Turkey Lurkey Thanksgiving Title

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 Thanksgiving Turkey-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’s misinformation, 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 cancer EVEN AFTER PROPOSED LABELING FOR THIS USE SPECIFICALLY REJECTED by FDA [1]

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-year American 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 [2]

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’s outraged 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 [3]

Perhaps GorskGeek just “knew” that eventually Evista would finally be approved by the FDA for Eli Lilly’s preventing 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 [10]:
——————————————————————
1:58:04
——————————————————————
“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”

“Right ?”
——————————————————————
1:59:00
——————————————————————
Yeah, right

Bobby 🙂

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 MILLIONMr. H. Dean Steinke, former Merck employee from federal share of settlement amount (1997 – 2001)
——————————————————————
$23.5 MILLIONMr. 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 giant Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and its subsidiaries, $2.2 BILLION + fine regarding J&J Subsidiary Janssen (1999 – 2005) actions [11]
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – 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

5.
a. Creating
b. distributing
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

1. systems
2. processes
3. policies
4. procedures
relating to promotion of drug and company’s compliance with consent decree
——————————————————————
FDA made following announcement to postmenopausal women who have taken drug for prevention or treatment of osteoporosis:
——————————————————————
“No postmenopausal woman who has taken Evista for the prevention or treatment of osteoporosis is affected by this action, as this matter today relates only to unapproved uses of Evista.”
——————————————————————
Defendant agreed to plead guilty to charge in information
——————————————————————
Defendant agreed to resolve complaint for permanent injunction by agreeing to consent decree of permanent injunction
——————————————————————
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2005/December/05_civ_685.html
======================================
[2] – 11/13/2013 – The War on Cancer (I don’t think it means, what you think it says it means) #Winning?:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/httpcancer-orgacsgroupscontentepidemiologysurveilancedocumentsdocumentacspc-036845-pdf/
======================================
[3] – 12/21/2006 – On the messiness of evidence-based medicine
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/12/21/the-messiness-of-evidencebased-medicine/
======================================
[4] – 9/13/2007FDA Approval for Raloxifene Hydrochloride (Brand name(s): Evista®): Approved for breast cancer risk reduction:
——————————————————————
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/druginfo/fda-raloxifene-hydrochloride
======================================
[5] – 9/14/2007FDA Approves New Uses for Evista: Drug Reduces Risk of Invasive Breast Cancer in Postmenopausal Women:
——————————————————————
http://www.fda.gov/newsevents/newsroom/pressannouncements/2007/ucm108981.htm
======================================
[6] – 9/17/2007Evista Approved for Reducing Breast Cancer Risk:
——————————————————————
http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm048474.htm
======================================
[7] – 2007
——————————————————————
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2007/020815s018lbl.pdf
======================================
[8]
——————————————————————
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DrugSafety/ucm088593.pdf
======================================
[9] – 2007
——————————————————————
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2007/022042lbl.pdf
======================================
[10] – 10/18/2013 – Deconstructing Dr. David H. (Orac) Gorski – September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/deconstructing-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-september-28-2013-the-skeptics-burzynski-discussion-by-bob-blaskiewicz-21951/
======================================
[11] – 11/4/2013
——————————————————————
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/November/13-ag-1170.html
======================================

Advertisements

Critiquing Bob Blaskiewicz ( #Burzynski Cancer is Serious Business, Part II)

Critiquing Bob Blaskiewicz (#Burzynski Cancer is Serious Business, Part II) @rjblaskiewicz

rjblaskiewicz:

Except YOU do NOT actually believe in

“interesting and civil discussions,”

do you, Bobby ?

rjblaskiewicz:

Bobby, please point out where the Declaration of Helsinki supports your tweet
http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3

Please point out where the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) supports your tweet
http://m.cancer.gov/topics/factsheets/clinical-trials

rjblaskiewicz

rjblaskiewicz:

Do you mean THIS present ?

“Let’s make Houston cancer quack Burzynski pay!”

PZ Myers

“there is a plan to remind him of the grief he has caused”

“his snake oil”

“bilk people out of buckets of money”

“Crime does pay”

“This fraud”

“The Burzynski clinic is a place you go to die”

“The lies”

“his quackery”

Do you mean THIS St. Jude ?
St. Jude:

http://www.stjude.org/stjude/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=403c6f9523e70110VgnVCM1000001e0215acRCRD

2/15/2012 – the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has awarded St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital $4,314,800 for a childhood cancer survivor study

The new federal funds will be distributed by the National Cancer Institute (NCI)
http://cohen.house.gov/press-release/cohen-st-jude-receive-43-million-childhood-cancer-survivor-study

Tax-Exempt
Receives Federal Grants / Funds

http://www.stjude.org/stjude/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=b7e79bb8a0cf5110VgnVCM1000001e0215acRCRD&cpsextcurrchannel=1

Donations to St. Jude are tax deductible as allowed by law
http://www.stjude.org/stjude/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=6f8afa3186e70110VgnVCM1000001e0215acRCRD&vgnextchannel=2f62940504f9a210VgnVCM1000001e0215acRCRD

FORBES: St. Jude CEO – $742,718
http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml

Burzynski does NOT receive Federal Funds

Burzynski does NOT receive Federal Grants

Burzynski is NOT Tax-Exempt

Burzynski donations can NOT be deducted from a U.S. Tax Return

rjblaskiewicz:

THIS Phenylbutyrate (PB) ?

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

SODIUM PHENYLBUTYRATE was given an orphan drug designation by the FDA for use as an adjunct to

surgery,

radiation therapy, and

chemotherapy

for treatment of individuals with

primary or recurrent malignant glioma

Cumulative List of all Products that have received Orphan Designation: Total active designations: 2002 Effective: 5/5/2009
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/forindustry/developingproductsforrarediseasesconditions/howtoapplyfororphanproductdesignation/ucm162066.xls
PHENYLBUTYRATE and SODIUM PHENYLBUTYRATE are listed alphabetically in the lower 1/4th of this document

Pubmed 110 entries
Sodium Phenylbutyrate
“Sodium Phenylbutrate (aka PB) …”

Sodium Phenylbutyrate (PB)
Year – Pubmed (110 entries)
1958 1st entry
1995 1st clinical trial
2001 Phase 1
2009 Phase 2
2012 Phase 3

rjblaskiewicz:

THESE trials ?

2003 – 2006 Phase II preliminary reports

2003 – Phase II

Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma:

a preliminary report
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12718563
Drugs R D. 2003;4(2):91-101

recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma

antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1

6 months median duration of treatment

of all 12 patients

2 years / 33.3% – Survival

2 / 17% – alive and tumour free for over 5 years since initial diagnosis

from the start of treatment

5 years – 1 alive for more than
4 years – 1 alive for more than

Only mild and moderate toxicities were observed, which included

3 cases of skin allergy

2 cases of:
anaemia
fever
hypernatraemuia

single cases of:
agranulocytosis
hypoglycaemia
numbness
tiredness
myalgia
vomiting

2003 – Protocol – recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma
12 – Patients Accrued
10 – Evaluable Patients
2 / 20% – # and % of Patients Showing Complete Response
3 / 30% – # and % of Patients Showing Partial Response
3 / 30% – # and % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
2 / 20% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease

2004 – Phase II

Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in children with recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma :

a preliminary report
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15563234
Drugs R D. 2004;5(6):315-26

incurable recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma

antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 (ANP)

9 – patients’ median age

6 patients were diagnosed with pilocytic astrocytoma

4 with low-grade astrocytoma
1 with astrocytoma grade 2

1 case of visual pathway glioma, a biopsy was not performed due to a dangerous location

16 months – The average duration of intravenous ANP therapy

19 months – The average duration of oral ANP

1 patient was non-evaluable due to only 4 weeks of ANP and lack of follow-up scans

1 patient who had stable disease discontinued ANP against medical advice and died 4.5 years later

10 patients are alive and well from 2 to >14 years post-diagnosis

Only 1 case of serious toxicity of reversible tinnitus, of 1 day’s duration, was described

2004 – Protocol – incurable recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma
12 – Patients Accrued
33% – % of Patients Showing Complete Response
25% – % of Patients Showing Partial Response
33% – % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
0 / 0% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease

2005 – Phase II

Long-term survival of high-risk pediatric patients with primitive neuroectodermal tumors treated with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15911929
Integr Cancer Ther. 2005 Jun;4(2):168-77

13 children with recurrent disease or high risk

6 (46%) survived more than 5 years

2005 – Protocol – recurrent disease or high risk
23% – % of Patients Showing Complete Response
8% – % of Patients Showing Partial Response
31% – % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
38% – % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease

2006 – Phase II

Targeted therapy with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 of high-grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem glioma
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16484713
Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Mar;5(1):40-7

Brainstem glioma carries the worst prognosis of all malignancies of the brain

Most patients with brainstem glioma fail standard radiation therapy and chemotherapy and do not survive longer than 2 years

Treatment is even more challenging when an inoperable tumor is of high-grade pathology (HBSG)

patients with inoperable tumor of high-grade pathology (HBSG) treated with antineoplastons in 4 phase 2 trials

39% – overall survival at 2 years
22% – overall survival at 5 years

17+ years maximum survival for a patient with anaplastic astrocytoma

5+ years for a patient with glioblastoma

39% – Progression-free survival at 6 months

5+ year survival in recurrent diffuse intrinsic glioblastomas and anaplastic astrocytomas of the brainstem in a small group of patients

18 – evaluable
4 – glioblastomas
14 – anaplastic HBSG

14 – diffuse intrinsic tumors
12 – recurrence
6 – did not have radiation therapy or chemotherapy

Antineoplastons, A10 (A10I) and AS2-1 injections

5 months median duration

Responses were assessed by gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography

Antineoplastons tolerated very well
1 case of grade 4 toxicity (reversible anemia)

2006 – Protocol – high-grade pathology (HBSG)
18 – Evaluable Patients
11% – % of Patients Showing Complete Response
11% – % of Patients Showing Partial Response
39% – % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
39% – % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease

2/24/2013
http://www.skeptical.gb.net/blog/?p=1442
2/27/2013
http://www.skeptical.gb.net/blog/?p=1798
3/9/2013
http://www.thetwentyfirstfloor.com/?p=8001

rjblaskiewicz:

Bobby, oh REALLY ?

“The Skeptics” (Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business, Part II)

The “group” “The Sketics” claims is NOT a “group” and which allegedly does NOT spread “misinformation”
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/the-skeptics

rjblaskiewicz:

No Bobby, you did NOT

rjblaskiewicz:

“VAMPIRE” ?

rjblaskiewicz:

Bobby, like THIS ?

Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D and “Freedom of Speech”

“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting ‘fire’ in a theater and causing a panic.”
United States Supreme Court ruled 3/3/1919
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)

https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/stanislaw-rajmund-burzynski-m-d-ph-d-and-freedom-of-speech

rjblaskiewicz:

Bobby, like THIS ?

David H. Gorski and the Cult of “MISINFORMATION”

Colorado Public Television 12 – PBS: Part II
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/david-h-gorski-and-the-cult-of-misinformation

Orac and the Cult of “Misinformation” (Part III)

David H. Gorski
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/orac-and-the-cult-of-misinformation-part-iii

Josephine Jones and the Cult of Misinformation

JJ recently blogged:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/josephine-jones-and-the-cult-of-misinformation

Keir Liddle and the Cult of MISINFORMATION
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/09/keir-liddle-and-the-cult-of-misinformation

The Cult of “Misinformation”

Review of “disinformation,” “misinformation,” and “misdirection” posted by #Burzynski critics
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/the-cult-of-misinformation

The cult of “Misinformation” continued

Adam Jacobs
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/the-cult-of-misinformation-continued

rjblaskiewicz:

Bobby, where’s your

Citation(s),

Reference(s), and / or

Link(s) ?

rjblaskiewicz:

Bobby, Adam Jacobs does NOT care about “FREE SPEECH,” he censors it:
http://dianthus.co.uk/burzynski-qa

rjblaskiewicz:

Well, Bobby

We know a lot of the skeptics seem to “hate” the truth

rjblaskiewicz:

Bobby, maybe you should have actually watched THIS:

Burzynski Infomercial on Colorado PBS 12
http://www.skeptical.gb.net/blog/?p=2401

rjblaskiewicz:

Bobby, maybe you should ACTUALLY listen to it

rjblaskiewicz:

Yeah, riiiiiiiiight, Bobby

rjblaskiewicz:

“Response to the release of Burzynski 2, Havanna Nights”
http://t.co/t9WMpNRN9L

Skeptical Humanities
Learning is Cool

Response to the release of Burzynski 2, Havanna Nights

Posted by Bob

On this week’s episode of the Virtual Skeptics, I replied to what was learned at the premiere of the new Burzynski movie

The text of my segment follows the episode

This week, the new Burzynski movie premiered in San Luis Obispo, California

We largely knew what was going to be in the movie since a couple of trailers had been released, the patients who appeared had talked about the filming, and there was a sort of credulous review had appeared a few days ahead of time and I believe the director may have mentioned it on a PBS fundraising specual a few days earlier

So we had a pretty good idea of what our proxies should be looking for

We really wanted to see if certain people who had been filmed, like Amelia Saunders or Hannah Bradley appeared and especially what was said about them

We wanted lists of people who appeared, to see if we might be able to put together who said what

Most of these people’s stories are well known, and we doubted there would be anything new

Also our people took down key quotes that struck them as important, like

(those notes did NOT seem very “key” considering Orac’s (David H. Gorski @gorskon #sciencebasedmedicine @ScienceBasedMed @oracknows) “Second-Hand” “review” of Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business, Part II)

“skeptics are hiding behind their BS free speech.”

(Yep, TRUE)

This is my takeaway, after talking to the people who I know were there

We are wiggly little scumbags who are hateful and slimy

(some skeptics seem to be “hateful” of the truth)

We ridicule the desperate and dying

Some of us are paid by big pharma

Others are deluded and think that we are doing good but are being misled

(that is a fair description of “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “misdirection”)

But make no mistake–and this was hammered home to me by everyone I talked to–we are to them pure evil

One of my big concerns going into the movie was how I was going to be portrayed and whether or not I was going to receive death threats

That my family was going to receive death threats or that I was going to be harassed at work

I feared this because of a letter that, as you know, was sent to my employer promising that I would be featuring prominently in the Burzynski movie

Nobody asked me for my opinion or to give a statement or to respond or clarify; they went straight to my boss

Fine

I’ve had wacky people contact my employers in the past

I fully expect it to happen in the future

Clips of this show, episode 13, were included in the movie

This is the episode that was quoted in the letter on my university chancellor

As it turned out, our faces were blurred, our names obscured, and our voices were altered

No real identifying information

Which, you know, I’m OK with

However, there are some problems here

1) What was served by contacting my employer other than to scare me

How dare the filmmakers say that we’re terrorizing people when they are doing just that

2) Someone asked me about a quote,

“we’re coming for you, you little polish sausage you.”

The thing is, the quote is patently absurd if my name is shown, something that everyone here jumped on, like I hoped you would during the original episode

That joking was not conveyed to the skeptics in the theater audience

This might be due to the fact that not only were we given scary voices but also that apparently every time we appeared scary music played in the background

It’s clear that the reason I’m in the movie in the capacity I am, as chief bad guy, is because I’m on video talking about the Burzynski Clinic

And this leads me to another thing that Brian mentioned

That when we kind of appeared on the screen, they put up a title card type thing that said,

“skeptical teleconference”

or something like that, and that a woman at the end of the show, wanted to know,

“How did you get this footage of these scheming skeptics?”

Um….we publicize our show constantly?

If you can’t have real clandestine drama, you might as well make it up

My favorite bit was a tweet that I got around this time where a new account who followed like 10 people I do said,

“It’s really interesting when you talk about Burzynski on the show

Could you do that more?”

Really, Eric?

(Do you know it was Eric ? After all, you thought I was Eric)

Bob Blaskiewicz

Yeah, I have a feeling it’s Merola

That’s just me though

He’s way too invested in the hashtag in his movie to just let it drop
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg/2013/03/burzynski-another-fact-blind-troll-who-predicted-that/#comments

Do you think I’m two years old?

(Your “fact-checking” ability makes me wonder)

I am interested in ultimately seeing it

I’m asking that the producer send a review copy to the James Randi Educational Foundation so a proper review can be done

(As if jref is a “reliable source”)

Or you could screen it in Minneapolis

Next week works for me, Eric, if you’re free

Another thing

News broke on the 7th of January in skeptical circles that the FDA was conducting an audit of the clinic

A patient in the movie apparently said that she had been receiving a brain scan when she heard that the Clinic was being investigated again

This means that material was added to the movie after the 7th of January

The Burzynski Birthday Fundraiser was announced by PZ Myers on the 6th

So there was more than enough time for the filmmaker to clarify exactly what was meant in that episode when I said that there was going to be a little present on his birthday

(That “present” PZ Myers was offering up ?)

Skeptics evilly, and with malice aforethought, raised $14.5K dollars for St. Jude’s

We then challenged the Clinic to match us, and it didn’t

That the director did not mention this fact seems to me inexcusable, making us look like we are big meanos who hate babies and morality

(He could have mentioned your “Fave,” PZ Myers)

This demonization is unfair and at the expense of the truth–if you ever read theotherburzynskipatientgroup blog you know whose side I’m on

If he used the video clip of us that he cited in his letter to my employer, about us bringing a “present” to Burzynski and knowing what it actually was without clarifying it, well, that just speaks to his regard for completeness and accuracy

No messiah should need such fudging

It suggests to me that he’s forcing evidence into a pre-existing narrative of persecution

(And what do you call what YOU are doing ?)

References:

PZ Myer’s announcement of the Houston Cancer Quack
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/01/06/lets-make-houston-cancer-quack-burzynski-pay/

The Virtual Skeptics episode that appears in the movie:

RJB

rjblaskiewicz:
http://t.co/F79zndTjuZ

Bob Blaskiewicz retweeted

Bobby, did you know that I tried to post a comment on the James Randi Educational Funding (jref) article Written by Brian Thompson , about this, but they did NOT post my response ?

Did you post something about “FREE SPEECH” ?

“Burzynski II” Fails to Convince
Swift”

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/2050-qburzynski-iiq-is-more-of-the-same.html

My 1st-hand Review of Orac’s 2nd-Hand Review – Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business, Part II

Burzynski critic Orac blogged about “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

rjblaskiewicz:

Bobby, does this mean it will be punctuated correctly, but NOT “Fact-Checked” ?

rjblaskiewicz:

Bobby, it did NOT help

rjblaskiewicz:

rjblaskiewicz:

Not really. 🙂

That’s what I thought, Bobby

rjblaskiewicz:

rjblaskiewicz:

rjblaskiewicz:

Bobby, what was that about

“many interesting and civil discussions” ?

Bobby, you can’t always get what you want

But if you try sometime, you just might find

you get what you need

rjblaskiewicz:

Bobby, let me guess

You are so busy tweeting about penises that you do NOT have enough time to “Fact-Check” ?

You do know FDA required ?

” … in 1997, his medical practice was expanded to include traditional cancer treatment options such as

chemotherapy,

gene targeted therapy,

immunotherapy and

hormonal therapy

in response to FDA requirements that cancer patients utilize more traditional cancer treatment options in order to be eligible to participate in the Company’s

Antineoplaston CLINICAL TRIALS
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/724445/000091205702038660/a2091272z10qsb.txt

rjblaskiewicz:

Comes with the territory! 🙂

Yes it does, Bobby

You’ve just been Insolently pwned

My review of C0nc0rdance

Orac (David H. Gorski) blogged:

(although we do have C0nc0rdance)
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/three-myths-about-stanislaw-burzynski-and-the-skeptics

as if C0nc0rdance is a reliable source

1/24/2013 – C0nc0rdance posted a video on YouTube

The Burzynski Clinic

“Feel free to pass this on to anyone considering their options in alternative cancer treatments at the Burzynski Clinic

It’s also CCMA, so feel free to mirror or repost

AUTHOR’S NOTE:

I caught an error in post-production:

The Burzynski Clinic has only started 61 clinical trials, not 62

The last came up in my query because one of the authors has the same name

Otherwise the figures are correct”

“Fact 1:

The Burzynski Clinic has attempted 61 clinical trials, but only completed 1

Check it out here:”
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=Burzynski&Search=Search

“Fact 2:

The Burzynski Clinic charges
its patients to participate in a study of their patented medication that exposes them to risk”

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/05/05/harnessing-peoples-good-to-pay-for-woo

“Fact 3:

The Burzynski Clinic makes heavy use of marketing techniques not normally associated with clinical practices and not in the best spirit of research medicine

For example, you can see here that they are abusing libel laws to silence critics”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/30/burzynski-clinic-cancer-libel-laws

And threatening and bullying of a 17 year old blogger by a media consultant:”
http://rhysmorgan.co/burzynski-morally-reprehensible

1:10-I want to present the case of Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski in my home state of Texas

1:30-cancer researcher

Maybe you should consider sticking to cancer research

1:32_3 red flags

Hearing this raised a “red flag” that your claims might be suspect

1:57_3 undisputed facts

And this proved it

2:00-Fact 1 clinical trials

The “FACT” one should know is that clinicaltrials . gov does NOT contain the same data as the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) cancer . gov web-site:

61 TOTAL
1 – Not Yet Recruiting (Open)(Phase 3)
1 – Closed
2 – Terminated (Withdrawn due to slow enrollment)
7 – Withdrawn (This study has been withdrawn prior to enrollment)
10 – Recruiting (Open)
11 – Open (1 Not Yet Recruiting / 10 Recruiting)
40 – Active, not recruiting (Closed)
http://cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/search/results?protocolsearchid=11475951

http://cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/search/results?protocolsearchid=11476036

On clinicaltrials . gov, if you select one of the “Unknowns,” it displays:

“Verified ____, ____ by National Cancer Institute (NCI)”

“Information provided by:
National Cancer Institute (NCI)”

“Further study details as provided by National Cancer Institute (NCI):”

Contact: Stanislaw R. Burzynski, MD, PhD

Investigators
Study Chair: Stanislaw R. Burzynski, MD, PhD

2:33-Every clinical trial has to register before starting

FALSE: I contacted the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and was advised:

Not every cancer clinical trial taking place in the United States is listed on our NCI clinical trials database

The investigators must apply and follow guidelines to be included

4:08-Fact 2 – The Burzynski Clinic charges patients to receive clinical trial medications

FALSE: Burzynski does NOT charge for antineoplastons

By comparison:

St. Jude:
http://www.stjude.org/stjude/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=403c6f9523e70110VgnVCM1000001e0215acRCRD

2/15/2012 – the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has awarded St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital $4,314,800 for a childhood cancer survivor study

The new federal funds will be distributed by the National Cancer Institute (NCI)
http://cohen.house.gov/press-release/cohen-st-jude-receive-43-million-childhood-cancer-survivor-study

Tax-Exempt
Receives Federal Grants / Funds
http://www.stjude.org/stjude/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=b7e79bb8a0cf5110VgnVCM1000001e0215acRCRD&cpsextcurrchannel=1

Donations to St. Jude are tax deductible as allowed by law
http://www.stjude.org/stjude/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=6f8afa3186e70110VgnVCM1000001e0215acRCRD&vgnextchannel=2f62940504f9a210VgnVCM1000001e0215acRCRD

FORBES: CEO – $742,718
http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml

Burzynski does NOT receive Federal Grants / Funds, is NOT Tax-Exempt, and you can NOT write off a contribution as a tax deduction on your Tax Return

6:32-Burzynski movie
doesn’t examine the issue from both sides

FACT: None of the oncologists who originally diagnosed each patient presented in this film would agree to go on-camera, or submit a written statement
1:44:44 – 1:44:52
(http://www.burzynskimovie.com)

6:41-Conspiracy

FACT: See these 2 links:
http://burzynskimovie.com/images/stories/transcript/Documents/BurzynskiTriesToExposeNCI.pdf

http://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wiki-site.com/index.php/Main_Page

Fact 3: it is referred to as “Beating a Dead Horse” when a point that is moot, is be labored by critics