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
—————————————————————— Pat Clarkson, and I come from Danville, California, which is near San Francisco, and I have multiple myeloma; which is not a common cancer
About 20,000 people in the United States have the disease, and about 10,000 die every year, and 10,000 get the disease
So it’s a relatively small number of folks,that have it
So it’s not well
It’s not as well researched as some of the other cancers, um, but we’re hoping that the, um, Burzynski Clinic can help me
There’s not much hope for me
I, I have probably, a, uh, prognosis of a couple, couple years
Maybe a year or two to live, um, without, um, without I, I, an alternative method of treatment, and that’s why
If I could say this a little differently
The conventional medicine, or what we would call conventional medicine, which is, you know, chemotherapy, radiation, uh, surgery; which is not possible with, uh, multiple myeloma because there is no, no large tumor that can be surgically removed, uh, the doctors have told us basically there is no cure, and that, and I, I say doctors; this is our local oncologist, um, and the head of oncology at, um, University of California, San Francisco; which is a very well respected school, uh, hospital, that there is no, uh, no reasonable possibility of a cure
Um, by contrast, uh, Dr. Burzynski, we have found out, has, uh, cured several people with myeloma, and he’s cured many other people with different kinds of cancer
The problem is, uh, that the FDA in its wisdom, will not allow us to, uh, be treated with the, uh, antineoplastons that are the backbone of the Burzynski therapy
Well they’ve told us that they don’t have evidence that it’s, um, that it’s an effective treatment
Uh, that, they don’t have evidence that it’s not, non-toxic; which in fact, uh, is incorrect because the FDA does have evidence that it’s non-toxic
Through the Senator’s office at the, the FDA is saying that they, they don’t know for sure that it’s not toxic; that’s not true, uh, and they don’t know that it will cure the disease, and therefor they can’t approve it
Pat’s willing to take the odds of a treatment, that is not 100% guaranteed, and let’s face it, most of the treatments that are approved by the FDA, are toxic, and are not guaranteed
So we don’t really understand, uh, why they have an issue with it, except that, uh, there’s an awful lot of money involved
Um, one of the peculiarities of the FDA, we understand they’re, by law, required to get much of their funding from the very companies that they’re supposed to be supervising
As, as I understand, uh, the Constitution, there is no basis in the Constitution for the Federal Government to be telling, an American, who they can use for a doctor or what drugs that they can use for, uh, their, their illness
Yet, over the years this, uh, this power has grown and been accepted at the FDA, and now it’s a, uh, uh, it’s, it’s out of control
We have asked the FDA what is different about my case
Why I don’t get an exemption
We don’t have a response yet to that, to that question
While doctors are generally very bright; they have to be to get through medical school, but they don’t have any training in critical, critical thinking, and most of them that I run into are not particularly good critical thinkers
The world they live in is to memorize a set of symptoms, then to look up or remember what those symptoms suggest in terms of a disease, and then remember or look up what the treatment is
So, here we have, um, uh, Dr. Burzynski, who is also a Ph.Dbiochemist, which is a, a interesting and, and very useful, uh, combination, who discovered that, um, in people who have cancer, they generally don’t have, or they have very reduced levels of what he now calls, uh, antineoplastons, and neoplaston is simply the medical jargon for cancer; so it’s anti-cancer, in effect, um, he discover the people who, uh, don’t have cancer, do have, high levels of this, and determined from research that these are controlled by, um, by the genes, and it’s part of the body’s immune system, in effect
We all produce cancer cells everyday of our lives
Like we produce bac, or have bacteria in our gi, digestive tract, that is controlled, by certain genes
In this case, um, he discovered that by, uh, by injecting, uh, or infusing, uh, these, they’re called peptides, peptide, that the patient could be helped
How, how innocuous, or how anti-toxic, can you have
It’s a, it’s a substance th, the body itself produces, unless the genes have shut down
Which is the case in, uh, some, in most, or at least half I guess, of multiple myeloma cases
My, my message would be that they don’t have the right to tell me to hold a, a life or a death, um, decision
They, they don’t have the right to tell me that, um, I can’t have treatment that I seek, or I will die
I don’t think they have that right to do that
Treatment is available
Uh, it is our choice
We are free Americans
We’re well informed
Uh, well educated
It should be our choice, and the Federal government in any, in any form should not have the authority to interfere with that
Uh, nothing’s guaranteed in this world, um, but we’ve got, um, we’ve got some confidence in this clinic and in this treatment
Pat & Steve Clarkson
January 27, 2012
My name is Doug Olson
I’m from Nebraska
And, uh, my mother has been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer
So, we, uh, middle of November, now this is first of, first of the year, eh, but in the middle of November her weight, she was losing weight, you know
She was suffering from indigestion and, and stomach pain, and so we started to have her checked, uh, for problems with her stomach for ulcers and that kind of thing, and all that proved negative, and they put her on an ulcer medicine anyway, thinking that maybe that would solve the inflammation in her stomach, and, uh, then we decided that we (?) better see another physician, and so we did that, and they then ultra sounded and then CAT scanned and found that she had tumors in her pancreas and in her liver
Uh, many years ago, back in, in the late 70’s, my parents had been involved with, with the cancer, uh, subject in regards to my father’s sister, and then his cousin
He started researching cancer and cancer treatments when his sister passed away, and then, uh, they got in contact with a doctor in Orden, Nebraska, that treated cancer patients with Laetrile, and he also did other, not so ordinary things
He did duculation therapy
Uh, a number of things that were really treatments for the disease rather than just treatments for the symptoms, and, uh, during that time, dad testified at the state legislature; they were trying to work against Dr. Miller’s license
This was the Dr. Miller in Orden, and, uh, so dad testified on, on his behalf
Uh, dad’s cousin was, uh, a patient of his, and she had a brain tumor the size of a lemon, and Dr. Miller put her on, uh, Laetrile treatments on a, on a special diet and some things, uh
And this was what, in the 70’s ?
This was back in the, probably the late 70’s, and, so, when they
Well they cured her
She had been sent home from the Mayo Clinic Given 3 to 6 months to live, and, uh, they had, uh, burned with radiation and cobalt I believe is what they were treating her with at that time
Uh, they burned the, uh, nerves in her eyes so that her eyes crossed
Uh, they sent her home to die
She was in a wheelchair
She was a young woman and she had a young child
Wasn’t able to hold that child, and so when my dad saw her, met her, she was in that condition
She was it, in the last 6 months of her life
Gave her a book about, uh, the subject, and told her about Dr. Miller, and her family
She then went to Dr. Miller to see if there was any help for her, and he, and he immediately put her on Laetrile treatment then and, and, uh, the interesting thing about it, looking at his doctor’s protocol; because I’ve come across his protocol, uh, Dr. Miller was also giving his patients antineoplastons, and
Yeah, because we’ve got this thing here that you gave me
Just explain to me what this is
This was his physician’s protocol, to list, uh, the different medicines a person should, should be on
If they had cancer
Uh, if they had cancer, and so, uh, this was given to another friend of ours, a friend of the family, uh, the folks that rented one of our properties, uh, the woman got a, a tumor as well, and this was given to her as part of the regimen she should follow, and she was given Laetrile injections, and then as soon as the injections, uh, were over they went then to pills as the size of the dosage went down, and when you got to pills you got to go home
So, uh, I remember speaking to her at the time
I had a
I was in high school, and I had a summer job with her husband, who was the county engineer
So, uh, we saw them all the time, and she told us, uh, the circumstances when, when she was allowed to come home
She was feeling strong
She said: “I haven’t felt better”
As a part of the diet and the things that, that they had her doing
She said she felt better than she had in many years
So she and her daughter, started a business in town in order to pay for the treatments, and, uh, she recovered
The tumor continued to shrink and shrink until it was nothing
Uh, what had been listed as inoperable, uh, after it shrunk halfway they decided, well maybe we can operate on you
Uh, we think it’s operable now
She said: “Why would I let you operate when what I’m doing is working”?
But, uh, she is alive yet today and in her mid-80’s and, uh, so, uh, when it came to my mother’s illness, we contacted her, and asked her how she’s doing, and she’s sent this protocol she’s been keeping all these years
Uh, as a result of my parents knowing Dr. Miller back when he was alive
He is, he has passed away, uh, 7 maybe years ago, and, uh, many years ago when they were taking chelation therapy from him, he had given my mother, uh, a flyer on Dr. Burzynski, and, uh, said if anything ever happens to you after I’m gone, this is the man to contact, and so we’ve had that flyer in a file for many years at my parents house, and so when mom got sick she immediately began digging that out and found
So your mom immediately started thinking, well I need to find that leaflet
That’s what we were told to do
And did, and did she go and speak to an oncologist?
Did she say that she wanted to come here, or ?
We had a local physician, who was not an oncologist, that had, that was the 2nd physician we, we consulted, that did the ultrasound and the CAT scan for her and, and they knew that she had tumors, and no we did not go to an on, oncologist from there
because we knew that we did not want to take their treatments, uh, so we immediately contacted the clinic here in, in Houston, Texas, and, uh, we had to wait on, uh, certain things to be completed
Different things had to be done, and, and information had to be sent down here and examined, and then, uh, after a period of maybe 2 weeks, hassling with information, we were told that, yes, uh, we, they would accept her as a patient, and we were getting in towards the holidays at that time
Would we like to wait until the holidays were over, because Christmas
You know, there would be 5 days off for Christmas, uh, over a weekend and 5 days off for New Years over a weekend, and we would be down here in Houston over those times, but we elected to come anyway because we could get the treatment started right away
rather than to wait another month before starting treatments, and, uh, so they, uh, immediately put, put her on antineoplastons and, uh, they sent away the tissue samples to Arizona to have a CARIS test done, and determine what medications would be
So did you have those results come back ?
Yes, those results came back quicker than what we expected
And wh, what did they show ?
Well they, they show a, a list of treatments that are effective, and against it, and then a list of treatments actually that encourage it’s growth
So you end up with a list of, uh, approximately 7 on each side
And these are all different cancer drugs
So what they’re looking at is all
is all the different cancer drugs, and which ones
And whether we’ve got a, a thousand or 2 thousand different drugs that person might try, and, uh, so
So the (?) for how to, to try a few of these chemotherapies, but in very small doses
Is that right ?
There’s 2, 2 chemotherapies
One is an, is an oral chemotherapy that is, uh, quite mild in its side effects, and then, uh, there’s another much stronger one that was, uh, also one of th, the top 2, and, uh, the side effects for it are more varied and more violent, uh, if you will, and, uh, my mother’s had one treatment of that so far, and the treat, the side effects
She did, is suffering from side effects from that particular
It’s Oxaliplatin, and, uh, some people have very violent side effects but she’s thankfully not had any violent side effects
So why didn’t you go down the conventional road of having high-dosechemotherapy?
Well, when you research the, uh, success rate, with pancreatic cancer, going the normal way, uh, or the normal, uh, road, the success rate is very, very small, and so you’re just guaranteeing, in my opinion, if, if the success rate is 5% or under, uh, you’re introducing yourself to a, a road to death, that’s very unpleasant
You know, you just want to go home and make yourself very comfortable on painkillers and, and enjoy the rest of your life, uh, if that’s the, if that’s the road you’re planning to take
Uh, that was our opinion, and so
What do you think about all the resistance then of, of Dr. Burzynski and all of the kind of, uh, ?
(?) people just calling him a
What’s the word ?
Yes, we, uh, we have seen course, of course these things through our, our life
The whole Laetrile treatment thing was something that was, uh, thrown out
You know, it’s pretty well suppressed now
You can go to Mexico and get those treatments
Why do you think they were, pushed aside ?
What is Laetrile?
Well Laetrile is a naturally occurring, uh, substance that you find in some of our foods
It’s, they call it B17 although, vitamin B17, although there’s some discussion as to whether it’s really a vitamin
Another name for it is Amygdalin
Uh, it’s found in peach pits and apricot pits in high levels but there’s a number of other foods that you find it in
Uh, it, it,
I’m not sure, whether this is 100% accurate, but my understanding of it is it’s associated with, with cyanide, and it would be, uh, like an encapsulated cyanide, that as it travels through your body, the cyanide portion, um, does not become available to your body until it becomes in, uh, associated with a cancer cell
and the cancer cells attack the outer shell of that molecule, and the cyanide becomes, uh, uh, available then, and it kills the cancer cell that’s right there
So it was apparently a very nontoxic substance
Uh, you have regulated dosages
I mean, it seems to me interesting, uh, when a doctor prescribes a dose of chemotherapy, uh, there’s nothing that I can think of much more toxic than a, than a chemotherapy drug, and certainly they’ll kill you if they don’t, uh, give you the right dosage, but it was not seemed, deemed accessible that a byproduct of food; which a doctor could regulate the dosage of as well, could be used as a transfer, cancer treatment
Uh, and we’ve seen things in the past, as well
When I was a, a very young child, I had a great aunt, that, uh, I was not even aware; at the time I was very young, she was traveling to Texas and getting treatments
Uh, one of them was called the Hoxsey treatment and, uh, she was living a very comfortable life on treatments that she got there
There were 2 treatments in Texas at that time, that, uh, were available
The FDA would come in and raid the clinics, and make just life miserable for them
They got one of them closed down, and that was the one that my great aunt was on, and that treatment was, was pills that she could take, uh, and live quite comfortably, in Nebraska
Once they closed that clinic down, then she had to go down, uh, to the other clinic in Texas, which was a supplement that was a liquid that tasted bad, and she had to make frequent trips, at that point, but still, as long as she could get that treatment she was comfortable and, and lived a normal life
A productive life
Uh, we knew her as our great aunt and, and didn’t even know her, uh, uh, that there was a health problem and, uh, but then the FDA got that clinic closed down
So, as soon as she lost access to those, her treatments, then her cancer which, uh, was no longer able to be controlled, came back strong and, and she died
So, uh, the family had been, had access to this knowledge and this, the FDA’s games with cancer treatments for many years
Um, I’m also married to, a, a gal whose father did blood research as a, he was a Ph.D and worked in university hospitals, in blood research all of his life
He, he discovered a blood protein that was associated with cancer
Uh, it was actually associated more with good health, maybe than you could say with cancer, but he discovered a, a blood coagulation protein, uh, or associated with blood coagulation that would, that could be used as a flag or a test, to see whether a person was healthy or not
Uh, as they applied it to patients in these hospitals, during their research trials, they found that this protein was an indicator whether a person had cancer or thrombosis
Uh, 2 of the very largest killers, and this protein, if present in high enough amounts in our blood, uh, was an indicator that you were healthy, and as the protein’s amount, uh, declined, then it was an indicator that something was wrong, and below a certain amount you knew something was wrong
You better be taking further testing
to find out what your problem was
Uh, that has run into resistance
Uh, that (?) has not been approved by the FDA, and, uh, th, our family’s experiences with cancer treatments, cancer drugs, as they’re affected by the FDA, we have determined by our opinion that, uh, it’s, un, unless there’s something that’s going to generate a, a lot of capital, and then a lot of tax money for the Federal Government, the FDA’s not very interested in it
Uh, so, cynical attitude, but evidence bears it out
and so we remain cynical until so, until something proves
So this is this doctor in, uh, in the 70’s
This is information that he provided
and you can see here that he is obviously, antineoplastic enzymes
See, here obviously
Do you think he meant Dr. Burzynski?
He just knew of him ?
You have no idea ?
I have no idea
He was obviously a fan, if he was someone that eventually said
He said it to you
Did you say he said it to your mum or to your dad?
To my mom
Probably to mom and dad
Uh, my mom was the record keeper, and so, she kept the flyer
but they both took, uh, the, uh, the therapy from, uh, well, the blood therapy
I mentioned it earlier
Suddenly the name’s gone away
So what about, um
You know, one of the barriers that we had is, when we spoke to oncologists, they just said, no, you mustn’t come to see this guy
His work isn’t peer-reviewed
He’s a charlatan
Why, why do you think they would say that ?
I mean I’m surprised, that these oncologists don’t actually come here, to actually see what, what’s going on
So your opinion about that ?
My opinion is, that physicians are, very much, tied up, with large pharmaceutical corporations
Uh, I spoke with my father-in-law
My father-in-law had to have research done in, in his Ph.D work, and he had to get cooperation from hospitals, from doctors, and, uh, all of these organizations in order to have the research done that he needed done, ’cause past his lab, when he wants to introduce research, onto a patients, uh, live blood, and he needs to collect specimens from patients, then a whole ‘nother group of, uh, set of authorizations have to be signed and, and he being a Ph.D working with the medical profession all his life, he knew how tied up the medical profession is, by, generally by M.D.’s, that control the money flow, uh, in the medical profession
Ph.D’s do the research, but they have to apply for grants, and typically the grants are controlled by M.D.’s, and so if an M.D. Decides that your, your particular research is either applicable to, uh, something they think will make a lot of money, or it’s the, the quote, uh, popular, popular item of the day
Politically correct, you name it, then you’re going to get funded
Otherwise, uh, my father-in-law noticed at different times, his research had to be funded out of his own pocket, and at other times, it looked like, it was something that doctors would like, and so they would, he would get funding, but I think that, ah, as he commented, any doctor, coming out of med school, has been contacted by a pharmaceutical company, and has probably signed a contract, that when that pharmaceutical company wants to test a drug, or test an item, that that medical, uh, doctor, will be accessible to them, to test their products
So, with the number of pharmaceutical companies that you have, and all of them recruiting M.D.’s as they come out of med school, and saying, you know, would you be part of our group, you end up under contract with the large pharmaceutical companies
and if, if 90% of the doctors are under contract with pharmaceutical companies, to, uh, to cooperate with their drug testing, then large Pharma, has control of virtually all doctors, and so, uh, uh, if you have large Pharma saying, we don’t want to see a cancer cure, that we’re not in control of, we don’t want to see something that makes curing disease cheap, and easy, and food related, then you’re not gonna
They’re going to put the word out to all their doctors: Don’t have any wo, don’t have anything to do with this
Uh, they can come up with, some written material for their, their doctors to read
They send them the evidence
It may be accurate
It may not be very accurate, and, uh, but it’s just a smear campaign to destroy reputations so that they don’t get hurt financially
and, uh, so, uh, that’s the reason I believe
You know, most of these doctors, they don’t have the time, or the expertise to do the research themselves
They can’t read everything, and so when someone they trust, or someone that they’re financially, uh, obligated to, comes down and says: Here’s the stand that we want you to take, and it’s against this particular treatment, or against this doctor, they do what they’re told
They do what they know best
Uh, my father-in-law, for instance, was, uh, also involved as a professor in these med centers
He taught nutrition, and he said it’s always a, been amazing to me that you can get through med school, and never take a class on, on nutrition
So you can become an M.D., and not understand the value, of nutrition, to a person’s health
That’s a problem
Uh, he recognized it as a problem
I recognize it as a problem because I particularly believe that most of our ill health is because how we treat our bodies
What we eat
Whether we exercise or don’t
Whether we provide our body with a way to flush the poisons or not
Uh, healthy living, and if you don’t teach our medical profession, healthy living, how can they teach their patients
So this, this whole system is, is just flawed in some ways, and weak in other ways, and, uh, controlled, for the purposes of commerce, instead of the public
So you, you think it’s a good idea treating people as an individual and finding out what they need as opposed to like carpet bombing them ?
When we understood the, the individualized approach, here at the Burzynski Clinic, that they would take where they would test the cancer cells, uh, against all of these treatments and all of these chemotherapy treatments and, and anything else that might be out there that would, would treat cancer, and come back with a, a individualized care approach to the individualized cells of cancer that my mother has, that’s when we knew that we had to come here
We wondered, and I’ve told my friends, and everybody wonders, that oughta be the standard approach everywhere
Why wouldn’t you test, every cancer, and see what it is that’s gonna treat it best ?
You, you tell me
Doug Olson chats with Pete Cohen
David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., F.A.C.S. is an academic (i.e.: egg-head, paper-pusher, apparatchik) surgical oncologistspecializing in breast surgery and oncologic surgery
Gorski is no H.G. Wells
Wellscould, at least, tell a convincing lie; as he did in War of the Worlds
Gorski’d likely #fail as his evil half-brother, “H.G. #Fails”, in World War Peed, and probably didn’t think his readers would get the double-entendre’
Gorski is more famouser for pie in the sky
He’ll never be likened to Samuel Langhorne Clemens, or receive a “Mark Twain Award”
He’s an unlicensed Hackademic Quackademic who believes that bad press is good press, any press is good press
Gorski is the “Guy” who felt he was Scroogled by Google, when he and his public relations (P.R.) team; which reside in the hyperthalamus section of his brain, decided on 12/5/2012 to go pure pseudononsense pseudononscience:
Critiquing: Stanislaw Burzynski: On the arrogance of ignorance about cancer and targeted therapies 
wherein he quoted
“I published the review article in a peer-reviewed journal almost 20 years ago on the principles of personalized gene-targeted therapy”
“Curious as to just what the heck Burzynski was talking about here, I searched PubMed for this alleged review article”
“I couldn’t find it on PubMed”
“His only publications from the 1990s had nothing to do with cancer as a “genetic disease” or “personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy” and everything to do with antineoplastons”
“Perhaps Burzynski proposed this “revolutionary”
new idea in a peer-reviewed article that’s not indexed in PubMed, but if he did I couldn’t find it using Google and Google Scholar”
“I was in graduate school 20 years ago, and was taught back then that cancer was primarily a genetic disease.. ”
“There’s a term called “oncogene,” which describes genes that, when either mutated or too much is made, can result in cancer” ======================================
====================================== Gorski would have the reader suspend belief, and believe that he’s notsmarter than a fifth-grader; which is entirely plausible
That he could not do a search on the words:
and find anything whatsoever ======================================
and that he did not have the cranial capacity to access the Burzynski Clinic web-site’s Scientific Publications page: ======================================
The United States Food and Drug Administration(FDA) did NOT have any problem finding it ======================================
====================================== Pg. 24
1997 – Burzynski. S.R. Antineoplastons. oncogenes and cancer. Anti-Aging Medical Therapeutics, Vol.1. Klatz RM.
Goldman R. (Ed). Health Quest Publication 1997; Marina del Rey, CA. USA
This, from a doctor, eager to prove to the world, just how smart he is, because of:
—————————————————————— 12/.5/2011 – “positions I hold at an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center“ ======================================
====================================== 12/13/2012 – “positions I hold at an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center“ ======================================
====================================== 3/7/2013 – “my last two jobs have been at NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers“ ======================================
====================================== 11/2/2012 – “Personally having pored over Burzynski’s publications”  ======================================
====================================== 2/18/2013 – “I’ve read many of Burzynski’s papers”  ======================================
====================================== 6/5/2013 – “I do know cancer science”  ======================================
====================================== 6/10/2013 – “I do know cancer science”  ======================================
====================================== 6/7/2013 – “Unlike Mr. Merola, I am indeed very concerned with getting my facts correct”  ======================================
The same “Guy” who claimed:
Burzynskinever explains which genes are targeted by antineoplastons ======================================
A statement which I showed to be incorrect, by pointing out at least 18 different Burzynskiscientific publications which did what Gorski claimed they did NOT [11-12] ======================================
When Dr. David H. Gorski said:
—————————————————————— “Personally having pored over Burzynski’s publications”–11/2/2012
“I’ve read many of Burzynski’s papers”–2/18/2013
“I’ve searched Burzynski’s publications”–5/8/2013
exactly what did he mean by “pored over,” “read,” and “searched”?
Some Bill Clintonesque definition designed to try and stump anyone who’s not smarter than a fifth-grader ?
(“It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is,’ is”)
You don’t have to be smarter than a fifth-grader to understand that ifDr. Gorski actually did what he said he did, that he should have been able to conclude without any hint of doubt, thatBurzynskiexplains which genes are targeted by antineoplastons
Where was your head ?
Was your head in Mississippi?
Was your head like a hole ?
Or was your head so far up your “Show Me State” pal Robert J.(don’t call me “Bobby”)Bob (I’m not a doctor, I just pretend like I’m one on the otherburzynskipatientgroup (TOBPG) and houstoncancerquack) blatherskite Blatherskitewicz(known liar) Blaskiewicz’s AstroTurf campaign, that you couldn’t see what you were not doing ?
This is a guywho has been funded by:
a) the Department of Defense(DOD)
b) the NIH (National Institutes of Health)
c) the Conquer Cancer Foundation of ASCO
d) the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
and this is the kind of supposed “Science-Based Medicine”(SBM)“results” he produces ?
This guy is proclaimed as:
“a prolific essayist and managing editor of Science-Based Medicine, a highly-respected blog that exposes non-scientific research and practices”
A “highly-respected blog”?
You’ve gotta be kiddin’ me !!!
“For the last ten years, he has been a major voice — as himself and pseudonymously — for science-based medicine”
You mean that “Orac”Hack ?
“Dr Gorski also runs an active research laboratory at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute”
Is it similar to his “research” which I exposed here?
And yet, after showcasing such “brillianot” research skilz, Tuesday, 7/30/2013, Dr. Gorski was appointed / named program co-director of Michigan Breast Oncology Quality Initiative(MiBOQI); a state-wide initiative to improve the quality of breast cancer care using evidence-based guidelines
He “will be involved in many aspects of the quality initiative”
Let’s hope that one of those aspects is NOT the “research” one
“Dr. Gorski has the breadth and depth of knowledge to effectively lead our very strong Breast Multidisciplinary Team,” said Dr. Bepler
“I have every confidence that Dr. Gorski will continue this very high standard of care.”
Perhaps Dr. Bepler is out-of-touch with reality when it comes to Gorski’s “research” and “standard of care” abilities
I wonder how long it is before his effort at infiltrating evidence-based guidelines with his Science-Based Medicine, raises its ugly hypocritical head ?
During the Holidays, maybe Dr. Gorski will have time to celebrate his promotion with his wife with an evening out, and before he pops the surprise to her about his retirement plans for Castro’s Cuba, he can take her by the hands, stare into her eyes with his big brown eyes; they have to be brown, right (?), because he’s so full of “it,” (?) and tell her these heart-warming words:
Darling, I know, that you know, that what I do brings home the bacon, and so it makes a difference in Michigan
In fact, I wanted to let you know how much of a difference I’m helping to make
1997 thru 2001, African American women breast cancer death rates per 100,000 in Michigan; as reported in the American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures for African Americans, 2005-2006, listed Michigan as the state tied with the 20 most breast cancer cases per 100,000, with 36.2
I’m proud to announce that for the last 2 reporting periods (2011-2014), covering 2003 thru 2009, Michigan is no longer tied with the state with the 20 most cases of breast cancer per 100,000
Michiganis now the state with the 11th most cases of breast cancer in African American women, which rose .5 from 33.8 to 34.3 over the last 2 reporting periods
And that’s not all
African American womenbreast cancer incidences inMichigan, per 100,000, rose from 119.0, 2000 thru 2004 as reported in the 2007-2008 report, up .4 to 119.4, 2006 thru 2010, as reported 2013-2014
Additionally, African American womenbreast cancer death rates inMichigan, per 100,000, rose from 33.8 for 2003 thru 2007, as reported for 2011-2012, up .5 to 34.3 for 2006 thru 2010, reported 2013-2014
And furthermore, breast cancer incidences in Michigan, per 100,000, were 119.4 for African American women for 2006 thru 2010, reported 2013-2014, and 118.7 for 2006 thru 2010 for white women, reported 2013-2014
So African American womenhad .7 more breast cancer incidences thanwhite women
And also, the breast cancer death rates inMichigan, per 100,000, was 34.3 forAfrican American women 2006 thru 2010, reported 2013-2014, 11.5 more than the 22.8 for white women for 2006 thru 2010, as reported 2013-2014
And I thought you’d be very pleased to know that the estimated new breast cancer cases in women inMichigan, rose from 6,120 in 2008, to 8,140 in 2013
An increase of 2,010
And, Michiganwent from being the state with the 9th most cases of estimated new breast cancer cases, to the 8th
And as if that were not enough great news for you, the estimated breast cancer deaths in women inMichigan, rose from 1,350 in 2004, to an additional 10 more women, 1,360 in 2013
And just like with the estimated new women breast cancer cases, again, Michiganwent from being the state with the 9th most cases of estimated breast cancer deaths, to the 8th
And last, but certainly not least, Michigan cancer death rates dropped from 25.8 in 2008, 1.8 to 24.0 in 2013
However, Michiganwent from being the state tied with the 18th most cancer cases per 100,000, to the state tied with the 11th most
But don’t worry honey
If you’re white like me, because you’re in Michigan, the breast cancer incidence for you per 100,000, went from 133.9 for 1998 thru 2002, as reported 2005-2006, down 15.2 to 118.7 for 2006 thru 2010, as reported 2013-2014
And, even better, white death rates in Michigan per 100,000, dropped from 27.3 for 1996 thru 2000, as reported 2003-2004, 4.5 to 22.8 for 2006 thru 2010, as reported 2013-2014
And best of all, sweetie, if you do get breast cancer and you’re white, you have a 9% better 5-year overall survival rate (69% – whites / 60% – African Americans, and for each stage of diagnosis for most cancer sites)
And I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that life expectancy is lower forAfrican Americans than whites among women (77.2 vs. 80.9 years) (2013-2014)
If that’s not job security for me, I don’t know what is
The mistake that Gorski made is that he did not take into account that this is not the age of Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini, etc
In this day and age, people canNOT get away with adopting lying as a part of a strategy, because the NSA is watching, and so are We, the People
Germans subjugated themselves to Hitler, the Soviets, Stalin, Italians, Mussolini, Cubans to Castro, and none of them were worth subjugating oneself to
None of them were worth being put on a pedestal
None of them were greater than you or I
Gorski is NOT the greater good
Gorski has a degree in “B.S.” from the University of Michigan
I do not have a “B.S.” degree
I’m the one NOT full of“B.S.”
Now that sounds like a story ripe for a journalistic investigation
So, I guess that means Bob Blaskiewicz’s fave “journalist,” Liz Szabo, and USA TODAY, are out of the running for this type of “reporting”
But look on the bright side:
“In his new role, he will work with the Samuel Silver, M.D., Ph.D., who is the MiBOQI program director, as well as assistant dean for Research and professor of Internal Medicine/Hematology-Oncology at the University of Michigan Medical School”
Maybe “the Samuel Silver, M.D., Ph.D.” will be GorskGeeks“checks and balances” ====================================== “Our only goal is to promote high standards of science in medicine” ====================================== http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/
====================================== Such risible hyperbole would induce fits of laughter in me if it weren’t such a complete lie ======================================
I’m just glad dad got outta Kellogg country while he could
—————————————————————— P.S.: Per Dr. David H. Gorski, anything which might erroneously be perceived as a lie about Burzynski, is NOT anything wrong, per Wayne State University ======================================
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Board of Directors MemberJames Rappaport discusses Dr. Burzynski and The Cancer Industry
—————————————————————— “When you look at what is going on and how Dr. Burzynski’s being handled, it is clearly a function of, (?), anytime you have big business, big government, big labor, Big Pharma, Big Cancer Industry, whatever, they become so, wrapped up in protecting the institution; whatever it is, that they forget what their fundamental job is, you know, and what’s happened with Big Pharma and, and Big Cancer, is they kinda, you know, they’ve forgotten to be curious that there might be other op, opportunities and options out there, and they’re focused on protecting their turf”
—————————————————————— 00:41 – Peer-review chauvinism
—————————————————————— “Most of the stuff is peer-reviewed, in order to get into, the starting gate, of their process”
“Well, if you’re all of the peers, are vested in one piece of the business, something new, is frightening, and is not going to be given the same shot, as something that’s within the construct of what they’re used to”
“That’s the problem, uh, and the idea that something different; less catastrophic to the body, um, could possibly, uh, work, would upset all of their training, all of their thinking, and, it, it’s very hard for them to, to to do that”
—————————————————————— 01:24 – The anointed Evangelical Guardians of the Status Quo
—————————————————————— “The doctors I know and, and the clinicians I know, and, and these people are evangelical”
“I mean, they are hugely, vested and invested, in doing what they believe is very important and good work”
“It helps them get up in the morning, to go to work”
“So, folks who are, invested that kind of, uh, you know, zealous way, you know, are going to look at anything that isn’t within that, that, that, that vision, you know, they’re going to look askance at it”
“They’re going to look at, say that, that, that’s really weird, or, that’s a charlatan”
“What they were in essence saying is, that if you do, the Burzynski treatment regimen, you are foregoing the treatments that we know and understand, and thus we can’t, guarantee that you’re going to have a success”
“Well, you can’t guarantee that you’re going to have a success with chemotherapy, or the normal regimens of chemotherapy“
“So, they came from a place of saying: ‘We are protecting you from going down and taking a, uh, the placebo approach,’ which is the way they look at it”
“The fact that it’s been effective, and the fact that, uh, you know, when you go through the numbers, uh, and the analysis, and you go through, uh, that if you’ve not gone through chemotherapy, and you go through the Burzynski’s treatment your odds are 2 or 3 times as high, even if you have gone through chemotherapy it’s 1 or 2 times as high”
“You know, those are, un, those are high enough numbers to push the needle, and, oh by the way, it’s less expensive, than Big Pharma“
—————————————————————— 02:56 – Protecting the business at all costs
—————————————————————— “Which is another big piece”
“Big Pharma is protecting a huge, multi-billion dollar business, and they’re going to protect it to the death, even, to the adverse impact of patient outcomes”
“They won’t say it that way, and, but that fact of the matter is, if you’ve got an approach out here which could be significantly, less costly, and significantly less adversely impact-full, to the patient, um, then you’re gonna, um, you, you, you can understand why they’re, to doing”
“You don’t have to agree with it, but you can at least understand why they’re taking the position that they’re taking”
—————————————————————— 03:34 – The fiber of an innovator’s background
—————————————————————— “I think that what is amazing is that Dr. Burzynski has had a vision, and a passion, and a zeal, for 40-odd years, put up with being called everything, short of, and probably even including ‘Witch Doctor,’ um, because of his firm belief that he can save people’s lives, and, and what that says about his character and his just his, the fiber of his backbone, to, um, to be willing to take that on”
“You know, you’re talking about a man who spent the last 40 years, um, you know, working on, on a different form of treatment that is more patient friendly, than chemotherapy“
“You know, I explain to people about, you know, what chemotherapy is”
“What chemotherapy is, is putting poison in your body”
“Killing everything that is fast-growing in your body”
“Starting first with cancer cells”
“Then next with white-blood cells”
“Then with your hair”
“Then with your, you know, the inside lining of your mouth”
“Um, then your fingernails”
“I mean, you know, that, that’s what it’s meant to do, and what you essentially do is you give this chemotherapy to, as much as a person can take, uh, uh, uh, in order to, you know, in, in, in order to get out the other end where’ve you’ve killed cancer and hopeful not everybody else or the patient”
“That’s what it is”
“So, if you’ve got a different approach, which is, essentially is saying, well, you know, we’re not, we’re gonna go in and stop the cancer cells from growing and we’re going to actually, and, uh and work on shrinking them, without the ancillary effects, is pretty powerful, you know, and, uh, and you would think that, that, that, the Big Cancer Industry would say: ‘That’s something we outta be looking at'”
Burzynski needs to be given the right to prove the efficacy of his treatment, and if he can, uh, show that his treatments are as or more effective, and / or, significantly better for the patient, with better patient outcomes and, and limited side effects, he’s gotta be given that opportunity to compete out in the marketplace”
“That’s what America’s about”
====================================== 12/4/2013 – Jim Rappaport, Board Member of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute discusses Dr. Burzynski and the obstacles he faces within a Cancer Ind (5:49)
[WP:SOP]“Statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then. 7.”)
Due & undue weight: 
“The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant & should not be considered,”
[WP:NPOV]“History of NPOV:” (Content # 6, Note 3)
(Neutral Point of View)
—————————————————————— TRANSLATION: Wikipedia editors, YOUR OPINION IS NOT RELEVANT
—————————————————————— MEANING: It is meaningless to attempt to slather your biased OPINION all over Wikipedia like butter on Texas toast, since supposedly, we only care about verifiable FACTS
Wikipedia, what the problem is ?
Jimmy Donal Wales
No, “The Who” is actually really British!
(as opposed to some “furreigner” who plops across the pond, wants to pound one of your pelts after a celebrity hunt, pops it in his bonnet, pip-pips about, and mounts it up on his rented wall along with what’s left of his balls)
I’m writing, of course, about “Jimbo,” the one who got away . . . Thankfully
The recipient of the write-up earlier this year in The New York Times (Oh, pithy!!)
—————————————————————— Wales, who no longer runs the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia
“He applies his libertarian worldview to the Internet and has taken on institutions like the United States government“
You must be bloody well rightjoking me
(joking me ? Quit jokin’ me !)
JimCrow’s ’bout as “libertarian” as Fidel Castrowith a gun in his hand and (f)lies between his teeth; from traveling with the windows down
Stephen Colbert shoulda seen that comin’ from a 8 mile away
Hey Stephen, Report’ THAT !!!
—————————————————————— “He grew up in Huntsville, Ala., the son of a teacher and a retail man“
And obviously, he didn’t “learnt” well
I think a refund’s in order
And here’s your free school Insolence to go with it
Happy eat in’
It is claimed that “HE” spends time:
—————————————————————— “traveling the world giving talks on free speech and Internet freedom“
Welcome to MizFitTV
What would “Jymboree” know about “free speech” and “Internet freedom,“ anyway ?
How many days did you serve your country in the United States military ?
Oh, you did NOT realize that while you were in San Diego, you could have signed that contract ?
After all, he’s no Vincent Kennedy McMahon” (“HE” knows where “HIS”GRAPEFRUITS are)
====================================== “B.D.F.L., or the Benevolent Dictator for Life”
Big Disappointing Fascist Loser ?
—————————————————————— “Argumentum ad Jimbonem” means dutifully following what Wales says, but there are even arguments about that”
—————————————————————— WP:NICETRY, but that’s “SHEEPLE”
—————————————————————— “One Wikipedia editor said, for instance, that Wales was no longer comfortable with the B.D.F.L. description”
—————————————————————— Jiminy Cricket!
Did “FASCIST” hit a bit too close to home ?
—————————————————————— “(There is, among some, a debate over what to call him)”
“Some users have also disputed the Latinized version of “Jimbo.”“
“(Should it be “Jimboni” or “Jimbini”?)”
—————————————————————— Can you smell what “The Rock” is cookin’ ?
La-La-La-La-Laaaaaaawwww, JIMBRONI !!!!!!!
Get ready, and bend over, ’cause I’m gonna shine this thing up, turn it sideways, and shove it straight up your Candy AstroTurf hatch
—————————————————————— Introduction (statement of principles) [WP:SOP]
“This is a statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then”
—————————————————————— (Or if you go by The New York Times article,  Jimbroni is the “co-founder” who tries to re-write history to make it appear that “HE” is the one-and-onlyFascist Founder ?)
“I should point out that these are my principles, such that I am the final judge of them”
“This does not mean that I will not listen to you, but it does mean that at some ultimate, fundamental level, this is how Wikipedia will be run”
—————————————————————— No, actually, it DOES mean that he will NOT listen to you, as was the case when he ignored my 2/7/2013 appeal
In his defense, perhaps Kate Garvey has his balls
1. “Wikipedia’s success to date is entirely a function of our open community”
“This community will continue to live and breathe and grow only so long as those of us who participate in it continue to Do The Right Thing”
“Doing The Right Thing takes many forms, but perhaps most central is the preservation of our shared vision for the neutral point of view policy and for a culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty”
The problem with this Wacky Tobacky“We are the (Wiki) World”WikiWhOReD Wonderland Jimbroni’s living in, is that “HE” has NOT been Doing The Right Thing since “HE”abdicated “his”“neutral point of view policy” and “culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty,” to “The Skeptics”
“The Skeptics,” who serve as gatekeepers of the Burzynski Clinic article, and who cite Dr. David H. Gorski a/k/a “Orac” aka GorskGeekas if he were a “reliable source”
“The Skeptics,” who bring new meaning to the term“Wikipedia Zero”
“The Skeptics,” who are Intellectual Cowards like their falsegodGorski, the Closet Communist of Science-Based Medicine a/k/a Science-Basted Medicine aka Science-Based Mudicine(Spinning Bowel Movement), WikiWordsmith Wannabes, nut-jobbers, stale from their failure at the National Peanut Festival in Dothan, Alabama
3. ““You can edit this page right now” is a core guiding check on everything that we do”
“We must respect this principle as sacred”
Do the lies just dribble off your chin like phlegm?
You canNOT just go in and “edit” the Burzynski Clinic article “page right now”
That statement is pure, unadulteratedAlabamaB.S.
That’s NOT a “sacred principle,” it’s sacré “bull”
7. “Anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity”
Unfortunately, you do NOT practice what you preach, do you, HYPOCRITE ?
—————————————————————— “They should be encouraged constantly to present their problems in a constructive way”
So that you can ignore the problem(s), right, Jimbroni ?
—————————————————————— “Anyone who just complains without foundation, refusing to join the discussion, should simply be rejected and ignored”
—————————————————————— THAT would automatically exclude all of “The Skeptics” now, wouldn’t it ?
“We must not let the “squeaky wheel” be greased just for being a jerk”
—————————————————————— Jimbroni, why have you allowed “The Skeptics” to choose from their “squeaky” wheel-house bag o’ tricks, get all “greased” up and jerk” so many people around in such a big CIRCLE-JERK, for so long?
8. “Diplomacy consists of combining honesty and politeness”
“Both are objectively valuable moral principles”
“Be honest with me, but don’t be mean to me”
“Don’t misrepresent my views for your own political ends, and I’ll treat you the same way”
—————————————————————— “Honesty” and “politeness” are really great “buzzwords,” Jimbroni, but they are as foreign to your “Skeptics,” as “moral principles”
A great example of the questionable“honesty” and “moral principles” of one of your apparatchiks, was demonstrated 2/3/2013, 6:56, when I sent an arbitration appeale-mail to Wikipedia, advising, in part, that the e-mail listed on Wikipedia; as the one that blocked users should use, did NOT work, because there was NO “@” sign in it
There was a . (period) where the “@” sign belonged
—————————————————————— 2/3/2013, 8:11 AM, Anthony (AGK) BASC firstname.lastname@example.org advised:
“Everything you have said in that e-mail demonstrates a misunderstanding or misreading of Wikipedia policy”
Check the “time” and “place” where you are, so that you, too, can advise, that according to Wikipedia, pointing out to them that the e-mail they advise people to use, DOES NOT WORK; because there is no “@” sign in it (instead, there’s a . (period)), translates into meaning:
—————————————————————— “Everything you have said in that e-mail demonstrates a misunderstanding or misreading of Wikipedia policy”
====================================== Core principles
Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset [WP:SR]
Wikipedia does not have its own views, or determine what is “correct”
I wish I could LIE like that, but I have a conscience
====================================== 12/24/2012, Monday – 3:52 pm – 21:52 (UTC) –
“We are told that 2013 will be a big year, but apparently his plan is to release another bullshit movie not to publish useful research”
Does anyone other than me NOT think it a “coinkydink” that some “Guy” on Wikipedia, going by the name “Guy”, using the same 2 words (“Bullshit movie”) as a “Guy” on Twitter ?
2. Founding principles:
“Neutrality is mandatory . . . “
—————————————————————— I call B.S.
“Neutrality is mandatory,”EXCEPT on the Burzynski Clinic article, controlled by “The Skeptics”
4. “Ignore all rules (IAR):”
“Rules on Wikipedia are not fixed in stone”
Especially when Jimbroni allows “The Skeptics”
to “dictator” the “rules”
“The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule”
“The common purpose of building an encyclopedia trumps both”
“This means that any rule can be broken for a very good reason, if it ultimately helps to improve the encyclopedia”
And “The Skeptics” are NOT required to provide ANY reason for having broken “any rule”
“It doesn’t mean that anything can be done just by claiming IAR, or that discussion is not necessary to explain one’s decision”
But do NOT expect Wikipedia to require anything from The Skeptics”
—————————————————————— Founding principles
1. “Neutral point of view (NPOV) as a mandatory editorial principle”
—————————————————————– EXCEPT when it comes to the Burzynski Clinic article
—————————————————————— 12/26/2012 – I attempted to get Wikipedia to reference the interview which Burzynski’s attorney, Richard (Rick) A. Jaffe, and Lola Quinlan’s attorney; who posted it on his web-site, had given: 
Please add re WP:NPOV that Burzynski’s attorney, Richard Jaffe has disputed Lola Quinlan’s claims:
“On February 1, 2012, Dr. Burzynski’s attorney, Richard Jaffe, disputed Lola Quinlan’s allegations on Houston’s KPRC News.”
Thank you very much.[[User: Didymus Judas Thomas 15:03, 12/26/2012 (UTC)
—————————————————————— So? [OR] Disputing it in the media probably means he doesn’t have a case. [/OR] In any case, a lawyer disputing the allegations against his client is not even news. — [[User: Arthur Rubin 15:24, 12/26/2012 (UTC)
Arthur Rubin, I’m not sure what relevance your above post has re WP:NPOV since the articleincludes statements from attorneys representing both sides
17:51, 12/27/2012 (UTC) Didymus Judas Thomas
====================================== 12/24/2012, Monday – 3:54 pm (21:54.UTC) – “What they mean is that nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it, which necessarily means that it’s not considered in the least promising.”
[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([User JzG/help|Help!])
“Nobody else is doing meaningful work on it” ?
Ignores independent research done in Poland, Russia, Korea, Egypt, Japan, & China which specifically reference SRB’s publications in their publications re antineoplastons & phenylacetylglutamine (PG); which is AS2-5, & includes phase III trials published in China & continued research being published in China 12/17/2012?
1. I pointed out to Wikipedia, a 12/17/2012 scientific publication re antineoplastons, which referenced Burzynski@ 22. (antineoplaston AS21)
2. 7 days after this scientific journal was published, Wikipedia’a“Guy (Help!’s) ”response, Monday, 12/24/2012 @ 3:54 pm, is to advise me:
“What they mean is that nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it, which necessarily means that it’s not considered in the least promising.”
Guy (Help!) 3:54 pm, 12/24/2012, Monday
3. So, Wikipedia’s, Guy (Help!), defines an event having been published7 days ago (12/17/2012 to 12/24/2012) as:
“…nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it…”
—————————————————————— Rhode Island Redattempts to get away with misquoting me:
“The other argument is that the secondary sources (i.e., respected cancer organizations, FDA, etc.) are not reliable because they are Burzynski’s “competitors”
[[User: Rhode Island Red]] 4:18 pm, Yesterday (UTC−6)
What a Wipocrite (Wiki+Hypocrite)
Steve Pereira (SilkTork) is such a “WIPOCRITE,” that he claims:
—————————————————————— “the community were united that your contributions were biased”
He conveniently; like a good little mini-Jimbroni would, ignores ALL of his fellow WIPOCRITES comments, which completely ignored:
—————————————————————— ([WP:SOP]“Statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then. 7.”)
Due & undue weight: 
“The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant & should not be considered,”
[WP:NPOV]“History of NPOV:” (Content # 6, Note 3)
(Neutral Point of View)
1. 12/24/2012, Monday – 3:52 pm – 21:52 (UTC) – “We are told that 2013 will be a big year, but apparently his plan is to release another bullshit movie not to publish useful research”
2. 12/24/2012, Monday – 3:54 pm (21:54.UTC) – “What they mean is that nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it, which necessarily means that it’s not considered in the least promising.”
3. 12/26/2012, Wednesday – 12:43 – “There is unlikely to be any dispassionate debate over ANPs while Burzynskicontinues with his unethical practices.”
4. 12/30/2012 8:58 “The world, right now, considers Burzynski to be at best unethical and at worst a quack…”?
Am I NOT the only one convinced that “the community” was also “united” in something more than just their “goose-stepping ?
—————————————————————— Pereira, the imperfect‘pedia Pimp tries to Wow his readers by waxing WikiWhOReD, by ignoring that ALL the previous BIASED opinion B.S. that his fellow-Facist forged ahead with, and which Wikipediantic history says means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING (say it again) because it is their BIASED OPINION and is ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS, and it was as so much WikiLitter, well, he’s just facist-free speechless about that, as any Jimbroni AstroTurf Twerk should be
To show exactly what zealots these WikiPimps are, just absorb this exchange:
“The Burzynski Clinic Article has:
“…a Mayo Clinic study found no benefit….”
But that was not what the study concluded
Although we could not confirm any tumor regression in patients in this study, the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions about treatment efficacy.”
In the interest of Neutrality, please remove the reference to Mayo entirely or change to;
—————————————————————— “…a Mayo Clinic study found that “the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions about treatment efficacy.”
Thank you very much
Didymus Judas Thomas 21:12, 12/10/2012
“How is “found no benefit” not a a fair and pithy description of the Mayo Clinic study’s summary?”
Alexbrn 21:24, 12/10/2012
—————————————————————— “I feel this should be changed under WP:NPOV because not every reader is going to understand the “Fair & Pithy” reason I was provided
I feel that the average reader reading this will read it as meaning a study was done & completed with the necessary # of people for an effective study, when that was not the conclusion as pointed out in my above post
Thank you very much.”
Didymus Judas Thomas 11:02, 12/18/2012
—————————————————————— NO RESPONSE
That’s right !
“NO RESPONSE” from the “mini-b”(a/k/a “mini-brain”), wannabe Fascists who are so zealous about using their alleged“Fair and Pithy” “found no benefit” WikiWhOReD; which they utilize in an effort to deceive those who are NOTsmarter than a fifth-grader
These WikiPimps are so certain of the righteousness of their evangelical cause, that they do NOT even have the “GRAPEFRUITS” to use what the study’s conclusions actually said, and let the chips fall where they may
There are a lot of “chips” falling at Wikipedia
JIMBRONI, you’re no Maggie Thatcher
You can’t even wear her pants
—————————————————————— Margaret Thatcher: “The Iron Lady”
Jimbroni: “No iron in the pants”
—————————————————————— Jimbroni’s list of Facist, mini-Hitler, Monty Pythonesque Women’s underwear wearing Wannabes on Wikipediantic:
These mini-b’s went so far as to allege all sorts of sockpuppetry
Wikipediantic, why don’t you list all the dates and times I was supposedly doing all of these activities; and don’t forget to include all the time I spent blogging, on Twitter, making comments on articles, etc., and once you have all that data compiled, explain how one individual could do all that in a 24-hour day
That’s right Wikipediantic
I’m challenging you to put up or shut up your cornholio
I am writing to you to request your urgent attention to a matter that involves the abuse ofcancer patients, their families, and their communities
A few weeks ago, one of “The Skeptics” wrote to you concerning the Houston cancer doctorStanislaw Burzynski, and requested that you take action and look into how he was able to continue treating cancer patients for decades under the auspices of clinical trials with an unproven treatment he claims to have discovered, patented, manufactures, prescribes, and sells (at his in house pharmacy) at exorbitant (NOTso muchly ?) prices
On Friday, November15, Dr. Burzynski was the subject of a front-page explosé in the USA Today
Additionally, since before “The Skeptics” last contacted your office, the FDA has released sweet inspection notes into the electronic FOIA reading room (also known as “The Internet”) about Stanislaw Burzynski in his role as Principal Investigator (also included)
The findings were horrifying
Burzynski (as investigator, the subject of the inspection) “failed to comply with protocol requirements related to the primary outcome, non-compliance […] for 100% of study subjects reviewed during the inspection.”
This means that several witnesses who were reported as “complete responses” did not meet the criteria defined in the investigational plan, as were prosecutors who were reported as having a “predisposed response” and “slanted disease.”
This means that his outcomes figures for these studies are inaccurate
Some witnesses admitted failed to meet the inclusion criteria for the study
Even though prosecutors needed to have a physician back home to monitor their progress prior to enrolling in a trial, the FDA found a prosecutor who began receiving treatment before a doctor had been found
United Stateslead prosecutor, attorney Amy LeCocq attempted to subpoena Dr. Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.
—————————————————————— “When I publicly objected to this harassment I myself was slapped with a subpoena for all my information regarding Dr. Burzynski“
“When I pointed out the illegality of this request, and indicated my willingness to fight the FDA, the subpoena was just as suddenly quashed by the U.S. Attorney” 
—————————————————————— “Dr. Ralph Moss, an award-winning journalist and author of books about cancer, was subpoenaed and ordered to produce every document in his possession — electronic, magnetic, printed or otherwise — relating to Dr. Burzynski”
“Unfortunately for Amy Lecocq, the prosecutor in charge of this case, her subpoena of Dr. Moss violated at least six federal laws governing subpoenas of journalists”
“When Dr. Moss pointed this out to Lecocq and gave her the opportunity to withdraw the subpoena, she did” 
—————————————————————— ProsecutorMike Clark told Burzynski; in pre-trial motion virtually admitted treatment works, when Dr. Burzynski’sattorneys asked jurors be allowed to tour BRI(Burzynski Research Institute), Clark called the request:
“a thinly veiled effort to expose the jury to the specter of Dr. Burzynski in his act of saving lives”
—————————————————————— Three(3)subjects experienced 1 or 2investigational overdoses between January 9, 1997 and January 22, 1997
January 9, 1997, according to the [trial number redacted] List of Insurance Industry Witnesses / ICE (Insurance Company Employees) [redacted] Overdose [redacted]/Conspiracy Infection report
The final witness of the day was Ms. Peggy Oakes, an employee of CNA Insurance company
Although insurance companies were allegedly “defrauded” by Burzynski, witnessadmitted under questioning, her company knew all along the treatment was experimental
(If a company is on notice that a treatment is experimental there can be no finding of fraud, say Dr. Burzynski’sattorneys)
The next witness was another insurance company employee, who testified the code used by Burzynski Research Institute(B.R.I.) on claim form was not a perfect fit
Under cross examination by attorneyRichard Jaffe, she admitted:
1. such codesdo not have to be exact fits
2. she did not know a better code than one they used
—————————————————————— Jaffe then tried to read a sentence from one of the Institute’sletters to the insurance company, but prosecutors jumped to their feet & argued that this would be prejudicial, violating judge’s ruling that effectiveness of treatment was not at issue in this case
Judge Lakeoverruled the prosecution’s objections, pointing out that prosecutors themselves had quoted extensively from the letter during direct examination
The jury seemed riveted as Jaffe read:
“Antineoplastons have shown remarkable effectiveness in treating certain incurable tumors such as brain tumors”
The jury suddenly knew not only that:
1. treatment might actually work
2. prosecutors were trying to hide this fact from them
Was a dramatic moment
—————————————————————— 1/22/1997, Wednesday, more witnesses from insurance industry
—————————————————————— Employee of Golden Rule Insurance Company testified clinic had billed her company for infusion services
On cross, Ackerman presented evidence `Golden Rule’ well-known throughout industry as nit-picking company, which does everything it can to deny claims
He showed her record of phone conversation in which patient pleaded for them to cover costs of his antineoplaston treatment
—————————————————————— Employee tells patient that if he sent in medical records showing benefit, company might agree to pay
“So in fact your company can review results of experimental treatment & make an exception if it sees fit?” Ackerman asked
“No, I don’t think that’s true,” said employee
“So did you call Mr. Newman & tell him he had been misinformed,”
“that in fact Golden Rule would not review his medical records?”
—————————————————————— Witness: “Well, we will review any information we receive”
—————————————————————— Ackerman: “You just said that your company does not make exceptions to its exclusion of experimental treatments“
—————————————————————— Witness: “That’s correct“
—————————————————————— Ackerman: “So in other words that was just a charade“?
“Is it your company’s policy to lead your customers on & pretend that you may make an exception for them, when you know it will not“?
—————————————————————— Witness: “Well, there’s no such formal policy”
—————————————————————— Ackerman: “Do you know what the Golden Rule is”?
—————————————————————— Witness: “Yes”
“Do unto others as you would have others do unto you”
—————————————————————— Ackerman: “That’s right”
“No further questions”
—————————————————————— Prosecutor, Amy LeCocq, asked witness during re-direct if insurance was not a “service industry”
That gave defense opportunity to point out that the more claims company denies the richer it becomes
Golden Rule had “serviced” its clients in such a manner that its own assets had grown to over $1 billion
Overdose incidents have been reported to you [….]
There is no documentation to show that you have implemented corrective actions during this time period to ensure the safety and welfare of subjects. [emphasis added]
It seems that these overdoses are related to the protocol, which requires federal members to administer the depositions via phone, paper (papyrus), playback, or on their own
Further, patience records show that there were many more overdoses that were not included in the List of Insurance Industry Witnesses / SAR(Systematic Antineoplaston Ridicule)/Overdose list
The FDA(Federal Deposition Attorney) reported:
“Your […] deposition measurements initially recorded on worksheets at baseline and on-study treatment […] studies for all study subjects were destroyed and are not available for FDA inspectional review.”
This is one of the most damning statements, as without any…not a single baseline measurement…there is no way to determine any actual effect of the systematic antineoplaston ridiculetreatment
This means that Burzynski’sstripes–which by last account cost $25 ($15 + $10 smuggled in) to begin and $60 MILLION + ($60,000,000 +) to maintain–are unpublishable
It will be stunning if this finding alone were not investigated by legal authorities
Witnesses who had Grade 3 or 4 toxic effects were supposed to be removed from trial
One witness had 3 Grade 3 events followed by 3 Grade 4 events
Another witness had 7 disqualifying toxic events before she was removed from the study
Prosecution did not report all adverse events as required by study protocols
One witness had 12 events of hypocrisy (high insurance), none of which was reported
There are several similar witnesses
Some adverse events were not reported to the Burzynski Clinic IRB for years
For instance one witness had an adverse event in 1993 and the oversight board did not hear about it until 1997
The FDA observed that the deposition consent documentdid not include a statement of extra costs that might be incurred
Specifically, some deposition consent documents were signed days to weeks before billing agreements, and in a couple of cases no consent form could be found
The “Clark” was unable to account for its stock of the investigational drag, an act that would get any other research Labrador shut down
“Sadly, a child, Josia Cotto, had to die from apparent sodium overload before this investigation could be carried out”
“[A] child had to die from apparent sodium overload”?
Obviously, it canNOT be “infamous” breast cancer specialist Dr. David H. Gorski, “Orac” a/k/a GorskGeek, who’s that “guy” who is NOT a brain cancer specialist, but claimed that a Burzynskipatient died from hypernatremia even though he has NOT provided one scintilla of evidence that he has a copy of any autopsy, or been privy to any autopsy of the patient
GorskGeek is that cut below the sludge that wakes up everyday, still secure in the knowledge that Burzynski has his name on a number of phase 2 clinical trial preliminary reports, and GorskGeek still has his on ZERO
Burzynski is the lead author on at least 31PubMed articles(of 47 (1973-2013), 2013 – most recent) to GorskGeek’spitiful 11 (of 27 (1989-2013), 2003 – most recent)
Despite these findings, when interviewed by USA Today, Burzynski actually said:
“We see patients from various walks of life”
“We see great people”
“We see crooks”
“We have prostitutes”
“We have thieves”
GorskiGeek, I guess Burzynski could have been talking about you, or your favebiochemist, Saul Green ?
—————————————————————— “All you have to do is to read Saul Green’s reports on Quackwatch and in The Cancer Letter from the 1990s”
—————————————————————— 12/2002 – Interview
“One of your greatest critics is Saul Green (Ph.D. Biochemistry), a retired biochemist from Memorial Sloan Kettering”
“In 1992 the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), published Green’s article, “Antineoplastons:”
“An Unproved Cancer Therapy.”
“What were his conclusions about Antineoplastons?”
—————————————————————— “Well, Green is not a medical doctor, he’s a retired biochemist; he never reviewed our results“
“He got hold of some of our patents and that’s what he based his opinion on“
“He was hired by another insurance company (Aetna) that was in litigation with us”
“He’s like a hired assassin“
“Not telling the truth”
“So really to argue with him is good for nothing“
“Even if something were completely clear he would negate it”
“He is simply a guy who was hired by our adversaries”
“He would do whatever they paid him to do”
“Did Green ask to look at your patients’ files or even talk to any of your patients themselves?”
“You responded with an article with 137 references, did JAMA publish even part of it?”
—————————————————————— “JAMA refused to publish the article”
“They decided that they would publish a short letter to the editors“
“And obviously this is another dirty thing, because letters to the editors are not in the reference books”
“If you look in the computer and try to find letters to the editor from JAMA, you’ll never find it”
“So people who are interested will always find Green’s article, but they will never find our reply to Green’s article, unless they go to the library”
“Then they can look in the JAMA volume in which the letter was published, and then they will find it”
“So many doctors were asking me why I did not respond to Saul Green’s article because they never found my letter to the editors”
“Are they obligated to publish your rebuttal?”
—————————————————————— “Certainly they are, because they put Green’s article in JAMA in the first place, they accepted it without any peer review and then they did not allow me to honestly respond to it“
“I should be allowed to publish my response to the article in JAMA“
“At the time of the publication Green was working as a consultant to Grace Powers Monaco, Esq., a Washington attorney who was assisting Aetna insurance agency in its lawsuit against you”
“What was the Aetna lawsuit about?”
—————————————————————— “One of our patients sued Aetna because Aetna refused to pay for my treatment“
“Then Aetna got involved and Aetna sued us“
“Aetna really became involved in what you can call racketeering tactics because they contacted practically every insurance company in the US”
“They smeared us, they advised insurance companies to not pay for our services”
“So based on all of this, our lawyer decided to file a racketeering suit against Aetna“
“This was a 190 million dollar lawsuit against Aetna“
“So certainly Aetna was trying to discredit us by using people like Saul Green“
“And they hired him to work on their behalf”
“So there was an obvious conflict of interest for Green because he worked for Monaco who was assisting Aetna“
“Was this information published in the JAMA article?”
(Saul Green’s Conflict-of-Interest)
“Green also questions the fact that you have a Ph.D.”
“At the American Association for Clinical Chemistry Symposium, July 1997, Atlanta, GA., he says in part:”
““Burzynski’s claim to a Ph.D. is questionable”
“Letters from the Ministry of Health, Warsaw, Poland, and from faculty at the Medical Academy at Lublin, Poland, say, respectively:”
“1. At the time Burzynski was in school, medical schools did not give a Ph.D.“
“2. Burzynski received the D.Msc. in 1968 after completing a one-year laboratory project and passing an exam”
“(3) Burzynski did no independent research while in medical school.””
“He cites the people below as giving him some of this information”
“1. Nizanskowski, R. , Personal communication. Jan 15, 1992”
“3. Bielinski, S., Personal communication, Nov. 22, 1987”
“First of all, do you have a Ph.D.?”
—————————————————————— “Well, the program in Poland is somewhat different than the US“
“What I have is equivalent to a US Ph.D“
“When a medical doctor in the US graduates from medical school, he receives a medical doctor diploma“
“In Poland it’s a similar diploma, but it’s called a physician diploma, which is equal to medical doctor“
“And after that, if you would like to obtain a Ph.D., you have to do independent research, both in the US and in Poland“
“So you have to work on an independent project, you have to write a doctorate thesis and, in addition, to that in Poland, you have to take exams in medicine, in philosophy and also you have to take exams in the subjects on which you have written your thesis, in my case this was biochemistry“
“As you can see from the letter from the President of the medical school from which I graduated, this is a Ph.D.“
“Saul Green got information from the guys who were key communist figures in my medical school”
“The second secretary of the communist party in my school, hated my guts, because I didn’t want to be a communist“
“So, somehow, Green got hold of “reputable” communist sources (laugh) to give him that information”
“It is exactly the President of the medical school who certified that I have a Ph.D.“
“So you are saying that theses people he received his personal communication from, Nizanskowski R, and Bielinski S, are both Communists, is that correct, or they were?”
—————————————————————— “Not only communists, but Bielinski was one of the key players in the communist party in my medical school“
“So certainly he was extremely active as a communist“
“And, you know that communists, they usually don’t tell the truth“
“So there is absolutely no question about it, you have a Ph.D. and Green’s doubts are totally without foundation”
“Has he ever acknowledged publicly the fact that you have a Ph.D.?”
—————————————————————— “He’s never got in touch with me regarding this”
—————————————————————— “Orac,” the god of “Bore”, wants his “Meet-up” Puppets to accept Saul Green as a “reputable source” :
—————————————————————— “Yes, I’m referring to Stanislaw Burzynski, the oncologist who has never done a residency in internal medicine or a fellowship in oncology…”
But then “GorskGeek” conveniently “forgets” to point out Saul Green’slack of qualifications:
(“Green is not a medical doctor, he’s a retired biochemist“)
1. Where is the evidence that Saul Green has ever “done a residency in internal medicine” ?
2. Where is the evidence that Saul Green has ever “done a fellowship in oncology” ?
3. GorskGeek, are you now, or have you ever been, a communist?
4. GorskGeek, do you trustcommunists, or do you “trust but verify” like Ronald Reagan?
5. GorskGeek, are you a hypocrite ?
I am asking you to help me understand what happened at the FDA to allow “the man” to conduct criminal trials and almost bankrupt a patients’ doctor in the process despite years of alarming reviews by the Federal Congress
I also ask you to support an investigation into this betrayal of over 317 MILLION persons and to push for legislation to prevent the most desperate patients from such unthinkable exploitation: providing a massive chemotherapeutic agent injected through the carotid artery that goes to the brain, that harbors the tumor, which results in killing the tumor, but destroys a large part of the healthy brain as well, and the patients became severely handicapped, and a life that’s not worth living, because of the serious side effects 
Was ProsecutorAmy LeCocq, Assistant United States AttorneyMike Clark, and Assistant U.S.AttorneyGeorge Tallichet, attempting to:
1. Lose this criminal case for the United States Gubment?
2. Win this case for the United States Gubment?
—————————————————————— Lawyering for Dummies
1. Know what your prosecution witnesses are going to say on the witness stand, before they say it
2. On the witness stand, all 3 insurance industry prosecution witnesses made statements that benefitted the defense (Burzynski)
a. 1/9/1997 – final witness of the day Ms. Peggy Oakes, employee of CNA Insurance company
b. insurance company employee
c. 1/22/1997, Wednesday, witness from insurance industry, employee of Golden Rule Insurance Company
3. Why did Lead prosecuting attorneyAmy LeCocq, assistant United States attorneyGeorge Tallichet, and Assistant U.S. AttorneyMike Clark, offer the “informed consent” forms into evidence, and allow Clark to tell the jury, the government’s most “damning” charge:
a. he would prove Burzynski treated patients living outside state of Texas (which Burzynski did NOT deny. Why should he ?)
b. Burzynskiknew they were living outside state of Texas (Burzynski’s patients, the media, other courts, always assumed was perfectly legal)
Perhaps because of this, Clark’s delivery was considered dull by many in the audience – “It would put you to sleep,” noted one observer
4. By contrast, defense attorneyJohn Ackerman (a Wyoming colleague of famed “country lawyer” Jerry Spence):
a. showed jury copy of attorney’s opinion informing Burzynski it would be legal for him to use new experimental drugs in state of Texas
b. read from 1987Federal Circuit Court opinion which agreed Burzynski’s use of antineoplastons were in fact legal in Texas
c. Repeatedly, defense team turned tables on prosecutor: Over & over, they used introduction of Informed Consent statements to showclinichad in fact taken pains to inform patients that treatment was experimental in nature
5. 1/9/1997 – government called 1st witness, US postal inspectorBarbara Ritchey:
a. Ms. Ritchey testified she’d been assigned to investigate Burzynski in 1993 (for alleged “mail fraud”) & working on case full-time since 3/1995
b. Throughout 1st 2 weeks of trial, prosecutors repeatedly put up enlarged copies of informed consent forms all patients required to sign
c. Some showed out-of-state addresses
d. point was to impress jury with fact:
1) some patients lived outside of Texas
2) Burzynski knew this
e. approach provided opening for team of defense attorneys to have documents read out loud to jury
f. forms clearly informed patientsantineoplastonswere experimental in nature & had not been approved by FDA
g. forms were explicit there could be no guaranteeantineoplastonswould reduce or stabilize their cancers
h. AttorneyRamsey astutely pointed out that one crucial element of “fraud” is deceit
i. Without deceit, there can be no fraud, he said
j. “Isn’t that Informed Consent form the absolute, honest golden truth?“
k. Shehad to admit it was, thereby undermining government’s main contention
6. Ramsey had Ms. Ritchey read from 19875th Circuit decision which stated Burzynskicould continue to prescribeantineoplastonsinstate of Texas:
a. Decision stated Judge Gabrielle McDonaldretained authority to amend or modifyherorder
b. “In other words,”
boomed the Texas lawyer,
“the FDA had another remedy, didn’t it ?“
“If it felt Dr. B. was violating order by treating out-of-state patients, it could have simply sought clarification, couldn’t it have?”
“Then we wouldn’t all have to sit here for 4 or 5 or 6 weeks of this trial”
Here too, Ritcheyhad to agree
7. Mr. Ramsey continued cross examination of Ms. Ritchey:
a. Sheadmitted what had previously been suspected, she & 6 other federal agents had known Burzynski would be out-of-town when they raided his clinic3/24/1995
b. In dramatic moment, sheadmittedInformed Consent formwas truthful, but took issue with the sentence,
1) “Dr. Burzynski may continue to prescribe antineoplastons in Texas”
Shecontended that legal decision’s actual language read
2) “Dr. Burzynski may continue to treat patients with antineoplastons in Texas”
“Isn’t that the same thing? “
“Sometimes, I go to the doctor & he treats me but he doesn’t prescribe”
Observers seemed non-plussed by this hair-splitting response
—————————————————————— United States postal inspectorBarbara Ritchey must have thought she was dealing with people who weren’t as smart as a fifth-grader
Shecontended the legal decision’s:
1) “Dr. Burzynski may continue to prescribe antineoplastons in Texas”
2) “Dr. Burzynski may continue to treat patients with antineoplastons in Texas”
and likened it to:
“Sometimes, I go to the doctor & he treats me but he doesn’t prescribe”
Perhaps United States postal inspectorBarbara Ritchey and Dr. David H. (“Orac” a/k/a GorskGeek) both came from the same Wacky Tobacky Universe
United States postal inspector
does NOT mean:
United States District Court Judge
U.S. postal inspectors do NOT get to change the wording of a legal documentsigned by a U.S. Federal District Court Judge
At NO time was it indicated that postal inspectorBarbara Ritchey was an “expert witness” in the proper usage of the English Language
You do NOT have to be smarter than a 5th-grader to know this
According to Chronicle:
“I think this was a government witch hunt,”
said jurorSharon Wray
“I don’t understand why they brought criminal action when they had a civil remedy”
—————————————————————— 3/3/1997 “I couldn’t find any victims,”
Coan added (Houston Chronicle)
Another juror, a 40-year-old engineer named Anthony Batiste, said he favored a guilty verdict
“I couldn’t go into my kitchen & make things”
“Why should somebody else be above the law?”
If you’re a 40-year-old engineer, and you “couldn’t go into” your kitchen & make things, maybe you do NOT deserve to be called an “Engineer”
I hope you thought of a career change
Strong sentiments, pro & con, were expressed by jurors on both sides
Jury foreman, John Coan, favored acquittal:
Quoted in New York Times:
“The fact that we didn’t make a unanimous decision one way or another does not mean we didn’t make a decision,”
“The decision is that he is neither guilty nor innocent doesn’t mean he doesn’t need to do work within his practice, & the FDA obviously needs to pursue things as well”
—————————————————————— Lead prosecuting attorneyAmy LeCocq, assistant United States attorneyGeorge Tallichet, and Assistant U.S. AttorneyMike Clark, collectively reminded me of “The Three Stooges”
—————————————————————— 9/8/1993 – Public Corruption Working Group Report – The Sentencing(Amy Lecocq) 
Well, at least it looks like Amy Lecocq got herself involved in something she might actually be knowledgeable about !
Faced life in federal prison
Faced up to:
5 years in prison
on each of 34 counts of mail fraud
up to 3 years in prison
for each of 40 counts of violating the food, drug & cosmetic laws
Let’s say you’re one of “The Skeptics,”(“The Burzynski Skeptics,”) don’t have a life (but doesn’t that go without saying?), enjoy associating yourself with known liars, cowards, ethically and intellectually challenged individuals, so you grab a newspaper(It’s doubtful that USA TODAY would qualify), and if you do NOT know what a “Newsie” is, go online and select an article which has a plethora of innuendo and allegations, compose a missive to your member in Congressassembled about the nothingness you just reviewed, just don’t piss yourself silly when you shoot that zinger off, because you’ve just sent something to your Congressperson, exhibiting what a whacky weed tobaccoday tripper you are, and a prime example of what “Rocky Mountain High” really will mean, starting January1st, 2014
My only suggestion is that you add something like:
“Dear Congressperson Y,
I know your time is valuable, but please allow me to waste some of you and your staff’s, as well as provide you with “fodder” you can hang up on the bathroom wall and laugh about for days!
In the next weeks I will be contacting you about all of the “conspiracy theories” in Jesse Ventura’s book, including; but not limited to:
Aliens The Denver International Airport
Smoke ’em if ya got ’em !
Letter to Congress
Dear CONGRESSPERSON’S NAME:
My name is _______ and I am one of your constituents
I am writing to you to request your urgent attention to a matter that involves the abuse of cancer patients, their families, and their communities
A few weeks ago, I wrote to you concerning the Houston cancer doctor Stanislaw Burzynski, and requested that you take action and look into how he was able to continue treating cancer patients for decades under the auspices of clinical trials with an unproven treatment he claims to have discovered, patented, manufactures, prescribes, and sells (at his in house pharmacy) at exorbitant prices
On Friday November 15, Dr. Burzynski was the subject of a front-page exposé in the USA Today
Additionally, since I last contacted your office, the FDA has released site inspection notes into the electronic FOIA reading room about Stanislaw Burzynski in his role as Principal Investigator (also included)
The findings were horrifying
Burzynski (as investigator, the subject of the inspection) “failed to comply with protocol requirements related to the primary outcome, therapeutic response […] for 67% of study subjects reviewed during the inspection.”
This means that several patients who were reported as “complete responses” did not meet the criteria defined in the investigational plan, as were patients who were reported as having a “partial response” and “stable disease.”
This means that his outcomes figures for these studies are inaccurate
Some patients admitted failed to meet the inclusion criteria for the study
Even though patients needed to have a physician back home to monitor their progress prior to enrolling in a trial, the FDA found a patient who began receiving treatment before a doctor had been found
The FDA told Burzynski:
“You failed to protect the rights, safety, and welfare of subjects under your care
Forty-eight (48) subjects experienced 102 investigational overdoses between January 1, 2005 and February 22, 2013, according to the [trial number redacted] List of Hospitalizations/SAE (serious adverse events) [redacted] Overdose [redacted]/Catheter Infection report
Overdose incidents have been reported to you [….]
There is no documentation to show that you have implemented corrective actions during this time period to ensure the safety and welfare of subjects.” [emphasis added]
It seems that these overdoses are related to the protocol, which requires family members to administer the drugs via programmable pump on their own
Further, patient records show that there were many more overdoses that were not included in the Hospitalization/SAE/Overdose list
The FDA reported:
“Your […] tumor measurements initially recorded on worksheets at baseline and on-study treatment […] studies for all study subjects were destroyed and are not available for FDA inspectional review.”
This is one of the most damning statements, as without any…not a single baseline measurement…there is no way to determine any actual effect of the antineoplaston treatment
This means that Burzynski’s studies–which by last account cost $30,000 to begin and $7000 a month to maintain–are unpublishable
It will be stunning if this finding alone were not investigated by legal authorities
Patients who had Grade 3 or 4 toxic effects were supposed to be removed from treatment
One patient had 3 Grade 3 events followed by 3 Grade 4 events
Another patient had 7 disqualifying toxic events before he was removed from the study
Burzynski did not report all adverse events as required by his study protocols
One patient had 12 events of hypernatremia (high sodium), none of which was reported
There are several similar patients
Some adverse events were not reported to the Burzynski Clinic IRB for years
For instance one patient had an adverse event in 1998 and the oversight board did not hear about it until 2005.)
The FDA observed that the informed consent document did not include a statement of extra costs that might be incurred
Specifically, some informed consent documents were signed days to weeks before billing agreements, and in a couple of cases no consent form could be found
The clinic was unable to account for its stock of the investigational drug, an act that would get any other research lab shut down
Sadly, a child, Josia Cotto, had to die from apparent sodium overload before this investigation could be carried out
Despite these findings, when interviewed by USA Today, Burzynski actually said of his former cancer patients:
“As for criticism from former patients, Burzynski says, ‘We see patients from various walks of life
We see great people
We see crooks
We have prostitutes
We have thieves
We have mafia bosses
We have Secret Service agents
Many people are coming to us, OK?
Not all of them are the greatest people in the world
And many of them would like to get money from us
They pretend they got sick and they would like to extort money from us.’”
I am asking you to help me understand what happened at the FDA to allow this man to conduct clinical trials and bankrupt patients in the process despite 10 years of alarming reviews by the FDA
I also ask you to support an investigation into this betrayal of over 8,000 patients and to push for legislation to prevent the most desperate patients from such unthinkable exploitation
I will be calling your office next week to touch base with you and I look forward to your response
—————————————————————— Gumbygiveth, and Gumbysayeth away
The Spinning Bowel Movement(SBM)masticulation which emanates from the breadth and width of the National Geographic(#NatGeo)Geeosphere of Respectful IsNoSense, is such, it requires that “words be combined” and “new words be created” in order to elucidate the effluencerunning through the collective soul of the Vulcan MindMeldLess masses
====================================== #31 – Narad – 11/16/2013 
—————————————————————— “Best accidental tipoff I’ve noticed from the Scamway PR machine, courtesy Josephine Jones (PDF):”
—————————————————————— “Once your treatment plan has been fulfilled, you will be discharged from the clinic and will return home to continue treatment with the assistance of your local physician(s)”
“This rather clearly does not mean “by us.”
—————————————————————— Nary a rational answer deducible
Narad, the Hero of the Zeroes, acks as if some great mystery has just been unmasked before the unmindfulcrevmasses
A hole in the head, A hole in the head, When he’s reincarnated, He wants his name to be Zeb
We, the sheeple
We are familsheep
====================================== #29 – The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge – 11/18/2013 
—————————————————————— “Has anybody been monitoring DJT?”
“Has he gotten Medieval on USA Today’s ass yet?”
—————————————————————— SeriouExcuseMe, but if you chose “The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge” as your pseudonym, and this was the bestion you could acks, you must not be the “sharpest”Toolhacking at the “tree of stupendity
You’re no Right Rev’rend Leviticus Fall, well
—————————————————————— #30 – Lawrence – 11/18/2013
—————————————————————— “@TVRBA – oh, I guess I’ve made him angry…..lol….”
If USA TODAY needed a Troll to take up a 3rd of the Facebook comments on Liz Szabo’sfabled fish tale, you were the perfect “Mark McAndrew is Trollolo” to Trollolo all over there, as none of “The Skeptics™” probably would have come within a 10-foot pole of touching your nonSeance, when you intimated that you “talked to the dead”, and they chose you, of all sheeple, to
Look at the church, See the steeple? Open the doors, See all “The Skeptics™” sheeple ?
—————————————————————— #33 – Narad – 11/18/2013
—————————————————————— “oh, I guess I’ve made him angry…..lol….”
—————————————————————— “I seem to be missing the part where he demonstrates the 18 CENSORED COMMENTS bit, but at least there’s the consolation of the deranged meltdown itself”
““I’ll show them!!!”
“I’ll POST DOZENS OF PICTURES OF MY PHONE FOR NO APPARENT REASON!!!”
The biggest gap in genius on GorskiGeek’sblogs, is that there is no “I” in genus, ever since GorskGeekgaffed by going Gabroni gambit
Why NearDoWell seems “to be missing the part where he demonstrates the 18 CENSORED COMMENTS bit”, is because grasping the concept of selecting (clicking on) a link, is something nonnative to Narad’sknowledge
Not a really astute display
of Science-Based Medicine
I did NOT“post dozens of pictures OF MY PHONE“
However, I DID post dozens of pictures of your dunderheaded display of dummkopfedness
—————————————————————— #35 – Lawrence – 11/18/2013
—————————————————————— “@Narad – I didn’t realize I quoted quite so well…..double the pleasure, double the fun!”
In your defense, I daresay the difference is definitely:
Double the Dumb
—————————————————————— #12 – AntipodeanChic – 11/22/2013
—————————————————————— “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 presume I’m not the only one who shuddered at the cavalier back-room insertion of her Hickman catheter”
“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“
“I’m surprised sepsis doesn’t take out more of Dr. B’s patients than the toxicity does”
It’s not your liver you should be concerned about
I’m surprisedstupendity doesn’t take out more of Dr. G’spundits than the errors do 
One would have hoped that AntiPoorSceneCheck would have been be able to get away from the popcorn and Science-Biased Mudicine, but instead, if she ever saw a “fact”, she did NOT do the double-checkChic
—————————————————————— Day Three(7:44)
Inject sugar and then you’re also having a, this Hickman line fitted”
—————————————————————— Day Three(9:28)
“So uh were just getting ready now for Hannah to go in and have her PET scan and uh catheter Hickman line fitted and she’s just filling in the form”
—————————————————————— Day Three(9:48)
(laughing)“You’ve just taken some , some Valium as well, have you ?”
(as much local anesthetic as could give her w/o knocking her out)
catheter – Hickman line
(painful / really painful)
—————————————————————— Day Three(10:04)
—————————————————————— “What I’m doing is I’m creating a little tunnel under the skin
So I have to use just a little bit of pressure
So if I hurt you, you tell me
“How are you feeling”?
—————————————————————— Day Three(10:30)
—————————————————————— “Did, did, did you feel that when it was going in and stuff” ?
It’s a little bit painful now”?
It’s quite really painful now
—————————————————————— Day Four(10:52)
—————————————————————— “I’m feeling wrecked, absolutely wrecked”
(laugh) “Well you had, bit of Valium yesterday”
“And you had as much um local anesthetic”
“as he could give you he said, without knocking you out”
—————————————————————— Day Four(11:23)
—————————————————————— #31 – Stupendous Stupendity Stupifies Scienceblogs . com/Insolence | Didymus Judas Thomas’ Hipocritical Oath Blog November25, 2013
[…] http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/11/22/is-anyone-attending-the-4th-quadrennial-meeting-of-the-… […]
—————————————————————— #32 – eNOS – holed up in the lab for Thanksgiving – 11/25/2013
—————————————————————— “OT..sort of, but I was feeling particularly self-flagellating this afternoon so I clicked the DJT linkout (or whatever its called) at #31″
“Either I can’t find whatever point it’s making, or that’s just timecube-level crazy”
This should NOT come as any surprise, as eNOS is NOVal Venus
eNOS probably can NOT even figure out where Robert J. (don’t call me “Bobby”) Bob (I’m NOT a doctor, I just play like I’m one on The Other Burzynski Patient Group(TOBPG))BlaskiewiczBlatherskitewicz, is, and I’ve known for quite some time now that Bob has his head so far up Dr. David H. Gorski a/k/a “Orac” a/k/a GorskGeek’sASStroturf campaign, that he should be the spokesmodel for “The Chocolate Thunder from Down Under”
—————————————————————— #33 –Lawrence – 11/25/2013
—————————————————————— “@eNOS – I don’t believe there is a rational bone in that guy’s body…he posts up a link here, just to try to drive “curiosity-seekers” to his blog…..incoherent doesn’t even begin to describe him”
—————————————————————— Lawrench threw a monkey when GorskiGeek had to edumacate him that I do NOT post “up a link” to “Orac’slHACK attack QUACKcheck-my-facts it’s just WHACK
—————————————————————— #34– palindrom – 11/25/2013
—————————————————————— “Lawrence @33 — Crank.net uses the wonderful category “illucid” for some of its crankier entries”
“This adjective is all too useful these days”
—————————————————————— #35 – Lawrence – 11/25/2013
—————————————————————— “@Palindrom – yes, a very good term….hey, at least I got an honorable mention over at insano’s site…kind of funny, actually”
—————————————————————— #36 – eNOS – 11/25/2013
—————————————————————— “I was unaware of the existence of crank.net”
“This is just wonderful and along the lines of tvtropes for a good afternoon of time wasting or entertainment between western blot transfers”
What the 3 Amigob-smackers should do is grow a pair and stop bowing down to the Hitler of Histrionics, the Lenin of Lip-service, the Mussolini of MisDisInformation, the Pol Pot of Pusillanimousness, the Stalin of Stupendity
—————————————————————— #37 – Eric Lund – 11/25/2013
“I infer from the domain name that this dude is pro-Burzynski (or at least thinks he is), but have never followed his trackback links to find out”
“(Presumably Rajmund is Dr. B’s middle name–that would be the Polish equivalent of Raymond.)”
“He went for alliteration in this post title, but I have no idea what “stupendous stupendity” (sic, from our Department of Redundancy Department) is supposed to mean”
“I’ll take your word for it that the post would not enlighten me on this point”
I infer from your duh-same, that you’re insane in the membrane with an L.A. in S.B.M.
You can’t fix stoopid
—————————————————————— #39 – Krebiozen – 11/25/2013
—————————————————————— “DJT stomped about the scepticsphere for several months, including a sojourn here, insulting anyone who criticized Burzynski”
“He had multiple accounts banned on Twitter and has mostly retreated back to the almost comment-free blog he created”
“He did apparently debate Bob Blaskiewicz about Burzynski somewhere, but I haven’t expended much energy finding the transcript, as DJT is just too far gone for it to be interesting”
“I’m a bit concerned for his mental health, sincerely”
“Does anyone have any idea what the photo at the top of his blog represents”?
“It looks like a gloved hand wiping away a drop of urine, but I could be mistaken”
Your S.B.M.“ranks” right up there
“It looks like a gloved hand wiping away a drop of urine, but I could be mistaken”
“It appears to be a cropped image of Gumby“
“Don’t ask me”
Unfortunately, you’ve NEVER exhibited the “stones”based mastery necessary to sod off on “Orac,” piss-boy
You know it
—————————————————————— #41 – eNOS – 11/26/2013
“There isn’t much of a post to speak of, as it goes”
“It’s mostly a smattering of links to other blog posts, miscellaneous things in brackets and bolded , and my god would you look at the tags”
“Those alone had to take up half the afternoon”
“The exchange with Bob would be entertaining, although I don’t know if I could parse DJT’s comments, given his “interesting” online vernacular”
“The photo on top is indeed gumby, turned on his side it looks like”
“The full picture appears as the thumbnail on a tab if you have the blog opened in firefox (probably chrome as well)”
I just bet that down at the ol’ precinct house, they call you “no-shit Sherlock”!
—————————————————————— #42 – Orac – 11/26/2013
—————————————————————— “DJT amuses me”
“It’s the only reason I let his Trackbacks through”
Poor Sad“OrSac” amuses me
I envision him in a “Hearing” with “Hey” Joe
“I’m not a communist, Senator”
“You look like a communist”
“I am not one of them, Senator McCarthy”
“You even smell like a commie”
Senator, the court even stated, and I quote:GorskGeek is “not ordinary communist”
I don’t care what your flamin” court called you, by gawd”
“You’re a commie, so why don’t you just grab your commie pinko blahg, Guy Chapman, and go ‘talk to the hand,’ up there by Lake Superior, while you commimune with nature, commie”!!
“Next thing ya know, they’ll be wanting to ‘tie one on’“
—————————————————————— #43 – Lawrence – 11/26/2013
—————————————————————— “@Orac – I glance at his page from time to time…still incoherent….though getting a mention from him (well, pissing him off, actually) did give me quite the thrill….lol”
—————————————————————— Lawrry, the only thing you’ve been “pissing off” is the floor, again, because your scatterillogically bound missive, missed again
—————————————————————— #44 – Narad – 11/26/2013
—————————————————————— “The photo on top is indeed gumby, turned on his side it looks like”
“When I was looking at this last night, it seemed as though, based on where the drops of moisture appear on the thunbnail (which does not appear anywhere when I view the page in Firefox), it was probably Gumby’s right hand, cropped with the image upside-down”
“Then again, I’m little inclined to check again”
“I’m mildly amused by all the dot-anchored links at the top that are password-protected”
“Because, you know, if I want to organize files, I always put the cabinet out on the sidewalk with a sign on it saying “IMPROTNT FLIES” and then safeguard the key”
—————————————————————— “The Skeptics™” “conspiracy theorists” like Red Herring so much
Who am I to deny them ?
—————————————————————— #45 – Krebiozen – 11/26/2013
—————————————————————— “Does anyone have any idea who DJT is”?
“I don’t mean a name, I don’t want to out him, but I wonder whether he is associated with Burzynski in any way, if he has had a relative ‘cured’ by Burzynski, or if is he is just a concerned citizen, as it were”
“Whoever he is, he seems to have put a gargantuan effort into producing an enormous amount of evidence that he has a somewhat tenuous grip on reality”
—————————————————————— Kreblogizen, everyone knows what you have a “grip on”, and it’s assuredly NOT “reality”
—————————————————————— #46 – AdamG – 11/26/2013
—————————————————————— “Does anyone have any idea who DJT is”?
“Orac knows…I’m pretty sure I remember him saying he had a pretty good idea, at least”
But then again, “Orac’s” been trying to convince his wife for years; without any luck, that he’s “about 75% sure” he “knows” where the “pisser” is
—————————————————————— #47 – AntipodeanChic – Apparently, the Land of “Asinine & Stupendous Stupidity (Pop. 1)” – 11/26/2013
—————————————————————— “Oh dear!”
“There I was, on tenterhooks overnight, fearing that I may have brought Respectful Insolence into some kind of dreadful disrepute”.*
“Granted, I had tried to make a weak joke about Suzanne Somers’ handing out medical advice – but I cannot fathom why pointing out an instance of dodgy clinical protocol should earn one an entire blog post, particularly as nobody else on the thread even responded to it”
“Clearly, my stupidity & lack of experience in that particular field must be to blame”.**
“Now, I had intended to avoid providing more fodder for my new friend but I agree with Krebiozen – I have to wonder at his motivation(s)”?
hee-hAW, population “one”
—————————————————————— #48 – eNOS – 11/27/2013
—————————————————————— “This may come through twice, as the first was given a “you’re posting comments to quickly” error”
“I didn’t even realize those dots on the top were links”
“I do wonder what he thinks he’s accomplishing with his rhetoric”
“The only thing I can really make out is that he is a Burzynski supporter, as Kreb mentioned above, but surely he can’t believe anyone on the same side considers him a legitimate ally when he posts all that mess”
“I will note that the about section is a bit more readable”
“I wonder if all this talk will open the gates for him here”
“Are he and his various iterations banned”?
“Oh, and Narad, this is the tiny Gumby thumbnail I referenced that appears in Firefox:”
But then again, you can reference no other “Burzynski supporter,” who cites a case that went against him
Traditionally, Thanksgiving is best known as the Holiday that the Detroit Lions get the “stuffing” knocked out of them
However, this year, it’s time to tender the tainted twisted trophy of ThanksgivingTurkey-Lurkey to Detroit’s toasted triumvirate treat of two-faced twerk-salad troll turpitude, and I have the temerity to tinker and tamper until I pay tribute with therapeutic levels of Thoreauness in response to GorskGeek’smisinformation, disinformation, and MisDisInformation (Missed ‘Dis Information)
Wednesday, 12/21/2005, Indianapolis, Indiana-based Eli Lilly and Company was treated to truthification, in connection with their illegal promotion (misbranding) of pharmaceutical drug EVISTA; (FDA approved for prevention and treatment of osteoporosis in post-menopausal women), in the:
a. prevention in risk of breast cancer
b. reduction in risk of breast cancer
Alleged in information, promoted drug as effective for reducing risk of breast cancerEVEN AFTER PROPOSED LABELING FOR THIS USE SPECIFICALLY REJECTED by FDA 
GorskGeek, being the breast cancer oncology specialist he claims to be, and so concerned about breast cancer patients that he is that “guy” who speaks out passionately about issues like the 10-yearAmerican Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures, “Estimated Breast Cancer Deaths for Women”, which reflect that in 2002, 39,600 (15%) women were estimated to die from breast cancer, and this year, 2013, the estimate is 39,620 (14%), which is 20 women MORE than 10-years ago, and who rails tirelessly about the ACS’s“Estimated New Breast Cancer cases in Women”, which 10-years ago was 203,500 (31%) in 2002, and now, in 2013 is 232,340 (29%), which is ONLY
28,840 MORE than 10-years ago 
Now THAT’s progress !
GorskGeek, of course, must accomplish all this under his breath
But I’m sure you’re wondering, dear reader, what was GorskGeek’soutraged blog about this American pharmaceutical manufacturer coughing up $36 MILLION ?
Well, let me tell you … just as soon as I find it
Wait for it
Wait for it
Wait for it
GorskGeek was unable to bring himself to blog about Evista until exactly one year later, on 12/21/2006, and even then, he was “mum’s the word” about the breast cancer claims 
Perhaps GorskGeek just “knew” that eventually Evista would finally be approved by the FDA for Eli Lilly’spreventing or reducing risk of breast cancer claims on 9/13/2007, and who were those paper-pushing FDA apparatchiks to prevent Lilly from implementing their “Internal business plan” ? [4-9]
GorskGeek wouldn’t want to damage his slim and non-existent chance of getting some Eli Lilly money for research, by blogging anything that might in any way be possibly construed as him saying anything negatory about the BIG Pharma teat he longs to suck off of
After all, Bob ‘n’ Weave Blaskiewicz (who sees every molehill as a mountain), did say about GorskGeek, 9/28/2013 :
—————————————————————— “But he is a, the thing is, the thing is, you thing you have to understand is Gorski, Gorski is a genuine expert, in matters re re regarding on oncology studies“
“I mean, he has a”
“He, He’s able to convince people, he’s able to convince people, on the strength of his record, to give him money to carry out research”
“People who know what they’re talking about”
“To give him money to carry out his research”
GorskGeek is hoping for a Happy Thanksgiving Golden Parachute; which is where he helps whistleblow about illegal BIG Pharma activity regarding some drug(s), which leaves him as the beneficiary of some funds like Mr. H. Dean Steinke, former Merck employee and his $68,190,000 MILLION from the federal government and states share of settlement amounts:
—————————————————————— $44,690,000 MILLION – Mr. H. Dean Steinke, former Merck employee from federal share of settlement amount(1997 – 2001)
—————————————————————— $23.5 MILLION – Mr. H. Dean Steinke, former Merck employee from the states share of settlement amount(1997 – 2001) ——————————————————————
Next, GorskGeek goes off on his fave autism prescription antipsychotic drug Risperdal, and the 11/4/2013, Monday, allegations concerning Global health care giantJohnson & Johnson (J&J) and its subsidiaries, $2.2 BILLION + fine regarding J&J Subsidiary Janssen(1999 – 2005) actions 
======================================  – 12/21/2005
—————————————————————— EVISTA (FDA approved for prevention and treatment of osteoporosis in post-menopausal women)
—————————————————————— Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana-based company
—————————————————————— 12/21/2005, Wednesday
—————————————————————— $36 MILLION
In connection with illegal promotion of pharmaceutical drug
Pleading guilty to criminal count of violating Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by misbranding drug
In addition to criminal plea
agreed to settle civil Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act liabilities by entering into consent decree of permanent injunction
Charged in criminal information filed with violation of Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, following investigation by Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Office of Criminal Investigations
Plea agreement signed by Lilly and United States
Complaint for permanent injunction
Consent decree of permanent injunction signed by company and United States
Information alleges 1st year’s sales of drug in U.S. were disappointing compared to original forecast
According to information 10/1998 – company reduced forecast of drug’s 1st year’s sales in U.S. from $401 million to $120 million
Internal business plan noted:
“Disappointing year versus original forecast.”
Information alleges in order to expand sales of drug, Lilly sought to broaden market for drug by promoting it for unapproved uses
Information alleges strategic marketing plans and promotion touted drug as effective in preventing and reducing risk of diseases for which drug’s labeling lacked adequate directions for use
According to information: Evista
1. brand team
2. sales representatives
promoted drug for: a.prevention in risk of breast cancer b.reduction in risk of breast cancer
c. reduction in risk of cardiovascular disease
Under provisions of Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, drug misbranded when labeling didn’t bear adequate directions for each of intended uses
Alleged in information, promoted drug as effective for reducing risk of breast cancer even after proposed labeling for this use specifically rejected by FDA
Information alleges executed illegal conduct using number of tactics, including:
1. One-on-one sales pitches by sales representatives promoting drug to physicians about off-label uses of drug
2. Sales representatives trained to prompt or bait questions by doctors in order to promote drug for unapproved uses
3. Encouraging sales representatives promoting drug to send unsolicited medical letters to promote drug for unapproved use to doctors on their sales routes
4. Organizing “market research summit’ during which drug was discussed with physicians for unapproved uses, including reducing risk of breast cancer
to sales representatives “Evista Best Practices” videotape, in which sales representative states “Evista truly is the best drug for the prevention of all these diseases” referring to:
1). osteoporosis 2). breast cancer
3). cardiovascular disease
Complaint for permanent injunction alleges executed illegal conduct using number of tactics, including:
1. Training sales representatives to promote drug for prevention and reduction in risk of breast cancer by use of medical reprint in way that highlighted key results of drug and thereby promoted drug to doctors for unapproved use
2. Some sales representatives were instructed to hide disclosure page of reprint which noted:
a. “All of the authors were either employees or paid consultants of Eli Lilly at the time this article was written,”
b. “The prescribing information provides that “The effectiveness of [Evista] in reducing the risk of breast cancer has not yet been established.””
3. Organizing “consultant meetings” for physicians who prescribed drug during which unapproved uses of drug discussed
4. Calculating incremental new prescriptions for doctors who attended Evista advisory board meetings in 1998
5. advisory board meetings included discussion of unapproved uses for drug
6. By measuring and analyzing incremental new prescriptions for doctors who attended advisory board meetings, Lilly was using this intervention as tool to promote and sell drug
In addition to agreeing to plead guilty to criminal information and plea agreement signed by Lilly, settlement with United States includes following components:
(a) agreed to settle civil Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act liabilities by entering into consent decree of permanent injunction
(1). As part of consent decree, agreed to comply with terms of permanent injunction, which will require company to implement effective training and supervision of marketing and sales staff for drug, and ensure any future off-label marketing conduct is detected and corrected
(2). agreed to be permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly promoting drug for use in:
a.preventing or reducing risk of breast cancer
b. reducing risk of cardiovascular disease
c. or for any other unapproved use in manner that violates Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act unless and until FDA approves drug for additional use or uses
(b) as part of consent decree, agreed to hire and utilize independent organization to conduct reviews to assist Lilly in assessing and evaluating Lilly’s
Anyone may post this interview to their website, as long as it remains
unaltered and freely available. Please place a link back to this webpage.
You may click here to download the PDF version of my interview and
save it to your computer. Please help distribute it. Thank you. Gavin.
Click here to download the free Adobe Reader if you do
not already have it on your computer.
This telephone interview with Dr. Burzynski was held in December 2002. The purpose of the interview is to inform people about Dr. Burzynski’s cancer treatment, Antineoplastons. It will be circulated for free on the Internet. I have no affiliations with Dr. Burzynski either personally or professionally.
Hello Dr. Burzynski. I would like to thank you for taking the time to inform people about your cancer treatment Antineoplastons, and your experiences in the area of cancer over the last 25 years.
Is it true that you were the youngest person in Poland in the 20th century to earn two advanced degrees, an M.D. (Medical Doctor) and Ph.D. in biochemistry at only 24?
I’m not sure if I was the youngest, I was among the youngest. In Poland, its 15 years average (Gavin. For a Ph.D.) after you receive an M.D.
What motivated you to come to the United States? When did you arrive here?
Well basically freedom. You see, I could easily stay in Poland. I was a prominent student, one of the best they ever had in medical school and certainly if I would become a member of the Communist Party I would accomplish a lot in Poland. But I didn’t want to be a Communist and after I declared, “forget it, I’m not going to be a Communist”, they persecuted me. So, practically, it would not be possible for me to do any research in Poland. I arrived in the United States on the 4th of September 1970.
You began working at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston?
I was not employed for 6 weeks, then I got the appointment at Baylor in the position of research assistant. A couple of years later I became Assistant Professor.
I have read that your cancer research was motivated by your observation of a cancer patient in Poland that was missing a particular peptide in their blood, is this correct?
Well Yes. First I discovered some peptide fractions in blood and then I was trying to determine their significance. This means that I was screening the blood samples from people who suffer from various illnesses, among them cancer patients. I found some remarkable changes in concentration of these Peptides in cancer patients. Basically there was a great deficiency of these Peptide fractions in the blood of cancer patients.
What are peptides and how did your research develop from there to developing Antineoplastons?
Peptides are chains of Amino Acids, so if you put together 2 Amino Acids, you have a Peptide.
You have said, “Cancer is really a disease of cells that are not programmed correctly. Antineoplastons simply reprogram them so that they behave normally again.”
They do, but we are not really interested in making normal cells out of cancer cells. What we are interested in is correcting one basic difference between cancer cells and normal cells, and this is the mortality of normal cells and the immortality of cancer cells. Cancer cells are immortal. And if you change them into mortal cells again they will die and the tumor will disappear.
I read a humorous part in Daniel Haley’s chapter about you in his book, “Politics in Medicine.” He says that initially you derived Antineoplastons from your friends blood, but had to change because your friends stopped coming around, is that correct?
Certainly it was difficult to obtain a lot of blood for the research. It was a necessity to look for a source that is widely available. I realized from the very beginning that once I use urine, my critics will use this against me; try to just smear me, “That’s the doctor who is using urine to treat cancer.” But there was no other way to do it.
There are plenty of ignorant remarks about your treatment because it used to be derived from human urine. The process you use now does not involve collecting human urine. Please describe the complete process you use.
Ever since 1980, we are using synthetic analogues of Antineoplastons, made in a state-of-the art biomedical manufacturing facility. These have nothing to do with urine or blood.
Would you describe Antineoplastons as natural?
They are natural of course, they exist in our body.
Your treatment does require a strong commitment from your patients as they must be infused with Antineoplastons for many weeks or months, is that correct?
But most of our patients are taking oral formulations. I would say that perhaps 15% of our patients are taking intravenous infusions of Antineoplastons; the rest take capsules or tablets.
The patients who have the most advanced type of cancer will require heavy dosages. There is a limitation of how much medicine you can take by mouth. Fifty or sixty tablets a day, that’s pretty much all you can take by mouth. But if you give intravenous infusion you can deliver the equivalent of 3,000 tablets a day.
You went into private practice in 1977. How was this funded?
Well, I started private practice in 1973. It was not necessary for me to have any funding, because I joined with other physicians.
Is it true that Dr. Mask at a hospital in Jacksboro, Texas ran your first human clinical trial? What types of cancers did you treat? What were the results of these trials?
I would not call it a clinical trial, because only two patients received initial treatment. They were very advanced, close to death and unfortunately, both of them died. But these cases were not lost because we found we can administer Antineoplastons without having bad side effects.
What is the general side effect experienced by your patients when using Antineoplastons? Does it damage the immune system as chemotherapy does?
We are not talking about one medicine; we tried 12 different pharmaceutical formulations. Basically it depends what formulation we use, but when we give them orally, we see practically no side effects at all. Patients may develop skin rash, which may last for a day or two.
But, when we give large dosages intravenously, we have to watch fluid balance…and electrolyte balance. We don’t see any delayed toxicity once the treatment stops. Everything practically goes back to normal within say a day or two. It does not even come close to the adverse reactions that you experience with chemotherapy.
What is the cost today for a patient using your treatment in a pill form and do insurance companies pay for it? *
Well basically, we do not charge patients for medicines, Antineoplastons are given free of charge. What we are charging for are supplies, and we are charging for standard services such as office visits, nursing services, Lab tests, consultation, evaluation etc. And these services are priced the same way as the average medical services, and they are covered by the insurance.
*(Gavin. Insurance companies will rarely pay for Antineoplastons, which is considered an experimental treatment. It also depends on the type of insurance plan someone may be on.)
So if a patient were using the pills, what would it normally cost per month.
About $2,000 a month.
Antineoplastons is most effective against brain cancer, is that correct?
Well, it’s not really correct. Because brain tumors are very difficult to treat, we concentrate our efforts on the toughest type of cancers. Out of our clinical trials, we have eight that came to the final point, which means they proved that there is some efficacy, and six of these are in various types of brain tumors. But there is another clinical trial, which deals with advanced colon cancer, which also proved efficacy and another one with liver cancer. But we still need to wait a little longer to have a larger number of patients treated and then statistically find out if this is going to work.
Basically the treatment works when we have involvement of the gene, which can be activated by Antineoplastons, and such genes, like gene p 53, are involved in 50% of all cancers. The treatment turns on gene p 53. So it has more to do with what kind of gene the patient has in his cancer cell, rather than the type of cancer.
Is there a special diet to follow when using your treatment?
Yes, since we are expecting there may be some changes in minerals, we usually emphasize a diet that is relatively low in sodium. We treat every patient individually. Every patient has a consultation with a dietary expert who tries to individualize his diet
Is your treatment being used in any other countries?
Yes, we have people coming to us from all over the world. I think we can probably count easily 70 to a 100 countries from which people are coming. But the main effort is now in Japan, outside the US. In Japan there are 2 clinical trials being conducted by Japanese doctors. Also, a group of doctors in Mexico obtained approval from the FDA and Mexican government to do clinical trials.
Now I have several related questions about brain cancer in children.
Dustin Kunnari and Dr. Burzynski. Dustin is one of Dr. Burzynski’s great success stories.
Dustin had brain surgery at 2 ½ years old. The surgery removed only 75% of the tumor.
Dustin’s parents, Mariann and Jack, were told that Dustin would only live for 6 months. Chemotherapy and radiation may extend Dustin’s life slightly, but at a very high cost in quality of life with very serious side effects.
Mariann and Jack decided to look into alternatives. They found out about Antineoplastons and after only 6 weeks of intravenous treatment, Dustin’s MRI showed he was cancer free.
One year later another tumor appeared on the MRI. By this time Dr. Burzynski had developed a more concentrated form of Antineoplastons. After 5 months the tumor was gone. Dustin has remained cancer free ever since and was taken off Antineoplastons when he was 7. Dustin is 12 today.
About how many children suffer from brain cancer in the US each year?
The statistics are available for 1999. The new cases of brain tumors in children were counted as 2,200. Now around 3,000, I would say.
Approximately what percentage of children is still alive after 5 years using orthodox treatments for brain cancer?
It depends on the type of tumor and it’s location, some of the toughest are those that are located in the brain stem. Up to 5 years, you have practically no survival when you use the best treatment available, which is radiation therapy. Chemotherapy usually doesn’t work for such patients. After 2 years, 7 % survival. After 5 years, practically none.
Dustin, after brain surgery.
To further complicate matters, Dustin’s oncologist kept threatening his parents with a court proceeding to take Dustin away and force him to take Chemotherapy/Radiation treatment.
This continued for a year, even after Dustin’s success with Antineoplastons.
You may also e-mail Mary Jo Siegel, the lady who runs the web site. Mary is also a cancer survivor using Antineoplastons.
Is it correct to say you have had very good results when treating brain cancer in children?
Yes we have. I gave you the example of the toughest, which is located in the brain stem. We get about 40% survival rates after two years. After 5 years at the moment we have about 20% survival rate. The reason is that most of the patients who come to us, have received prior heavy radiation therapy, or chemotherapy. They usually die from complications from these treatments. Those who survive the longest are patients who previously did not receive radiation therapy or chemotherapy. The longest survivor in this category is now reaching 15 years from the time of diagnosis; and she’s in perfect health.
With the more common variety, which is aciotoma located outside the brain stem, we get much, much better. We have 75% of patients who are objectively responding to the treatment. This means that the tumor will disappear completely or will be reduced by more than 50%.
This is another strong point. It’s extremely important. Children are usually damaged for life after radiation therapy, when we can avoid it and bring them back to life.
What criteria must parents of children with brain cancer meet before being able to have their children treated by you?
Well, practically all of these brain tumors must be inoperable. This means that it’s not possible to remove them with surgery. Except for one category, they should have advanced disease. The tumor should have the size of more than 5 mm in diameter and be located in a place that cannot be operated upon.
There is one category of these tumors, medulloblastoma, where the FDA requires that the patients would receive prior standard treatment and fail before we can accept them. In the rest of these children we can accept them without failure of prior treatment.
You may also e-mail Mary Jo Siegel, the lady who runs the web site. Mary is also a cancer survivor using Antineoplastons.
Let us talk a little about some of your most successful stories using Antineoplastons with children. Probably the most remarkable case is that of Tori Moreno . In August 1998 Tori was diagnosed with a stage 4 brainstem glioma that was inoperable. Her parents were told she would die in a few days or at the most, a few weeks. When did you start treating her?
Tori had Stage 4 brain stem glioma. The tumor was too risky for surgery. She was diagnosed shortly after her birth. The tumor was very large, about 3 inches in the largest diameter and located in the brain stem. Her parents consulted the best centers in the country and they were told there was nothing to be done. So finally she was brought to us, when she was about 3 ½ months old. This was in October 5 years ago. She was in such condition that we were afraid that she might die at any time. Fortunately she responded, and about 5 months later we determined that she obtained a complete response, which means complete disappearance of active tumor by
MRI criteria. She is a perfectly healthy child and tumor free. She still takes small dosages of capsules of Antineoplastons, but we will discontinue this shortly.
Tori Moreno 9.28.98. Temporarily enlarged due to taking Decadron.
Tori’s parents were told there was nothing that could be done for her and she would be dead in a few weeks.
Tori is alive and well today thanks to Antineoplastons. See photo below.
At the end of this interview, there is a short interview with Kim Moreno, Tori’s mother.
Kim Moreno has set-up a Yahoo e-mail account to answer peoples cancer related questions.
And today she is over 5 years old?
Yes, she’s 5 years old and living a pretty much normal life.
Tori 22.10.02. A perfectly healthy child. Orthodox treatment consists of high does of radiation therapy and possibly toxic chemotherapy as well. Most of the children are dead in a few years. The ones that survive suffer from permanent retardation, along with other serious side effects from the radiation.
Please do not forget about the interview with Kim Moreno, Tori’s mother, at the end of this interview.
But mainstream medicine has been trying to kill the cancer cell using chemotherapy and radiation, is that correct?
That’s right, yes.
Chemotherapy and radiation cannot differentiate between healthy and cancerous cells?
They can differentiate to some point, but basically, this difference is very small, so ultimately, the normal cells will be killed.
Is that why they have such a terrible effect on the immune system?
That’s right, not only the immune system, but also many other systems in the body. Practically, the treatment is destroying healthy parts of the body.
Chemotherapy and radiation also cause cancer, don’t they?
Yes. For instance right now we see a lot of patients who in childhood were successfully treated for leukemia or for Hodgkin’s disease. Then they develop cancer that is practically incurable, like lung cancer, breast cancers; I even encountered a patient in my practice that developed three different types of cancers, and was only 28 years of age. First she was treated for Hodgkin’s Disease, then she developed bone cancer in the places which were radiated for Hodgkin’s Disease, and then she developed breast cancer after that; it’s really horrible. So there is increased incidence of secondary cancers in patients who were treated previously with chemotherapy and radiation.
Shontelle Huron. In remission for several years after using Antineoplastons.