“The Amazing Meeting” (I don’t think it means, what you think it says it means): 2 Intellectually and Ethically Challenged Individuals, Twaddle at TAM 2013

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

“There is a long segment about “The Skeptics”

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thought it was: AS2 1 😊

They are “basically the same thing” ? 😳

What does Burzynski say ? [6]

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

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

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

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

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

20131111-160455.jpg
——————————————————————
(6:50)
——————————————————————
Gorski founders on:

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

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

At the time it was:

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

“Listen to Burzynski’s lawyer!”

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

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

“It was a joke”

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

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

He can say whatever he wants

GorskGeek is NOT a lawyer 😓

And there’s an excellent reason why

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

FACT:

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

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

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

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

PATIENTS WITH REFRACTORY MALIGNANCIES

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

FDA has indicated it will not accept data generated by this trial since it was not a wholly prospective one
——————————————————————
Gorski continues his trend of #FAILURES when he mentions the additional types of treatments that Burzynski was offering, but he #FAILED to mention [12] 😂
——————————————————————
” … in 1997, his medical practice was expanded to include traditional cancer treatment options such as chemotherapy, gene targeted therapy, immunotherapy and hormonal therapy in response to FDA requirements that cancer patients utilize more traditional cancer treatment options in order to be eligible to participate in the Company’s Antineoplaston clinical trials”
——————————————————————
(18:20)
——————————————————————
Gorski addresses the case of Tori Moreno
——————————————————————
Kim Moreno states:

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

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

Gorski suggests that 3 different opinions could have misdiagnosed Tori Moreno

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

The changing pattern of hypernatremia in hospitalized children

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“No”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inspiring ?

Amazing ?

Hypocrites

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

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

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

======================================
[4]“Galileo’s Lawyer” Richard A. Jaffe, Esq.
——————————————————————
http://www.richardjaffe.com
======================================
[5] – 11/9/2013 – Pete Cohen chats with Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/09/pete-cohen-chats-with-dr-stanislaw-burzynski/
======================================
[6] – 6/2012 – Journal of Cancer Therapy, 2012, 3, 192-200 doi:10.4236/jct.2012.33028 Published Online June 2012, Pg. 192
——————————————————————
http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/9219.pdf
======================================
[7]Burzynski: Oh, RATS!!!:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/26/the-lancet-oncology-peer-review-team-d-12-01519-fail-2/
======================================
[8] – Critiquing: How Stanislaw Burzynski became Burzynski the Brave Maverick Doctor, part 1:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/critiquing-how-stanislaw-burzynski-became-burzynski-the-brave-maverick-doctor-part-1/
======================================
[9] – 9/19/2013 – Critiquing: National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) CancerNet “fact sheet”:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/critiquing-national-cancer-institute-nci-at-the-national-institutes-of-health-nih-cancernet/
======================================
[10] – 9/25/2013 – Critiquing: National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc. – NCAHF News: JURY NULLIFICATION THWARTS BURZYNSKI CONVICTION:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/25/critiquing-national-council-against-health-fraud-inc-ncahf-news-jury-nullification-thwarts-burzynski-conviction/
======================================
[11] – 7/9/2013 – Burzynski: The Original 72 Phase II Clinical Trials:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/09/burzynski-the-original-72-phase-ii-clinical-trials/
======================================
[12] – 4/26/2013 – Burzynski: FDA requirements that cancer patients utilize more traditional cancer treatment options in order to be eligible to participate in the Company’s Antineoplaston CLINICAL TRIALS:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/burzynski-fda-requirements-that-cancer-patients-utilize-more-traditional-cancer-treatment-options-in-order-to-be-eligible-to-participate-in-the-companys-antineoplaston-clinical-trials/
======================================
[13] – Tori Moreno
——————————————————————
http://www.cancerinform.org/aburzinterview2.html
======================================
[14] – 9/1999 – Pediatrics. 1999 Sep;104(3 Pt 1):435-9
——————————————————————
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10469766/
======================================
[15] – 11/2/2013 – Critiquing: Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski’s cancer “success” stories:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/02/critiquing-dr-stanislaw-burzynskis-cancer-success-stories/
——————————————————————
10/25/2013 – Hannah Bradley – I Feel Empowered, In Control Of My Body: Four Women On Fighting Cancer With Alternative Therapies http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10383724/I-feel-empowered-in-control-of-my-body-four-women-on-fighting-cancer-with-alternative-therapies.html
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/25/hannah-bradley-i-feel-empowered-in-control-of-my-body-four-women-on-fighting-cancer-with-alternative-therapies-httpwww-telegraph-co-ukhealth10383724i-feel-empowered-in-control-of-my-body-fo/
======================================
[16] – NOT ORDINARY CHEMOTHERAPY
——————————————————————
https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/27/27.F3d.153.93-2071.html
======================================
[17] – 9/4/2013 – University of Michigan, where is alum Dr. David H. “Orac” Gorski’s Grapefruits ?:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/04/university-of-michigan-where-is-alum-dr-david-h-orac-gorskis-grapefruits/
======================================
[18] – 10/13/2013 – Why “The Skeptics™” Perfessor Robert J. (don’t call me “Bobby”) “Bob” Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) of University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire, “Fame,” is a Coward and a Liar:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/13/why-the-skeptics-perfessor-robert-j-dont-call-me-bobby-bob-blaskiewicz-rjblaskiewicz-of-university-of-wisconsin-eau-claire-fame-is-a-coward-and-a-liar/
======================================
[19] – 10/27/2013 – “The Skeptics™” Burzynski Bias, Censorship, Lies, and Alibi’s: September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/27/the-skeptics-lie-lied-lies-liars-lying-burzynski-bias-censorship-lies-and-alibis-september-28-2013-the-skeptics-burzynski-discussion-by-bob-blaskiewic/
======================================
[20] – 11/9/2013 – Wikipedia Articles:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/burzynski-timeline/
======================================

Advertisements

“The Skeptics™” Mark McAndrew is Trollolo

20131025-023211.jpg
“The Skeptics™” Mark McAndrew #whining on “The Telegraph” while citing Guy Chapman’s blog, claims I shouldn’t be citing my own blog, but he does NOT have any problem whatsoever with his Skeptic guy friend, Guy Chapman, citing HIS own blog

HYPOCRITE

This is why I’m Hipocritical of “The Skeptics™”

Hipocritical
Hippocrates
Hypocrite
critical
critic

Mark McAndrew citing Guy Chapman’s (blahg) blog

20131025-023055.jpg
Guy Chapman citing his own (blahg) blog TWICE

20131025-022922.jpg
Guy Chapman citing his own (blahg) blog TWICE

20131025-022943.jpg
Guy Chapman citing his own (blahg) blog

20131025-023000.jpg
Guy Chapman citing his own (blahg) blog

20131025-023018.jpg

20131025-023037.jpg
Note below, how the moderator leaves my comment as “This comment is awaiting moderation. Show comment”, so that the reader has to select “Show comment” in order to see my reply

20131025-023134.jpg

20131023-193549.jpg
Guy Chapman

All of homeopathy, or just the imponderables?
——————————————————————
Didymus Judas Thomas

Mr. Chapman, I’m quite surprised that you’ve been mum about this particular Homeopathy publication on PubMed?

Cell Biochem Funct. 2013 Feb 13. doi: 10.1002/cbf.2960
[Epub ahead of print]

Stimulation of natural killer cells for homoeopathic complexes: An in vitro and in vivo pilot study in advanced cancer patients.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23408699/
Guy Chapman does NOT want to acknowledge that this publication exists

20131023-181712.jpg
Note below, Mark McAndrew’s comment which gets deleted

20131023-182313.jpg

20131025-023115.jpg
Mark McAndrew, you must be the Troll under the bridge that people have to cross to get to the party

20131025-105643.jpg
#8 – Mark McAndrew – October 22, 2013

Thanks Orac, great takedown

Perhaps you should ask the Telegraph for right of reply?

As a real oncologist (whose entire profession is under attack by these pricks) you have the moral authority to demand it

Comments were fun tho

Although debating the spectacular embarrassment that is Sandra Courtney was a bit like going ten rounds with a propped-up corpse

Good exercise, but not exactly testing

Nor hygienic

BTW, lilady, you’ve accidently upvoted one of the Demented One’s posts, the entirely non-ironic

“I think I have exposed your and other skeptics’ credibility as well

Actually, better than you think you have tarnished mine

More batty arrogance on display.”

(Is it true she reckons magic water saved her life from mercury poisoning from her fillings?

Gods, what a freak!)

20131026-125644.jpg
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – “The Skeptics™” Bum Rush “The Telegraph” (@Telegraph): I Feel Empowered, In Control Of My Body: Four Women On Fighting Cancer With Alternative Therapies http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10383724/I-feel-empowered-in-control-of-my-body-four-women-on-fighting-cancer-with-alternative-therapies.html
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/23/the-telegraph-telegraph-i-feel-empowered-in-control-of-my-body-four-women-on-fighting-cancer-with-alternative-therapies/
======================================
[2] – Bias Biased “The Telegraph” Censor “Telegraph” Censors “The Daily Telegraph” Censored “The Sunday Telegraph” Censoring Censorship (@Telegraph): I Feel Empowered, In Control Of My Body: Four Women On Fighting Cancer With Alternative Therapies http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10383724/I-feel-empowered-in-control-of-my-body-four-women-on-fighting-cancer-with-alternative-therapies.html
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/25/bias-biased-the-telegraph-censor-telegraph-censors-the-daily-telegraph-censored-the-sunday-telegraph-censoring-censorship/

20131025-023156.jpg

Bias Biased “The Telegraph” Censor “Telegraph” Censors “The Daily Telegraph” Censored “The Sunday Telegraph” Censoring Censorship (@Telegraph): I Feel Empowered, In Control Of My Body: Four Women On Fighting Cancer With Alternative Therapies http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10383724/I-feel-empowered-in-control-of-my-body-four-women-on-fighting-cancer-with-alternative-therapies.html

20131025-022751.jpg
====================================
“The Skeptics™” – comments
——————————————————————
50 – Guy Chapman (1 – awaiting moderation): 1st person to comment
48 – Mark McAndrew (2 – deleted): 3rd person to comment
6 – Margaret Hardman
5 – lilady, R.N.
5 – anarchic teapot
3 – Adam Jacobs – 6th person to comment
4 – edith prickly (1 – deleted)
3 – jrtmedic
I – JGC
1 – AlanHenness
I – David Doran
1 – DoreeenParsons
I – Stephen Tonkin
I – skepticat
I – Tara
——————————————————————
(1 – awaiting moderation: Guy Chapman)
——————————————————————
(2 – deleted: Mark McAndrew)
(1 – deleted: edith prickly)
——————————————————————
131 – TOTAL (“The Skeptics™”)
====================================
Questioning “The Skeptics™” – comments
——————————————————————
42 – Sandra Courtney (6 – deleted): (3 – awaiting moderation)
13 – ReallyGoodMedicine (1 – awaiting moderation)
3 – Didymus Judas Thomas (1 – deleted): (1 – awaiting moderation)
3 – Gillian23 (1 – deleted)
2 – Jonnybones (1 – deleted)
1 – margretnewman (1 – awaiting moderation)
——————————————————————
(3 – awaiting moderation: Sandra Courtney)
(1 – awaiting moderation: ReallyGoodMedicine)
(1 – awaiting moderation: Didymus Judas Thomas)
(1 – awaiting moderation: margretnewman)
——————————————————————
(6 – deleted: Sandra Courtney)
(1 – deleted: Didymus Judas Thomas)
(1 – deleted: Gillian23)
(1 – deleted: Jonnybones)
——————————————————————
63 – TOTAL (Questioning “The Skeptics™”)
====================================
NEUTRAL
——————————————————————
1 – louise40
1 – Xassandra
1 – lordmuck
——————————————————————
3 – TOTAL (NEUTRAL)
====================================
I – deleted (by unknown)
——————————————————————
1 – TOTAL (deleted / unknown)
====================================
198 – TOTAL
——————————————————————
4 – censored *
——————————————————————
202 comments – TOTAL
====================================
131 – TOTAL (“The Skeptics™”)
63 – TOTAL (Questioning “The Skeptics™”)
3 – TOTAL (NEUTRAL)
1 – TOTAL (deleted / unknown)
——————————————————————
198 – TOTAL
——————————————————————
4 – censored *
——————————————————————
202 comments – TOTAL
====================================
* – at least 10 of Didymus Judas Thomas’ comments were censored
====================================
REFERENCES:
====================================
“The Skeptics™” Bum Rush “The Telegraph” (@Telegraph): I Feel Empowered, In Control Of My Body: Four Women On Fighting Cancer With Alternative Therapies http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10383724/I-feel-empowered-in-control-of-my-body-four-women-on-fighting-cancer-with-alternative-therapies.html
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/23/the-telegraph-telegraph-i-feel-empowered-in-control-of-my-body-four-women-on-fighting-cancer-with-alternative-therapies/
====================================
“The Sunday Telegraph,” “The Daily Telegraph,” “The Telegraph,” will you learn how “The Skeptics™” operate like Forbes did ? The Big 3: Articles, Bias, Biased, Censor, Censors, Censored, Censoring, Censorship:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/24/the-sunday-telegraph-the-daily-telegraph-the-telegraph-will-you-learn-how-the-skeptics-operate-like-forbes-did-the-big-3-artices-bias-biased-censor-censors-censore/
====================================

“The Skeptics™” Bum Rush “The Telegraph” (@Telegraph): I Feel Empowered, In Control Of My Body: Four Women On Fighting Cancer With Alternative Therapies http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10383724/I-feel-empowered-in-control-of-my-body-four-women-on-fighting-cancer-with-alternative-therapies.html

20131023-193612.jpg
I see “The Skeptics™” have descended on The Telegraph [1], just like they did on Forbes [2], and are attempting to “control the conversation” there, in the same manner

“The Skeptics™” LIE, comments get deleted, It’s like Forbes Part II (bias, biased, censor, censors, censored, censoring, censorship)

“The Skeptics™” obviously did NOT learn from their #epic Skeptic #fail #failure there

I wonder if “The Skeptics™” have taken a peek at #Forbes and seen that some of my comments which were removed, now have reappeared, as media sources find out how “The Skeptics™” operate ?

I also see that “The Skeptics™” fave oncologist has commented on the article and one of “The Skeptics™” has tried to get their Lord and Master, The King of “The Skeptics™” #epic Skeptic #fail #failure Disaster to join him in the pollution of another media source [3]

20131023-193510.jpg
Mark McAndrew

Three people here have posted the link to Doctor Gorski’s response to this actual article

About as on-topic as it gets – and not their own work either

You, on the other hand, have spammed at least 12 people here with the exact same link to the “Didymus Judas Thomas’ Hipocritical Oath Blog” (sic), which – surprise – has absolutely nothing to do with this article

Is 12 less or more than 3, Diddy?

Who’s the liar?

20131023-193531.jpg
Mr. McAndrew, did you get screenshots?

I only counted 10, which was provided because it backs up my comments

As far as who has posted your fave oncologist’s link

4 – Mark McAndrew
2 – lilady, R.N.
1 – Margaret Hardman
1 – David Doran

Do I really need to list the # of times Guy Chapman has cited his own blog?

And you were on your fave oncologist’s blog trying to get him to post here

Difference without a distinction

Guten Tag 🙂

DJT, USA

20131023-193207.jpg
Mr. McAndrew, why don’t you ask your fave oncologist to reveal who I am so that I can prove him wrong?

Then you can try and prove that I work for the clinic after I prove him wrong

Problem solved

See how easy that is?

And you don’t end up looking like the
proverbial “village idiot” like one of “The Skeptics” who posts things without “fact-checking” them

I enjoy taking screenshots of my posts

Do you?

Sayanora

DJT, USA

20131023-193549.jpg
Guy Chapman

All of homeopathy, or just the imponderables?
——————————————————————
Didymus Judas Thomas

Mr. Chapman, I’m quite surprised that you’ve been mum about this particular Homeopathy publication on PubMed?

Cell Biochem Funct. 2013 Feb 13. doi: 10.1002/cbf.2960
[Epub ahead of print]

Stimulation of natural killer cells for homoeopathic complexes: An in vitro and in vivo pilot study in advanced cancer patients.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23408699/

20131023-181712.jpg

20131023-182313.jpg
1. Mark McAndrew citing Dr. David H. (“Orac”) Gorski’s Respectful Insolence blog

20131023-182101.jpg

20131023-193349.jpg
2. Mark McAndrew citing Dr. David H. (“Orac”) Gorski’s Respectful Insolence blog

20131023-193226.jpg
3. Mark McAndrew citing Dr. David H. (“Orac”) Gorski’s Respectful Insolence blog

20131023-193248.jpg
4. Mark McAndrew citing Dr. David H. (“Orac”) Gorski’s Respectful Insolence blog

20131023-193328.jpg
1. lilady, R.N. citing Dr. David H. (“Orac”) Gorski’s Respectful Insolence blog

20131023-193308.jpg
2. lilady, R.N. citing Dr. David H. (“Orac”) Gorski’s Respectful Insolence blog

20131023-193448.jpg
Margaret Hardman citing Dr. David H. (“Orac”) Gorski’s Respectful Insolence blog

20131023-193410.jpg

20131023-181619.jpg

20131023-184841.jpg
David Doran citing Dr. David H. (“Orac”) Gorski’s Respectful Insolence blog

20131023-181553.jpg

20131023-193429.jpg

20131023-181644.jpg

20131023-184815.jpg

20131023-181802.jpg

20131023-182243.jpg

20131023-181833.jpg

20131023-184903.jpg

20131023-181902.jpg

20131023-190553.jpg

20131023-181930.jpg

20131023-182031.jpg

20131023-190624.jpg

20131023-182132.jpg

20131023-182213.jpg

20131023-190518.jpg

20131023-190646.jpg

20131023-190718.jpg

20131023-191807.jpg

20131023-191829.jpg

20131023-191856.jpg

20131023-193115.jpg

20131023-193145.jpg
=====================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – I Feel Empowered, In Control Of My Body: Four Women On Fighting Cancer With Alternative Therapies:
——————————————————————
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10383724/I-feel-empowered-in-control-of-my-body-four-women-on-fighting-cancer-with-alternative-therapies.html
======================================
[2] – Forbes Learns a Lesson, but Not the Right One: Censorship and Bias re: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/05/forbes-learns-a-lesson-but-not-the-right-one-censorship-and-bias-re-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/
======================================
[3] –

——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/10/22/four-misleading-cancer-testimonials-and-reverse-balance/
======================================

Why “The Skeptics™” Perfessor Robert J. (don’t call me “Bobby”) “Bob” Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) of University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire, “Fame,” is a Coward and a Liar

9/28/2013 Google+ Hangout

“Before you dismiss it you have to look into it”
——————————————————————
1:13:00
——————————————————————
“Everytime somebody throws uh uh something to me, I have to look into it”

“That’s just, it’s my responsibility as a reader”

“Um”
——————————————————————
Well you didn’t when I tried to get you to do stuff the 1st time, did ya ?
——————————————————————
“What, what stuff would you like”
——————————————————————
(laughing)
——————————————————————
“What stuff would you like me to do ?”

“I generally, I don’t read your blog”
——————————————————————
Well I, the most, the mostly, excuse me, the most recent article I posted on there is the one about this particular conversation, where I went through all your comments that you had posted, and my response to them

And so I tried to consolidate everything into one, particular article
——————————————————————
“Uh um, alright
——————————————————————
And that’s the newest article
——————————————————————
“Okay, I’ll look at that, and I will respond to it once I’ve taken a look at that, okay ?

“Um, and I’ll respond on your web-site

“Um, seems only fair
——————————————————————
1:14:00
——————————————————————
2:09:00
——————————————————————
“I’ve made it very clear that he just needs to have a completed study published and replicated before I support his right to go out and charge people what he’s charging for these, for these drugs, and I’m I’m just not seeing that here with you, and I I wonder what could come from, and don’t worry I will go to your site and I will comment on on on what you’ve run
——————————————————————
2:10:15
——————————————————————
2:18:00
——————————————————————
“Um, I, uh, wanna thank you for coming on here”

“I wasn’t sure that you would actually do it”

“Um, I’m glad that you did”

“I’m glad that we talked”

“Um, I will look at your web-site, and we will, uh, we, uh, you, oh make sure that I I go to your blog and and I talk there
——————————————————————
2:19:00
——————————————————————
#EPIC #SKEPTIC #FAIL

20131013-010559.jpg

20131013-010614.jpg
“Um, alright then, this is your chance t, there are lots of people have lots of questions about me out there”

“Uh, about what my motivations are and such”

“I might as well put that out on the table just so it’s on the record, is that I am taking exactly no money from anyone for this, and have gotten nothin’ but grief from a lot of people, even people who (laugh), even people who support me have given me grief for this
——————————————————————
1:22:02
——————————————————————
Bob, is that because you LIE ?

I fielded ALL of your questions within 2 hours,15 minutes, and 51 seconds, answering each question within about 1 to 10 seconds of the question being asked

You, on the other hand, have NOT even been able to answer ONE of my questions over a 14 day time-period; while you have had NO problem whatsoever, interjecting your twits on Twitter

Queue “The Skeptics™” Excuses
====================================
REFERENCES:
====================================
9/28/2013 – Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
——————————————————————
http://m.youtube.com/?client=mv-google#/watch?v=pa97hXMbUL0
====================================
September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™”
Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51

——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/04/september-28-2013-the-skeptics-burzynski-discussion-by-bob-blaskiewicz-21951/
====================================
Bobby Blaskiewicz Bows Up ‘Bout Burzynski:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/bobby-blaskiewicz-bows-up-bout-burzynski/
====================================

DJT’s Comments – September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51

Yes
Okay
Well as I put in my about page, I agreed with the juror that he was neither guilty or innocent
So, so since I see all this opposition by these Skeptics, and I see that the they’re getting all of their facts straight
I decided to take the position of being a Skeptic Skeptic
In other words I am skeptical of Skeptics who do not fact-check their information before they post it on social media
And since I see ahhh y’all pretty much trying to take over the net with y’all’s information I decided to come back and correct all the false information that was being put out by other Skeptics
Well the major issue is that the FDA’s own information says if phase 3 trials are approved – phase 2 trials is to see if there’s evidence of effectiveness
And so if phase 3 trials are approved, that means you’ve provided evidence of effectiveness
That’s the FDA’s own information – I have that clearly on my blog
Also the FDA has given Burzynski uhhh Orphan Drug Designation in 2004 for uhhh brainstem glioma and then in 2009 for all gliomas
So that must mean that there is evidence of effectiveness, otherwise I don’t think they would be doing that
Well the issue is he was given 2 phase 3 trials that we know of
One was on uh Clinical Trials . gov – the one about eye cancer
The vision cancer
And then the other one was not posted on there, but then again the FDA has said, and I posted this on my blog because I specifically contacted and asked them and they said we don’t post all clinical trials on our web-site
And so he obviously had that other one about brainstem glioma, that he was trying to get started
But the other issue is that Skeptics have posted on there that he could not get that accelerated approval until he had published a phase 2 trial and that is exactly not the case because other drugs have been given accelerated approval before their results were published in phase 2 clinical trial publications, cuz, so that question remains as well
Well, what we do know is that in the movie, Merola showed that one page rejection from The Lancet
where Burzynski was trying to show his results from like 8 to 16 years, and they said we think your uh publication would be seen best elsewhere, or some ridiculous statement like that
And so, I thought that funny of The Lancet
Of course, I understand their 2nd response, which came out, which Eric posted on his Facebook page, y’all, that y’all have talked about – that, you know, they’re busy, they get a lot of
submissions
I understand that, so obviously he would have to look for a different publication for both of those, things he’s trying to get published
Well a lot of the time I’m making fun of y’all’s favorite oncologist, the way he words his blogs, and uhmmm I cite specifically from the FDA, from from the National Cancer Institute, from these other scientific sources, from scientific publications
I give people specific information so they can fact-check me, unlike a lot of The Skeptics who just go out there and say things and publish things on social media, they provide no back-up for their uhhh sayings
And so when I critique an oncologist or any other Skeptic I always provide source material so people can always fact-check me and I specifically said that people should fact-check everything ummm that the oncologist should say because he has, I’ve proven him to be frequently incorrect about his information and misleading
And so I’ve tried to add those things and allow people to search, on specific things like publications, or what I posted about The Lancet, or specifically about The Skeptics, or specifically about the oncologist
So whenever I see something posted new on Twitter, by y’all, sometimes I’ll check it out and sometimes I won’t, and sometimes I’ll comment on it
I was, on there just yesterday to see some more of your post on there
Well the thing is, when you accepted this hangout, I published my newest blog article and I specifically listed all the information I had critiqued from you previously including Amelia, and I posted the specific Twitter responses by BurzynskiMovie; which is probably Eric, to your issues with Amelia, and he disagrees with what the oncologist posted, and so I pretty much let his Twitter responses stand to what the oncologist said
Well I also did a critique of the newspaper story that was put out about Amelia in the U.K.
And they had 2, 2 patients that were dealt with
And
I believe, yes
And one of the patients, Burzynski has specifically published in one of his scientific publications that maximum dosage is not reached for a month
So if someone, so if someone only goes in there and has treatment for a month, they’re not even, you know, they’re finally going to reach the uh maximum dosage
And I think that was maybe the case with Luna, I think she was only there for a month
Well my only thing is, uh, we know that sometimes he will go to a maximum dosage, or you know, the suggested dosage, but he will back down off it, in fact in the uh adverse effects you mentioned those are specifically adverse effects mentioned in his publications, and when that happens normally they will subside within 24 to 48 hours is what it says once you take them off the treatment and let, you know, those conditions take care of themselves, and then you will slowly raise the medication again
So, you know, it just didn’t tell, if only one month of treatment was enough to even start to do anything for her
Well the thing is, the FDA has approved phase 3, and also given them the Orphan Drug Designation, which means they should have some knowledge about what’s going on, I would think
Plus we don’t know for sure, we’ve heard about, ummm, some of the things supposedly the oncologist has talked about, which is cutting off the blood flow, to the tumor, which is something that some uhhh drugs can do, and I think that’s one of the things Burzynski has tried to do, ah he’s specifically mentioned it in his personalized treatment
But I don’t know for sure if it’s also something that’s done with the ANP’s in just the clinical trials environment
So, that could be a possibility
Well
Well what I find interesting about these other doctors is like like the doctors mentioned in the movie and BBC Panorama’s report and in some of these newspaper articles where they are mentioned again is that these doctors never do a review of Burzynski’s scientific publications and including our favorite oncologist who refuses to do so
Uhhh
Oh yeah he says he’s read everything but uh you know he claims that he’s uhmmm reviewed, reviewed uh Burzynski’s personalized gene targeted therapy but he, but then just a few months ago he admitted, you know, I don’t know where Burzynski says which genes are targeted by antineoplastons
And I pointed out which specific publications that Burzynski published, publications which specifically mention which genes are targeted by antineoplastons, and I said how can you claim that you’ve read and reviewed every Burzynski publication and you didn’t know which genes are targeted by antineoplastons when that’s specifically in the publications ?
To me that tells me that you do not know how antineoplastons work be because you just admitted you don’t know which genes Burzynski talks about
I mean that’s just funny as heck to me that he would say that
Well I’ve, I’ve got it on my blog
Uhm
I mean I can forward it to you at some point
But I agree with you about I don’t remember seeing anything about antineoplastons cutting off the blood flow to the, you know the blood brain barrier for sure either
Well I think I know the point that you’re getting at uhhh about the IRB’s and all that good stuff
All I can say is that, you know the FDA can come in with any amount of investigators and say that you did this or that but you have the opportunity to respond, and so they can pretty much say anything, it’s only when the final report comes out that you can take that to the bank
And so all this speculation about what a investigative team may say about the clinic is, to me just like someone going into a lawsuit and saying so-and-so did this, you know, can you prove that, you know, did so-and-so do that
So it’s the same thing with the FDA, these um little reports, the final report is what counts, and so, also what I find interesting is some of Burzynski’s publications specifically said, you know this particular uh clinical trial, the IRB was agreed upon by the FDA
Well if if the FDA agreed upon it, you know, then some questions should arise about exactly what did the FDA agree upon
What would we find out from a Freedom of Information Act request on that ?
And, and what I also found interesting is when I did research on other clinical trials for brainstem glioma I found, you know, all these other science based medicine studies where 374 children had died in their studies
And what I found interesting is back in 1999, they reported on a clinical trial, they had better results then all these clinical trials afterwards
Well, I would have to find you one, there were like 3
There were like 3 major ones that Burzynski has mentioned in his publications to cross-reference his trials versus their trials as far as the results
And so, I, there was one back in 1999 that had better results than a lot of these clinical trials that come afterwards
So when we talk about, you know, what’s really right for the patients well we can see that the drug companies want to test their drugs through clinical trials and, you know, and if your kid dies, well, unfortunately the kid dies
Even though we showed better results in 1999 with a different type of treatment, you would have thought that maybe they would have poured more investment into that particular treatment but that’s not necessarily how the clinical trial system works
Well here’s my point, I mean, y’all probably get a better sense from, ummm, Hymas, about what’s going on with that
From her uh fiancé, or husband, whatever his status happens to be right now
And uh also from Ric, uh they’re more closer to Burzynski than I am, because I have never met Burzynski, I have never e-mailed Burzynski, uhmmm never talked to Burzynski, never met him, blah blah blah
Uh, my sense is that since 1996 when the FDA talked about antineoplastons, that specific FDA Commissioner that was in charge at the time, he set out 7 major points about how there was going to be less people required and there was going to be less paperwork, there was going to be less stringent things about Partial Response
And so, to me, the FDA is the final source to go to when people want to complain about how long their trials have lasted uh because the FDA is bottom line, you know, in charge of that
And
And my other point is that, uhmmm, when these trials finish, as I’ve pointed out on my blog, M.D. Anderson finished a trial in 2006 and didn’t publish the results electronically until January of this year
So, just think
Burzynski’s 1st trial we know that finished in 2009
So we would still have more years to go before he caught up to M.D. Anderson as far as publishing
So for him to actually be trying to publish stuff now and The Lancet not publishing because they have other stuff to do, put in there, that’s understandable
So, we know that he’s trying to publish, uh but they’re going to keep it close to the vest obviously, from, from how they do their things, and where they’re trying to publish
And plus, like I’ve said before
We’ve still got the accelerated approval thing that’s out there, you know, like the FDA’s given Temodar and, and Avastin, and another drug, whereas they’re not doing the same thing for antineoplastons, eve even though for all intents and purposes from what we know, antineoplastons have had better success rates than Temodar and Avastin when they were approved
Well from the information that’s been published in certain um publications
And in, and in not only Burzynski’s but elsewhere in, in newspapers or articles, or such like that
Well what I found interesting is when the FDA approved these other 1 or 2 drugs, some of them specifically said that, uhhh, some of these drugs had, you know, better survivability or they showed no better rate than any previous treatment but we’re approving it anyway
Basically that’s what the publication said and I published this on my blog in an article specifically about, you know, those 2 or 3 drugs that the FDA approved for brainstem or brain related cancers
And so, you know, I’m not going to buy that argument about that, about that specific thing
Well one of these newspaper articles specifically said, you know, Avastin would maybe keep you alive for maybe 4 more months
So, you know, take that
Well, we can wonder if some of Burzynski’s results are the same, otherwise why would the FDA say, you know, give the ODD, why would the FDA give the phase 3 approval
Plus I don’t buy some of these doctors coming out and saying stuff, they have the opportunity just like the other doctors in Egypt, in Russia, in Germany, in, in Poland in China in Taiwan that have done antineoplaston studies, I’m like, these people can do antineoplaston studies so what’s the excuse for all these other doctors who say that they supposedly can’t do them
You know, the information’s out there and
and like these other doctors can do it
Well, we kind of know that that’s a fact
Well what we know from 1996 from Burzynski’s own information that he’s published, is that not only does he have the original parent antineoplastons, but he’s developed 2nd and 3rd generations, but he can’t just stop in the middle of his clinical trial and use the 2nd and 3rd generations which may be better
He can’t uh use these other types of um antineoplastons that other researchers, researchers like Egypt, or Japan have found um that may be better because he can’t just switch in the middle of the clinical trial
Now if he, if the FDA approves his product, well then, maybe he can roll out the 2nd and 3rd generation and these other types of antineoplastons that may be less harsh, but that’s all he’s got to work on and that takes us back to the FDA, having control over the entire process, as far as the paperwork, how many people are in the trials, etcetera
Right
Well I find it interesting that you talk about the cost, because I’ve done a lot of research about the cost, and I was just looking at the cost again this morning, and put it into that particular blog article I was talking about, that I did for this particular program
And, um
The thing that’s funny is that people can say, ohhh Burzynski charges a lot, but the fact is, so does chemo, radiation, and some of these newspaper articles that have been published, and specifically in the movie, Burzynski 2, one of the people mentioned how much someone was paying for standard treatment
And I noticed our
favorite oncologist didn’t comment about that in his movie review
Well what I find interesting, you know, I’m not sure how people think he’s supposed to pay for the clinical trials, you know, if he’s supposed to go into debt, millions of dollars
I find that funny considering the FDA approved phase 3, has given him ODD for brainstem glioma and also also all gliomas
You know, that’s kind of ridiculous
And the people
gettin’ off about his house, well who cares ?
They don’t know where his money came for that particular source
Well, you know, when you have good tax lawyers your tax lawyers will tell you how to structure things, and everybody in America has the right to structure their taxes in a manner that effectively serves them according to our Supreme Court
So, if you have a tax lawyer who tells you, hey this is the best way to do it, to save money, well, you may do that uh based upon your lawyer’s advice
So, maybe Burzynski has taken his tax lawyers advice, just like I’m sure he’s taken Richard Jaffe’s ad advice (laugh), which has proved well, for him
You know, you know
That’s another thing
Well I guess we could ask, you know, Ben and Laura Hymas
What was their experience, you know ?
Did they have, did she have to drink uh a lot of water because she was thirsty ?
You know, did she have to drink a lot of water due to the high sodium ?
So I would ask her about her personal experience instead of saying, you know, instead of quoting some of these other people
Well we all know the FDA is in charge of this, and so hopefully they know what’s going on
No, I’m sure the FDA can look at the records because Burzynski sent them 2.5 million pages according to our friend Fabio
And uh, you know just something the doctors who came in and did the little ol’ one day, 6 patient records, where they reviewed all the records and slides, and MRI’s, etcetera, you know they can do the same thing, the FDA can do the same thing with all these patients
And see the same MRI’s and scans, etcetera
I mean, we, we know that with all these 374 children I mentioned dying in other science-based medicine clinical trials
I mean, they, FDA probably went through all their records
And, so, all these people didn’t look good either but, you know, the FDA still gave approval to Avastin and Te Temodar even though a lot of people died in their clinical trials
I mean, we could agree that since
Burzynski’s publication says that it’s going to take a month to get up to required dosage, and so we know, the tumor can still grow, like he said, up to 50%, he specifically acknowledges that in his publication, so, we know that can happen
Well we know from his own publications, he says he can’t just go in and start giving the maximum dose, or recommended dose right off the bat because a particular condition will occur, and he specifically mentions, in the publications what that condition is, I don’t remember it right off the top of my head
But then again, his 2nd generation, his 3rd generation, his other form of antineoplastons that may work in the future, if approved, well those could possibly have the same uh adverse effects that the current parent generation have
But we don’t know, and like I said the FDA I’m sure knows because they have all the records, we don’t have them, and so unlike our favorite oncologist I’m not going to speculate, about what the FDA knows and I do not know
Well we know they stopped this particular trial, supposedly because a patient died
So what’s the hold-up ?
I mean, hopefully they’ve done an autopsy
What was found
No
And we don’t have a final report from the FDA on what the findings wer
I don’t remember specifically
Possibly not
Well he’s using the same 1st generation drug
Well I’m sure a lot of people leave the doctors office not knowing things, for decades
Well we know the contin, the tumors can uh continue to grow for awhile, at least, and certain effects that they probably would
Well I’m sure, I mean, it’s going to continue to grow, in any other clinical trial too, for a certain awhile
I mean like
Well we know that all these other kids died in these science-based medicine trials, and, you know, we can assume that that was the case there too
The FDA not giving him phase 3 approval, the FDA not giving him ODD designation
And showing that, and showing the FDA that there’s evidence of effectiveness
Not until the FDA says it doesn’t work
Well they seem to be doing a good job at it
Well I’m sure, I’m sure they wouldn’t have done things if they didn’t see some evidence that it was working
No I haven’t read it
I know what it’s called
Right
Well I’m just gonna say, you know, the F, the FDA doing what they’ve done, since they approved those 72 initial trials, pretty much speaks for itself
I mean they’ve had every opportunity to shut this down, since then
No, I’m just concentrating on what we’re doing
Well #1 I don’t think the one with brainstem glioma where they wanted to use radiation with ANP was really the right way to go, I mean he’s already proven that uh he seems to have better results without
first starting radiation
Yeah but the thing is radi, I, the FDA was not saying, ok, one study, one side of the study we’re only going to use ANP, in the other side of the study we’re going to use radiation and and ANP like like they would normally do
No, they wanted to make him use radiation in both sides of the study
They don’t do that with other drugs
Well I don’t buy anything Guy Chapman sells, considering his past record
Well his theories are suspect, anything he hands out, let me tell ya
But the question may be bogus, because of where the messenger has been bogus a lot of times before
Well I’m just gonna say what I think about Chapman because he’s proven himself, many times to be questionable
I don’t see him on my blog responding to my criticism
That’s like, that’s like saying that Gorski’s web-site is disorganized, his blog is like anti vaccine one day, Burzynski the next, blah blah blah
Well how would I know ?
I don’t have
Well you didn’t when I tried to get you to do stuff the 1st time, did ya ?
Well I, the most, the mostly, excuse me, the most recent article I posted on there is the one about this particular conversation, where I went through all your comments that you had posted, and my response to them
And so I tried to consolidate everything into one, particular article
And that’s the newest article
Well I thought that was pretty funny because doing biblical research, you come upon, Didymus Judas Thomas, or he’s all, also known by other names
He’s basically The Skeptic
And so, like I said, I consider myself to be Skeptic of The Skeptics
I thought it was apropos
Of course
I’m doubting The Skeptics
Exactly
Exactly
Well I like how The Skeptics say, you know, all of Burzynski’s successes over the years are anecdotal and uh I consider on the same way that everything negative about Burzynski is anecdotal
Well my point is he’s proven them to the FDA because they’re the ones
Could be, but I would have to read, read the
Well when it comes to Guy Chapman, yeah
You still there ?
Yeah, something cut off there for awhile
Well I would certainly look at that, but then again I would also look at the FDA granting him Orphan Drug Designation
Orphan Drug for brainstem glioma and all gliomas
Right, it’s both AS10 AS2-1 and AS
Well not really, since you mentioned that you’d go in and look at my most recent article, anything you show in there or any reply you give is going to cover, what we’ve gone over
And so we can re debate it there
Well I’ve specifically stated on my blog that Marc Stephens uh obviously didn’t know what he was doing and went about it the wrong way
My position was he should of bou, got around it, gone about it the way I did, which is, I blog, and show where Rhys is wrong, I blog and show where Gorski is wrong, I blog and show where you are wrong, or Josephine Jones, or Guy Chapman, etcetera
And, eh, y’all have every opportunity to come on my blog, and I’ve had very few takers, uh, one claiming to be from Wikipedia, who I shot down
And hasn’t come back
So, you know, I am welcome to anybody trying to come on my blog, and prove what I posted is wrong, and debate anything
Unlike some of The Skeptics I don’t block people on my blog
I don’t give lame reasons for blocking people on my blog because I’m an American and I actually believe in “Free Speech”
Well to me it is when Forbes removes all my comments, in response to Skeptics some, and I showed this from screen-shots
You know, stuff like that
Oh no
It wasn’t down-voted
They, I mean I’ve got screen-shots of where my comments were there, between other people’s comments, and uh, and they just decided to remove all my comments, and I blogged specifically about, you know, what they did and, uh, Gorski’s good friend and pal who authored that particular article
So I, I like how The Skeptics run things, you know
Well I think that people who really believe in “Free Speech,” and when it’s done rationally, I mean, Gorski would never, really respond to any of my questions, so I
Well I know that he specifically removed a review I did uh of his review of Burzynski I on his web, on his blog
But he’s pretty much left a lot of my comments up that I’ve seen
Uh, but he never really responded to my questions about, what he based his beliefs upon
Well I would think, if you’re going to base your position on a certain thing, and then you can’t back it up with scientific literature, uh, you should answer, maybe not specifically to me, but answer the question
Answer to your readers
You know, I can tell his readers come on my blog because it shows that they come on my blog
Well the reason I have so many Twitter things is because, obviously, some of The Skeptics will be on there lying about some tweet I sent, and so Wikipedia, excuse me Twitter will do a little ol’, do their little, hey we’re going to block your account while we do blah blah blah, and I’m not gonna waste my time, going through their little review process, I’ll just create another uh Twitter address because, like, you know, if you read the Twitter information you can have a ridiculous amount of uh Twitter I.D.’s, and I’ll just use another Twitter I.D. and continue on
And so Wikipedia can say what they want, because I’ve only ever used one I.P., I’ve only got on there during one time, and when they finally said hey, you know, we’re not gonna uh grant your appeal, I completely left their web-site alone, so all that stuff
that they post
Yep
So all that garbage that they posted about me, about how I supposedly got on-line, on these other articles is just entirely B.S.
And if they can prove otherwise, I’d sure like to see it
But that’s what y’all always say
That’s what y’all like to say, about everything
Yeah I’m sure that’s what they like to say
I mean, you can report an e-mail, or report a twit, and they’ll block it
But um they’ll never come back and say, and this is why we blocked you, for this particular twit, for this particular reason
Wikipedia is a joke
Oh sure, I’m sure, that’s no problem
I don’t have any problem with them locking that
You know, I could tell when I was on there, and when Merola was on there, because he had a different I.P. address than me, I could tell they were his questions because of the way they were formed
So I said, well they’re not answering his questions, I’ll just take on that role, and uh ask his questions and ask further questions, and they didn’t wanna deal with it, you know
Expose them for what ?
For doing what they do, which is basically provide false information and one-sided information ?
Oh, please
They get on there and they say hey, Lola Quinlan filed a lawsuit, but they don’t tell you anything else
They don’t tell you, you know, Jaffe’s side of the story, and her lawyer’s side of the story
Oh Jaffe’s on there but on that specific article about Lola, they didn’t say, here’s the article that was posted on uh Lola’s attorney’s web-site that, that mentions both his responses and Jaffe’s responses, to the uh lawsuit
Uh, trust me, I tried to add that and they wouldn’t add it
You know, The Skeptics like to be nasty, and so, I’ve been like Josephine Jones
If she wants to play anonymous, I’ll play anonymous
Well, I don’t threaten people
I don’t threaten Gorski
I don’t send letters to people’s employers
I deal with them directly, and, you know, if if they won’t answer questions, then, you know, I’ll just post them on my blog for other people to see, and question uh themselves
Like I said, I’m going to be like Josephine Jones
Because I’ve said so
I’m not even in Texas
I was born in Texas, but I don’t live in Texas
I don’t even, didn’t even, uh live in Houston
Wasn’t even close to Houston
Oh, of course, I, I’ve seen a lot of stuff goes on Twitter
I’ve see y’all saying “Oh, we’re “The Skeptics” and y’all know are names,” but, there’s a lot of Skeptics that post on there with pseudonyms, also
Well, I’m just not sure how some of these uh Skeptics will react considering their past behavior
I mean, when Skeptics refuse to, I mean they block you on your blogs
They block your comments
You know, they decide, “Well, I’m maybe going to accept one comment from you, but I won’t accept anymore
You know, to me that’s just ridiculous
Uh, the action on Forbes that happened, the action on The Guardian that happened, where, you know, you had someone on Gorski’s blog basically lie to the Gua, to The Guardian to get them to get them to uh block my comment
So, you know, I’m Skeptical of The Skeptics and their uh and what they would do
Not really
I like my anonymity just like Josephine Jones likes hers
I mean, I will read her stuff and reply to it and treat it seriously jus, just like any other blogger
Well the thing is, some of these Skeptics use names, and they’re not necessarily their real names
So, you know, I’ve seen
Well I think that some people just have bad manners
I mean see, I’ve seen Skeptics on Twitter basically harass someone pro-Burzynski and keep sending them tweets, and that person specifically send them a tweet saying please keep, stop sending me tweets
You know, they didn’t go in and ask Twitter to block the, that particular person
That person just kept sending them tweets
So, you know, I’ve seen that stuff before
Yeah, I’ll look at it, and if you notice, I don’t uh, I usually don’t reply to Skeptics individually because I pretty much figure that y’all are gonna try and get my next account blocked whenever I do that kind of junk, so, well, you know, I just post what I want to post, under the Hashtag
Well I’ll just keep reviewing the, any inaccurate statements I see posted
You know, it depends on if it’s Gorski, you know
Gorski’s gone on there and posted inaccurate stuff, and I call him out, you know he’s basically said on his blog, you know, if I do something inaccurate, you know, I’ll ‘fess up to it
Well, I’ve pointed out where he’s done that and said “Hey, you said you were gonna ‘fess up to it”
If I said on my blog that I was going to ‘fess up to doing something wrong, and you caught me, well, then I should, come out and say, “Okay, you got me”
But Gorski won’t even do that, you know, he just continues to go on down the road, as if
I mean one of the
excuse
I find, I find
You know, I’m just going to let the FDA do their job, and let y’all speculate all y’all want
Uh, I mean
See, I’m here for full discussion
And y’all don’t seem to want to discuss, after y’all just go out there and spam the Internet with garbage, that you don’t back-up with citations and references and links
But some of your other stuff that you tweeted that you haven’t backed up with links, and some of the stuff on thehoustoncancerquack isn’t backed-up with links, and Gorski’s stuff
Well, that and the anp4all one
isn’t backed up
When the FDA says he’s wrong
I mean, I’m not, I’m not just gonna accept your story
Burzynski provides the FDA with the evidence, and the FDA makes the
the FDA doesn’t approve a drug
if something’s not proved
Well you know that he’s trying
I mean, y’all can sit there and jump up and down all you want
Well, I’m gonna go with what the FDA is gonna do still because they’re running the show
What I find funny is that y’all complain, “Well, he hasn’t published, uh a final report”
Well his 1st final, was completed in 2009, and like I said, the M.D. Anderson 2006 study wasn’t published until 2, 2013
I mean, so y’all can jump up and down all you want
Y’all want a final report
Well, the final report will be done when the clinical trial is over
Well, unless you’re The Lancet, I guess
Well, I’m not gonna get into speculation, I’m just going to wait and see
Well how have I been speculating ?
what the journals keep saying, in response
You know, are they going to give The Lancet response, like they did in 2 hours and such, saying, “Well, we think your message would be best heard elsewhere,” or they gonna gonna give The Lancet response of, “Well, we don’t have room in our publication this time, well, because we’re full up, so, try and pick another place
Well, you like to jump up and down with the 15 year quote, but then again I always get back to, Hey, it’s when, when the report, when the clinical trial is done
Not that he’s been practicing medicine medicine for 36 years, or whatever, it’s when the clin, clinical trial was done
The FDA A believes there is evidence of efficacy
Well, we don’t know that
We don’t have the Freedom of Information Act information
Well, we know what happened in the movie because Eric particularly covered that when they tried to get what, what, was it 200 or 300 something institutions to take on a phase 3, and they refused
Well, Eric gave the reasons that they said they would not take a particular uh phase 3
And so using that excuse that you you just gave there, I’m not even gonna buy that one, because that’s not one of the reasons
Eric said they gave
Well I’m
Well, I’m, I’m sure that they’re going to keep you appraised just like they have in the past, just like Eric has done in the past
So
I mean, we’ll see what happens with the Japanese publication
Well that’s like me asking “How long is it going to take for y’all’s, y’all’s Skeptics to respond to my questions ?”
Because y’all haven’t been forthcoming
Well, he gave you The Lancet information and he posted the e-mail in the movie, and Josephine Jones posted a copy of it
Well, y’all are free to, you know, claim that all you want, because I don’t always agree with Eric, and uh, he’s free to express his opinion
Well I don’t necessarily believe, what Eric would say about, you know, The Lancet that refused to publish the 2nd one, for the reasons he stated, and which y’all have commented on, including Gorski
You know, I don’t necessarily agree with that
I am more agreeable to y’all, saying that, you know, they’re busy, they’ve got other things to do, but I’m kind of still laughing at their 1st response which he showed in the movie about how they felt about, you know his results would be better in some other publication
I thought that was kind of a ridiculous response to give someone
Well you would think that if its a form letter they would use the same form that they used the 2nd time
You know, they didn’t use the same wording that they used the 1st time
I would have think that, you know, their 2nd comment
Nah, I’m not saying that they did that all
I’m just sayin’, you know, that they gave, 2 different responses, and I would think that the 2nd one they gave
Well I find it funny, something along the lines of, you know, “We believe your message would be received better elsewhere,” you know
I don’t see that as a normal response, a scientific publication would send to someone trying to publish something
I mean, to me that sounds, like, if you’re doing that, and you’re The Lancet Oncology, maybe you need to set some different procedures in place, ‘cuz you would think that with such a great scientific peer-reviewed magazine, that they would have structured things in as far as how they do their operations
Well, I’m sure, I’m sure Gorski would have a comment about that, as he’s commented previously about how he thinks uh Burzynski should publish
Like I said before
Like I said before on my blog, you know, even if Burzynski publishes his phase 2 information, Gorski can just jump up and down and say, “Well, that just shows evidence of efficacy, you know, it’s not phase 3, so it doesn’t really prove it”
So then he can go on, you know, for however many years he wants to
Well,
This is, this is a guy who must phone it in because, he went in there and posted the old Josephine Jones response that, you know, no drugs had been approved by the FDA without their final phase 2 publication 1st being published, which was not a factual statement, and you’ve made the same statement
So I, I’m thinking that Gorski just bought her statement and took it and ran with it, and before he fact-checked it, and what, what happened, it was wrong
I mean, Gorski needs to stop phoning stuff in, and check his sources before he posts stuff, because I’ve found many cases where, he hasn’t seemed to do that, and that’s why I question him
Well, I found it interesting that uh the one on the, Burzynski 2, you know he gave his ex excuses for not, working with uh, that patient, and, but yet, he was the same doctor that treated a another Burzynski patient, according to the movie
I mean, so what does he do ?
Pick and choose ?
Or do doctors pick and choose over there in Britain ?
Well, the movie didn’t say anything
Well, I fail to see these doctors on there, providing any factual information, anywhere on the Internet about, uh their disagreements, in a serious way, instead of just making these over-broad statements, you know, “He hasn’t published anything in the blah blah blah,” and
Well, he’s provided some data, and specifically 4 publications
He’s given more than the case studies
He’s done more than the case studies
He’s specifically given uh, almost all the information om an oncologist would want
And Gorski, and Gorski
I mean, I love Gorski, but he comes up with these stupid excuses like, “Well, Burzynski is not an oncologist”
Well, Gorski doesn’t go go in there and look at his other, his phase 2 clinical trial publications, as far as the preliminary reports, and look at the co-authors, and see if any of those guys are oncologists, and that they’re working with Gorski, I mean they’re working with Burzynski
I find that ridiculous
Well y’all, y’all can call things what y’all want
I mean, y’all can give these, fallacy arguments and all that garbage that y’all like, because that’s what y’all like to talk about instead of dealing with the issues
I mean, Gorski doesn’t want to deal with the issues
Hey, I’ve said it to Gorski
He liked to back his stuff up on the Mayo study, yet he wouldn’t, he wouldn’t uh debate about the Mayo study
He likes to say, “Well, Burzynski is not an oncologist,” but he won’t, say Hey, look at the publications, are any of the guys on the publications oncologists ?
We know that Gorski, we know that Burzynski works with oncologists in his practice
So, just because Burzynski himself is not an an oncologist, does not necessarily mean anything
Do we need to go out, onto PubMed, and, and review every particular person that’s published something about cancer and see if they’re all oncologists ?
Seriously
I mean, Gorski will just
post a lot of stuff without backing it up
Well, I, you know, that’s up to someone’s opinion, considering some of the information that’s that the FDA has accepted, as far as giving these guys approval
How did I say I, I didn’t trust them ?
Well, I didn’t say that they weren’t trustworthy, I just raised questions that no one wants to answer about ‘em
No, I’m just sayin’ that I’ve raised questions and none of The Skeptics wanna to uh talk about ‘em
Well, to me the FDA owes Burzynski for a lot of the garbage they pulled off against him (laugh), not to say, you know, they owe him in that way, but they owed him
Well, we know a lot stuff they did, but that still doesn’t impress me that they pulled out of the prosecution
I mean
Right
Well I find it interesting a lot of this uh, a lot of these letters that were provided between, you know, the government and Burzynski, when the uh phase 2 study was going on, at the behest of the NCI
You know, anybody who reads that stuff knows, that when just ignore the person that’s been doing, do treating their patients for 20 something years, or close to 20 years, and you change the protocol without his approval, and you don’t use the drugs in the manner that he knows works
Well, he says they work together and they’re not going to work if you don’t use them that way
Why would he leave the country ?
I think he’s made it clear
Well, I think The Skeptics, Skeptics are falling short because, you know, they don’t own up to
So I can say that since the Mayo Clinic finished their study in 2006, and it took them until 2013, to actually publish it, then I can say, well, Burzynski finished his in 2009, which was 3 years later, which would give Burzynski until 2016
for me to make up my mind
Well I can say, well I’m going to have to wait, the same amount of time I had to wait for Mayo to publish their study; which was from 2006 to 2013
How do you know it was delayed ?
I mean, has anybody
done a review of when a clinical trial is studied, and completed, and how long it took the people to publish it ?
You know
If they could point to me a study that’s done that, and say, well here’s the high end, here’s the low end of the spectrum, here’s the middle
Sure
Sure, but that’s not gonna, you know like, answer an overall question of, you know, somebody did a comparative study of all clinical trials, and, when they were finished, and at, and when the study was actually published afterwards
You know, that’s only gonna be one, particular clinical study
Well, we know that the Declaration of Helsinki doesn’t even give a standard saying, “You must publish within x amount of years,” you know ?
So, I’ve yet to find a Skeptic who posted something that said, “Here are the standards, published here”
Again, we get back to, when the clinical trial is finished, not when Burzynski started
I mean, you would expect to find a results to be published after, the final results are in
You would expect some people would want to have confidentiality, and maybe not want to be included
Why am I unsure ?
I just gave you an example
Oh, who said I was unsure ?
I just gave you an example
I mean, I’m just, I believe in free and open debate
I mean, I believe, if y’all are gonna spam the Internet, the Internet with garbage that y’all do not back-up, with specific
references
Like your tweet that said uh, “antineoplastons is uron, is Unicorn pee,” right ?
“Burzynski is a vampire”
Good one
He sucks their blood out of ‘em right ?
Yeah
Humor
Okay, I understand humor
Well, that’s because he’s Polish
What I defend, is that, y’all post stuff, a lot of Skeptics post stuff, including Gorski, and they do not back it up, with references, citations, or links
Gorski will just post stuff, like he did about saying, you know, the FDA would not approve, uh, accelerated approval, without a final phase 2 clinical trial being published, which was an incorrect statement, he did not provide any link
We know it’s false
Well, I’m just
I’m just
Not
That’s
Well, that is just lame
Y’all, Skeptics, like to sh spam Twitter, and social media, with all this negative stuff about Burzynski, but then when I ask you to back it up, you can’t back it up, and then, and then on this conversation you want to come down and pinhole it, to a specific subject, you know, the nitty-gritty
Well, if y’all were only debating the nitty-gritty, we would only be d debating the nitty-gritty, but that’s not what y’all do
Well, we know the FDA’s said there is
And I’ll give you those links that I told you I would give you
Yeah, that’s fine
Well, I thought it was productive too
You know, I don’t see why Gorski is afraid of debating issues
on the Internet, on his blog
Hey, he has time to post about, “Hey, uh, Burzynski got a Catholic award from somebody,” which, has nothing to do with antineoplastons, whatsoever
So, you know, he’s not focusing just in on, “Do antineoplastons work, yes or no?,” “When will Burzynski publish ?,” yes or no ?
You know, he’s putting all this ridiculous side junk, you know
So, I am not going to take that seriously
Exactly
You bet
Thank you
You too

Robert J. (don’t call me “Bobby”) Blaskiewicz’s #Epic Skeptic “Word-Salad” #Fail – September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51

Are you there ?
Okay, we might as well get started if were going to do this
Alright, so ummm I guess we can start with uhhh bit of a conversation
Uhhh
You’ve been on the Burzynski Hashtag for a long time – what’s you’re motivation ?
Okay
So what information have Skeptics posted that they uhhh that they missed that demonstrates that Burzynski’s uhhh treatments are effective ?
What, what have we missed ?
Well okay, uh one of the issues that Skeptics have with Burzynski is that in order to, let’s say, elevate uh the profile of his drug, in order to make sure that everybody who needs it can get, is to complete a phase 3 uh trial uh he started uh I believe was it just the one, right ?
Uhmmm, and that’s gone nowhere
In fact, it was withdrawn this I think within the last week
It doesn’t look like its going to happen, and this is, you know, for all the the phase 1 and phase 2 trials, those are very preliminary trials
Uhmmm, the phase 3 is is will be the gold standard, and also the bare minimum that that the larger medical community will accept uhhh as evidence, so it’s like you’ve lowered the bar for for evidence in a way that that you know oncologists don’t
The the
Right
So, do you think that there is a uh uh conspiracy to keep Burzynski from publishing ?
Right
Right
So, uhmmm, as far as I understand it The Lancet, uhhh the the question of The Lancet publication ehhh is par for the course, that most people are, when they get a speedy rejection from a uh uh, uh journal, are actually uh grateful, because that means there allowed to go ahead and submit their material to another journal more quickly and get it out there
Uhm, but the reaction that we saw on the side of the Burzynski camp was that, see, they’ll never publish us
Uhm, which is, eg, taken as far as I can tell as evidence of a conspiracy or that his name is is poison uh I mean, I think it is, but uhmmm, that wasn’t indicated in the in the rejection letter in order to uh claim that it is is to go beyond the evidence which again we’re not really willing to do
So, uhmmm what is the the ration the the something that I think a lot of of a lot of The Skeptics have been curious about when it comes to your your your blog and your behavior on-line uhhh is that that that, that the format of your blog does not make sense to us, we don’t understand exactly what you’re trying to do with it
Could you kind of clarify that for us because it’s uhhh long and it’s it’s intense and there’s a lot of emotion behind it but we don’t understand exactly, what it’s supposed to mean
Alright, ah have you read The Other Burzynski Patient Group ?
So, ahmmm what is your response say to the story of Amelia Saunders ?
Okay, what part of, what did I get wrong ?
Uh was that Amelia and Luna ?
Luna was the other one, correct
Oh, I, you’re talking, oh this is one of the very 1st ones that we did on the, on the site
Uhmmm, oh, her name is, her name escapes me at the moment
Um, but she wasn’t there for for very long but uh her condition deteriorated very rapidly
Uhmmm, and one of the questions that we had, we raised, is is, you know, you you don’t need to reach full dosage ’cause the the full dosage for these ANP seem to be pretty high, at least the sodium load that that that patients are asked to to carry, or required to carry if they they go on it
And we wondered if the sodium load was ah to great for someone who has a brain tumor, I mean uh, you know uh sodium load will increase your blood pressure, and these people have extra things in their brains that probably won’t react well to swelling, right, and and wont react well to pressure, so we were wondering, if in fact you don’t have to reach the full dosage in order to have uh severe side effects
Ummm, you know maybe you haven’t reached a therapeutic dose level, but that doesn’t mean that it didn’t have an effect on her
And you can clearly tell, that, you know in the videos, well at least the videos before the family took it down, that she was lethargic and a little bit out of it, she uh the the difference in her conscious state was no noticeable for anyone to see
Ummm, to, you know where she had been up and about to in her bed kind of slurring and and, and and and, in fact just disoriented, just looked like someone had taken the piss out of her
I mean, ummm, so that’s, that one, ummm, you know the critique that, reaching therapeutic levels and having a biological effect on someone are are clearly different things in her case
Uhmmm, now I never went on you know on to say ummm that uh she had uh reached therapeutic levels
Uhmmm, I I think as far as I went was that she went, she paid her $30,000 dollars and then she died
Uhmmm, and and and what part of that’s not true
Okay, so, um, going back to Amelia, um, some of the the most um I think the most serious charges is that we see a uh repeatedly in his uh uh stories of his patients, um those are all cited, those are all backed uh by, you know, um at least as good as anything the Burzynski Patient Group has ever done
Uhmmm, something that we see over and over are patients reporting over and over that signs of getting worse are signs if getting better
Um, in particular a, uh report that’s very common from from patients is that the center of their solid tumors are breaking up
One of the problems that we we we see is that that is more frequently a sign of ischemic necrosis that the tumor has outgrown its blood supply and that it’s dying on the inside
And when you see something like a 5th of the patients who we’ve been able to to document, reporting this excitedly, we get extremely concerned about what’s happening
Uhmmm, what part of that is not absolutely terrifying to you
Well, the the yeah I’ve never seen anyone say that the purpose of the antineoplastons is to cause uhhh, you know, to restrict the blood flow to the tumor and and and uh cause it to die that way, which is certainly one therapeutic approach that’s been, that’s been floated and research has been done on uh and might even be promising and uh what he’s saying is that cancer is caused by a lack of antineoplastons in the system and that basically what he is doing is antineoplaston uh uh supplement therapy uh rath, what’s the word I’m looking for, uhm uh, replacement therapy
Uh and there isn’t a doctor on the planet, uh not a medical specialist on the planet, who, I, who has identified at at as a contributing factor as a contributor to cancer or antineo or lack of antineoplastons
So
Why isn’t he, you know, you understand that these doctors, ummm like nothing is true or false because a doctor says it is true or false
Uhmmm it’s it’s it but when the entire medical community uhhh who are des are desperately are are every bit as tired of seeing patients die uhmmm and seeing patients suffer or as anyone else’s families are you you imagine what an oncologist sees in that office over the course of of a year and there’s going to be unimaginable suffering
I’m sure that they’re tired of that
And that they would, you know, that if there was the slightest hint that antineoplaston deficiency was a cause of cancer that it would make it into the literature, with or without Burzynski
Uhhh ummm, why should we trust him when he has uh the sole uh the only person who had identified antineoplastons as a contributor to cancer when he is the sole manufacturer of the of the therapy uh when he is the uh sole prescriber of the therapy and when he is, where the sole distributor of the therapy from his pharmacy
He’s read everything
I think
Can you go ahead and send me that link that that I saw in the chat that you had uh posted a couple of times in the chat
Could you send me that link, to that publication
I can give you a minute to to go find it if that’s
That would be good
Uhmmm
Well, yeah that’s a, that’s you know one of the major problems that this this cancer has is the location is such a pain to get to
Uhm, and often when we are talking about these cancers, the thing that gets me over and over and over, and this is something that I’ve learned from from working uh with others on the Burzynski Patient Group is what’s it like to be a cancer patient, only by proxy, man I couldn’t imagine really going through this myself, and, you know I’d hate to see my family go through this
That these people are at what could be described as a low point, they’re um uhhh, you get a diagnosis of uh brainstem glioma the prognosis is very bad
Uhmmm, there are only a few cases of people recovering from that, I mean they’re there uhm uhhh but, you know that it’s an, it’s an extremely grim prognosis
Uhhh and I worry that when they’re in that desperate state and especially let’s talk about the children, you have these kids who are uh you know 2 and 3 and have had this, you know uh awful diagnosis and the parents are willing to do literally anything to keep their kids alive
What protections are in place for patients as far as that these kids are and and their parents are protected
Who had the better results ?
Okay
Hmmm, yeah, the, Guy Chapman has just um uh tossed in a a, a comment
I guess uh that there are a lot of people who wanna talk to you (laughter)
Uh, Guy Chapman has just jumped in and said it looks like you forgot the phase 3 trial is withdrawn and none of the phase 2 trials were published
Uhmmm, this, this is not a minor thing for for for Skeptics
This, this is exactly what will convince us to get on board the Burzynski train is the publication of these trials
But even the preliminary trials, one has been finished, and none has been published in its entirety for over 15 years
When you consider that this is a, as you just pointed out, this is a a cancer, the, especially the brainstem gliomas
That these cancers uh the cases resolved fairly quickly, we know what the outcome are fairly quickly
Ummm, do you have any sense of when these trials are going to be published ?
From Laura ?
Right
When you, when you think about a major, sorry, go ahead
Yeah, right, uh
Antineoplastons has a better rate ?
Right
Right, one of the things that that there there are 2 points to be made here
Uhm, the 1st one is that major pharmaceutical companies that are getting this accelerated approval have a track record of producing results which Burzynski does not have
Secondly, when it comes to ummm the rates of antineoplastons, how can we possibly say without a single published trial he, that he has an improved rate over Temodar or anything like that, and that’s exactly what would show to us whether or not his rate is better, the the types of publications that he’s done, that look really good on paper, ummm, to the to the, the common persons eye are these case series where he goes through and picks out people who have happened to have survived
But what that doesn’t tell us is whether or not the antineoplaston had anything to do with it
What you need to do is go and separate the background noise, the random weird rare but very real survive, unexpected survivals that occur, and separate those, uhhh, from any effect of antineoplaston, he’s never done that
But if you think about that, I mean that if it does have a a an improvement rate above uh other treatments
That still has an improvement rate, you know, that, that would give another option to people, ummm, even if in the aggregate their rates aren’t better
It might work on some individuals tumors rather than on, you know, you you it it is it taken as a, as a lump but extend life by uh quality of life for 3 months or something um in some cases but, you know, it it still has an effect, a real effect, and deserves to be out there
That’s a long time when someone is dying
Well, one of
One of the problems that that doctors have in in this country when it comes to doing ummm antineoplastons studies to verify any any effect that uh Burzynski has uhhh I i think back to the one where people say well that the FDA sabotaged his trials, and
Well, if if you think about it though, um, the, the proposed action as I understand it of the antineoplaston is that it’s a deacetylase inhibitor, which slightly unspools DNA, that allows uh, which would allow uh proteins to get into a pair of damaged DNA
And we have drugs that do that which carry a much lower sodium load
Uh, um, it, that would have a therapeutic effect on and that the risks outweigh the possible benefits of using this one particular drug
Um, I’ve seen any number of people looking at um, if you look at the Luna ah Pettiguine uh uh story on The Other Burzynski Patient Group um you see that the doctor is absolutely horrified by the insane sodium load that that Burzynski’s patients are carrying
Um in in some ways that that sodium load is uh leading people to constantly drinking up to I’ve seen 12 liters of water a day
That’s not necessary for other deactsylace inhibitors
Um the, why would you prefer that to to another drug if it did essentially the same thing, that didnt have this massive side effect ?
thats not necessary for other deactsylace inhibitors
Well that sss I believe that that’s proposed by the researchers, the design trial, you know they they sign off on it but that is is, is up to uh Burzynski uh my uh David James @StortSkeptic on the
ah he has asked everything that Burzynski does looks sort of like the behaviors of pseudo-science
So what we’re saying uhhh he does uh uhhh Burzynski like for instance like I said he has vertically integrated, ah, he controls all parts from identification to the creation of the drug uh to the diagnosing uh well he doesn’t do the diagnosing but he does um um prescribe and distribute, he does all that vertically, which is actually something that snake oil salesmen do
Another thing that that’s a red flag in Skeptic circles is that his one compound seems to be a sort of panacea for all sorts of different types of, of of cancers, um where we know that cancer has a a varied uh, uh, ideology and and the uh panaceas are are are to be and a variety of different types of causes um, in fact in any one tumor you would, you could say that these, these tumors are are completely uh heterogenous
The idea that there’s gonna be one knockout, it seems rather unrealistic
Um, additionally he charges immense amounts of money for this drug, um, even though the components cost pennies
Um, on top of that, um, there’s something that he asks for a a huge payment up front
That’s something that’s been warned against for generations of uh by anti-quack um uh crusaders if if they’re asking for everything up front, then be afraid
Ummm, another thing is that uh the kind of cult that’s sprung up around Burzynski, uh, one that is immune to uh criticism, reason, and pits people who are doing standard cancer research, as enemies, um, creating a black and white version of the world where there are good people and there are bad people
There are people who are fighting the disease, and then there are people who are really helping the disease
I mean, if you look at the, the new web-site by the Burzynski patients fighting back group, they say support the cure not the cancer
That’s a manikin world-view of black and white
Um, these are all huge red flags, that you’re dealing with a quack
Um, why hasn’t Burzynski done anything to change that ?
Right
Well, there, this is important
This is really important though
Wha, when she’s talking about, that’s Luna Pettiguine’s mother, is is talking about the costs there
Uhmmm, you, when someone is not insured in in this country,
Ahm, the, the the base cost that that’s calculated is, is the hospital only expects to get a fraction, a tiny fraction of that back from the insurance companies, and that’s why the costs are so inflated
Um, usually, when a patient is self-pay there is a self-pay price which is a more reasonable price
Additionally, all of those therapies, have demonstrated efficacy, and if Burzynski were to demonstrate his efficacy, $30,000 dollars to start on a life-saving treatment for a child would be a steal, and he would earn every nickel of it
Um, so, those arguments hold very little weight with us
He has a a an enormous house that’s valued in the tens of millions of dollars, he could do that if if the other, the other thing he could do, and this, we would love to see him do this, wousa, would be apply to Federal grant
That, that would be amazing, if he could get a grant to study this stuff
But, you know, um, I I don’t think he’d be able to get one, I don’t think he’s shown uh that he can carry off a uh a research program responsibly
Uhmmm
Well
Oh he, have you noticed the the, the thing on his web-site where if you make a donation to the clinic it goes directly to him ?
Right
You know, you know
Ummm, o-kay
Uh, I want to turn this over to the people who are watching
Um, I want to give them a a chance to address you as well
Uhmmm, hi everyone
Uhmmm, so, um, let’s, let’s wait for for that to roll in, and I do wait to go back to the, the the, the and let’s be very specific about this, the the things that you see on The Other Burzynski Patent Group, a patient reporting that um uh getting worse is getting better
How do you explain that ?
Well that’s just a known side-effect, your going to know that going in, but we actually have people say
Are there, why why why not, these people, see this is the thing though
The reason that site was started was because the people that don’t make it don’t have a voice
And when you, when you whittle away, when you only look at the at the, the positive outcomes, which is exactly in Burzynski’s favor to only look at the positive outcomes, and to have no sense of how other people’s diseases progressed, right, you’re gonna get a skewed and inaccurate version of the efficacy of this particular drug
Now lets lets lets go back and not talk about Laura, lets talk about these patients who report symptoms of getting worse, as if they were signs of getting better
Some people say that oh it’s a healing crisis or it’s progression of the disease
Or other people say it’s breaking up in the middle, hurrah
No, it’s actually a tumor that’s growing
That record there, that’s being left by patients, whose stories are every bit as important as the as the stories of the patients who have lived, are painting a completely different picture
How do you explain that ?
Are they feeding these people their stories ?
Are they feeding these people their stories
Okay I’m going to go back, I want to point something else out to you
Um, I have to, I don’t remember the exact patient so I have to go back to my web-site to take a look at it
Um
Because we are, because we’re on a Google+ stream that that’s a lot of data it takes awhile to bring up my, my site
Let me
Uhmmm
Well, that seems to give him an instant out, no matter what happens
That turns his claims into something that’s unfalsifiable
If I could give you an example of what unfalsifiable is
Um, and I’ll I’ll draw an uh, uh, case, uh hypothetical case of um uh proposed by Carl Sagan as the invisible dragon in your garage
If you say you have have a dragon in your garage, um, you know, you should be able to go over and verify that there’s a dragon in the garage
So let’s say we go over to Carl Sagan’s garage and, you know
Well, I don’t see anything
Well it’s an invisible dragon
Well okay, well then, let’s uh spray paint it
Well, it’s incorporeal
Well, uh, let’s measure for the heat of the breath
Well it’s heatless flame that it breathes
And, you know, okay, well then we’ll put flour down on the ground to see that it’s it it’s standing there
And, oh no it’s ah it’s floating
Well, you know, at some point, when you can’t falsify something
When you cannot, even in principle, prove something false, it’s indistinguishable from something that’s not there
And that kind of out, that oh well the tumor can keep on growing
Th (laugh) that that that’s an invisible dragon, as far as I can tell
A every time that I and and and and , and David points this out, that um, you you know your not going to speculate about the the FDA but then at every turn your invoking the FDA as being obstructionist
I, I just find that to be contradictory and and self-defeating
Um, let me see
Well, that’s not necessarily true
I mean uh when it when it comes to the case um I’ve i’ve talked to oncologists about this
And when it comes to uh for instance in in this case it sounds like it was a pediatric patient who was dying, ummm, who had died, ummm, the,
the 1st inclination is to ascribe the death to, um, to the tumor, which actually, would be to Burzynski’s benefit if there were other cases, I’m not saying there were, but if there were other cases where this type of complication arose, and it was ascribed to the tumor they might well not do it, uh, do an autopsy
Um, it’s ah as you could imagine it could be very difficult for the families to do that especially when they have ooh ah, a possibility of what, you know, led to the ultimate demise, that didn’t involve them ultimately somehow being responsible for it, right ?
So, it it it doesn’t seem to me that necessarily an autopsy would be um a a done deal
Um, let me see
No we don’t and it would be irresponsible to completely speculate on on, on, the outcome of that uh, uh, uh, individual patient, I am still scrolling through looking for this story that I wanted to talk about
Uh, and, I guess I’ll
It should be in Amelia’s I I, I packed Amelia’s story with all the stories, um, that I could find um in what we’d written up already
Um
Hold on a sec
She is a cute kid though
Um, alright
Now, our favorite oncologist (laugh), as you keep putting it, um, uh, with with the Amelia story, um, uh, was able to correctly determine that the Saunders family, had a, did not understand the significance of this cyst that had opened up in, uh, that had opened up in the center of the tumor, in fact they were ecstatic
They were delighted
Um, the family, of Haley, um, S, also
Uh, the the family of Haley S., also, had the same reading given to them
Um, the same diagnosis uh same prognosis was to, was given to Justin B in 2006
A similar cyst in Lesley S’s story uh ah, was in 2006
Um, and that kept her on uh treatment for a a another month so that could be another $7,000 some odd dollars
We same thing in the, in the case of, uh, Samantha T in 2005
We see it again as far back as 1994, in Cody G’s story
And then lastly and and the worst uh thing that we’ve seen, the patients report that Burzynski himself told Chase uh Sammut
The exact same thing
Um, and that was a
Have you read Chase’s story
It would stick with you, because that case is grotesque
The parents, uh, there was even a uh, uh, a fight over whether or not the parents should be allowed to continue treating this kid
He was basically lying, uh, in a uh uh brain dead uh for all intents and purposes, uh, in a in a coma uh without possibility of reversal, in his parents living room for months
Um, eh, all the while, he’s still on the, uh, well I don’t actually, I can’t say that, I don’t exactly know if he was on the treatment the whole time
Um, but, we do have this pattern, that is there, of people believing, that this particular pattern is, uh, progress, a a is not progression of disease but is is inducement to to stay on, um, eh, and this has been going on for decades
Eh, eh just based on what we’ve been able to find that patients have been reporting this for decades
At some point, you would think that a doctor would realize that perhaps what these patients are walking away with is inaccurate
Why hasn’t that changed ?
E wel that that that that’s not it
This is this is like the 2nd day of oncology class, that that’s what the tumor looks like
People are reporting that the tumor is no longer growing, um, or that the growing has slowed after they’ve started
Well, okay
There, there is an explanation for that, and why you can’t take that as necessarily being evidence of efficacy
Ah, the tumor grows exponentially while the resources are available to it, but then it reaches a point where it’s a self-limited growth, so it, the time between uh doublings in size decreases logarithmically
Um, so this is, this is like basic tumor physiology that we’re talking about, and his patients don’t leave his office, knowing these facts, for decades
This doesn’t have anything to do with the, do with the drug
This this
But, but when it’s, this treatment is working or this is not evidence that the treatment is working
That’s pretty basic
I mean we’re not, we’re not talking about deactsylace inhibitors or anything like that were you’d really need to know something about
This is, whether or not, you’re getting the outcome that you want
This is the whole reason for going
And it has nothing to do with the with the with the drugs
Which is, which is like which we just pointed out was a was an invisible dragon
you’re you’re you’re assuming
You’re you’re you’re assuming that
You’re assuming that
Um, I’m not assuming that
Ultimately it would, but whether or not it it it had a genuine therapeutic effect is a different matter all together
Um, this, what would, what would convince you that you’re wrong
So you’re saying because the Orphan Drug Designation and the face that there’s a phase 3, therefor it works ?
So what you’re saying is there’s nothing that would convince you now, that it doesn’t work
O-kay
Um, it’s it’s it’s not the FDA’s, but you understand it’s not the FDA’s job to tell someone that their drug doesn’t work
it’s it’s it’s up to Burzynski
It’s up to Burzynski to show that his drug does work
And it’s always been his burden of proof
He’s the one that’s been claiming this miracle cancer cure, forever
Um, I don’t know if you’ve read Jaffe’s book
There seems to have been a lot going on there you really should look at it because it’s it’s it’s kind of revealing
Um, that that that it seems that there was a lot of political pressure applied to the FDA which may have been, uh, uh, have influenced the way in which these these trials were approved
I I would say that it is a genuine con uh uh bit of confusion on the parts of Skeptics
We don’t know why the phase 3 trial was approved
I don’t know that we’ve seen even the phase 1 trials, we don’t know why he’s getting a phase 3
And there’s a real story in that, we think
Um, that we’d love to see, however we can’t see, however we can’t see it because of proti protri proprietary uh protections that the FDA is giving to Burzynski, right ?
They’re not sharing his trial designs because they are his trial designs, right?
That the makeup of his drug that he’s distributing are his, uh design, and his intellectual property
So the FDA is protecting him, uh from outside scrutiny
While you may imagine that that, that that the FDA is is somehow antagonistic toward him
They’ve given him every opportunity, over 60 opportunities to prove himself worth uh their confidence and hasn’t
Um, but I definitely recommend that you look at Jaffe’s book and you will see, I think, um that um it’s called um, uh Galileo’s
You know what it’s called, okay, yeah
Um, definitely look at that
Um, you, you will see, the ways in which, the way that we got to this point, isn’t necessarily having anything to do with the efficacy of the drug
That comes across very clearly
Um, you, you mentioned it yourself, he he’s done well to listen to Jaffe’s advice, right ?
So, there there’s a lot to that
Um, uh, but yeah, let me go back to the Twitter feed
Um
Well it sounds to me like they’re they’re not um, the the the you know, they’ve put the clinical hold on now because they now have evidence that somebody may have died because of the treatment
Um, I don’t know what the state of that is right now
Um, uh, oh my gosh, um, let me see
Someone has just sent me a, a ah a link to, are you following the Hashtag, as this is going on
Okay
I’m doing, I’m doing the 2 things at once and it’s um, ok ok well it’s well ok I can’t I can’t go in and read that right now
Um, I would, ok let me tell you exactly what it will take, for me to come around and promote Burzynski
Um, for me, he needs to get a publication in a uh, yeah, uh uh uh publication in a peer-reviewed journal, a respected peer-reviewed journal, not like the the Journal of Medical Hypothesis or things we just made up
Um, something, you know, a a good, respectable journal that oncologists would read, that research oncologists would read
I would need an completely independent group to replicate his findings, and then I’d be all for it
I would say that right now, the business model that the Burzynski Clinic seems to depend on, as best as I can tell from an outsider, that, um, uh, that it depends on people paying money up front
It doesn’t depend on him developing and taking away a viable drug, that he can market to the entire world
His business model as best I can tell, is to keep it in house
That seems, if it works, if his drug genuinely works, and he hasn’t sent it along to mass approval, where he gets, for a couple of years at least, you know, exclusive rights to produce and sell this stuff, for one of the most intractable diseases, uh that man eh can can can, you know, can get, um, that suggests to me that there’s something else going on here
Now, someone has just sent a a note, uh that he has failed 3 different Institutional Review Board audits; this is Guy Chapman, uh no other institution has a 3 for 3 fail, according to to Guy iye he knows no other one
Um, that 45% of phase 3 clinical trials fail due to deficient phase 2 design
Um, he has an approved phase 3, but phase 2 was deficient so phase 3 fails
Do you think that that could possibly have anything to do with why we’re not seeing the phase 3 advance
He’s claimed
He’s claimed
That’s a different thing altogether
And in fact
Well, you understand why they do that, because in order to, it’s
No, they do do this with other drugs, well, it depends on the type
Some drugs it’s ethical to give something completely questionable, what they want to make sure that they at least get the standard care, you know which includes radiation
Um, and radiation does seem to extend life, reduce the size of some tumors some times
Um, do you concede, that in order to have a phase 3, you do not need to have a successful phase 2 ?
When 45% of phase 3 fail because they have a deficient phase 2 design, do you concede that ?
Well, ok
It doesn’t matter where
It doesn’t matter where it comes from uh, um
So-kay, um that would be shooting the messenger as opposed to dealing with the question, but
the idea, the best, well, the best, well in that case the best response is “I don’t know”
There’s something that that we don’t know, you’re coming, honestly we didn’t know what to expect when we talked to you
We, were looking at the design, of your web-site and wondering whether or not we would be able to get a a coherent sentence out of you, because the web-site is disorganized, uh
Um, at at at at least it’s the organization is not apparent to the readers
Um, and um according to
No, that is tied together
But let me, we know that that the the, the central concern is Burzynski
Ah, the source of this ah of of those #’s that I just gave you, Chapman has just updated me and he says um that it is, and I’ll go back to the, the ADR research . com issues in clinical research, so it’s the question, Bay Clinical uh Research and Clinical Development, a white paper called “Why do so many pase 3 clinical trials fail ?
Uh, it’s prepared by Anastassios Retzios, Ph.D
Is Anastassios Retzios reliable ?
There is a correct here
Exactly
That’s the right answer
You don’t know
You don’t know
You need to look into it
Alright ?
Before you dismiss it you have to look into it
Everytime somebody throws uh uh something to me, I have to look into it
That’s just, it’s my responsibility as a reader
Um
What, what stuff would you like
What stuff would you like me to do ?
I generally, I don’t read your blog
Uh um, alright
Okay, I’ll look at that, and I will respond to it once I’ve taken a look at that, okay ?
Um, and I’ll respond on your web-site
Um, seems only fair
Um, one question I’d wondered, what is the Didymus Judas Thomas reference to
Oh, so this is the Doubting Thomas
This is the Doubting Thomas
Okay, so this is the one, you show me the, you put your your, the, your hand inside the wound
You know, Jesus says, basically, ok, bring it on, check me out, right ?
Okay
Alright
That that, I didn’t, I didn’t realize that he was also, that that was the same guy
So, it’s it’s the Doubting Thomas
Um, what we would say, um, is that if Burzynski is the savior that he claims to be, that he should, open up his trials, he should open up his uh research uh protocols um and just say, “Look, bring it on”
Check out these wounds
But he’s never done that
Instead he he he wants us to just take the words of of of of his apostles
I don’t necessarily trust his apostles
I don’t think that they’re unbiased
I wanna see the data
I wanna see the the wounds in his hands and the the mark on his side
Oh, hey when when we talk about The Other Burzynski Patient Group, I don’t make any pretensions to make that my site proves anything
I I I really don’t
It’s not my job to prove anything
It’s Burzynski’s job
It is a researchers job to prove these things
But we just pointed out, we just pointed out, that the FDA, often approves, phase 3 trials, based on flawed phase 2 clinical trials
That is therefor a real possibility in this case
Yes you would
T t and what I would honestly expect and hope, is that you would be honest about this, to yourself, and and and that’s the thing we don’t, we often don’t realize that we’re not being honest with ourself
I try to fight against it, constantly
But, um, uh but the way that you’d earlier phrased your uh your response to “could you possibly be proved wrong ?”, . . really did exclude other possibilities of of of of yourself being wrong
So if the FDA
Well I’m not talking about the Guy Chapman
What you off, when I asked you, yourself, you know, what would prove you wrong, you said that the FDA hasn’t approved a phase 3
Well, ok
Let’s let’s back, let’s back up
What would the FDA, what happens if the FDA occasionally op op opposes, approves uh phase 3 trials, based on bad phase 2 trials
Would that be, would that cause any doubt in your mind ?
About the efficacy of ANP
Yeah, hello, yeah, you’re back
Yeah Google+ is a little wonky sometimes
But, would, does, if you were to learn, that sometimes phase 3 trials, uh, are approved, and failed, based on flawed phase 2, would, would that make you reconsider your position of the phase 3 being evidence that it works
Uh um could you send me that link, the, the, um . me see
I’m just looking at other things that are coming in on the Hashtag right now
Um, so the ANP is Orphan Drug status but is it Orphan Drug for glioma ?
Is it sodium phenylbutyrate or is it the the versions of the drug, the AS10 stuff or A1 or whatever it’s called ?
Okay, that’s what has Orphan Drug status
Alright, I’ll look into that
I hope somebody is writing all this down out there, so that we can go back and look at these claims later, right ?
So, oh, um
Do you have any questions for me ?
I’ve spent a lot of times asking questions of you
Mhmm
Guy Chapman, throws up the the, the comment, permission to investigate is not evidence of anything other than evidence of a valid protocol, not a uh, evidence of efficacy, in and of itself
That’s another comment
Um, alright then, this is your chance t, there are lots of people have lots of questions about me out there
Uh, about what my motivations are and such
I might as well put that out on the table just so it’s on the record, is that I am taking exactly no money from anyone for this, and have gotten nothin’ but grief from a lot of people, even people who, even people who support me have given me grief for this
Um, just so that you know, um, there have been, some of the things that have happened, oh, this is an important point too
Um, that when we have criticized this, uh, a # of us, especially Gorski, uh myself, uh Rhys Morgan, uh, um, and and uh Popehat, the the lawyer, blog, uh, um, who else was on there, um, oh, the Merritts, uh, t, uh Wayne Merritt, and his family, people have been critical of of of Burzynski have faced retaliation for opposing him ah and intimidation, and including, um, I had my uh a couple weeks before Christmas my, my, the Chancellor of my University was contacted via e-mail, and uh Eric Merola said that I had been um, uh, been spreading mis truths about Burzynski, that I had been a be, on my my show um had said things that were demonstratively untrue, and he also said that the drug was FDA approved, which it, you know, that’s not right
But um, he said that he was gonna do, talk about me in his new movie, in, uh, relat, in millions of homes, um, and he wanted to get a statement from the University
The University of course ignored him, and immediately let me know that I was going to get smeared
Um, I consulted my lawyer and uh uh, you know, the best course of action was figured out, and um uh a Gorski has had his accreditation board contacted, he’s had his bosses contacted, Rhys Morgan received threats of liable suits from somebody who had been hired, by the clinic, to clean up his on-line reputation if he didn’t take down his on-line review of Burzynski, uh, had his a picture of his house sent to him, clearly the message being, “We know where you live kid,” uh, Wayne Merritt; a pancreatic cancer patient, this is something that, that people generally, do not recover from, like generally, die from, received phone calls at home, from, this individual, threatening him with lawsuits; he doesn’t have a law degree so he’s misrepresenting himself
Um, but all of this, was done, to critics
Do you think that is deserved ?
Do you think that that is right ?
Mhmm
Well to be fair
It it it doesn’t strike me as necessarily a “Free Speech” issue, you know
Was it down-voted ?
No
Mhmm
Mhmm
Well we do have for for for for one thing, um, I guess to understand is that we are uh motivated by um uh a respect, this is the one thing that that all Skeptics I think um are uh respect critical thinking, um, and um respect scientific uh a we we’re mostly scientific enthusiasts, there’s some Skeptics who are not um, uh, you know oh u space nerds, or whatever who are um just sc scholars and the humanities but for the most part we all respect scientific consensus and we respect scientific method and have an enthusiasm for living in the real world, this is something that like all of us us are about
And to that end, sometimes that influence is how we run, is how we decide to run our personal web-sites
Um, uh, that whether or not we want our, to give a platform to people who disagree with us, um, you know, uh, when we do, uh . . it it is our sandbox, you know, right ?
This, this, we’re allowed to to let whoever we want into our sandbox if we, you know, uh if we want
Did he, did he leave them up ?
Did he leave them up ?
Right, um, do you think that he is required to answer you
Right
Mhmm
Um so a a question uh why were why do you have so many Twitter and Wikipedia sock-puppets
Wikipedia
You left Wikipedia
Mhmm
Um a
Uh We have uh a response from David James, everyone uh gave you a fair shout
You were a spammer plain and simple
You couldn’t, you couldn’t
work out your questions
Twitter does not
Twitter does not block people for for arguing
Only for spamming and policy violations
Mhmm
Okay
Um, let me see
Each new account was blocked for additional violations of policies
Um, this is a uh uh referring to the Wikipedia rules too
Um, so
Um, Wikipedia, do you know why um they’ve locked the Burzynski page ?
Did you notice the part where he threatened, did you notice the part where he threatened to expose Wikipedia
We have to, well, they they uh are looking that it’s not one-sided information they want to show
Like they discuss, there is controversy about this guy
Yeah, Jaffe’s on there
Jaffe’s on there
uh well you could add that if you hadn’t gotten blocked
Okay
Um, so, who are you
She’s gotten threats
So we don’t know who you are
Like, she has suffered at the hands of some really mess, and she’s also, you have to realize she’s in the U.K, where libel laws are very lax at this point
That’s changing, ah, but uh, the the legitimate criticism, there is a big case last, me maybe 2 years ago of Simon Singh, talking about an alternative therapy, and, um, he was just saying that there’s no evidence for it but it’s promoted by um chiropractors, or something, or something like that
And he got slapped with a libel suit that cost him several years of his life and a lot of money
Um, so, there are several reasons why someone in the U.K. might uh be uh reticent to use their real name um, uh, and legitimate reasons
Um, in the U.S., I’m not sure that there is
I’ve been using my real name for a long time now
Um, you know, Gorski blogs under his real name, and is critical of uh, uh, also, let’s face it, everyone know, knows who “Orac” is
Um, how do we know that you don’t work for the clinic ?
Mhm
Well see, one of the the problems is, Ju, I don’t know if you were around for the BurzynskiSaves thing
Did you ever see that account ?
Mhmm
Right
Oh no, I mean you have a right to do that but but I I’ve found that posting under a pseudonym diminishes my credibility
Um, so, . . the quote was uh um, uh, “Happily promotes bogus therapies,” was Simon Singh’s quote that got him sued
Um, but Josephine Jones does it to, quote “protect her family”
Um
So there’s that
Um, are you afraid for you’re family ?
Um, you don’t see that there would be anything to gain from, from going on-record ?
Um I I haven’t, I’ve never, honestly, I’ve never seen a Skeptic actually go after a person individually
Um, you know, uh, you, unless they were doing colossal harm to people
Um, to to focus on an, uh, let’s say, call someone’s work for um, yeah
Cite one example, of a Skeptic making shit for a Burzynski shill or anyone else in real life
That’s a quote
That’s, that’s something coming in from, from Guy
Like had anyone ever contacted Sheila Herron, or has anyone to to um, go after her job, or go after um, you know, my brother has gotten stuff from people
He didn’t tell me because he didn’t want to upset me, but my brother gets things from Burzynski supporters that are violent and threatening
I get letters telling me that I suck cancer’s dick
Um, I I’ve all sorts of things um, and I just, I’ve never seen that, that intrusion into real life on the part of uh, um, uh, Skeptics
I’ve never seen them doing that type of of of stuff
I’ve never seen them threatening bogus lawsuits
Um, and I I I wonder there, if there is some sort of, what do you think accounts for that, that difference?
Mhmm
Mhmm
I’ve I’ve I’ve shown up on, you know, as you, as you might, I imagine you moni, you monitor the Hashtag, right ?
Okay
Um, which is, which is your right
Um, uh, but every so often I jump in and say, you know, this movie has some flaws in it
You know, that’s something I say rather frequently
Um, and I invite people, if they’re interested, to take a look at a couple of links
I don’t, I, you’ll notice that I no longer force people to like, “Well how do you explain this ?,” because that doesn’t seem to be very persuasive, or work at all
Ah, only people who are open minded to having their mind changed, those are the only ones I want to talk to
So I give them a choice
Kind of like Morpheus in The Matrix really
Um, b, that was a joke for me
Um, um anyway
Um, but, it it I, honestly, I would encourage you to go on-record, um, but I have, less than nothing invested in that, so, um
Uh, what’s next for you
Well what happens
Well what happens if he doesn’t understand what you’re saying ?
I mean one of the
I mean seriously
Well, one of the problems I think that a lot of Skeptics have had, in in back channel discussions about this is that we don’t understand exactly what you’re saying
We certainly don’t understand why you’re so attached to him if you’ve never had any uh, you know, close dealing with uh, uh, with Burzynski
We don’t really understand that
Actually, especially when you consider, that all the information that we’ve put forward, that we’ve backed up with statements from uh, you know, uh, it, it, the statements that we have from from patients saying that you know, we’ve we’ve, we were told that, no that’s not exactly, they put it usually that but that that we believe that getting worse is getting better
Like how could someone continue to defend someone, when we pile up all of these different, you know, sources, saying the same thing ?
It it is, it is beyond us and we wonder if there’s absolutely anything that we could say that would convince you otherwise
But, I mean, but that means
Everything on The Other Other Burzynski Patient Group is referenced
It goes
There’s very little on
thehoustoncancerquack
There’s very little on
thehoustoncancerquack in the 1st place
Eh, right
The they both go to the same place
Uh un but, you know, we, the thing that that totally befuddles us, and is just endlessly frustrating, is like how many more examples, of patients believing that getting worse is getting better, and it’s not us saying it, it’s the patients saying it
And how many more of those patients do we need to to give you before you will like reconsider that perhaps you might be wrong ?
I don’t, the thing is though that, that that’s a inver, shifting the burden of proof off of Burzynski
Burzynski has to prove them wrong, has to prove him right
The FDA is not there to say this doesn’t work
The evidence would be
The evidence
The evidence would be phase 2 trials
And ev the evidence would be a completed and published phase 3 trial
That’s not forthcoming
The phase 3
You don’t know that he’s trying
He’d start completing these trials
And he would, he would be soliciting um, uh, lots of um, uh, you know, you know he’d be putting out papers constantly um and if the the British Medical Journal example’s anything uh representative of how Burzynski works, he’d immediately tell everyone that his he’s being . . blackballed by the, by the journal, even when it’s just a courtesy that he gets a a rejection
So, I mean, honestly, um, saying “Well, when the F, FDA tells you that it doesn’t work, the FDA’s never gonna say that because that’s not their job
So, given that what would, how many more patients do we have to show you before you consider that you may be wrong ?
That’s not an option, because they’re never gonna do it
They relinquish, a lot of authority, over to Burzynski, and his Institutional Review Board, which, I would mention, has failed 3 reviews in a row
Right ?
It is Burzynski’s job to be convincing
It is not our uh, uh, it it it he hasn’t produced in decades
In decades
In hundreds and hundreds of patients, who’ve payed to be on this
Hell, we’d we’d we’d like a prelim, well when you’re talking about something that is so difficult as brainstem glioma, that type of thing gets, really does in the publishing stream get fast-tracked there
they test it
Yeah, and they they they want uh, that was evidence of fast-tracking is what, that rejection was uh e was very quickly
Um, so, uh, uh again, the FDA is not the arbiter of this
It’s ultimately Burzynski
So, how long will it be before Burzynski doesn’t publish, that you decide that uh perhaps he’s he’s, doesn’t have the goods ?
You’ve been speculating about what the FDA’s motivation are like crazy
Why not speculate about Burzynski a little bit
Well actually I’m not even asking you to speculate about Burzynski, I’m only asking you to tell me, how long would it take, uh how, for him to go unpublished like this, um, for this long, before you would doubt it ?
What ?
But these but but but that doesn’t have any bearing on
That doesn’t
Oh I’m not asking you how long, how long, would it take you for you to start doubting whether or not he has the goods ?
How long would it take ?
It’s a it’s a it’s a question that should be answered by a number uh uh months ?
Years ?
How long ?
It’s been 15 years already
I could push it back to 36 years
He hasn’t shown that it works for 36 years
I can do that
I was being nice
Perhaps based on bad phase 2
He withdrew
He withdrew the the phase 3 clinical trial
I that before recruiting,
although I’ve seen lots of people say they were on a phase 3 clinical trial
I wonder how that happened
Uh did do do you think that if they thought that he was a real doctor that they all would have refused like that ?
He’s changed things
That The Lancet is a top-tier journal like New England Journal of Medicine
It’s basically be, besieged by uh 100′s of people submitting their, their, their reports
Um, it’s just, you know, let’s say he, someone has such a thin publishing record as Burzynski does, do you think that it’s likely that he will ever get in a top-tier journal ?
What about the the Public Library of Science ?
It’s not the only journal there
What about BMC Cancer ?
There’s lots of places that he can go
Um, and he doesn’t seem to to have evailed himself of that, as far as I can tell
And I would know because he’d get rejected, or he’d be crowing, you know
Either way, he’s gonna tell us what happens
He told us what happened with The Lancet, you know
I don’t have any evidence that suggests to me that he’s even trying
So let’s go back to this
How long will it take ?
How long will it take before you, the Japanese study’s interesting too because we should be able to find that in the Japanese science databases, and we can find, we can’t find it at all
We can’t find it anywhere
And, and those are in English, so it’s not a language problem
We can’t find that anywhere
We’ve asked
We asked Rick Schiff, for, for that study
And, and it hasn’t come to us
He is now I believe on the Board of Directors, over there
He should have access to this
We can’t get it
How how long will it take before you recognize that, nothing is forthcoming ?
How long would that take ?
Well, I mean, were talking about a blog here
We’re talking about life
No, we’re talking about a blogger’s feelings in that case
In in this case we’ren talking about, 1,000′s of patients, over the course of of of generations, you know
This is important stuff
This is not eh eh equating what’s happening to to patients with what’s happening to you is is completely off-kilter as far as I can tell
It’s nothing
It’s nothing like you not getting to say something on my web-site
You know
This is they they have thrown in with Burzynski, and they’ve trusted him, and he’s produced nothing
Nothing of substance
Nothing thas that has made all of that um, uh, n nothing th th th that uh his peers would take seriously
The other thing that that that strikes me now is that, you know, you you you you keep saying that, well Eric is going to to share things with you
Does it ever concern you eh uh eh occur to you that Eric might not be reliable ?
He then, and then he
And then he he, you know, the the the the dialogue that sprung up around that was, well see, he’s never going to get to get published
Well you’re just setting yourself up for wish fulfillment
You want him to be, persecuted, so you are ecstatic when he doesn’t get to publish, which is unfortunate for all the cancer patients, who really thought that one day, all the studies were going to be published
Where has Eric been wrong ?
It’s it’s it’s it’s a form letter
You know
They’re just saying, “No thanks”
“Thanks, but no thanks” is what they were saying, in the most generic way possible
Like I said, they’re besieged by researchers trying to publish
So, so, possibly
So possibly what you are saying is that they in fact have read it, and after having read it they’ve rejected it
Is that what you’re saying ?
Because that’s what peer-review is
Do you know it was the same editor, that it came from the same desk ?
You can’t make that assumption that that the form letter will be the same form letter every time
I mean you just can’t
I mean in in some ways we have a lot of non-information that you’re filling in, with what you expect, as as opposed to what’s actually really there, and I I I just think you’re putting too much uh stock in one uh, uh, in in in in this uh the publication kerfuffle
Um
Well, not necessarily
I’ve been in any # of professional groups where the organization is just not optimal, and publications certainly th there are all sorts of pressures from all sorts of different places
I I have no problems whatsoever with seeing that this might not be completely uh um uh streamlining uniform processes as possible
The fact that it’s not uniform, doesn’t have anything to do with Burzynski not publishing, not producing good data
Not just going to a, you know, god, even if, even if, let’s put it this way, even if he went to a pay to play type publication where you have to pay in order to get your manuscript accepted; and he has the money to do this, it wouldn’t take that much, and he were to put out a good protocol, and he were to show us his data, and he would make his, his his stuff accessible to us, then we could validate it, then we could look at it and say, “Yeah, this is good,” or “No, this is the problem, you have to go back and you have to fix this”
Right ?
So we really, every time we talk about the letter that he got, yeah that doesn’t have much to do with anything, really
We wanna see the frickin’ data
And if he had a cure for some cancers that otherwise don’t have reliable treatments, he has an obligation to get that out there anyway he can
And if if peer-review doesn’t, you know, play a, if peer-review can’t do it, you know, isn’t fast enough for him, then he should take it to the web, and he should send copies out to every pediatric, uh, you know, oncologist that there is
That’s the way to do it
Oh I, I I I certainly don’t think that he would put a lot of stock in it, but I, I, I know Dave Gorski enough, he wants this to work
He has patients who are dying, you know
And if if if let’s say that that Burzynski could get ah his gene-targeted therapy to work on breast cancer patients in in a reliable way, that would be, such a help to these people, that that Gorski’s trying to help
And, it it it doesn’t make sense, I mean, there, some of the best um, one of the the most important developments in medical history, was the development of of just washing your hands uh uh before uh uh going in and delivering a baby
Right ?
The guy who did it, was a colossal jerk, but it still worked and it’s the standard now
Right ?
Um, yea, it doesn’t matter now whether or not Burz, whether or not Gorski agrees with how Burzynski publishes
It’s the, it’s the data itself
If if Burzynski is is, is confident in his data, he will put it out there
Right ?
One way or the other
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 ?
Well what about all the other physicians, um, going back long before the Burzynski thing broke on-line
Of all these patients, with whom they have long-established relationships, and then doctors essentially after years, of treating these patients, basically saying, “I can’t work with you anymore if you go to Burzynski”
What about that ?
Di, are all of these doctors just as biased ?
Did he get burned at some point ?
We don’t know
Yeah, well, you wouldn’t expect Eric Merola to say that he got, that a doctor got burned
Would you ?
But he, he doesn’t have, he hasn’t given us his data
He’s given, he’s given, he’s given case studies
He’s done
Okay
Except for a ph, completed phase 3 clinical trial
Yeah
One of the things, one of the things that I’ve noticed going through these um, well, well there there is that
Uh, Guy Chapman, “It’s a blog, not a peer-reviewed publication”
Um, almost no treatment goes out without trials
Massive amounts of data are required
Um, so, it it is kind of, slightly disingenuous to hold uh Gorski to the same . . standard that you would, it on his blog
I think that professionally he would make, he he he would follow-up on these things, but u what I’ve noticed when you you mention these other people who are working with with Burzynski as co-investigators, the co- investigators don’t seem to have access to these, to these records
Um, you know, when they have to, when a patient has to, and often you have someone like a pediatrician, uh, signing on um uh to eh eh to work with with, uh and arrange care for patients when they’re out of state, away from Burzynski
Um, it’s it’s it’s often not an oncologist
It’s accurate to say that B Burzynski is not a board s uh certified oncologist
It’s accurate to say that no trial has been completed and fully published
Um, yeah it’s um, it it it if, all of the arguing on behalf of Burzynski doesn’t give him a single phase 3
It doesn’t give him um a uh uh of of a completed and and published phase 2
Uh, in in in that sense, you know, uh all the the the, you know, kind of back-peddling and and and trying to defend him is is going to, not going to help his case at all
You are, honestly as far as I can tell you are doing the um, you know, you’re you’re ah throwing up uh, uh, uh, you’re giving me another uh invisible dragon in the garage, um
What is the issue were not talking about
Yeah, but they
But they have track records that support the idea that you should trust them
Okay, so
What you’re telling me is that you trust the FDA to to be able to tell you when he’s not doing, good science, but also that you don’t trust the FDA
Do you see an inherent conflict there ?
Well, when I, whenever I would ask about, like, why would these trials aren’t happening uh and, you know, you say well the the FDA’s arranged it
The FDA’s in control
They sign off on these things
But they’re they’re they’re they’re at the same that they’re, they’re trustworthy they’re also not trustworthy depending on what you need for the particular argument at the time
You’re suggesting that they’re untrustworthy
I I would say that the the FDA has given Burzynski every opportunity for decades
Every opportunity
When he didn’t have r r really, he got special treatment as far as I can tell
Uh, the, I’m rather stunned every morning I wake up and don’t see in the paper, that that place has has been closed down
I, I really am
Uh, so, you know, that one doesn’t really fly with me either
Um
Do you know that the FDA pulled out of the prosecution ?
Did you know that the FDA pulled out of the prosecution um of his criminal case, because they were backing a researcher ?
Yeah, the the the it wasn’t the FDA who was pressing charges, it was a Federal prosecutor
Right
And and, they declined to provide information that the prosecution needed
That’s important
That that that’s really important
That he has been given the benefit of the doubt, and he has come up wanting, for decades now
The, no, claims works
He claims works
One of the things I think
One of the things that I think is happening here
One of the things I think is happening here, is that lots of people have worked with Burzynski and then have stopped working with B Burzynski
Uh, you know, uh lots of uh uh uh these partnerships do not seem to work out in the end
I often wonder, if the uh, the way that these things are, are are playing out, because it’s s so reliable that they’re, that these partnerships are going to fail, I I wonder if th they are designed in such a way, that for instance, um a, uh, a a partner would be uncomfortable working
with him
Or um or that the specifications for what it takes to enter one of these trials is so high, that nobody will ever enter the trials
I mean, I wonder if they are, what, especially, like why hasn’t Burzynski left the country ?
That’s what I want to know
Exactly
If he was so, if he was s so persecuted and really cares about getting his treatment out to the world, why wouldn’t he ?
They’re, they’re lots of things going on here
David James has pointed this out, that a lot of questions I’m asking are not going answered
“I still don’t know how long it would take before you would have any doubts about Burzynski”
“I still have no idea, how often we can see patients reporting that signs of getting worse are getting better, before you would change your mind”
I’ve made it very clear that he just needs to have a completed study published and replicated before I support his right to go out and charge people what he’s charging for these, for these drugs, and I’m I’m just not seeing that here with you, and I I wonder what could come from, and don’t worry I will go to your site and I will comment on on on what you’ve run
Um, but, you know, I I I I it’s hard for Skeptics to imagine, what could be gained from engaging with you, if there seems to be no conceivable way, that we can, one, get a straight answer for, how many patients will have to report that getting worse is getting better before you starting doubting your opinion, or, uh, how many uh, uh, how many years does this have to go on before you decide that, “No, we probably just can’t produce the goods”
One of the interesting things about Doubting Thomas that I think you should definitely consider for yourself, is that at some point, when faced with the real opportunity to prove or disprove his assertions, he doubted himself
And that’s important
And that’s where you’re falling short in the analogy
I’ve laid out exactly what it would take for me to turn on a fucking dime
I have, I have made it abundantly clear what I need
Gorski has made it abundantly clear
Everybody else, Guy, and David, and Josephine Jones, uh, the Morgans, all of them have made it abundantly clear, what it would take to change our minds, and you’ve never done that
And even in this, this was an opportunity to do that
To come up with a basis for understanding, where it’s like, you know what, If we can show this, you know, if we can show a this guy, that, that, there, that his standards are not being met, then, you know, we could possibly have some sort of ongoing dialogue after this
Why wasn’t that study
Why wasn’t that , that that that, still . . again, it it doesn’t seem really to to approach the the the, main question here
You know, um . . what are the standards that you have that it isn’t, what are your standards to show that it isn’t efficacious ?
Why was the Mayo
Why was the Mayo study delayed ?
Well you said you had so many years before you finish it and go in
Why, why did it take so long ?
I have something for you, okay ?
Send me that
Could you send me that study the way that it was published because um, just just send me the final study, um, to my e-mail address
Um, because, I can ask that question of those researchers, why was this study in this time, and what happened in-between
Why did it take so long for it, for it to come out
Right
Um, but it it would, perhaps, answer the question; because you’re using it as an example on the basis of which to dismiss criticism, whether or not, uh, it is the standard, and therefor you’re allowed to accept that Burzynski hasn’t published until 2016, or, um, it’s an anomaly, which is also a possibility, that most stuff comes out more quickly
I I, yeah, the other thing that David James points out is, you know, why 2016 when he’s had 36 years already ?
Treating people
You would expect the Burzynski Patient Group to be a lot bigger after 36 years, and in fact is
So, if you’re unsure about this stuff, if you’re unsure about the the time to publication, why are you defending it so hard, other than saying, “I don’t know, I really need to”
Uh about the
The reasons, the reasons for which that he’s, no, why are you defending him so hard, when you’re unsure ?
I’ve backed-up everything that
Every time that I’ve tried
and then other people
Way back
It is about
It is about as efficacious
Yeah, I’ve, and and I based that on a a a that type of thing
You, you, you can read that how you want, right ?
There
He does have the accent though
Right ?
No
Alright ?
No, but listen, like, it it it’s not, it, we we don’t understand why you defend himself so hard, when there is such a paucity of of of information out there
Um
Even if it’s true or false you, honestly though
Even if it’s true or false, in in that particular instance, you know, eh let’s just say that you’re right
Gorski gets that point completely wrong
It has no bearing on whether or not, ANP works
That’s a Red Herring
You’re just focusing on this, on this little niggly stuff, where the real question, is does it work ?
Are patients getting better at a better rate then not
or otherwise ?
We’re were talking about whether or not there’s evidence to suggest it works
The FDA, see that’s the thing
You, the FDA are are, you know, you invest them with, we’re just, we’re just circling around again
Uh um, alright
Well, this has gone on for rather a, longer than I thought it would
Um, I, uh, wanna thank you for coming on here
I wasn’t sure that you would actually do it
Um, I’m glad that you did
I’m glad that we talked
Um, I will look at your web-site, and we will, uh, we, uh, you, oh make sure that I I go to your blog and and I talk there
Um
Please do
And I will look at those
Maybe not in the next few days; I’ve got a lot going on but
Alright
Um
I don’t think he is
I don’t think he’s afraid
I just think he’s got a lot going on
He is act, a full-time surgical oncologist and researcher
He does have insane am, he has to pick and choose his battles
And if, if if he saw that we were going to ultimately be circling around our same arguments again and again; kind of like we’ve done here, um, he uh, you, he doesn’t have time for that, I don’t think
Alright
I I would ask that you to to go back over The The Other Burzynski Patient Group and take their stories seriously, because they deserve at least the same amount of consideration that the survivors do
That’s my
That’s my kids, okay
Well, Thanks for much for talking
I greatly appreciate it
Alright
Take it easy