung cancer
—————————————————————— [51] – 4/20/2006 – Phase II study: capecitabine and erlotinib
—————————————————————— [52] – 1/2008 – Phase II Clinical Trial: Sorafenib
—————————————————————— [53] – 4/2007 – Antitumor Activity: Sorafenib – 4 Phase I Trials: Advanced Refractory Solid Tumors
—————————————————————— [54] – 6/20/2007 – phase I study: vorinostat (VOR) in combination with capecitabine (CAP) – advanced solid tumors
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – “In any case, as we have seen, Dr. Burzynski does give chemotherapy”
“Lots of chemotherapy”
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – Gorski, what was the date of the video you quoted above, about low-dose chemotherapy ?
====================================== [23] – 12/13/2012 – “Instead, skirting the line between science and pseudoscience, Dr. Burzynski gives every appearance of recklessly throwing together untested combinations of targeted agents willy-nilly to see if any of them stick but without having a systematic plan to determine when or if he has successfully matched therapy to genetic abnormality”
====================================== [15] – 5/17/2011 – That sure explains away the review of the medical literature (phase 2 and 3 clinical trials)
NOT
====================================== [55] – 12/12/2012 – “Note: Orac is away In the meantime, he is rerunning some of his favorite posts”
“Given that the blog seems to have been infiltrated with Burzynski trolls again now seems a perfect time to rerun a post of Orac’s from about a year ago”
====================================== [55] – 12/12/2012 – “Orac”, who’s the idiot who posted that “trolls” had taken over the blog, and who were these “alleged”“trolls” ?
Inquiring minds want to know
====================================== [55] – 12/12/2012 – “No one would ever confuse my reviews with those of Roger Ebert (mine tend to be a lot longer, for one thing, and concentrate on science much more than moviemaking), but I do sometimes subject myself to these movies when I can find a way to watch them online that doesn’t cost me any money”
====================================== [55] – 12/12/2012 – Gorski
“Concentrate on science” ?
really ?
Really ??
REALLY ???
Did you actually count how many characters and / or words you devoted to criticism instead of “science” ?
====================================== [55] – 12/12/2012 – “In the process, I might even look into a couple of Burzynski’s studies that I’ve read and found to be–well–lacking, to put it kindly”
====================================== [2] – 8/4/2013 – Gorski, why don’t you “look into” Burzynski’s 2003-2010 preliminary phase 2 clinical trial reports, and write a “review” ?
====================================== [55] – 12/12/2012 – “One part of the movie that truly insults the intelligence of anyone with a modicum of knowledge about drug therapy occurs near the beginning of the movie”
“It’s a part that, as a cancer surgeon who is interested in targeted therapies for breast cancer, I found particularly idiotic”
“First, there is a screen with this caption:”
“Antineoplastons target the specific genes that allow cancer to grow and flourish”
“A little later we see:”
“There are currently over 25 FDA-approved gene-targeted cancer drugs on the market today”
“Many of them can only target single genes”
“All of which is true but irrelevant if Burzynski is trying to sell antineoplastons as targeted therapy”
“Now here’s the kicker:”
“Antineoplastons work on close to one hundred different genes”
“You know what you call a drug that works on “close to 100 genes”?”
“I don’t know either, but you don’t call it a “targeted” therapy unless all those genes are genes affected by the single target being inhibited; i.e., are downstream targets of the gene targeted by antineoplastons”
====================================== [5] – 8/21/2013 – Gorski, how do you NOT know “the single target being inhibited … are downstream targets of the gene targeted by antineoplastons”, when you did NOT even know which of Burzynski’s publications discussed which genes are “targeted by antineoplastons” ?
====================================== [56] – 12/5/2012 – “In reality, oncologists shun Burzynski—and rightly so, given that he has yet to publish anything resembling a convincing result suggesting the efficacy of his antineoplastons against cancer”
“It’s painfully obvious from this paragraph that Burzynski doesn’t know academic oncologists”
“The reason oncologists don’t respect Burzynski is because of how he hasn’t show that his treatments work better than conventional treatments—or even that they work at all—and because of the way he abuses patients by charging them huge sums of money to participate in a clinical trial”
“Those are the reasons legitimate oncologists, at least those familiar with Burzynski, look askance at him”
“How could they do otherwise?”
“The ones who don’t take him seriously are the ones who know him best”
====================================== [57] – 4/24/2013 – Gorski, that certainly explains why this 2011 cancer study that references Burzynski:
Phase II trial of tipifarnib and radiation in children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas
University of California—San Francisco
Children’s Hospital Boston, Massachusetts
St Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee
Seattle Children’s Hospital, Seattle, Washington
Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Children’s National Medical Center, Washington, DC
Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Ohio
======================================
British Journal of Cancer (2010) 103, 1680–1691. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6605969
Published online 2 November 2010 http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v103/n11/full/6605969a.html
Experimental Pharmacology Unit, Department of Research, Istituto Nazionale Tumori, National Cancer Institute Fondazione G, Via.M Semmola, Pascale, Napoli, Italy
====================================== [26] – 4/2012
Phase I–II study of vorinostat plus paclitaxel and bevacizumab in metastatic breast cancer: evidence for vorinostat-induced tubulin acetylation and Hsp90 inhibition in vivo http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22200869/
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012 Apr;132(3):1063-72. doi: 10.1007/s10549-011-1928-x. Epub 2011 Dec 27 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22200869/
Breast Cancer Res Treat. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 April.1 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3486521/
Published in final edited form as:
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012 April; 132(3): 1063–1072
Didymus Judas Thomas' Hipocritical Oath Blog 