Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski “Oracolyte” Woo Fighter Poo Biter admits to LYING to “The Guardian”

[1] – #21 – Woo Fighter – September 9, 2013

Guy,
it gave me great satisfaction to alert The Guardian about DJT, who I knew would be posting there once the “Myths” story hit Twitter. (He simply can’t resist posting his inane comments anywhere Stan is written about.)

——————————————————————
Why is it then that LIARS like you post numerous times before I usually point out that you are LIARS ?
——————————————————————
[2]I told The Guardian about his back story, having being banned from all science blogs around the world, Wiki, Reddit, suspended from almost 20 Twitter accounts, etc. and that he was a paid shill and/or an employee of Burzynski.
——————————————————————
[A] – List all “science blogs around the world”

[B] – I am NOT “a paid shill”

[C] – I am NOT “an employee of Burzynski”

[D] – You just admitted to LYING to The Guardian, but do NOT worry, because you are in good company because Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski LIES too, just like Wikipedia, but Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, quickly realized that David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS is NOT doing something wrong when he LIES about Burzynski
——————————————————————
Within 20 minutes his comment was scrubbed from The Guardian site which started him off on another week-long tirade about censorship and freedom of speech.
——————————————————————
Why do you NOT come post on my blog ?

Are you a COWARD like “Orac”, who posted:

[3] – .4/19/2013“I now think I probably know with around 95% certainty) and Didymus Judas Thomas (whose identity I’m probably about 75% sure of …

but has refused to post who he thinks I am although he’s had over 4 1/2 months to do so ?
——————————————————————
Of the over 400 comments that were posted, only two were deleted: one from DJT and one from someone else caught shilling
——————————————————————
And what # was mine, you little Biter of the Poo ?
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – 9/9/2013
======================================
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/09/09/stanislaw-burzynski-comments-on-new-cancer-science-hilarity-ensues/
======================================
[2] – 8/30/2013
——————————————————————
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/aug/30/six-stubborn-myths-cancer
======================================
[3] – 8/30/2013 – see [33]
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/30/dr-david-h-orac-gorski-md-phd-facs-maybe-you-should-check-your-f-a-c-t-s/
======================================

Advertisements

Critiquing: Wikipedia – Burzynski Clinic

[1] – Wikipedia, claims:
——————————————————————
“There is a scientific consensus that antineoplaston therapy is unproven and of little promise in treating cancer””
——————————————————————
“… a Mayo Clinic study found no benefit from antineoplaston treatment.[1]””
——————————————————————
“The Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center has stated: “Bottom Line: There is no clear evidence to support the anticancer effects of antineoplastons in humans.”[1]””
——————————————————————
Interestingly, the above 1st claim by “Wikipedia” does NOT provide any specific citation(s), reference(s), or link(s) to support this claim
——————————————————————
[2] – 2/1999 – What “Wikipedia” does NOT advise the reader about the 2nd and 3rd claims, is that the conclusion of the study was:

“Although we could not confirm any tumor regression in patients in this study, the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions about treatment efficacy
——————————————————————
[3] – 6/1999 – Wikipedia also does NOT point out that Burzynski replied to the 2/1999 publication, that:

[A] – Study tested dosing regimen known to be ineffective

[B] – Dosages of A10 and AS2–1 used in study were meant for treatment of single small lesion (<5 cm)

5 of the 6 evaluable patients had either multiple nodules or tumors larger than 5 cm

[C] – As the provider of A10 and AS2–1, I strongly suggested to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) that these patients receive a much higher dose, consistent with greater tumor load

[D] – Study was closed when I insisted the NCI either increase the dosage or inform the patients that the drug manufacturer believed that the treatment was unlikely to be effective at the dosages being used
(letter to Dr M. Sznol, NCI, on 4/20/1995)

[E] – Review of clinical data in the article by Buckner et al proves validity of my position

[F] – Study patients had extremely low plasma antineoplaston levels

My phase 2 study dosage regimen produced plasma phenylacetylglutamine (PG) levels 35 times greater, phenylacetylisoglutamine (isoPG) levels 53 times greater, and phenylacetate (PN) levels 2 times greater than those reported by Buckner et a1 [1]

[G] – Clinical outcomes reported by Buckner et al, based on inadequate dosage schedule, differ dramatically from my phase 2 studies in which higher dosage regimen was used

[H] – They reported no tumor regression

In contrast, in 1 of my ongoing studies on protocol BT-9, 4 of 8 evaluable patients with astrocytoma had objective responses [2]

[I] – Difference in outcomes primarily due to difference in dosage schedules

[J] – Another factor that may have caused a lack of response in the study by Buckner et al is duration of treatment was too brief

Almost all patients in their study received treatment for less than 30 days

1 patient received only 9 days of treatment

Current studies indicate objective tumor responses usually observed after 3 months of therapy

Additional 8 months of treatment usually needed to obtain maximal therapeutic effect

[K] – Ambiguities in response evaluation and analysis in article by Buckner et al

In.2 patients, tumor necrosis attributed to “radio-necrosis”

Interpretation’s clouded by fact antineoplaston-induced necrosis can be indistinguishable from radionecrosis

[L] – Analysis by Buckner et al could’ve highlighted 2 patients with recurrent glioblastoma who survived for more than 1 year

This is of interest because patients typically have life expectancy of 3 to 6 months

[M] – At time of the study by Buckner et al, the sponsor, NCI, decided against higher dosing regimen I proposed and closed the study

Study used dosing regimen known to be ineffective
======================================
[4] – 10/4/1991 – Five doctors (3 from the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Branch (CTEP); including the Head of the Quality Assurance and Compliance Section, Regulatory Affairs Branch, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Department of Health &Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, and 2 invited consultants; including one from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical Center) visited the offices of Dr. Stanislaw R. Burzynski
——————————————————————
[5] – 10/31/1991 – Michael A. Friedman, M.D. Associate Director, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP), Department of Health &Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, sent a one page Memorandum to Bruce A. Chabner, M.D., Director, Division of Cancer Treatment, which stated, in part:

“I thought you would be interested in this for several reasons:”

“3. Antineoplastons deserve a closer look”

“It turns out that the agents are well defined, pure chemical entities
=======================================
=======================================
“The human brain tumor responses are real”

20130911-102213.jpg
=======================================
[6] – 11/15/1991 – Michael J. Hawkins, M.D., Chief, Investigational Drug Branch, Department of Health &Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, sent a 7 page letter to Decision Network, which stated, in part, on page one:
=======================================
=======================================
“It was the opinion of the site visit team that antitumor activity was documented in this best case series … “

20130911-122216.jpg
=======================================
[7] – 12/2/91 – NCI (National Cancer Institute), Decision Network Report on Antineoplastons, states in part, on page 11:
=======================================
=======================================
“The site visit team determined that antitumor activity was documented in this best case series … “

20130911-134634.jpg
=======================================
[8] – CANCER FACTS
National Cancer Institute • National Institutes of Health Department of Health and Human Services, Antineoplastons, pg. 1

=======================================
=======================================
“The reviewers of this series found evidence of antitumor activity … “

20130911-094155.jpg
=======================================
[9] – Page 1 of 6, BlueCross BlueShield of Alabama, Antineoplaston Cancer Therapy, Policy #: 280, Category: Medicine, states, in part, on page 2 of 6:

Key Points:
=======================================
=======================================
“The reviewers of this series found evidence of antitumor activity … “
=======================================
=======================================
[10] – ANTINEOPLASTON THERAPY, HS-183, pg. 2
=======================================
=======================================
“After the reviewers found some evidence of antitumor activity … “
=======================================
=======================================
These facts indicate to me that Wikipedia’s claim about “antineoplastons”, is “debatable”

Maybe they should have learned how to use the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
=======================================
REFERENCES:
=======================================
[1]
——————————————————————
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzynski_Clinic
——————————————————————
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzynski_Clinic
——————————————————————
Antineoplastons, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
======================================
[2] – 2/1999 – A10 and AS2-1 – Phase II
Mayo Clinic Proceedings
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10069350
Phase II Study of Antineoplastons A10 (NSC 648539) and AS2-1 (NSC 620261) in Patients With Recurrent Glioma

Material & Methods:

Patients received escalating doses of A10 and AS2-1 by multiple intermittent intravenous injections with use of portable programmable pump to the target daily dose of 1.0 g/kg for A10 and of 0.4 g/kg for AS2-1

Mean steady-state plasma concentrations of phenylacetate & phenylacetylglutamine after escalation to the target doses of A10 and AS2-1 were 177 +/-101 ug/mL & 302 +/- 102 ug/mL, respectively

Results:

9 patients were treated, in 6 of whom treatment response was assessable in accordance with protocol stipulations
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0025-6196(11)63835-4
Comment in Jun; 74 (6): 641-2
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025619611638354
Mayo Clin Proc 74(2):9 (1999), PMID .10069350
http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)63835-4/fulltext
DOI: 10.4065/74.2.137
http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0025-6196/PIIS0025619611638354.pdf
Mayo Clin Proc 1999; 74: 137–145
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2796.2003.01098.x/full
Mayo Clin Proc 1999; 74: 137–45
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2796.2003.01098.x/references
J C Buckner, M G Malkin, E Reed, T L Cascino, J M Reid, M M Ames, W P Tong, S Lim, W D Figg
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1046/j.1365-2796.2003.01098.x/asset/j.1365-2796.2003.01098.x.pdf?v=1&t=hbs6xce2&s=3423e3cd1955667e8e8cdf33323faf0bd85b6a29
Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Minnesota USA
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1046/j.1365-2796.2003.01098.x/asset/j.1365-2796.2003.01098.x.pdf?v=1&t=hbrndkdf&s=e0af2d3bfb13841852d92a839d3a4932a5f4bb48
======================================
[3] – 6/1999 – A10 and AS2-1
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10377942
Efficacy of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10377942
S R Burzynski
Mayo Clin Proc 74 (6): 641-2 (1999),
Mayo Clin Proc. 1999 Jun; 74 (6): 641-2
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0025-6196(11)64143-8
Comment on
Mayo Clin Proc. 1999 Feb; 74 (2): 137-45 PMID .10377942
http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)64143-8/fulltext
Mayo Clin Proc. 1999
http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0025-6196/PIIS0025619611641438.pdf
Comment on
Mayo Clinic Proc. 1999; 74: 641–642 (letter)
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0025-6196(11)64143-8
Mayo Clin Proc
74 (6): 641-2
http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0025-6196/PIIS0025619611641438.pdf
Mayo Clin Proc 74 (6): 1 (1999),
Elsevier Ltd.
DOI: 10.4065/74.6.641
1999 – A10 and AS2-1 – Mayo
Buckner, Reid, & Malkin
Mayo Clin Proc 74 (6): 2 (1999),
Elsevier Ltd.
DOI: 10.4065/74.6.641-a
http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)64144-X/fulltext
Mayo Clinic Proceedings
74(6):2 1999 Elsevier Ltd.
http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0025-6196/PIIS002561961164144X.pdf
=======================================
[8]
——————————————————————
http://www.emory.edu/KomenEd/PDF/Treatment/Antineoplastons.pdf
=======================================
[9]
——————————————————————
https://www.bcbsal.org/providers/policies/final/280.pdf
=======================================
[10]
——————————————————————
https://www.wellcare.com/WCAssets/corporate/assets/HS183_Antineoplaston_Therapy.pdf
=======================================

Yes! Weekly: Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business Part II

6/20/2013 Mark Burger published a review:
——————————————————————
http://www.yesweekly.com/triad/article-16162-burzynski-cancer-is-.html
——————————————————————
As could be expected, The Skeptics™
showed up
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “I’m afraid you’ve fallen for Dr Burzynski’s PR efforts here”
——————————————————————
LIE: The documentary film is by Eric Merola, NOT “Dr. Burzynski’s Public Relations”
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “In reality, Dr B is a quack and a charlatan of the worst order, and the movie is nothing more than a desperate attempt to try to sell his snake oil to the gullible”
——————————————————————
LIE: After reading through the comments, this sounds like the infamous lying Professor Robert J. (Bob) Blaskiewicz of University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire, “infamy”, who is a charlatan of the first order, and belabors his ignorance by referring to “snake oil”, which as far as I know, has never been approved for phase III clinical trials, unlike Dr. Burzynski’s antineoplastons A10 (Atengenal) and AS2-1 (Astugenal)
——————————————————————
Bob Blaskiewicz (Blatherskitewicz), Faux Skeptic Exposed!:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/bob-blaskiewicz-blatherskitewicz-faux-skeptic-exposed/
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “You have to ask why he’s never published any data showing that his treatment works”
——————————————————————
LIE: What people should ask is why does “Professor” @rjblaskiewicz and his other Skeptic pals continue posting idiotic statements like this on the Internet and social media (Twitter) ?
——————————————————————
Critiquing David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/critiquing-david-h-gorski-md-phd-facs-www-sciencebasedmedicine-orgeditorial-staffdavid-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “Well, if you believe everything the movie tells you, then perhaps you think it’s because of a huge global conspiracy that prevents him from publishing in any journal anywhere in the world”
——————————————————————
If you want to talk Jesse Ventura type “conspiracy theory”:

1. Why are The Skeptics™ like you too afraid to debate ?

2. Why did your “pal” David H. “Orac” Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS block me on his blog for questioning his infallibility ?

3. Why did Forbes delete my comments when I questioned The Skeptics™? regarding your “pal” Gorski’s “bud”, Peter A. Lipson, MD’s article ?

4. Why did The Skeptics™ Josephine Jones block me from her blog ?

5. Why did The Skeptics™ Adam Jacobs block me from his blog ?

6. Why did The Skeptics™ Guy Chapman block me from his blog ?

7. Why did The Skeptics™ Keir Liddle block me from his blog ?

8. Why do The Skeptics™ whine to Twitter in order to get Twitter to suspend the accounts of people who question them ?

9. Why did Wikipedia block me, using lame excuses ?

10. Why did reddit act like wiki’s little bitch and delete my posts and block my comments because this reddiot davidreiss666 whined like a little bitch ?
——————————————————————
overview for DidymusJudasThomas (reddit.com)

submitted 4 days ago by davidreiss666 to reportthespammers

1 comment
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “Even if you are sufficiently conspiracy minded to believe that’s true, then it still doesn’t explain why he hasn’t published his results on the clinicaltrials dot gov website, where most of his trials are recorded as either “ongoing”, “withdrawn”, or “unknown status””
——————————————————————
Did you NOT appear on the below blog talk radio show with your “pal” Gorski who said at 29:00 that Burzynski should NOT publish the information himself ?
——————————————————————
Ep09 – Talking Burzynski – David Gorski and Bob Blaskiewicz 05/29/2013
Skeptic Canary ShowBlogTalkRadio
May 29, 2013 … This week, join your hosts as we talk about Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski and the Burzynski Clinic. Well be joined by two special guest, Doctor David Gorski and Bob Blaskiewicz
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/…/ep09–talking-burzynski–david-gorski-and-bob-blaskiewicz
——————————————————————
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/skepticcanary/2013/05/29/ep09–talking-burzynski–david-gorski-and-bob-blaskiewicz
——————————————————————
http://goo.gl/7pWIj
——————————————————————
http://bit.ly/15lv5zG
——————————————————————
Critiquing the #SkepticCanary: “The Skeptics™” (SkeptiCowards©) Bob Blatherskitewicz and the so-called, “self-proclaimed” “CANCER RESEARCHER”:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/critiquing-the-skepticcanary-the-skeptics-skepticowards-bob-blatherskitewicz-and-the-so-called-self-proclaimed-cancer-researcher/
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “Only one of his trials is recorded as being completed, and that one doesn’t reveal it’s results”
——————————————————————
Did you notice that your above 5/29/2013 appearance was BEFORE this article was published 6/20/2013 ?
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “The fact is that Burzynski keeps is actual research data an extremely closely guarded secret”
——————————————————————
Like THIS ?
——————————————————————
Critiquing: Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski, M.D., Ph.D, L.I.A.R.:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/07/critiquing-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-m-d-ph-d-l-i-a-r/
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “If is treatment were actually effective, do you seriously think he’d do that?”
——————————————————————
RATS!!!. Like this ?
——————————————————————
Burzynski: Oh, RATS!!!
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/26/the-lancet-oncology-peer-review-team-d-12-01519-fail-2/
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “Burzynski likes to cultivate his conspiracy theories because it helps his business of scamming vulnerable cancer patients”
——————————————————————
Is that like The Skeptics™ like to LIE to people ?
——————————————————————
Critiquing: In which the latest movie about Stanislaw Burzynski “cancer cure” is reviewed…with Insolence:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/critiquing-in-which-the-latest-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-cure-is-reviewed-with-insolence-2/
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “For Burzynski, at least, cancer is indeed serious business”
——————————————————————
And for you, it must be a joke, considering how you are too much of a coward to debate questions like these
——————————————————————
QUESTIONS the Critics and Cynics, “The Skeptics™” do NOT want to ANSWER:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/23/questions-the-critics-and-cynics-the-skeptics-do-not-want-to-answer/
======================================
JEFF: “it has been tested independently in other countries, as the film shows”
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “The Japanese study remains unpublished, Jeff, just like all the over 60 studies Burzynski has started”

“Even if it were published, it would need to be replicated”
——————————————————————
Really ? Why not try pointing out where these studies were replicated before the FDA allowed these drugs to be used ?
——————————————————————
Burzynski: Why has the FDA NOT granted Accelerated Approval for Antineoplastons A10 (Atengenal) and AS2-1 (Astugenal) ?
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/burzynski-why-has-the-fda-not-granted-accelerated-approval-for-antineoplastons-a10-astengenal-and-as2-1-astugenal/
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “Merola manipulated by voice, face and even what I said in his movie and never asked for my comments”

“Sure, he misrepresented me to my new employers, but that doesn’t actually count as consulting me, now does it?”

“The “birthday surprise” in the movie was a fundraiser for a children’s cancer research hospital that raised over $15K, something I’m rather proud of, actually”
——————————————————————
Nice TRY with your LIE
——————————————————————
Critiquing Bob Blaskiewicz (#Burzynski Cancer is Serious Business, Part II):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/critiquing-bob-blaskiewicz-burzynski-cancer-is-serious-business-part-ii/
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “I’d encourage you to look at the other side of the story at The OTHER Burzynski Patient Group”

“These are far more typical outcomes”
——————————————————————
Do you mean this one of a number of your blogs which I just critiqued ?
——————————————————————
Critiquing https://theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/24/critiquing-httpstheotherburzynskipatientgroup-wordpress-com/
======================================
ANONYMOUS: “You might also see what Merola got wrong/faked at the anp4all website”
——————————————————————
Oh, do NOT worry

I will critique this one also, and let people see what YOU got wrong
======================================
ADAM JACOBS: “Jeff, you say it has been “tested independently in other countries”, but how do you know?”

“Because the movie says so?”

“Well, it would, wouldn’t it?”

“Come back and tell me about these so-called “independent tests” when they’ve been published”

“Until then, there is no reliable evidence that they actually happened”
——————————————————————
Adam Jacobs also known as @DianthusMed also known as Dianthus Medical of London, why don’t YOU come back and tell me when YOU learn how to read ?
——————————————————————
Burzynski – The Antineoplaston Randomized Japan Phase II Clinical Trial Study:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/burzynski-the-antineoplaston-randomized-japan-phase-ii-clinical-trial-study/
======================================
TOMMIE TAYLOR: “The worst conspiracy in the world and the most profitable is the mainstream medical procedures of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation”

“Chemo and radiation destroy the immune system to the point that the body cannot heal”

“It is a crime against humanity to allow only these therapies”
======================================
ADAM JACOBS: “You do know that Burzynski uses chemotherapy, don’t you?”

“Antineoplastons themselves are a form of chemotherapy, but actually most of Burzynski’s patients don’t get ANPs anyway: they just get conventional chemotherapy”
——————————————————————
Adam, have you blocked anyone else from your blog since you blocked me because you are a coward ?
——————————————————————
The Burzynski Skeptics:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/the-burzynski-skeptics/
======================================

Wikipedia, do you serve up Mud Pies with your Wikipedia Lies ?

As part of my exposé of who put the “BiaS in “WikipedBiaS, one of the articles I posted was:

“Wikipedia, what’s your motivation?”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/wikipedia-whats-your-motivation/

>
See

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Didymus_Judas_Thomas&diff=next&oldid=528610760

to view this change

The world, right now, considers Burzynski to be at best unethical and at
> worst a quack…”. Guy (Help!) 08:58, 30 December 2012
>

The world ?

WOW

Now THAT is impressive

I was NOT aware that Wikipedia is able to advise us all of what the “opinion” of “The world ?,” is

I wonder if that depends on what the definition of “IS,” is?

(Thank you, Bill Clinton, for providing us all with THAT gem)

If “The world ” truly “right now, considers Burzynski to be at best unethical and at worst a quack,” how dare these people have the audacity and temerity to reference “HIS work

(I wonder if they received the Wikipedia Burzynski Clinic “gatekeepers’ official stamp of approval before they published this – I hate to think of what is going to happen to them if they did NOT … Will WikipedBiaS hurl Mud in their general direction? – I shudder to think)

Phase II trial of tipifarnib and radiation in children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21339191/
University of California—San Francisco
http://neuro-oncology.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/3/298.full
Children’s Hospital Boston, Massachusetts
http://neuro-oncology.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/3/298.abstract?sid=d8920297-2724-43af-a977-912b544cb1eb
St Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee
http://neuro-oncology.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/3/298.full?sid=c3337236-34fb-43df-8667-2bf20ff1b4ff
Seattle Children’s Hospital, Seattle, Washington
http://neuro-oncology.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/3/298.full.pdf?sid=d8920297-2724-43af-a977-912b544cb1eb
Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
http://m.neuro-oncology.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/3/298.long?view=long&pmid=21339191
Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
http://m.neuro-oncology.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/3/298.full.pdf
Children’s National Medical Center, Washington, DC
http://m.neuro-oncology.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/3/298.abstract
Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Ohio

Neuro Oncol (2011) 13 (3): 298-306
doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noq202

5.723 Impact Factor

25. ↵ Burzynski SR
Treatments for astrocytic tumors in children: current and emerging strategies

Paediatr Drugs. 2006;8:167-178
http://link.springer.com/article/10.2165%2F00148581-200608030-00003
Pediatric Drugs
May 2006, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 167-178

Burzynski referenced by other Cancer researchers:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/burzynski-referenced-by-other-cancer-researchers/
“The Skeptics:” Your problem is, Wikipedia IS censored:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/the-skeptics-your-problem-is-wikipedia-is-censored/
Wikipedia, what’s your motivation?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/wikipedia-whats-your-motivation/
guychapman (Guy Chapman) Critiquing “The Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics (page 9):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/05/guychapman-guy-chapman-critiquing-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics-page-9/
I show JzG what a “FACT” is: Burzynski: FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions): Clinical Trial Results:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/i-show-jzg-what-a-fact-is-burzynski-faq-frequently-asked-questions-clinical-trial-results/
WikipediA or WikipediAin’t?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/wikipedia-or-wikipediaint/
Wikipedia, your Burzynski BIAS is showing:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/18/wikipedia-your-burzynski-bias-is-showing/
Wikipedia, you’ve sprung a Wiki Leak:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/wikipedia-youve-sprung-a-wiki-leak/
On the 6th day, HE created WIKIPEDIA, and on the 7th, WikipedBiaS:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/30/on-the-6th-day-he-created-wikipedia-and-on-the-7th-day-wikipedbias/
Wikipedia: Burzynski Clinic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzynski_Clinic
Wikipedia: Burzynski Clinic (Mobile)
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzynski_Clinic
Wikipedia: Burzynski Clinic Talk Page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Burzynski_Clinic

On the 6th day, HE created WIKIPEDIA, and on the 7th, WikipedBiaS

Whilst I was giving Wikipedia the opportunity to prove to me that they actually believe in, and practice [[WP:NPOV]] (Wikipedia: Neutral Point Of View), I pointed out to Wikipedia that antineoplaston studies had taken place in Poland, South Korea, Russia, Egypt, Japan, Taiwan (Republic Of China), China, and the USA

Wikipedia, what’s your motivation?
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/wikipedia-whats-your-motivation/
What was WikipedBiaS’ UN-BIASED, Neutral, rational wiki response?

> “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, 24 December 2012, Monday

I replied to this Guy’s’ G.I.G.O. (Garbage In, Garbage Out):

> 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?

FACTS:

1. I pointed out to WikipedBiaS, a 12/17/2012 scientific publication re antineoplastons, which referenced Burzynski @ 22. (antineoplaston AS21)

2. 7 days after this scientific journal was published, WikipedBiaS’ “Guy (Help!’s) UN-BIASED, Neutral, rational wiki response on Monday, 12/24/2012 @ 3:54 pm, is to advise me; as if I just fell off the turnip truck he was born in:

“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, 24 December 2012, Monday

3. So, WikipedBiaS’ lackey, Guy (Help!), defines an event having been published 7 days ago (from 12/17/2012 to 12/24/2012) as:

…nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it…

>
See

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burzynski_Clinic&diff=next&oldid=529537854

to view this change.

I have an easy to remember, one (1) word, one (1) syllable, response for Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales, Guy (Help!), and WikipedBiaS


BULLOCKS

http://redd.it/1etr0x
12/17/2012
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3524164
CDA-2 (cell differentiation agent 2), a URINARY preparation
http://po.st/g71N8P
CDA-2 and its main component PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINE (PG or PAG)
http://po.st/m2RcxL
Antineoplaston AS2-5 is PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINE (PAG or PG)
http://redd.it/1dk974
Antineoplaston AS2-1 is a 4:1 mixture of phenylacetic acid (PA) and PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINE (PAG or PG)
http://t.co/N7ErbunCV2
Antineoplastons AS2-5 and AS2-1 are derived from Antineoplaston A10
http://t.co/8NdDGWfgLL
BURZYNSKI Reference: 22.
http://t.co/EdMy4zPAz0
antineoplaston AS21

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0052117
BULLOCKS
http://t.co/FgdOUYPHW0

Shall We Play A Game? “The Skeptics” (SkeptiCowards) vs. “The Skeptics'” Critics #Burzynski The 1st ever “LIE OFF”

It is the first ever “LIE OFF”

RULES:

1. One (1) “LIE” per Tweet (or blog comment)

2. You may use the same link to refer to additional “LIES” (One (1) at a time)

3. The “LIE” MUST be supported by “FACTS” (Citation(s), Reference(s), and / or Link(s)) – I realize that having to rely on “FACTS” may put many of “The Skeptics” at a perceived “disadvantage,” since many of them are so used to getting away with unsubstantiated vitriolic comments (Example: See
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics)

4. The “alleged” “LIAR” may contest their exalted position (One (1) issue at a time)

5. You may have to pull an Anthony Jeselnik, and “Defend Your Tweet” (One (1) issue at a time)

6. Score will be kept of the “LIES

7. All “LIES” are binding and are the responsibility of the “LIAR” (This contest is in no way affiliated with Anthony Jeselnik or Comedy Central … maybe … that could be a “LIE“)

https://twitter.com/FauxSkeptic/status/337362207258066947

https://mobile.twitter.com/FauxSkeptic/statuses/337362207258066947

https://twitter.com/AllUrBaseRBe2us/status/337366091108057088

https://mobile.twitter.com/AllUrBaseRBe2us/statuses/337366091108057088

https://twitter.com/FauxSkeptic/status/337379052400803842

https://mobile.twitter.com/FauxSkeptic/statuses/337379052400803842

*The small print is important. This is NOT a “Pissing” Contest. Pissers will be perfunctorily penalized and Pissed OFF (Rules are subject to being changed arbitrarily and capriciously; something “The Skeptics” have an intimately familiar relationship with)

Have a Nice Day

Remember kids, this WikipediAin’t The People’s Court;” (Doug Llewelyn is NOT looking over your shoulder) you CAN take “The LIE” into your own hands

So don’t get “Pissed OFF,” get the “Lie Off

LIE

“The Skeptics” (SkeptiCowards)

1. 5/23/2013 – Dr. David H. Gorski
2. 5/23/2013 – Dr. David H. Gorski
3. 5/24/2013 – Guy Chapman
4. 5/25/2013 – Guy Chapman
5. 5/29/2013 – dougal445

The Skeptics” Critics

*

1. David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 12:44pm – 30 Mar 13:

NO, Dr. Gorski, you have NOT “deconstructed his “evidence” in depth before”
Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business (Part I) consists of the documentary; as well as the documents on the movie web-site, which you have NOT “deconstructed … in depth before”
David Gorski (@gorskon)
5/23/13, 9:32 AM
@FauxSkeptic No need to defend my Tweet. The defense is in the link. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/stanislaw-burzynski-bad-medicine-a-bad-movie
2013-05-23 16:45:18
FauxSkeptic:
@gorskon
Ignoring:

Documents/BurzynskiTriesToExposeNCI.pdf
is NOT:”deconstructed his”evidence”in depth…”
http://redd.it/1ewce0
#Burzynski

2.
https://mobile.twitter.com/gorskon/status/325715182045245440

AllUrBaseRbelong2us (@AllUrBaseRBe2us)
5/23/13, 8:15 PM
AnthonyJeselnik☆
@gorskon🚫
U tweeted4/20/13
http://po.st/69JIvR
#Burzynski
http://redd.it/1ewce0
Defend tweet😅

http://redd.it/1dq3nd

3. FauxSkeptic (@FauxSkeptic)
5/24/13, 12:33 PM
☆AnthonyJeselnik:☆
🚫”The Skeptics” @vGuyUK,🚫
you blahgged at:📄
http://redd.it/1dpsj6
Defend your twit:😅

http://redd.it/1dpsj6

4. ☆AnthonyJeselnik:☆
🚫SceptivGuyChapmanUK,🚫
you blahgged at:📄
redd.it/1dr2xg
Defend your twit:😅

http://t.co/YRd0oSzL9l

5. @dougal445 tweeted at 1:16am-19 Apr 13:
http://po.st/0EpLAz
Defend Your Tweet:
http://redd.it/1du07r
#Burzynski

http://po.st/BBoHhh

Wikipedia, your Burzynski BIAS is showing

As I have proven previously, Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia is BIASED, when it comes to the Burzynski Clinic Wikipedia article:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzynski_Clinic
WikipediA or WikipediAin’t ?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/wikipedia-or-wikipediaint/
Wikipedia, what’s your motivation?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/wikipedia-whats-your-motivation/
I show JzG what a “FACT” is: Burzynski: FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions): Clinical Trial Results:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/i-show-jzg-what-a-fact-is-burzynski-faq-frequently-asked-questions-clinical-trial-results/
guychapman (Guy Chapman) Critiquing “The Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics (page 9):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/05/guychapman-guy-chapman-critiquing-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics-page-9/
12/26/2012 I requested that Wikipedia add the below Houston’s KPRC News article re Lola A. Quinlan, to the Burzynski Clinic Wikipedia article, considering that they had previously posted there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzynski_Clinic
Lawsuits

“In January 2012, Lola Quinlan, an elderly, stage IV cancer patient, sued Dr Burzynski…”

“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.”

http://m.click2houston.com/news/Houston-cancer-doctor-draws-new-complaints-from-patients/-/16714936/8581480/-/hmrbjk/-/index.html

http://www.jag-lawfirm.com/burzynski-suit-kprc-02012012.html
Thank you very much.” Didymus Judas Thomas 15:03, 26 December 2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burzynski_Clinic&diff=prev&oldid=529836971
So, what was Wikipedia’s NON-BIASED rational wiki reasoning for NOT including this Houston, Texas, news article reference?

Dear Didymus Judas Thomas,

The Wikipedia page Talk:Burzynski Clinic has been changed on
December 26, 2012 by Arthur Rubin

See
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burzynski_Clinic&diff=next&oldid=529836971
to view this change.

Editor’s summary: /* Law Suits */ So?

Contact the editor:
mail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Arthur_Rubin
wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arthur_Rubin
Arthur Rubin advised:

“: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.” — Arthur Rubin 15:24, 26 December 2012

I had the impression that Arthur Rubin had not even bothered to read the article in question, and replied:

“::Arthur Rubin, I’m not sure what relevance your above post has re WP:NPOV since the article includes statements from attorneys representing both sides.”. 17:51, 27 December 2012 Didymus Judas Thomas 12/27/2012

Arthur Rubin’s, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ response?

SILENCE

Well, you know the saying:

Silence IS Golden

(Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View)

WP:NPOV clearly indicates:
“Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing FAIRLY, PROPORTIONATELY, and as far as possible WITHOUT BIAS, ALL significant views that have been published by reliable sources.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

“ALL Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content MUST be written from a neutral point of view.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

“NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

“This policy is NONNEGOTIABLE and ALL editors and articles MUST follow it.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

“The principles upon which this policy is based CANNOT be superseded by OTHER POLICIES or GUIDELINES, or by editors’ consensus.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

(Words CAPITALIZED for emphasis only.).

“1 Explanation of the neutral point of view.”

“This page in a nutshell:”

“Articles mustn’t take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

“This applies to both what you say and how you say it.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

“Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

“As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all notable and verifiable points of view.”.

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

[[WP:NPOV]] “History of NPOV:” (Content # 6). “The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered.”

(Wikipedia: Simplified Ruleset)

[[WP:SR]] “Wikipedia does not have its own views, or determine what is “correct.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

“Instead, editors try to summarize what good sources have said about ideas and information.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

“Differing views are presented objectively and without bias as they are reported in reliable sources—sources that have a reputation for being accurate.”

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

“Good sources are the base of the encyclopedia, and anyone must be able to realistically check whether contributions can be backed up by one.”.

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

[[WP:NPOVFAQ]]

(Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View Frequently Asked Questions)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ
[[WP:NPOVFAQ]]

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias
[[WP:CSB]]

Did Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’ do this?

Is Wikipedia’s Burzynski BIAS showing?

YOU decide, because in my opinion it IS, since this piece of “Yellow Journalism” is referenced in the Burzynski Clinic Wikipedia article:

2010 film, Burzynski – Cancer is Serious Business

Prior to the debut of “Burzynski”, Houston Press correspondent Craig Malisow mocked the film’s lack of objectivity, characterizing it as “a puff-piece paean that cherrypicks facts and ignores any criticism”, and criticized the project for presenting only Burzynski’s side of the story.” [60]
60^ Malisow, Craig (2010-06-02). “Stanlislaw Burzynski: New Movie Proves He’s A Cancer-Fighting Giant – Houston News – Hair Balls”. Blogs.houstonpress.com. Retrieved 2011-11-25.

Jun 2, 2010 – Houston’s Stanislaw Burzynski, who sells a so-called cancer …

(Hair Balls hasn’t seen the movie, but nowhere in the … )

So, in a nutshell, Wikipedia will reference “Yellow Journalism” by a “Hack” who posts an article about a movie he has NOT even seen, but will NOT reference a news article which is posted on Lola A. Quinlan’s attorney’s web-site, which contains comments from her attorney, as well as Dr. Stanislaw R. Burzynski’s attorney

Wikipedia, your BIAS is showing

“The U.S. v. Article’~ court stated that the FDA’s responsibility was to protect the ultimate consumer, which included protection of “the ignorant, the unthinking and the credulous.”‘

“the ignorant

the unthinking and

the credulous.”‘

Arthur Rubin, and Jimmy (call me “Jimbo”) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia whiners’, which are you?

WikipediA or WikipediAin’t ?

Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia is BIASED, as I have proven previously:

Wikipedia, what’s your motivation?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/wikipedia-whats-your-motivation/
I show JzG what a “FACT” is: Burzynski: FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions): Clinical Trial Results:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/i-show-jzg-what-a-fact-is-burzynski-faq-frequently-asked-questions-clinical-trial-results/
guychapman (Guy Chapman) Critiquing “The Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics (page 9)
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/05/guychapman-guy-chapman-critiquing-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics-page-9/
1/13/2013 I requested that Wikipedia add this antineoplaston review article to the Burzynski Clinic Wikipedia article:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzynski_Clinic
8/2008 – REVIEW ARTICLE
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/18682440
Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Present Day Oncology Care:
redd.it/1edfpd
Promises and Pitfalls
http://redd.it/1edfpd
Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology
http://m.jjco.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2008/08/05/jjco.hyn066.full.pdf#page=1
Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2008 Aug;38(8):512-20
http://jjco.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/8/512.full?sid=5c546408-071e-4148-abd3-6c295dd5c6d7
doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyn066. Epub 2008 Aug 5
http://jjco.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/8/512.full.pdf?sid=f8e0a3cc-2912-40e5-a7c2-dbd6db4b3c1d
Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Parel, Mumbai, India

PDF pg. 5 of 9

PHARMACOLOGIC AND BIOLOGIC TREATMENTS

BURZYNSKI

Burzynski (49), a biochemist, discovered that peptides and hormones including butyric acid and phenylbutyrate when added to cancer cells results in their differentiation, converting them into normal cells again

Clinical trials have, however, failed to accrue patients to test this exciting concept

In the solitary phase II study, Antineoplastons [consisting of antineoplaston A10 (A10I) and AS2-1 injections] were given intravenously in escalating doses

The overall survival at 2 and 5 years was 39 and 22%, respectively, and maximum survival was more than 17 years for a patient with anaplastic astrocytoma and more than 5 years for a patient with glioblastoma

Progression-free survival at 6 months was 39%

Complete response was achieved in 11%, partial response in 11%, stable disease in 39% and progressive disease in 39% of patients (50)

PDF pg. 9 of 9

References

49. Burzynski SR

The Present Stage of Antineoplaston Research

Integr Cancer Ther 2004;3:47–58

50. Burzynski SR, Janicki TJ, Weaver RA, Burzynski B

Targeted therapy with antineoplastons A10 and AS2–1 of high-grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem glioma

Integr Cancer Ther 2006;5:40–7
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Burzynski_Clinic
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burzynski_Clinic&diff=prev&oldid=533137378
to view this change.

*Per [[WP:NPOV]] & [[WP:MEDRS ]] please add at the end of the Burzynski Clinic section; based on “Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Present Day Oncology Care: Promises and Pitfalls,” “Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology” (which can be reviewed in HTML
http://jjco.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/8/512.full?sid=5c546408-071e-4148-abd3-6c295dd5c6d7 or PDFs at pg. 5 of 9 & reference at pg. 9
http://jjco.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/8/512.full.pdf?sid=f8e0a3cc-2912-40e5-a7c2-dbd6db4b3c1d
http://m.jjco.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2008/08/05/jjco.hyn066.full.pdf#page=1 ):
+
:”A 2008 medical review stated that Burzynski “discovered that peptides and hormones including butyric acid and phenylbutyrate when added to cancer cells results in their differentiation, converting them into normal cells again.” “In the solitary phase II study” of “Antineoplastons” [consisting of A10 (A10I) and AS2-1 injections], “the overall survival at 2 and 5 years was 39 and 22%, respectively, and maximum survival was more than 17 years for a patient with anaplastic astrocytoma and more than 5 years for a patient with glioblastoma. Progression-free survival at 6 months was 39%. Complete response was achieved in 11%, partial response in 11%, stable disease in 39% and progressive disease in 39% of patients.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/18682440 &
+
*based on “The Oncologist,” “Complementary and Alternative Therapies for Cancer” (which can be reviewed in HTML
http://theoncologist.alphamedpress.org/content/9/1/80.full?sid=aeef6d69-bf46-4bd0-93b0-f259cd21d416 or PDFs at pg. 4 of 10 & references at pg.. 7
http://theoncologist.alphamedpress.org/content/9/1/80.full.pdf
http://www.oncocure.ca/assets/byTopic/IntegrativeOncology/2-CAM%20Therapies%20in%20CA-Oncologist%202004.pdf ):
+
:”A 2004 Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center medical review stated that antineoplastons therapy “research at the Burzynski Institute was permitted under an Investigational New Drug permit. The group’s preliminary report from a single-arm phase II study of 12 patients showed a 50% response rate.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/14755017
Thank you very much. [[User:Didymus Judas Thomas|Didymus Judas Thomas]] ([[User talk:Didymus Judas Thomas|talk]]) 23:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/13/2013

A search of “Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology” on Wiki, displays:
http://www.wikipedia.org/
Search results:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%22Japanese+Journal+of+Clinical+Oncology%22&go=Go
View (previous 20 | next 20) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

A search HERE:
http://www.wikisearch.com/
About 152 results (0.16 seconds)

A review of those entries show that Wikipedia allows the

“Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology”

to be listed as a [[WP:MEDRS]] source

(Wikipedia: Medical Resources)

So, what was Wikipedia’s NON-BIASED rational wiki reasoning for NOT including this medical journal review article reference?

Alexbrn advised:

Contact the editor:
mail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Alexbrn
wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alexbrn
“It seems clear from previous discussion on this page there is no WP:CONSENSUS to add the material you are requesting; quite the opposite in fact:”

“a strong consensus not to add it, with plenty of reasoned argument in support.”

“The article presents the well-sourced consensus view of the scientific/medical communities already.”

“We shouldn’t be undermining that with poorer-quality sources.”

“(1/15/2013) AND “The article gives the consensus view of the professional community, as represented by the American Cancer Society and Cancer Research UK.”

“In relation, other one-off articles are “poorer-sources”, and we must not use them to undermine the clearly presented consensus.”

[[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] [[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Alexbrn|contribs]]|[[User:Alexbrn#Conflict_of_interest_declaration|COI]] 10:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


See
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burzynski_Clinic&diff=next&oldid=533161058
to view this change.

(Alexbrn; who is a Journeyman Editor with over 2,000 edits, has been on WP over 5 1/2 years, is a native speaker of English, and has a Doctor of Philosophy degree in English)

Let’s “FACT-CHECK” Alexbrn, shall we?

(Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View)

(1/16/2013). WP:NPOV clearly indicates:

“Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing FAIRLY, PROPORTIONATELY, and as far as possible WITHOUT BIAS, ALL significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?

ALL Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content MUST be written from a neutral point of view.

Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?

NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects.

Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?

This policy is NONNEGOTIABLE and ALL editors and articles MUST follow it.”

Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?

“The principles upon which this policy is based CANNOT be superseded by OTHER POLICIES or GUIDELINES, or by editors’ consensus.”

Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?

(Words CAPITALIZED for emphasis only.).

“1 Explanation of the neutral point of view.”

“This page in a nutshell:”

Articles mustn’t take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias.”

Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?

“This applies to both what you say and how you say it.”

Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?

Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another.”

Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?

“As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all notable and verifiable points of view.”

Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?

[[WP:NPOV]] “History of NPOV:” (Content # 6). “The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered,” references.” Thank you very much. 166.205.55.30 (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/21/2013l

[[WP:SR]] “Wikipedia does not have its own views, or determine what is “correct“.

(Wikipedia: Simplified Ruleset)

Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?

Instead, editors try to summarize what good sources have said about ideas and information.

Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?

Differing views are presented objectively and without bias as they are reported in reliable sources—sources that have a reputation for being accurate.

Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?

Good sources are the base of the encyclopedia, and anyone must be able to realistically check whether contributions can be backed up by one.”

Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?

Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs, if you do NOT think (?) that the Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology is a reliable source—source that has a reputation for being accurate and / or
“Good source”, then remove ALL [[WP:MEDRS]] references to it

[[WP:NPOVFAQ]]Balancing different views/Pseudoscience:

(Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View Frequently Asked Questions)

Balancing different views

If we’re going to represent the sum total of encyclopedic knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false.

Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?

The task before us is not to describe disputes as though pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority

(sometimes pseudoscientific)

Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?

view as the minority view, and to explain how scientists have received or criticized pseudoscientific theories.

Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?

This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.”

Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ
[[WP:NPOVFAQ]]

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias
[[WP:CSB]]

Did Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs do this?

WikipediA or WikipediAin’t ?

YOU decide, because in my opinion:

Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs did NOT do this
onforb.es/11pwse9
OR THIS:
http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW
“3. Why is it that on the Wikipedia “Brainstem Glioma” Prognosis page it has “needs citations,” when I can do an Internet search and find reliable independent sources for that information?”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics
“The U.S. v. Article’~ court stated that the FDA’s responsibility was to protect the ultimate consumer, which included protection of “the ignorant, the unthinking and the credulous.”‘

“the ignorant

the unthinking and

the credulous.”‘

Alexbrn and Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales’ Wikipedia watchdogs, which are you?

I show JzG what a “FACT” is: Burzynski: FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions): Clinical Trial Results:

Burzynski: FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions): Clinical Trial Results:
redd.it/1e458n
FAQ
http://po.st/SLDlJ
Who is JzG and why should you care?

JzG claims there is a “misleading factoid”

JzG does NOT seem to comprehend that the reason something is titled as a “FACT,” is because it is NOT misleading

JzG does NOT seem to understand that indicating that a “FACT” is misleading, is oxymoronic

It is a “FACT” that:

“Trial results are not always publicly available, even after a clinical trial ends”

(Source: U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health)

An individual with the same initials (JzG also known as JzG|Guy) is one of the “gatekeepers” of the “Burzynski Clinic” Wikipedia page, as I documented HERE:

guychapman (Guy Chapman) Critiquing “The Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics (page 9)
redd.it/1dpsj6
(Guy Chapman, @SceptiGuy, @vGuyUK, guychapman)

http://redd.it/1dpsj6
Wikipedia apologist Guy Chapman’s United Kingdom “blahg:”
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg
Wikipedia, what’s your motivation?:
redd.it/1dk974
WP
http://t.co/N7ErbunCV2
JzG are you related to Guy Chapman?

I consider him to be a coward

Wikipedia’s “Neutral” policy history clearly indicates:

“The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered, …”

[[WP:NPOV]] “History of NPOV:” (Content # 6, Note 3)

(Wikipedia: Neutral Point Of View)

This is also a “factoid,” and the JzG|Guy “gatekeeper” on Wikipedia gave it the same amount of respect JzG gives the U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health

Which leads one to wonder if they are twins, considering that one had the testicular fortitude to post a comment, and the other is a coward and trumpets U.K. views

One JzG|Guy commented on Wikipedia:

> “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.” JzG|Guy
> User:JzG/help|Help! 21:52, 24 December 2013
>
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Didymus_Judas_Thomas&diff=next&oldid=528610760
to view this change

and:
>
> “There is unlikely to be any dispassionate debate over ANPs while Burzynski
> continues with his unethical practices.” JzG|Guy User:JzG/help|Help!
> 12:43, 26 December 2012
>
> Continues with his unethical practices.? Yet TMB/SOAH had their
> case dismissed? Is WP judge, jury, & executioner?

>
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burzynski_Clinic&diff=next&oldid=529537854
to view this change.

I could really care less what JzG|Guy’s “opinion” is, since:

Wikipedia’s “Neutral” policy history clearly indicates:

“The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered, …”

[[WP:NPOV]] “History of NPOV:” (Content # 6, Note 3)

(Wikipedia: Neutral Point Of View)

As the old military saying goes:

If I wanted your opinion … (Wikipedia) … I’d beat it out of you

In this blog post reply, Wikipedia shill “JzG” presents a single myopic misleading meme for a number of reasons in respect of Stanislaw Burzynski

JzG posits:

“Most obvious of these is that of the 61 trials registered by Burzynski over nearly two decades, only one has even been completed.”

WHAT “completed” trial is JzG referring to?

Good question, since I have yet to find one of “The Skeptics” who could adequately describe what Protocol, start date, and completion date apply to this “one” trial they keep mentioning

Antineoplaston Therapy in Treating Patients With Stage IV Melanoma
Phase II
Status: COMPLETED
Age: 18 and over
Protocol IDs: CDR0000066552, BC-ME-2, NCT00003509

11/25/1997 – FORM 10-SB
http://pdf.secdatabase.com/2573/0000950110-97-001598.pdf
ME-2 PHASE II STUDY OF ANTINEOPLASTONS A10 AND AS2-1 IN PATIENTS WITH MALIGNANT MELANOMA
8 40
7/26/96 – Revised
10/4/96 – Revised
4/14/97 – Revised

11/1/1999 – First received

5/23/2009 – Last updated

5/2009 – Last verified
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/archive/NCT00003509
Burzynski Clinical Trials (The SEC filings):
redd.it/1e2f2i
5/1/2012 Certain prospective protocols which have reached a Milestone:
http://redd.it/1e2f2i
Antineoplaston Therapy in Treating Patients With Stage IV Melanomau
Melanoma (Skin)
Drug: antineoplaston A10
Drug: antineoplaston AS2-1
Phase II / Phase 2
COMPLETED
Age 18 and over
Protocol IDs
CDR0000066552
BC-ME-2, NCT00003509

http://cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/BC-ME-2
2009_05_26 Study Changes Recruitment status, Recruitment, Misc.
1 clinical_study study_id
2
is_fda_regulated Yes
is_section_801 Yes
delayed_posting No
resp_party name_title Stanislaw R. Burzynski
name_title organization Burzynski Clinic
organization resp_party

Fm: Active, not recruiting
To: COMPLETED

status date
Fm: 2008-04
To: 2009-05

date
Fm: 2008-01
To: 2005-02

last_release_date
Fm: 2008-07-23
To: 2009-05-23

http://clinicaltrials.gov/archive/NCT00003509/2009_05_26/changes
“COMPLETED:”

2009-05-23 (5/23/2009)

To put this in perspective, the below study done in 2006, was NOT published until about 7 years later, in 2013

2/13/2013 – The frequency, cost, and clinical outcomes of HYPERNATREMIA in patients hospitalized to a comprehensive CANCER center
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23404230
Over 3 month period in 2006 re 3,446 patients, most of the HYPERNATREMIA (90 %) was acquired during hospital stay

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

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

Division of Endocrinology, Mayo Clinic

Support Care Cancer. 2013 Feb 13. [Epub ahead of print]

Supportive Care in Cancer
February 2013

DOI
10.1007/s00520-013-1734-6

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00520-013-1734-6

JzG continues:

“Then there’s the fact that unpublished trials are not generally acceptable when applying for approval for a drug, or when promoting the drug (in this case it’s hardly relevant as he appears to have no intention of applying for approval; the trials seem to be used as an end-run around restrictions on his use of unapproved drugs).”

JzG ignores:

Burzynski: What happens when a clinical trial is over?:

National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH)

Cancer Clinical Trials

15. What happens when a clinical trial is over?

“The results of clinical trials are OFTEN published in peer-reviewed scientific journals”

” … WHETHER OR NOT the results are published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal … “
http://m.cancer.gov/topics/factsheets/clinical-trials
This makes it clear that clinical trial results “are OFTEN” published, but sometimes they are “NOT” published “in a peer-reviewed scientific journal”

Burzynski: Declaration of Helsinki:
redd.it/1e4ybx
Helsinki
http://po.st/ajl2Xy
The Declaration of Helsinki does NOT indicate WHEN final (completed) results of human clinical trials MUST be published

Burzynski: The FDA’s Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective:
redd.it/1e6gvj
Nowhere does it indicate that final (completed) human clinical trial results MUST be published in a peer-reviewed scientific medical journal
http://redd.it/1e6gvj
JzG comments:

“Why does the medical and scientific community not accept Burzynski’s claims to cure cancer? Because he has failed to publish credible evidence. The few papers he has published are neither compelling nor generally useful in evaluating his claims.”

JzG where is / are YOUR in-depth review(s) of the 2003-2007 phase II clinical trials preliminary reports?

Critiquing “The Skeptic” Burzynski Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics (page 10)

onforb.es/11pwse9

http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics
Didymus Judas Thomas, Contributor

Musings on the intersection of Articles, Bias, and Censorship

(The Big 3: A.B.C.)

4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM

A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics

randy hinton 5 days ago

Hey Petey!

“I am ready to sit on a stage with Eric in front of a large crowd and debate this matter with you ANYTIME YOUR READY.”

Petey!, responds:

guychapman 5 days ago

(citing randy hinton 5 days ago)

“WHY DID 230 CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL’S TURN DOWN BURZYNSKI’S PHASE 3 BRAINSTEM GLIOMA TRIAL???”

“The answer is in your own post.”

“They were not convinced the treatment was likely to provide benefit, so why on earth would they subject children to the side effects, infection risk and other known problems with ANP treatment?”

“Unlike Burzynski, they seem to have followed the dictates of the Helsinki declaration.”

guychapman, HOW has Burzynski NOT “followed the dictates of the Helsinki declaration.”?

YOU remind me of this randy hinton comment:

“The hospital’s don’t seem to want to discuss this matter publically.”

And neither do YOU

Sharon Hill 5 days ago

“I am thrilled with this piece.”

“My website, Doubtful News, was also a target of the Burzynski PR machine when they tried to shut down critique and questioning.”

Sharon Hill, I’m “doubtful” your website was worth the trouble

But look on the bright side

You just got free “Pub” in a BIASED CENSORING publication

It’ll be something you can tell the grandkids about

“Very pleased that this part of the story is getting out.”

“The bottom line is, there would be no problems if the clinic just met the same standards expected from all clinics – you follow the federal and state rules and you have evidence to back up your claims.”

“The fact that they have to retaliate the way they do is GOOD evidence they have nothing better to show.”

Sharon Hill, and I see that:

“The fact that you have to retaliate the way you do is GOOD evidence you have nothing better to show.”

As in, NO “citation(s),” NO “reference(s),” and / or NO “link(s)” that support your claims

ovalwooki 5 days ago

“Mr. Burzynski is a fraud, a thief, and a scoundrel.”

ovalwooki, so, like YOU ?

“When people are at their lowest, facing death for themselves or a Loved one, he holds out a lie disguised as hope, takes every dime from them that he can, and in some cases even threatens with lawsuits the very people he’s just ripped off.”

ovalwooki, and we should just take your word for it, because, WHY?

“He threatens innocent people who call him out on his horrible record of successful ” cures “ .”

ovalwooki, WHAT is:

“his horrible record of successful ” cures“ ?

“As far as I know, he’s cured no one, ever, and there is no validity to him or his methods, at all.”

ovalwooki, exactly WHAT does:

“As far as I know”

MEAN ?

“He clearly defines what is most flawed with our system of healthcare, here in America.”

ovalwooki, “clearly defines what is most flawed with our system of” yellow journalism, here in America

randy hinton 5 days ago

“In the 1950’s, Congressman Charles Tobey enlisted Benedict Fitzgerald, an investigator for the Interstate Commerce Commission, to investigate allegations of conspiracy* and monopolistic practices on the part of orthodox medicine.”

“This came about as the result of the son of Senator Tobey who developed cancer and was given less than two years to live by orthodox medicine.”

“That is when he learned of alleged conspiratorial practices on the part of orthodox medicine.”

“The final report clearly indicated there was indeed a conspiracy to monopolize the medical and drug industry and to eliminate alternative options.”

guychapman 3 days ago

“That was 60 years ago.”

“And it was not adopted as generally plausible even then.”

guychapman, so, what has changed since then, because there are definitely still dissimulators like YOU?

“By peerless I mean risible, of course.”

guychapman, so, like your comments, right?

JGC2013 4 days ago

“It seems to me there are nly too possibilities here:”

JGC2013, “nly” ?

“1) Antineoplastons don’t work and after two decades and 60-plus uncompleted and unplublished ‘clinical trials’ Burzinsky is fully aware that there is no evidence antineoplastons showing they are effective at treating advanced cancers, but despite this continues to charge patients to receive antineoplaston treatment for financial gain.”

JGC2013, THAT certainly explains THIS:

Burzynski – The Antineoplaston Randomized Japan Phase II Clinical Trial Study:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/burzynski-the-antineoplaston-randomized-japan-phase-ii-clinical-trial-study
“In which case he’s a fraud, exploiting desparate people for his own personal gain.”

JGC2013, THAT certainly explains THIS:

“Orac” and the “Oracolytes” Cult of Misinformation:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/orac-and-the-oracolytes-cult-of-misinformation/
“Or 2) antineoplastons DO work, and Burzinsky does have clinical evidence demonstrating efficacybut rather than publish the results of trials (allowing independent oncologists can first confirm and then adopt antineoplatosn therapy) he’s chosen not to publish in order to maintain a lucrative monopoly on antineoplaston herapy, offering it only to the small subset of cancer patients who afford to pay exorbitant fees to be treated at his clinic and effectively denying millions of other cancer patients access to a cure for their cancer.”

JGC2013, THAT certainly explains THIS:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/critiquing-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics-page-9/
“In which case he’s a monster.”

JGC2013, this is NOT a Rob Zombie film

My 1st-hand Review of Orac’s 2nd-Hand Review – Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business, Part II:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/my-1st-hand-review-of-oracs-2nd-hand-review-burzynski-cancer-is-serious-business-part-ii
“I personally can’t envision any third posibility. Can anyone else?”

JGC2013,

3). Citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s)

guychapman 4 days ago

By a curious coincidence, several senior figures in the pharmaceutical industry today gave evidence to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee on the specific issue of publication before and after the event for clinical trials and data, and discuss the obligations of those conducting trials.
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=13017 (from approx. 18:44 for the directly relevant content)

guychapman, thank you for keeping us appraised of what’s going in the United Kingdom, home to Kings, Queens, Dukes, Dutchesses, Earls, Counts, Countesses, Knights, Dragons, Wizards, etc., and that fairyland you’re living in

"Figures as low as 70-odd percent and as high as 90+ percent."

guychapman, just in case you have NOT noticed, Burzynski is in the United States of America

Travel Tex
http://www.traveltex.com/
“Texas. It’s like a WHOLE OTHER COUNTRY”

Don’t Mess With Texas

“Nobody citing zero percent as being acceptable or desirable, oddly.”

guychapman, YOU have “zero percent” acceptability or desirability, oddly.

AstroturfWatch 4 days ago

“Hey Peter Lipson, while you were at the Cleveland Clinic, did you speak to Dr. Bruce Cohen, the director of Neuro-oncology?”

“Because he is in “Burzynski Part 1″ and was Paul Michaels neuro-oncologist and watch Paul’s brain tumor “disappear” (after previously telling Paul’s parents “this is the worst case we’ve ever seen”.”

“Dr. Cohen is in the “trailer #2″ from Burzynski, Part 1 also.”

“I think Bruce is still there, perhaps you need to give old Bruce Cohen a call ;)”

Bruce H. Cohen, MD Bio – The United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation
http://www.umdf.org/site/c.8qKOJ0MvF7LUG/b.8047243/k.612C/Bruce_H_Cohen_MD_Bio.htm
Dr. Cohen joined Cleveland Clinic’s department of Neurology, in Cleveland, Ohio , in 1989

guychapman 3 days ago

“You don’t get it do you?”

“Science does not work by assuming that single voices in the wilderness somehow counter the consensus view.”

“The consensus of informed opinion is that Burzynski’s treatment is unproven and not terribly likely to become proven, not least because his science appears incompetent.”

guychapman, are you indicating that Dr. Cohen is NOT competent, and misdiagnosed his patient?

Boris Ogon

“You are right now having a live “debate” in front of more than 10,000 people, … “

3,932 views

Not so much

Waiting for the 10,000

| 4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM

Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”