text:
Tag Archives: blogger
Pete Cohen chats with Richard A. Jaffe, Esq.
Posted on November 6, 2013 by didymusjudasthomas
4/2012 – Pete Cohen chats with Rick Jaffe
(33:59) 11/9/2012
Richard A. Jaffe, Esq.
How did you meet Dr. Burzynski?
A long time ago in 1988, um, he hired us to represent him in his Medical Board case, so, uh, started working for him then, and then there got to be more and more work, and, uh, at some point it was so much work, it was just easier for me to be down here
So I moved from New York to Texas, mostly just to, to represent him, and my wife was in the oil industry, so, it was a "no brainer" for her to move down here too
And how, were you intrigued by this whole case ?
I mean, did you work out straight away that this guy was genuine, and there was really something here ?
How do you know, you know ?
At the time we represented, uh, a number of a alternative health practitioners around the country, and we heard a lot about Burzynski, but you don't really know
I mean, um, um, there are a lot of stories out there
Every doctor seems to have a few patients, uh, that were helped
So initially, I mean, how do you know ?
His operation was larger than most of any, uh, health practitioners, alternative health practitioners in the country, and, uh, seemed a lot more sophisticated, but, uh, it's not really until you dig in the medical records of the patients that you really see what's going on
I mean, that's what you really need
I mean,
It's not really even, it's
'cause this whole thing about anecdotal evidence, that everyone has testimony
so every doctor
You know what I mean ?
Even charlatans have testimony
one or two people
or 3 or 4 that'll come, and say w
they were cured, and maybe, maybe the patients really believe that to be the case, but, um, oftentimes there's other explanations
Prior treatment, um, the nature of the disease
Sometimes it's such that their natural, the natural history is not straight linear, um, but after looking at some of the medical records, I mean, you know, I think
it's just,
uh, anybody would become a believer, and indeed, I mean, government, government doctors have come down here and looked at
some of the records, and they were convinced that, that the treatment was causing remissions in some brain cancer patients
So, I mean, obviously lawyers, I imagine many lawyers all over the world would often take on a case, when they know, possibly the guy isn't telling the truth, but they can see there's still a story, and they, they, they, they, uh, represent that person, but for you, I suppose
that when you realized that there really was a story here, did you kind of get, emotionally caught up in this whole thing and think: "Right, th this guy's got a cure for cancer, and I I need to bring this to, bring him to just, not bring him to justice, but, clear his name
Well, I think with Burzynski, more so than any client I've ever represented
He represents a unique constellation of medical services
He's the only guy in the world doing what he's doing with antineoplastons and now with this treatment, so, it's really different
Uh, you know, with Burzynski, most of the patients, are in bad shape
They're either dying, uh, they, or they have a disease for which there is no known cure, you know, like a lot of these brain tumors
So, even from the beginning, what's different is their are many, many patients back then who were on the treatment, that uh, that felt that without this treatment they were going to die, and so that, that's much different, than the average, any kind of lawsuit
So th th these lawsuits, the Burzynski cases back then and now, uh, these cases matter, in a, in a deeper, and fundamental, and personal way than most anything, well I think that any lawyer does
I mean, any criminal defense lawyer, who defends an individual, is defending that person's, uh, liberty
Versus incarceration
But here it, it wasn't so much, or, it wasn't exclusively about Burzynski, it was really about all these other patients, and they certainly believe they needed him, and, uh, uh, many of them, obviously did
So, so that, that, that's a whole 'nother dimension, which typically we lawyers don't get involved in
So, I mean, it's a responsibility but also a great privilege to be working on these kinds of cases
You've been representing him for how long ?
For a long time
Since 1988, continuously
And can you believe this is still going on ?
Well, you know, uh, it's, you know, it's, it's just ongoing
I mean, until there's a cure for cancer, for all cancer, either done by acknowledged
or, uh, uh, to be Burzynski's cure or somebody else's
I mean, this is ongoing
And I guess the problem is, you know, ultimately, there's nobody yet
Not even Burzynski has the cure for every cancer or
even every stage, or even ev, every, ev, ev, every person that had cancer
So, because it's such a tough battle, and because, it doesn't work on everyone
So you have these open questions
Ah, so, so,
Yeah, I mean, I guess, I, I can't believe he's still messing around with these clinical trials
I mean, I think that if the drug didn't have his name attached to it, it'd probably would have been approved by now
So, and I think, so that, that's unfortunate, I think, that when you fight the FDA, and even if you win, you know, the F, the repercussions, you know, you know I, you know I
Hopefully the drug will be approved, sometime in the future, but, but who knows ?
So, um, why do you think, why was it, I mean, obviously I came over here as you know, for this case, which is now not going ahead at the moment
Why, why, why is that ?
Wha, what has the judge, said ?
Well, of course, you have to (under)stand, this case involves a different type of treatment
It doesn't involve antineoplastons,the drug Dr. Burzynski invented, and your friend is receiving, and it involves a new approach to cancer, which is sort of like personalized medicine, where they take a bunch of FDA approved drugs, that have shown some promise, on a particular cancer, but are not, uh, approved for that indication, and based on these early clinical trials showing promising results for genetic testing they give these combinations of FDA approved drugs, off-label to patients, and that's really what the, this case is about, and, uh, you know I think, I don't think they, they never had a case
I mean, they never had a case
The, the main allegation, in each, of the 2 patients involved, is that they used this treatment, which wasn't sufficiently tested, and was non-therapeutic, and whatnot, and we had a, what I would call a dry run
We presented the evidence to the Board, or 2 members of the Board, in both of these cases
In each, in each case, the Board members felt that the treatment, was within the standard of care, given the advanced condition of the patient, or one patient, and given how rare the other patient's tumor was
So, we had our dry run in each case, and the Board found in our favor on the main charge
They had some technical issues with medical records or whatnot, and, uh, the Board basically said, they took the position, ok, agree to some kind of sanction on these little charges, or, or we're going to go after you on everything
So, we refused the honor, and, uh, the Board then charged him with the same thing that they already cleared him with, or on, and, and so we had to do, you know, basically the same case again, and, uh, the irony in, is in these 2 cases Burzynski wasn't even in the country
He was, he was, he was away for, uh, in both, for both cases, when the patientscame
So, uh, the question is how do you hold someone responsible
Even if you own the clinic, for treatment administered and prescribed, by other doctors, and that concept of vicarious liability does not, uh, exist in jurisprudence, and in the law governing professional re, responsibility, anywhere in this country
So, the Board'strying to start that
You know, I think they just got in over their heads, they
Most people just knuckle under
You know, most people don't, are afraid to go to court, so they'll sign anything just to, you know, not to go forward, but, you know, Burzynski faced serious stuff
I mean, he set, faced, 5, 10, 15 years in jail
So he wasn't going to be intimidated, by the Medical Board, and he refused to give in
So when I told the Board at the time, and I told them all along, they have no case, and o on the merits they have no case
We already won, and they have no case now, and, and slowly I think, the Board is starting to understand that
And what sort of a person would you say Dr. Burzynski is ?
Well I think he's a complicated person
I mean, I think, uh, uh, you know, he, I think like a lot of mavericks; I represent a lot of mavericks around the, uh, uh, country
One of the main characteristics of these guys, is that they have absolute and total certainty, in what they believe in, in what they do, um, and no doubt
Uh, they all think they're right
They all think that history is going to vindicate them
Now, I've represented some people where I personally doubt (laugh) that, uh, uh, that belief, but not in Dr. Burzynski's case
I mean, I think he's all, he's definitely helping people
He's definitely, uh, uh, uh, making, extending people's lives, and curing some people that otherwise would have died, and so I think he, and so I think he happens to be right
So, uh, you know, so, but, but he's a human
He's got a big ego
He thinks he's, uh, he thinks he has made an important, contribute to medicine, and he's not shy about sharing that sentiment
So, uh, I think, and I think that he's, uh, not American
So he comes with a completely different mentality towards, say, the government
Alright, he grew up in communist Poland, where everyone, where everyone, has to work around, the government, and I think that's much harder here, and, you know, I think he has expectations that, that he would have a lot more freedom, than it turned out he had, too, and he thought he would not have to deal with the kind of government, uh, rigamarole that you have to deal with in communist, Poland
And, and how do you think it might all pan out for him ?
I mean, I know you don't have a crystal ball, but if you could look, 5 or 10 years down into the future, and, do you think that he will have got somewhere, to be accepted in the medical (?) of oncology ?
Well, I certainly hope so
I mean, 5, 10 years from now
I mean, I think, at a minimum, what's going to happen, there will be many, many patients who will be alive, and continue to be alive because of him
Some, will have their lives extended
Some will be cured
Some wi, won't be cured, and will die
So, I think that's for sure, going to happen
You know, is there going to be an end to, uh, all this ?
We had a period of maybe 10 years where there was very little action with the Board, but, uh, you know, it's hard, frankly, I mean, just in, and again my perspective, like I'm in a, like a, a sergeant in the trenches, in trench (laugh) warfare
So, it's hard for me to see the big picture
I mean, I just keep fighting these battles, and there's one, after another, after another
So this is really just the latest, and on there's civil lawsuits, and then there are people on the Internet, and then, you know, there could be more Medical Board investigations
So, lo, look there are a lot of people who don't like what he's doing
They think what he's doing is either unethical or wrong, or shouldn't be giving drugs, these drugs to people, except under clinical trial conditions, and, you know, he has detractors, and he has a lot of supporters
I mean, uh, mostly amongst the patients he's cured
So, I don't know that, that, that is gonna resolve itself
I mean, ultimately, he's one of the few people in the country, that, or maybe the only person in the country that does what he does, and, it's not the way medicine is practiced, in this country, typically
Right, and, you know, I think what he does, is, is more, is more patient oriented, in a sense that, once you've been told you're terminal, why should you just get the palliative care that a medical oncologist thinks, you know, they should be given
even though when, no one ever gets cured of chemotherapy, once it's palliative, once you have stage 4, solid tumor
I mean, they give chemotherapy for what they call palliative reasons, which means, not curative
So, this concept of giving, just conventional chemotherapy to make you feel better, extend your life 9 weeks, I mean, y, not everyone wants to do that
Some people want a shot for a real cure, and, you know, based on the evidence with antineoplastons
, I mean, he seems to be giving people that shot, and curing some of the people
So, you, you know, I don't see how, this thing gets resolved
Up until the time that the
treatment, the
antineoplastons is approved by the FDA and, you know,
it's, it's hard to see a clear path, for that, for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is financial
I mean, it takes dozens of 10's of millions of dollars
or 10, 100's of millions
So, I mean, someone has to finance the clinical trials
The drug companies aren't interested right now
They'd just as soon, buy a drug that's been fully tested
So, I mean, the drug company response has not been overwhelming, because, even though this phase 2 phase, have resolved, and, and, uh, they have excellent results, the drug companies want to wait and see
So, uh, it's, it's big money
I don't think there's any way in the world Dr. Burzynski, himself, can fund phase 3
I mean, he, he funded everything else now, but phase 3 are, is a much bigger stage involving dozens and 100's of patients, and that's just within the financial means of any individual
it seems like it's unlikely that its going to happen right
I mean, even from the point of view of, what, with phase 3 trials, they'll be with children
with brainstem gliomas, right
and the FDA's saying they've got to have radiation
Yeah I, um,
I unfortunately, I haven't been involved in that process
I just see the result, and I, I, I just don't see how any parent agrees to that, you know
I don't see how any parent agrees to it
I don't see how clinical investigator, agrees to do it
Um, I don't know
I got so, I got some questions of the FDA as to, why they forced him into this particular protocol
I mean, I don't know
I don't have any facts or evidence, but I, I, just doesn't make any sense to me
what's you're about that ?
I mean, I, it just doesn't seem to me, that it's a, that it's a fair clinical trial that
either an investigator would find ethical, or a patient, or a family, would agree to have their patient treat, their, their kid treated under
I mean, it just doesn't make any sense to me
I mean, it's worse than
I mean, both phases, both phases, both arms of the study, you get radiation
It's radiation alone versus radiation with his stuff
So, I mean, it just doesn't make any sense to me, given, given the clinical, the phase 2 clinical trial results
So just a, so just a few things, like, you know I'm going to talk about big Pharma, and then talk about the FDA
They talk about the many people as if they're one person, but, you know, they're obviously a collective group of individuals who work for an organization, right ?
Well, I mean, I think, the concern is, that the FDA now, by statute is, in no small part funded, by the pharmaceutical industry
It's like "Pay as you go"
So the, the pharmaceutical ind, industry now, pays for, the processing of the clinical trials by the FDA
So, and then you have the whole concept of the revolving door
You have a lot of government officials going into the drink, uh, drug companies
So I think that's another problem
So, I mean, you know, I think conspiracy is too strong of a word, m, but, you know, I will say, I don't think the system's set up, for an individual like Burzynski, to get a drug approved
I, I, I just don't see
There's no support for that
I mean, the days
I mean, it's like, Einstein, you know ?
He sat in a patent office, and, and doodled, and had his little theory
He could never get his, stuff published today, you know ?
Where did he go to school
Where was he teaching, you know ?
So Burzynski has a lot of the same problems
They say he doesn't publish, but, they won't let him publish
So, uh, or they won't let him publish , in, in the mainstream journals
So, I, I, I think though, I think the, I think the system, has a strong bias, against a guy with a discovery
So, that's not quite saying, there's a conspiracy, but it's, it's sort of along the same lines, and, you know, the conspiracy implies some kind of, um, intentionality on the part of one or two, or some small group or coterie of people, and I don't know, I don't think that's really the case
I think what happens is, the institutions are such that, they allow certain things, and disallow certain things
I think that's just
there's no
I don't think there's any 2, 3, 4, or some, coterie of Rocka, they're like a Rockefeller conspiracy
People are saying that there are 12 industrials
That they control the world
I mean, I don't see that happening, but, the whole system is such that, you know, it's, it's
I guess what, uh
The, there's a book by, uh, a, a, Thomas Kuhn, the Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and he talks about, normal science, and how science progresses, in terms of paradigm shifts
So, normal scientific medicine, works, uh, by big institutions doing, studies about combinations of drugs, after drug companies, invent mostly, modifications of existing drugs, and, less commonly, completely new drugs, and, uh, less commonly, different classes of drugs
So, you have a whole, you have a whole pipeline from a drug company, a whole, uh, uh, mechanism of testing, by the universities, funded by the pharmaceutical company, uh, all the pharmaceutical companies, and that, that just doesn't lend itself, to one guy, sitting someplace in Houston, or wherever, and having a drug, put through that process
That just doesn't happen
Burzynski is, so far as I can tell, the only person, to ever completed, a phase 2 trials on a drug he invented
I don't think that's ever happened, before, and I don't think it'll ever happen again
Ah, was it '98, was it the chairman, uh
Kessler ?
I saw, an interview he gave, press, a press conference where he was explaining about, being able to fast-track
The FDA trying to make it possible to fast-track, you know, drugs that have shown, you know, positive, rather than going through all of this sort of clinical trial, and there's a guy in the, in the press conference who started asking questions about Burzynski
and you could just see quite clearly he was very uncomfortable
asking questions about, uh, about Dr. Burzynski
How do you think someone like him,
would view, someone like Dr. Burzynski ?
Not favorably
I think that, uh,
Do you think they must know ?
Do you think they must, even he, let's just say, if he were on his own, he, he knows there's something there
That he's obviously got something
I don't know, uh
I think, that, the guys in conventional medicine, because Burzynski came from orthodox medicine
He was at Baylor
He was a researcher at Baylor
So, I think, they're not going to Burzynski, is that, he didn't go about it, the way, other physicians would have done it, other scientists would have done it
So normally what would happen, is, uh, uh, I mean, I think the critical, point in his story is that, when he was at Baylor, and his, uh, professor was supporting him, this Unger, left, you know, they had space for him
They wanted him to go in the Oncology, uh, Department, but, they wanted the patent, to his drug, and he wouldn't do it
So, that would have been the more conventional approach
You give up the patent rights, you become part of the team, then some big institution, uh, uh, shepherds the drug through, and then they find some drug company support, who will split the patent with the university
So, had he done that, uh, you know, I think the drug woulda been approved by now, but, you know, it was his drug
He came to America with it, and he wasn't going to give it all away
So, I mean, I just think that's, you know, I mean and that's, you know, I think he wasn't expecting that kind of thing in America
Maybe in communist Poland, but not in America
So I think that really, you know, set him down the path of being a, a, an alternative health practitioner
And wha, wha, what was it like for you when, uh, winning, the case, in was it, 199, 3, 1998 ?
Well, you know, there wasn't just one case
I mean, I mean, it was everyone
I mean, I analogize it to, like whack-a-mole, or whack-a-rat, you know
You have, like a rat come out of, of a hole, and you bang him, and one comes out of this hole, and all of a sudden you've got 2, and then 3, and, so, you know, during the early '90's, I mean, I mean, there were 3 grand juries, uh, we had the Medical Board action, which went to hearing in '93
The Texas Department of Health sued him in '92
Half a dozen insurance companies had sued, uh, uh, sued him for, for some, for Racketeering
Uh, Texas Air Quality Department went after him
I'm trying to think who else
So, all of this happened, over the course of 3, or 4, or 5 years, and it was just, continuous, and so, one agency would, would get active, and then, they get beaten down
Then somebody else would come, uh, come up, and surface, and indeed, I mean, you know, it, you know, some of them flat out said they were waiting to see what happened, with this oth, wha, what happened with this other agency, and they weren't gonna do anything, and then when they got tired, they decided, that this new agency had to do something
So, I mean, that was flat out, what happened
So, yeah, I mean, it culminated in the criminal case, I suppose, but even there it was up and down
I mean, the judge ordered, uh, ordered, prohibited him from giving the treatment to anybody else, because the Texas Medical Board case, ultimately went against us, and then we had to go Congress, and Congress forced the FDA to put all his patients on clinical trials which made the Medical B, Board case moot, and then we won the criminal case
So, after we won the criminal case in, uh, '97, things got quiet for a little bit
So that, that, that was good
I mean, it was quiet
I mean, relatively quiet, and then, uh, lately in the last couple years it's been very active again
So the worst case scenario would have been
What would have been the worst case scenario ?
For when ?
And this, this
What could have happened this week if the case had gone ahead ?
Well, the worst case scenario would be, there would be a finding, that, that it's a depart, it's a departure from the standard of care to use, uh, off-label drugs, that haven't been approved by the
FDA for an indicated use, and you can't use the combination of the drugs until someone gives the stamp of approval saying that their safe and effective, which means, you know, you couldn't, it couldn't, you couldn't give the treatment anymore to patients
So you have 100's of patients that are on this multi-agent gene-targeted therapy, and ultimately that form of treatment is only available at the Burzynski Clinic
I mean, I don't think that even clinical trials
Burzynski, depending on how you look at it, he's a few years ahead of, of, uh, well, even the clinical trials
I mean, they're some clinical trials now on different kinds of cancer where they're doing 1, 2, or 3 agents
He'll use 4 or 5, albeit, lesser dosages
So he's treated 1,000's of patients like that, but there's no place else in the world where people can get, the treatment
So it's kinda the same thing as back in the '90's
We have people on drugs, uh, which are unavailable, uh, and, only available through Burzynski
So, if he couldn't give them, to people, then they wouldn't get 'em, and, they're terminal, and, they're doing well
I mean, or they're not going to do as well, or they're going to die
So, it's, I guess it, it's sort of the same thing here, ah, uh, only, uh, the irony is all these drugs are, approved by the FDA, and most cancer patients get off-label, uh, drugs
Drugs off-label
So that's, very common in cancer
It's just that not common with the drug used on these patients, and in the combinations used
So, this finally
Whe, when you've, uh, won these cases, I mean, there must be, it must be good, right ?
It must be good feeling
I had a good feeling last week
I mean, I mean, you know, or I've been working non-stop, for months, every day
I mean, there's no day off in this kind of stuff
It's just constant
It's just, his war
There's always something to do, and then I'm a solo practitioner
So, when the judge cut the heart of the Board's case out, I've been telling the Board, that they can't, that they have no basis to, to, to bring charges against him, for several years, since 2010
, 2009, and they're not listening, and, and, I was pretty sure that once you had a judge look at the case, they would, rule in our favor, you know, but the problem is the Board is, like a law unto themselves, and they think they can do anything, and, uh, they just changed the law, in September
So actually, the Board has no recourse
They, they used to be able to change findings of facts, and conclusions of law, but as of September, 2011, they can no longer do so
So, if the, judges' ruling s, uh, stands, as I think they will, their only remedy is going to be to appeal to a State District Court, and they're not used to that, because they, like exercising, uh, complete authority
So, they're in a new position, and I'm sure this is the 1st case, that they've ever, not gotten what they want to, from, from a judge, administrative law judge, and not being able to correct it
So, I mean, that, this is a good ti, completely new experience for the Board, and I feel bad for them (both: laughing)
You, you, you do
As a Board they all sit down, and as a group of people, and talk about Dr. Burzynski, and, and, and work out how they're gonna bring him down, and then ?
Well, that's more the conspiracy
I, I, I, I think that, some of the Board members, may know of him
He, but, but, but like I say, he's appeared in front of these informal settlement conferences, and basically, individually they, I mean, exonerate him, of, of the main charges, but I, I, I think that, you know, when we talk about the Board, the Board other than these a, acting informal settlement conferences, where you have one Board member, and one member of some district disciplinary review committee, we're not really talking about the Board members, these doctors, and lay members of the Board, we're talking about the Board staff, and that's the lawyers and administrators of the Board, and I think, you know, I don't know
I have some, uh, uh, they need to clean house
I mean, they're getting some very, very bad legal advice, and I, I just think the legal advice at the top, is, is, is horrible, and, and they need to make some dramatic changes, and I think it would be better for the people of Texas if they, just did some house cleaning with the administrative staff there
And what do you think about the way that, uh, Dr. Burzynski's been , what's the word, in England, he's got a very bad press there
(Alright ?)
and, um, why do you think that is ?
Uh, why, well, I mean, look
I mean, I think, people have opinions
They're,
they have the right to express opinions
I mean, I think, uh, some of his agents did some things that I think, were not wise, in retrospect
Uh,
The stuff with the, this kid, this blogger
And I think that, uh
I think you have to be very careful, about what you tell people that are expressing opinions, and, you know, I mean, I, I, I think, you know, I think there's a reason why, lawyers get involved in these cases, and should be involved, and I think what happens is, you know, I think there was a, you know, a well meaning, individual, who just went too far, and I think stirred things up unnecessarily so
You know, I mean, I think someone who had some legal training, acting on Burzynski's behalf, might not have made some of the, you know, just faux pas that were made
So, I mean, that stirred, some things up, and I think
(?) stirred something up that was already there ?
You know, 'cause, I know, I've spoken to so many people in the U.K., and, uh, and you find very few people that have anything positive to say
In fact, a friend of mine who's a famous doctor on television, when I was here, he was on British television with a little girl, and her father, who were trying to, uh, raise money to, um, come over here and, um, in fact, they couldn't come anywhere, come, they couldn't come anyway, because, the, uh, FDA said that this type of brain tumor, she couldn't be treated anyway
But this doctor, who's a friend of mine said, uh, Dr. Burzynski is, you know, he's a medical pioneer
He's, uh, uh, he said that and then literally, for 2 months, non-stop, I think especially on Twitter, they said that he never should have said this, and the guy is a quack, and he's a, he's a fraud, and
So your, your friend got in trouble for saying that he's a pioneer ?
He didn't get in trouble, but I mean he got a lot of bad press, for speaking on television with this child next to him, saying that, Dr. Burzynski was, you know, a pioneer, and pioneers often have a hard time, and
Right, right
And, you know, you look at Twitter, uh, you probably don't
You could be (laugh) and you just see, it's probably, probably the only, 30, hard, hard core people, who spend, all of their time, trying to
Yeah, I think that's right
I think it's a very small group, of people, that are making pretend it's a big movement
I mean, we've looked, at some of the traffic
We've analyzed some of the traffic
I don't even think it's 30
I think it's more like, 3, or 4, or 5, that are creating things, and then someone had some friend who's an actor, who has, you know, 3 million followers, and all
So it's really a very small group of people, but historically, medical doctors who have stood up for Burzynski, have had negative consequences
We had, someone from the National Cancer Institute, NIH testify, this Nick Patronas, and he got in a lot of trouble for doing that
So, you know, it's not, it's, unfortunately, you know, speaking up for Burzynski can have, uh, negative career consequences, or, or just some bad P.R., but that's, part of being a pioneer
It doesn't mean that, uh, Burz, I mean, if anything, I mean, it shows, it shows that's like the medical mafia
So, that's what I call, the church of medical orthodoxy
So, that's what I call
Well I, I think it's gonna be so interesting when I get this film broadcasted, to see what kind of reaction we get
It, it's just a story I felt I had to (?)
Where are, where are you going to try and get it ?
I'm going to try and get it
I know people at the BBC
I've worked in television
So I'm going to try
Oh really, (?)
I'm gonna try those avenues, but you know what ?
Even if it doesn't
You have cable
You have some kind of public access ?
I've, I've worked in television for years
So I've, I have a very good stab at getting it out there, but if I don't, I'll get it broadcasted on the Internet
Oh sure
You do, do a YouTube or something, or do what Merola did as a documentary
That's had an amazing impact
He's making a sequel
Eric was just over in England
I looked after him when he came over
He wanted to talk to some of the patients and doctors
Eric, I said, ah, you know, so, we'll see
But listen, I really appreciate the opportunity to ah
really, to be able to talk to you
http://www.richardjaffe.com
Posted in Bradley, Hannah (Pete Cohen), Burzynski II, FDA, United States Food and Drug Administration, National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Nicholas Patronas, M.D., Richard A. Jaffe, Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski, Texas Medical Board / State Office of Administrative Hearings, The Skeptics	| Tagged "12 industrials", "acting informal settlement conferences", "administrative law judge", "administrative staff", "alternative health practitioner", "alternative health practitioners", "bad legal advice", "bad P.R.", "bad press", "bad shape", "bang him", "beaten down", "Board member", "Board members", "Board staff", "brain cancer", "brain tumor", "brain tumors", "BRAINSTEM GLIOMAs", "church of medical orthodoxy", "civil lawsuits", "clinical investigator", "communist Poland", "complete authority", "completely different mentality", "completely new drugs", "concept of vicarious liability", "conclusions of law", "conventional approach", "conventional chemotherapy", "conventional" medicine", "criminal case", "criminal defense lawyer", "cure for cancer", "different classes of drugs" pipeline, "district disciplinary review committee", "Dr. Burzynski", "dramatic changes", "drug approved", "drug companies", "drug company support", "drug company", "dry run", "extending people's lives", "fast-track", "faux pas", "findings of facts", "genetic testing", "government doctors", "government officials", "grand juries", "Hannah's Anecdote", "health practitioners", "house cleaning", "I feel bad for them", "indicated use", "insurance companies", "judge cut the heart of the Board's case out", "law governing professional responsibility", "law unto themselves", "lay members of the Board", "legal advice", "legal training", "mainstream journals", "Medical Board investigations", "Medical Board", "medical doctors", "medical oncologist", "medical pioneer", "medical records", "millions of dollars", "modifications of existing drugs", "multi-agent gene-targeted therapy", "natural history", "nature of the disease", "negative career consequences", "negative consequences", "Nicholas Patronas", "Nick Patronas", "non-stop", "non-therapeutic", "normal science", "normal scientific medicine", "not curative", "Oncology Department", "orthodox medicine", "palliative care", "paradigm shifts", "patent rights", "patient oriented", "personalized medicine", "Pete Cohen", "pharmaceutical companies", "pharmaceutical company", "pharmaceutical industry", "phase 3 trials", "press conference", "Prior treatment", "professor Unger", "public access", "revolving door", "Rick Jaffe", "Rockefeller conspiracy", "safe and effective", "science progresses", "solo practitioner", "stage 4 solid tumor", "standard of care", "State District Court", "stirred things up", "sufficiently tested", "technical issues", "Texas Air Quality Department", "Texas Department of Health", "the phase 2 clinical trial results", "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", "Thomas Kuhn", "trench warfare", "we refused the honor", "whack-a-mole", "whack-a-rat", "worst case scenario", administered, administrators, advanced, agents "not wise", alive, allegation, America, analogize, antineoplaston, antineoplastons, appeal, approval, approved, "Off label", "Pay as you go", "phase 2 trials", Baylor, BBC, believe, bias, blogger, British Broadcasting Corporation, British television", broadcast, broadcasted, cable, Cancer, careful, charges, charlatans, CHEMOTHERAPY, CHILDREN, Clinical Trial, Clinical Trials, combinations, communist, completed, complicated person", condition, Congress, conspiracy, Conspiracy Theory, contribute, coterie, court, critical, culminated, CURE, cured, curing, David A. Kessler", depart, departure, detractors, die, died, discovery, disease, doctors, documentary, dosages, drug, dying, ego, Einstein, emotionally, england, Eric Merola, Esq.", ethical, evidence, exercising, exonerate, expectations, experience, explanations, express, F.D.A., FACTS, FDA, Film, financial, fraud, Freedom, genuine, government, historically, hole, horrible, Houston, http://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/06/pete-cohen-chats-with-richard-a-jaffe-esq/, http://youtu.be/xAxsIAvivcI, IMPORTANT, incarceration, institution, Internet, intimidated, invented, investigator, irony, jail, judge, judges, jurisprudence, lawsuits, lawyer, lawyers, liberty, linear, mavericks, mechanism, medical mafia", medicine, merits, moot, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, NCI, NIH, opinion, opinions, palliative, parent, patent, patient, patients, people, perspective, Pharma, pharmaceutical, physicians, pioneer, Poland, positive, prescribed, privilege, prohibited, protocol, publish, published, quack, Racketeering, RADIATION, rat, refused, remedy, remissions, repercussions, represent, represented, representing, researcher, resolve, resolved, responsibility, retrospect, Richard A. Jaffe, rigamarole, scenario, scientists, sentiment, sequel, sergeant, shepherds, Skeptics, statute, stirred, sue, sued, supporters, television, terminal, testify, testimony, testing, Texas, Texas Medical Board, The Skeptics, theory, treatment, trenches, tumor, Twitter, U.K., unavailable, unethical, universities, University, vindicate, wrong, YouTube	| Leave a reply
United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA): September 28, 2013 "The Skeptics™" Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
[1] – September 28, 2013 "The Skeptics™" Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
BB – Bob Blaskiewicz
DJT – Didymus Judas Thomas
BB – "Ummm, o-kay"
BB – "A every time that I and and and and, and David (James @StortSkeptic the Skeptic Canary) points this out, that um, you you know you're not going to speculate about the the FDA but then at every turn you're invoking the FDA as being obstructionist"
BB – "I, I just find that to be contradictory and and self-defeating"
DJT – Bob, exactly where did I invoke "the FDA as being obstructionist" ?
BB – "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"
BB – "it's it's it's up to Burzynski"
DJT – Bob, Burzynski showed and proved what he needed to prove to the FDA in order to do phase 2 clinical trials, 9/3/2004 – FDA granted "orphan drug designation" ("ODD") for Antineoplastons (A10 & AS2-1 Antineoplaston) for treatment of patients with brain stem glioma, .10/30/2008 – FDA granted "orphan drug designation" ("ODD") for Antineoplastons (A10 and AS2-1 Antineoplaston) for treatment of gliomas, and FDA approved phase 3 [1-2]
Oh, and Bob, exactly when did Burzynski 1st claim "this miracle cancer cure" ?
BB – "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 ?"
DJT – Bob, you make it sound like it's part of some grand "conspiracy" between Burzynski and the FDA to keep information from "The Skeptics™" [3]
21CFR601
Subpart F–Confidentiality of Information
Sec. 601.50
Confidentiality of data and information in an investigational new drug notice for a biological product
(a) The existence of an IND notice for a biological product will not be disclosed by the Food and Drug Administration unless it has previously been publicly disclosed or acknowledged
BB – "While you may imagine that that, that that the FDA is is somehow antagonistic toward him"
DJT – Bob, that certainly explains the 9/3/2004 and .10/30/2008 ODD's and phase 3 clinical trial approvals by the FDA – NOT [1-2]
BB – "I don't, the thing is though that, that that's a inver, shifting the burden of proof off of Burzynski"
DJT – Bob, who initiated and put into place the clinical trial hold ?
Burzynski ?
FDA ?
Both ?
BB – "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"
BB – "That's not an option, because they're never gonna do it"
Bob, where are the "final reports" for those "3 reviews" ?
BB – "Right ?"
DJT – Bob, Burzynski has provided numerous phase 2 clinical trial preliminary reports, which our #fave oncologist has chosen to ignore [4]
BB – "they test it"
DJT – Bob, have you checked The Lancet Oncology [5] to see what was so much more important than Burzynski's "phase 2 clinical trial Progression-Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS) re patients 8 – 16 years after diagnosis, results" [6] and the Japanese antineoplaston study ? [7]
BB – "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 ?"
DJT – Well, how have I been speculating ?
BB – "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 ?"
DJT – Note how, above, without proving it, Bob claimed "at every turn you're invoking the FDA as being obstructionist", and now, directly above, again, without proving it, Bob claims "You've been speculating about what the FDA's motivation are like crazy"
DJT – what the journals keep saying, in response
BB – "What ?"
DJT – 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" ?
BB – "But these but but but that doesn't have any bearing on"
DJT – 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
DJT – Not that he's been practicing medicine medicine for 36 years, or whatever, it's when the clin, clinical trial was done
BB – "I could push it back to 36 years"
DJT – Note how Bob acts like he's been hit with "The Stupid Stick"
If he wants to go back "36 years", I can refer back to 1991 (11/15/1991) – Michael J. Hawkins, M.D., Chief, Investigational Drug Branch, Department of Health &Human Services (HHS), Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Cancer Institute (NCI), sent a 1 page Memorandum Re:
Antineoplaston to Decision Network, which advised, in part:
"It was the opinion of the site visit team that antitumor activity was documented in this best case series and that the conduct of Phase II trials was indicated to determine the response rate" [8]
DJT – The FDA A believes there is evidence of efficacy
BB – "Perhaps based on bad phase 2"
DJT – Well, we don't know that
DJT – Remember, Bob is the one who told me during the 9/28/2013 Google+ Burzynski Discussion Hangout:
"There is a correct answer here"
"Everytime somebody throws uh uh something to me,
I have to look into it"
Bob just ASSUMED that the FDA approved phase 3 clinical trials for Burzynski "Perhaps based on bad phase 2", but tells me NOT to ASSUME ?
BB – "He withdrew"
DJT – 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
BB – "Uh did do do you think that if they thought that he was a real doctor that they all would have refused like that ?"
DJT – Well, Eric gave the reasons that they said they would not take a particular uh phase 3
Note how Bob pulls out the old "if they thought that he was a real doctor" line ?
Is Bob now claiming that Burzynski is NOT even a "real doctor" ?
BB – "He's changed things"
DJT – Eric said they gave
BB – "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"
"What about the the Public Library of Science?"
DJT – We'll I'm
BB – "Um, and he doesn't seem to to have evailed himself of that, as far as I can tell"
BB – "Either way, he's gonna tell us what happens"
Note how Bob refers to Burzynski's numerous publications as "such a thin publishing record"
Bob, do I need to count all of these for you ? [9]
DJT – 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
I mean, we'll see what happens with the Japanese study [7]
BB – "So let's go back to this"
BB – "He should have access to this"
Bob, did you ask:
1. Annals of Oncology 2010;21:viii221 ?
2. European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), Colorectal cancer, Abstract: 3558, May 17, 2010 ?
3. Colorectal Cancer Association of Canada, COLORECTAL CANCER RESEARCH, Month Ending June 19, 2009
11. Antineoplaston Therapy Doubles 5-Year Survival Rate Following Curative Resection of Hepatic Mets (May 27/09) pg. 5 of 20 ?
4. Kurume University School of Medicine (Japan) Department of Surgery ?
5. Hideaki Tsuda ? [7]
BB – "How how long will it take before you recognize that, nothing is forthcoming ?"
DJT – 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 ?"
BB – "Well, I mean, were talking about a blog here"
"In in this case we're talking about, 1,000′s of patients, over the course of of of generations, you know"
BB – "Nothing that that has made all of that um, uh, n nothing th th th that uh his peers would take seriously"
Bob, do you want to have a contest to determine which of you is more "reliable" ?
DJT – Well, he gave you The Lancet information and he posted the e-mail in the movie, and Josephine Jones posted a copy of it [6]
BB – "He then, and then he"
DJT – 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
BB – "Where has Eric been wrong ?"
DJT – 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
BB – "It's it's it's it's a form letter"
DJT – Well you would think that if its a form letter they would use the same form that they used the 2nd time
BB – "So, so, possibly"
DJT – Nah, I'm not saying that they did that all
BB – "Do you know it was the same editor, that it came from the same desk ?"
BB – "Um"
DJT – Well I find it funny, something along the lines of, you know, "We believe your message would be received better elsewhere, you know
BB – "Well, not necessarily"
BB – "I I have no problems whatsoever with seeing that this might not be completely uh um uh streamlining uniform processes as possible"
BB – "We wanna see the frickin' data"
DJT – Well, I'm sure, I'm sure Gorski would have a comment about that, as he's commented previously about how he thinks uh Burzynskishould publish
BB – "It's the, it's the data itself"
DJT – 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"
DJT – So then he can go on, you know, for however many years he wants to
BB – "Um, almost no treatment goes out without trials"
Bob, do you think that's the 2.5 million pages of clinical trial data that Fabio said Burzynski sent to the FDA ? [10]
BB – "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"
Bob, exactly where did I exhibit any "kind of back-peddling" ?
BB – "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"
DJT – Well y'all, y'all can call things what y'all want
BB – "Okay, so"
DJT – How did I say I, I didn't trust them ?
BB – "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"
BB – "You're suggesting that they're untrustworthy"
DJT – No, I'm just sayin' that I've raised questions and none of The Skeptics wanna to uh talk about 'em [11]
BB – "Do you know that the FDA pulled out of the prosecution ?"
Bob, would that "researcher" be Dvorit D. Samid, who was in Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business (Part I) ?
DJT – Well, we know a lot stuff they did, but that still doesn't impress me that they pulled out of the prosecution
BB – "Yeah, the the the it wasn't the FDA who was pressing charges, it was a Federal prosecutor"
DJT – Right
BB – "Right"
DJT – 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 you 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
BB – "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"
DJT – Well, I think The Skeptics, Skeptics are falling short because, you know, they don't own up to
BB – "I've laid out exactly what it would take for me to turn on a fucking dime"
BB – "And even in this, this was an opportunity to do that"
DJT – So I can say that since the Mayo Clinic (Correction: M.D. Anderson) 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
BB – "Why wasn't that study"
DJT – for me to make up my mind (laughing)
BB – "Why wasn't that, that that that, still . . again, it it doesn't seem really to to approach the the the, main question here"
DJT – Well I can say, well I'm going to have to wait, the same amount of time I had to wait for Mayo (Correction: M.D. Anderson) to publish their study; which was from 2006 to 2013
BB – "Why was the Mayo"
"Why was the Mayo (Correction: M.D. Anderson) study delayed ?"
Note how Bob ASSUMES that the publishing of the final results of the M.D. Anderson study were delayed
DJT – How do you know it was delayed ?
BB – "Well you said you had so many years before you finish it and go in"
DJT – I mean, has anybody
BB – "Why, why did it take so long ?"
DJT – done a review of when a clinical trial is studied, and completed, and how long it took the people to publish it ?
BB – "I have something for you, okay ?"
DJT – Sure
BB – "Um, because, I can ask that question of those researchers, why was this study in this time, and what happened in-between"
BB – "Why did it take so long for it, for it to come out"
DJT – 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
DJT – 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 ?
BB – "I I, yeah, the other thing that David James points out is you know, why 2016 when he's had 36 years already ?"
DJT – Again, we get back to, when the clinical trial is finished, not when Burzynski started
BB – "Treating people"
DJT – I mean, you would expect to find a results to be published after, the final results are in
BB – "You would expect the Burzynski Patient Group to be a lot bigger after 36 years, and in fact is
DJT – You would expect some people would want to have confidentiality, and maybe not want to be included
BB – "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"
DJT – Why am I unsure ?
BB – "Uh about the
DJT – (laughing) I just gave you an example
BB – "The reasons, the reasons for which that he's, no, why are you defending him so hard, when you're unsure ?
DJT – Oh, who said I was unsure ?
Note how Bob ASSUMES that I'm "unsure" when I had the same answer since 0:32:07 [12]
Bob, who approves "Accelerated Approval" ?
1. FDA ?
2. A peer-reviewed scientific journal ?
3. The Skeptics™ ?
Bob, It's your unlucky [13]
[2] – FDA grants Orphan Drug Designation (ODD) for A10 and AS2-1:
Click to access PressRelease_12022008_BZYR(2).pdf
josephinejones (@_JosephineJones), D Nile ist http://josephinejones.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/happy-birthday-dr-burzynski-and-goodbye-antineoplastons/comment-page-1/#comment-8921
[3] – The Skeptics @Majikthyse reveals madjik research skilz:
[4] – Critiquing David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
[5] – The Lancet Oncology
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/onlinefirst
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/issue/current
[6] – FINALLY, one of "The Skeptics™" has the "Balls" to do what even Dr. David H. "Orac" Gorski would NOT do:
[7] – Burzynski – The Antineoplaston Randomized Japan Phase II Clinical Trial Study:
http://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/burzynski-the-antineoplaston-randomized-japan-phase-ii-clinical-trial-study/
[8] – Critiquing: National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) CancerNet "fact sheet":
http://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/critiquing-national-cancer-institute-nci-at-the-national-institutes-of-health-nih-cancernet/
[9] – Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski Publications:
http://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/stanislaw-rajmund-burzynski-publications/
[12] – The Biggest Loser: "The Skeptics™" Guy Chapman (guychapman @vGuyUK @SceptiGuy) http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg/ – September 28, 2013 "The Skeptics™" Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
http://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/the-biggest-loser-the-skeptics-guy-chapman-guychapman-vguyuk-sceptiguy-httpwww-chapmancentral-co-ukblahg-september-28-2013-the-skeptics/
Posted in Antineoplastons (ANP), bias, biased, Bob Blaskiewicz (Robert J. Blaskiewicz @rjblaskiewicz), Brainstem Gliomas (DBSG), Burzynski Phase II Clinical Trials, David James (Skeptic Canary), Debate ?, Dvorit D. Samid, FDA, United States Food and Drug Administration, Gorski ScienceBlogs.com/Insolence ScienceBasedMedicine, Hideaki Tsuda, Institutional Review Board (IRB), JosephineJones (@_JosephineJones), Michael Hawkins, M.D., National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Orphan Drug Designation (ODD), Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski, The Skeptics	| Tagged "2.5 million pages", "9/28/2013 Google+ Burzynski Discussion Hangout", "abundantly clear", "accelerated approval", "Annals of Oncology 2010;21:viii221", "Antineoplaston Therapy Doubles 5-Year Survival Rate Following Curative Resection of Hepatic Mets", "back-peddle", "back-peddling", "BMC Cancer", "Board of Directors", "Burzynski – The Antineoplaston Randomized Japan Phase II Clinical Trial Study", "Burzynski: Why has the FDA NOT granted Accelerated Approval for Antineoplastons A10 (Atengenal) and AS2-1 (Astugenal) ?", "clinical trial hold", "Colorectal Cancer Association of Canada", "COLORECTAL CANCER RESEARCH", "Colorectal cancer", "Critiquing David H. Gorski, "Critiquing: In which the latest movie about Stanislaw Burzynski "cancer cure" is reviewed…with Insolence:", "Critiquing: National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) CancerNet fact sheet", "David James", "Decision Network", "Department of Health &Human Services, "Didymus Judas Thomas", "European Society for Medical Oncology", "fast-tracked", "fast-tracking", "FDA grants Orphan Drug Designation (ODD) for A10 and AS2-1", "final reports", "FINALLY, "form letter", "frickin' data", "fucking dime", "Investigational Drug Branch", "invisible dragon in the garage", "Japanese antineoplaston study", "JosephineJones", "jump up and down", "Kurume University School of Medicine (Japan) Department of Surgery", "M. D. Anderson", "MD Anderson", "message would be best heard elsewhere", "Michael J. Hawkins, "New England Journal of Medicine", "non-information", "off-kilter", "orphan drug designation", "pay to play", "pediatric oncologist", "peer-review", "peer-reviewed scientific journal", "phase 2 clinical trial preliminary reports", "phase 2 clinical trial Progression-Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS) re patients 8 – 16 years after diagnosis, "phase II trials", "Public Library of Science", "QUESTIONS the Critics and Cynics, "Rick Schiff", "scientific", "self-defeating", "September 28, "Skeptic Canary", "Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski Publications", "Subpart F", "The Biggest Loser: The Skeptics™ Guy Chapman (guychapman @vGuyUK @SceptiGuy) http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg/ – September 28, "the Burzynski Patient Group", "The Lancet Oncology", "The Skeptics @Majikthyse reveals madjik research skilz", "The Stupid Stick", "throwing up", "top-tier", "United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) – September 28, #FAILED, #fave, 2013 The Skeptics™ Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51", 21CFR601, 601.50, @StortSkeptic, @_JosephineJones, A10, access, accessible, acknowledged, activity, analogy, answer, answered, antagonistic, antineoplaston, antineoplastons, antitumor, approval, approved, arbiter, argument, arguments, arranged, AS2-1, assertions, assume, assumed, assumes, assuming, assumption, authority, availed, "The Skeptics™" do NOT want to ANSWER:", backing, BB, bearing, believes, benefit, besieged, best, biological, blog, blogger, Bob Blaskiewicz, brain, BRAINSTEM GLIOMA, burden, Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business (Part I), Cancer, cancers, case, charges, Chief, Claim, claimed, claiming, claims, comparative, completed, conduct, confidence, confident, confidential, confidentiality, conflict, conspiracy, contradictory, control, convincing, correct, crazy, criminal, criticism, crowing, CURE, D Nile ist http://josephinejones.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/happy-birthday-dr-burzynski-and-goodbye-antineoplastons/comment-page-1/#comment-8921", DATA, databases, DavidJames, dealing, decades, Declaration of Helsinki, declined, defend, defending, delay, delayed, design, designs, determine, dialogue, difficult, disclosed, dismiss, disprove, distributing, DJT, Doctor, doctors, documented, doubt, doubted, doubting, drug, Dvorit D. Samid, ecstatic, editor, efficacious, efficacy, English, equating, Eric Merola, ESMO, evidence, exactly, example, excuse, existence, express, F.D.A., Fabio, FACS" http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/, fact, fallacy, FDA, Federal, feelings, final, FOIA, Food and Drug Administration, forever, forthcoming, Freedom, fulfillment, garbage, generations, glioma, GLIOMAS, Gorski, government, granted, Hell, HHS, Hideaki Tsuda, honest, honestly, honesty, http://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/stanislaw-rajmund-burzynski-publications/, http://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/burzynski-the-antineoplaston-randomized-japan-phase-ii-clinical-trial-study/, http://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/23/questions-the-critics-and-cynics-the-skeptics-do-not-want-to-answer/, http://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/critiquing-in-which-the-latest-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-cure-is-reviewed-with-insolence-2/, http://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/burzynski-why-has-the-fda-not-granted-accelerated-approval-for-antineoplastons-a10-astengenal-and-as2-1-astugenal/, http://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/critiquing-david-h-gorski-md-phd-facs-www-sciencebasedmedicine-orgeditorial-staffdavid-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/, http://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/12/finally-one-of-the-skeptics-has-the-balls-to-do-what-even-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-would-not-do/, http://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/critiquing-national-cancer-institute-nci-at-the-national-institutes-of-health-nih-cancernet/, http://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/23/josephinejones-_josephinejones-d-nile-ist-httpjosephinejones-wordpress-com20130123happy-birthday-dr-burzynski-and-goodbye-antineoplastonscomme, http://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/26/the-skeptics-majikthyse-reveals-madjik-research-skilz/, http://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/04/september-28-2013-the-skeptics-burzynski-discussion-by-bob-blaskiewicz-21951/, http://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/the-biggest-loser-the-skeptics-guy-chapman-guychapman-vguyuk-sceptiguy-httpwww-chapmancentral-co-ukblahg-september-28-2013-the-skeptics/, http://www.burzynskiresearch.com/assets/PressRelease_12022008_BZYR(2).pdf/, http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/issue/current, http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/onlinefirst, imagine, IMPORTANT, impress, IND, indicated, information, inherent, initiated, Institutional Review Board, institutions, intellectual, investigational, invoke, invoking, issues, JosephineJones (@_JosephineJones), journals, language, life, M.D.", makeup, manuscript, MD", MDAnderson, medicine, Memorandum, miracle cancer, months, Morgans, Motivation, motivations, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, NCI, NIH, nothing, notice, numerous, obligation, obstruct, obstruction, obstructionist, ODD, oncologist, one of The Skeptics™ has the Balls to do what even Dr. David H. Orac Gorski would NOT do", opinion, opportunities, opportunity, option, outside, patients, payed, peers, perhaps, persecuted, phase 2 clinical trials, Phase 3, PhD, practicing, previously, produced, product, proof, property, proprietary, prosecute, prosecuted, prosecution, prosecutor, protecting, protections, protocol, prove, proved, provided, proving, Public Health Service", publication, Publications, publicly, publish, published, publishing, question, questioned, questioning, Questions, quickly, quote, rate, Reason, reasons, recognize, recruiting, refuse, refused, rejected, rejection, reliable, relinquish, researcher, researchers, Response, responsibility, result, results", review, reviews, right ?", science, scrutiny, series, seriously, sharing, shifting, spectrum, speculate, speculated, speculating, standards, stem, stream, studied, studies, Study, submitting, substance, The Skeptics, Treating, treatment, treatments, trial, trials, trust, trusted, trustworthy, ultimately, understanding, unfortunate, unpublished, unsure, untrustworthy, validate, wanting, wish, withdrew, worth, wrong, Years	| Leave a reply
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
Posted on September 11, 2013 by didymusjudasthomas
Alright, so ummm I guess we can start with uhhh bit of a conversation
Luna was the other one, correct
That's 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
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 ?
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
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
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 ?
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
This, this, we're allowed to to let whoever we want into our sandbox if we, you know, uh if we want
Um, um anyway
In in this case we'ren talking about, 1,000′s of patients, over the course of of of generations, you know
Uh, Guy Chapman, "It's a blog, not a peer-reviewed publication"
Uh, so, you know, that one doesn't really fly with me either
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
Posted in Bob Blaskiewicz (Robert J. Blaskiewicz @rjblaskiewicz), Debate ?, Uncategorized	| Tagged " proprietary protections", "1994 Cody G", "45% of phase 3 clinical trials fail due to deficient phase 2 design", "accelerated approval", "accreditation board", "ADR research . com issues in clinical research", "alternative therapy", "Amelia Saunders", "Anastassios Retzios, "ANP's", "anti-quack", "antineoplaston deficiency", "antineoplaston replacement therapy", "back channel discussions", "back-peddling", "basic tumor pathology", "Bay Clinical uh Research and Clinical Development", "best course of action was figured out", "biological effect", "black and white version of the world where there are good people and there are bad people", "blood pressure", "BMC Cancer", "board certified oncologist", "Board of Directors", "Bob Blaskiewicz Faux Skeptic Exposed!", "brain dead", "brain tumor", "BRAINSTEM GLIOMAs", "breast cancer", "bring it on", "British Medical Journal", "burden of proof", "Burzynski Patient Group", "Burzynski supporters", "business model", "cancer is caused by a lack of antineoplastons in the system", "case series", "Chase Sammut", "Cite one example, "clinical hold", "consulted my lawyer", "cyst that had opened up in the center of the tumor", "Dave Gorski", "David James", "deacetylase inhibitor", "diagnosis of brainstem glioma", "Didymus Judas Thomas", "diseases progressed", "doublings in size decreases logarithmically", "Doubting Thomas", "down-voted", "drug was FDA approved", "Eau Claire", "efficacy of the drug", "Everytime somebody throws something to me, "evidence of efficacy", "exclusive rights", "extend life", "fast-tracked", "Federal grant", "Federal prosecutor", "Food and Drug Commission", "form letter", "frickin' data", "fucking dime", "full dosage", "gene-targeted therapy", "getting worse is getting better", "Google+ stream", "Google+", "Gorski is a genuine expert, "Haley S.", "have an enthusiasm for living in the real world", "healing crisis", "hypothetical case", "I had been um, "I hope somebody is writing all this down out there, "I suck cancer's dick", "I'll respond on your web-site", "improvement rate", "inherent conflict", "Institutional Review Board audits", "intellectual property", "invisible dragon in your garage", "ischemic necrosis", "Japanese science databases", "Japanese study", "JosephineJones", "Journal of Medical Hypothesis", "just looked like someone had taken the piss out of her", "Justin B in 2006", "legitimate criticism", "Lesley S in 2006", "libel laws", "Luna Pettiguine", "manikin world-view of black and white", "medical specialist", "miracle cancer cure", "name is poison", "New England Journal of Medicine", "off-kilter", "on my my show um had said things that were demonstratively untrue", "on-record", "one-sided information", "open minded", "orphan drug designation", "Orphan Drug", "our favorite oncologist", "pancreatic cancer", "patients reporting over and over that signs of getting worse are signs if getting better", "patients who report symptoms of getting worse, "pediatric patient", "people to constantly drinking up to I've seen 12 liters of water a day", "people who are fighting the disease, "pharmaceutical companies", "political pressure", "Popehat, "posting under a pseudonym diminishes my credibility", "preliminary trials", "progression of disease", "progression of the disease", "proposed by Carl Sagan", "pseudo-science", "Public Library of Science", "publication in a peer-reviewed journal", "quality of life", "red flag", "Red Herring", "reduce the size of some tumors", "rejection letter", "respect critical thinking", "respect scientific consensus", "respect scientific method", "respected peer-reviewed journal", "restrict the blood flow to the tumor", "Rick A. Jaffe", "Rick Schiff", "Robert J. (Bob) Blaskiewicz", "Samantha T in 2005", "Saunders family", "scientific enthusiasts", "self-defeating", "self-limited growth", "Sheila Herron", "side effect", "side effects", "Simon Singh", "Skeptic circles", "snake oil salesmen", "sock-puppets", "sodium load", "SODIUM PHENYLBUTYRATE", "sole distributor", "sole manufacturer of the of the therapy", "sole prescriber", "sole uh the only person who had identified antineoplastons as a contributor to cancer", "special treatment", "standard care", "support the cure not the cancer", "that the center of their solid tumors are breaking up", "The Lancet Oncology", "The Matrix", "the Merritts", "the tumor has outgrown its blood supply and that it's dying on the inside", "therapeutic approach", "therapeutic dose level", "thin publishing record", "threatened to expose Wikipedia", "top-tier journal", "trial design", "trial designs", "tumor grows exponentially while the resources are available to it", "Twitter feed", "U.S.", "University of Wisconsin", "Wayne Merritt", "web-site", "white paper", "wish fulfillment", 2013 The Skeptics™ Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51", @bbc5live, @FauxSkeptic, @rjblaskiewicz, @SceptiGuy, @StortSkeptic, A-10, A10, abundantly, analogy, and I will respond to it once I've taken a look at that, and then there are people who are really helping the disease", anomaly, ANP, antagonistic, antineoplaston, antineoplastons, as if they were signs of getting better", AS2-1, autopsy, availed, "Happily promotes bogus therapies", "It's a blog, "Okay, "phase 2 trials", "That's just, "The OTHER Burzynski Patient Group", "Why do so many pase 3 clinical trials fail ?", been spreading mis truths about Burzynski", besieged, Biased, blackballed, Blatherskitewicz, blog, blogger, Bob Blaskiewicz, BRAINSTEM GLIOMA, Burzynski Clinic, BurzynskiSaves, Cancer, cancers, Chancellor, Co-Investigators, coma, conspiracy, contradictory, controversy, conversation, criticism, crowing, Cult, David H. Gorski, deacetylase inhibitor "Robert J. (don't call me Bobby) Blaskiewicz's #Epic Skeptic Word-Salad #Fail – September 28, dialogue, diseases, disingenuous, disorganized, disoriented, Doctor, doctors, drug, ecstatic, efficacious, Eric Merola, ethical, F.D.A., false, falsify, FDA, Food and Drug Administration, forthcoming, Free Speech, Galileo's lawyer", glioma, grotesque, Guy Chapman, guychapman, hashtag, heterogenous, http://anp4all.com, http://blog.rbutr.com/, http://lanyrd.com/2013/tam/sckkdy/, http://necss.org/speakers/bob-blaskiewicz/, http://rbutr.com/, http://thehoustoncancerquack.com/, http://virtualskeptics.com/, http://www.centerforinquiry.net/speakers/blaskiewicz_bob, http://www.csicop.org/author/rblaskiewicz, http://www.skepticalhumanities.com, http://www.uwec.edu/Staff/blaskir/, humanities, I have to look into it", I'll look at that, ideology, in matters re re regarding on oncology studies", indistinguishable, Institutional Review Board, it's my responsibility as a reader", kerfuffle, Knockout, lethargic, liable, Morpheus, Motivation, motivations, niggly, not a peer-reviewed publication", obstructionist, of a Skeptic making shit for a Burzynski shill or anyone else in real life", oncologist, oncologists, oncology, Orac, panacea, panaceas, pediatric, pediatrician, persecuted, Ph.D, Phase 1, Phase 3, physicians, policy violations, pressure, Professor", prognosis, protecting, protocols, Put up or shut up, quack, question, Questions, r-but-r, RADIATION, rbutr, Rhys Morgan, Richard A. Jaffe, right ?", sandbox, scholars, seems only fair", Skeptic, Skeptics, slurring, so that we can go back and look at these claims later, spammer, spamming, speculate, speculating, swelling, Temodar, the the lawyer", threatening, TOBPG, true, trustworthy, tumor, tumors, Twitter, U.K., uh, unfalsifiable, unsure, violent, Wikipedia, Wisconsin, you little bitch"	| Leave a reply


There are plenty of factors that lead to heart health-more than frequently marketed. Yes, we understand about the usual genetics and all around health, but there's a large number of things that can be done to enhance your heart health-stuff that might even override individuals factors that you simply cannot control-genetics, ecological factors, etc.
First, let's explore individuals factors that are beyond our control. You can't perfectly take control of your family's health background, or perhaps your genes. For those who have a household good reputation for cardiovascular disease, you're instantly on the course to build up the condition yourself. However, a lot of why multiple generations inside a family possess a particular condition would be that the family chooses lifestyle habits which make them more vulnerable to a particular disease. These lifestyle routine is learned through the kids in the household, who consequently educate their children, and also the pattern continues. So when you cannot take control of your family's lifestyle choices or health background, you may choose to existence more healthily today than your folks did previously. You may choose to reverse individuals bad consumer habits and lifestyle habits of the youth, and live better today.
Your gender is yet another factor that can't truly be altered. Everyone knows that particular operations can transform the look of an individual, and appear to change their gender, however the chromosomes and DNA which either enables you to a guy or perhaps a lady won't ever all of a sudden reverse. Guys have been proven to possess greater incidences of cardiac arrest than women, and in addition they possess the cardiac arrest earlier in existence compared to women. Therefore, men must especially watch their heart health, even earlier in existence, to make sure a lengthy, healthy existence. Women, however, when they have cardiac arrest less often than men, and then on in existence than men, possess a greater possibility of dying from individuals cardiac arrest, especially after menopause. So it's also essential for ladies to softly watch their heart health insurance and choose healthy way of life choices.
Genetics may be the last component that is unchangeable. Enjoy it or otherwise, we can't vary from African descent to French, or from Norwegian descent to Mexican. Certain nationalities have sometimes proven a predilection for several conditions and illnesses. For instance, individuals of Asian or Caucasian descent possess a lower possibility of developing cardiovascular disease instead of people of Mexican, Polynesian, and Native American descent. African Americans come with an elevated chance of high bloodstream pressure in comparison with Caucasian Americans, and therefore possess a greater possibility of developing cardiovascular disease.


The information presented in this table can also be found on the Scottish Government website. It is updated regularly.
* A Fairer Scotland for Disabled People is the Scottish Government's delivery plan for the CRPD.


text:
Archive for the 'creative commons' Category
Common Knowledge: Social cataloging arrives
Chris has just released Common Knowledge, the innovative, open-data and insanely addictive "fielded wiki" we've been talking about for a month.
Common Knowledge adds fields to every author and work, like:
Author: Places of residence, Awards and honors, Agent
Work: Important places, Character names, Publisher's editor, Description
All-told there are fourteen fields. But Common Knowledge is less a set of fields than a structure for adding fields to LibraryThing. Adding more fields is almost trivial, and they can be added to anything existing or planned—from tags and subjects, to bookstores and publishers. They can even be added to other Common Knowledge fields, so that, for example, agents and editors can, in the future, sport photos and contact information.* This can lead to, as Chris puts it, "nearly infinite cross-linking of data."
Common Knowledge works like a wiki. Any member can add information, and any member can edit or revert edits. All fields are global, not personal. Common Knowledge diverges from a standard wiki insofar as each field works like its own independent wiki page, with a separate edit history.
Some example:
Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell. I've been conservative with characters and places. (See Longitude, worked on by Chris for the opposite approach.) But I wish I had her editor!
The history page for "important places" in Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell, showing improvement over time.
David Weinberger. Half-filled. He mentions his agent, but I can't tree his major at Bucknell and the honors section is empty.
Hugo Award Winners. This is going to get very cool.
The global history page. Mesmerizing.
Right now we're basically slapping fields on pages, but this structure is built for reuse. The license is also built for reuse. We're not asking members to help us create a repository of saleable, private data. Whatever you add to Common Knowledge falls under a Creative Commons Attribution license. So long as you include a short notice (eg., "Powered by the LibraryThing community"), you can do almost anything you want with the data—take it, change it, remix it, give it to others. You can even sell it, if someone will buy it. Regular people, bookstores, libraries–even our competitors–are free to use it. We'll be adding APIs to get it out there all the more. Go crazy, people.**
Common Knowledge isn't the answer to everything. Some data, like web links, requires a more structured approach; some, like our "work" titles, works best when it "bubbles up" from user data; and some, like page counts, have yet to be extracted from the MARC and ONIX information we have. But the possibilities are great. Series information? Blurbers? Cover designers? Books about an author? Tag notes? Other classification schemes?*** Bookstore locations? Publicists? Venues? Book fairs? Pets? Pets' vacination dates?
Anyway, we've done our thinking, but this is the ultimate member-input feature. We're going to have to figure it out together. Fields will need to be added (and removed?). Rules will be debated, formatting discussed. Although the base is solid, the feature set is still skeletal.****
Go ahead and play. Chris, John and I spent the evening playing with it, and we guarantee it's addictive. Or talk about. Leave a note here. I've also changed the WikiThing group into a Common Knowledge and WikiThing group. I've started a first-reactions topic and another for bug reports.
Why I'm excited. LibraryThing means a lot of things to a lot of people. Some come for the cataloging, some for the social aspect. A lot come for what happens between those two poles. As I see it, Common Knowledge is the perfect LibraryThing feature. I don't mean it's good; I mean it's in tune with what makes LibraryThing work. It's social, sure, but it's based in data. It's not private cataloging and it's not MySpace-like "friending."
LibraryThing is sometimes called a "social cataloging" site. When I used this term at the American Library Association, it became an unintentional laugh line. Social cataloging sounded impossible and funny, like feline water-skiing. This more than anything else got me fired up about doing this. True "social cataloging"; it was an idea that had to be tried!*****
Details, acknowledgements and caveats. Common Knowledge is deeply unstructured. This is going to give some members hives! Names aren't in first-middle-last format, but free text. You can enter places however you want. We've arranged some careful "hint" text, and fields have a terrific "autocomplete" feature, but we're not validating data and returning hostile error messages. We're aiming for accessibility and reach, not perfection. This is Wikipedia, not the Library of Congress. It scares us too, but we're also excited.
Abby, Casey, Chris and I planned this feature during the Week of Code. We worked through the issues together, and Casey, Chris and I all wrote the initial code. When we broke up, the rest of the coding and the interface design all fell to Chris. Although it was a team effort, this is really his feature. I'm very pleased with what he did with it.
We decided to work on this (and on our standard wiki, WikiThing, which grew out of it) because it was an ideal project for the entire group to tackle. This jumped it past collections. I still think this was a good idea, but there has certainly been some grumbling. We heard you. Collections is next on our list, with nothing new in between.
*So far we have only three data types—radio buttons (gender), long fields (book descriptions and author disambiguations) and short fields (everything else).
**Competitors who use it might want to stop asserting copyright over everything posted to their site. This was legally bogus already, but it certainly would conflict with a Creative Commons license… Incidentally, we haven't decided whether to go with CC-Attribution Share-and-Share-Alike or straight CC-Attribution (discussion here), but it's going to be one or the other.
***This particular one may happen very soon.
****And yes, we can discuss the whole radio-buttons-for-gender topic. See here, here. I'm of the opinion that two genders plus maybe "unknown" and "n/a" (for Nyarlathotep?) are the best you can get without consensus-splitting disagreement. You'll note we aren't including other potentially-contentious fields, like sexual orientation or religion.
*****In conception, Common Knowledge most closely resembles the Open Library Project, the Internet Archive's incipent effort to "wikify" the library catalog. Open Library is also a "fielded wiki," based on Aaron Schwartz's superior Infogami platform. You'll notice that we've mostly steered clear of the "traditional" cataloging fields that Open Library is starting from. We do cataloging differently, and we don't want to duplicate effort. Anyway, we're hoping they and others mash up the two data sets, and others.
Labels: common knowledge, creative commons, fielded wiki, new feature, new features, open library, wiki

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Accounts: U15726591->U15144001. Memo: Shopping Cart Payment.
Deposit to autosurfneverdie.com User vvipbitcrypto..
Date: 10:40 08.01.18. Batch: 200971588.
The amount of 22 USD has been deposited to your account. Accounts: U16349084->U4227222. Memo: API Payment.. Date: 05:09 18.01.18. Batch: 202064446.
The amount of 21.55 USD has been deposited to your account. Accounts: U16349084->U4227222. Memo: API Payment.. Date: 13:15 21.01.18. Batch: 202378914.
The amount of 20.55 USD has been deposited to your account. Accounts: U16349084->U4227222. Memo: API Payment.. Date: 07:00 23.01.18. Batch: 202536515.
Received Payment 23.9 USD from account U16349084 to account U4227222. Batch: 202651352. Memo: API Payment.
The amount of 34.29 USD has been deposited to your account. Accounts: U16349084->U4227222. Memo: API Payment.. Date: 16:53 26.01.18. Batch: 202909602.
The amount of 107.05 USD has been deposited to your account. Accounts: U16349084->U4227222. Memo: API Payment.. Date: 07:03 29.01.18. Batch: 203108934.
The amount of 152 USD has been deposited to your account. Accounts: U16349084->U4227222. Memo: API Payment.. Date: 08:28 01.02.18. Batch: 203566009.


text:
The Northwest Angle, known simply as the Angle by locals, and coextensive with Angle Township, is a pene-exclave of northern Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota.  Except for surveying errors, it is the only place in the contiguous United States north of the 49th parallel, which forms the border between the U.S. and Canada from the Northwest Angle westward to the Strait of Georgia (between the U.S. state of Washington and the province of British Columbia).  The land area of the Angle is separated from the rest of Minnesota by Lake of the Woods, but shares a land border with Canada. It is one of six non-island locations in the 48 contiguous states that are practical exclaves of the U.S. It is the northernmost township in Minnesota and contains the northernmost point in the contiguous 48 states. The unincorporated community of Angle Inlet is in the Northwest Angle.

Seventy percent of the land of the Angle is held in trust by the Red Lake Indian Reservation (Ojibwa).

Although the Angle is listed as one of several distinct regions of Minnesota, its total population was 119 at the 2010 census. The area is mostly water and the land is mostly forest.

Origin

Angle Township was designated as territory of the United States because negotiators of the initial Canada–U.S. border misunderstood the geography of the area. Benjamin Franklin and British representatives relied on the Mitchell Map of colonial American geographer John Mitchell, which did not indicate the source of the Mississippi River—thought to lie some distance to the northwest—or the true shape of Lake of the Woods, which was instead shown as roughly oval. The 1783 Treaty of Paris thus stated that the boundary between U.S. territory and the British possessions to the north would run "...through the Lake of the Woods to the northwesternmost point thereof, and from thence on a due west course to the river Mississippi..."

But the source of the Mississippi River, Lake Itasca (then unknown to European explorers), lies almost due south of Lake of the Woods, rather than north and west of it. Additionally, the irregular actual shape of the lake made the identification of its northwest corner difficult. A survey team led by David Thompson in 1824 mapped the lake and found four possibilities, but did not conclusively declare one location.
In 1825, a German astronomer in British service, Johann Ludwig Tiarks, surveyed the lake. Tiarks identified two possibilities for the northwesternmost point on the lake, based on Thompson's maps: the Angle Inlet and Rat Portage. To determine which point was the most northwestern, he drew a line from each point in the southwest–northeast direction. If the line intersected the lake at any point, it was not the most northwestern point. Tiarks determined that the only such line that did not intersect the lake was at the edge of a pond on the Angle Inlet. A 1940 academic study documents this point as being in the vicinity of  (NAD83).

In the Anglo-American Convention of 1818, the error regarding the Mississippi River was corrected by having the boundary continue due south from the northwest point of the lake, but only to the 49th parallel and then westward along it. The Webster–Ashburton Treaty of 1842 reaffirmed this border. However, the placement of the northwestern corner and shape of the lake meant that this north–south line cut off a section of U.S. territory to its east, now known as the Northwest Angle.

Geography

According to the United States Census Bureau, Angle Township has a total area of 596.3 square miles (1,544.5 km2) of which 123.09 square miles (318.81 km2) is land and 473.2 square miles (1,225.7 km2) (79.36%) is water. The land includes several islands, including Oak Island, and two small capes that are below (south of) the 49th parallel north in the extreme southwest part of the township, one of which is known as Elm Point, south of the southeast corner of Manitoba, and not far from the northeast corner of Roseau County. Of the 2000 census population of 152, there were 118 living on the mainland, and 34 persons on the islands in Lake of the Woods. All of the populated islands are north of the 49th parallel.

The mainland portion of the township north of the 49th parallel has an area of . The total land area of all islands is , and the two capes total . The township has the last one-room public school in the state.

Elm Point, in Lake of the Woods County, is a small cape southwest of the Northwest Angle. It borders Canada and is, together with a similar smaller cape to the west, separated by land from the continental United States.

Access

The Angle is accessible from the rest of Minnesota by one of two ways:
 The Angle can be reached without crossing the international border by crossing the Lake of the Woods. This can be done by boat when the lake is free of ice, by ice road in the winter or by flying over it in a plane. No automobile ferries currently operate on the lake, so vehicles coming from the rest of Minnesota cannot reach the Angle without crossing the border except in winter.  While the ice is forming in late autumn and breaking up in the spring, the lake's surface cannot be crossed safely at these times domestic access to the Angle is possible only by air. In January 2021, local US interests opened a  toll road across the ice, at a round-trip charge of US$120 to $145, because the Canadian border was closed by COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. It was again opened, and lengthened to  of road, in January 2022, and the toll set at $250.
 To reach the Angle by land, travelers take Minnesota State Highway 313 northbound (Warroad, Minnesota, to Sprague, Manitoba) across the Warroad-Sprague Border Crossing connecting to Manitoba Highway 12 at the border, then to Provincial Road 308, to Provincial Road 525, then finally crossing back into the United States in the Northwest Angle south of Angle Inlet, Minnesota (Angle Inlet Township). The distance from Warroad or Roseau to the Angle proper is approximately  through Minnesota and Manitoba back to the Angle's U.S. border. It is approximately  from the actual border (intersection of Manitoba 525 and NWA Road Dawson) to the rural developments of the Northwest Angle. The border crossing is unstaffed. Travelers using the single gravel road in and out of the Angle are expected to use a telephone at Jim's Corner, Youngs Bay Marina, or Carlsons Landing to contact Canadian or U.S. Customs and make their declarations.

Political issues
Because of laws restricting fishing, some residents of the Northwest Angle suggested leaving the United States and joining Canada in 1997. The following year, then-U.S. representative Collin Peterson of Minnesota proposed legislation to allow the residents of the Northwest Angle, which was part of his district, to vote on seceding from the United States and joining Canada. This angered the leaders of Red Lake Indian Reservation, which holds most of the Northwest Angle's land. The incident resulted in fishing regulations being better synchronized across these waters.

Demographics
As of the census of 2010, there were 119 people, 66 households, and 37 families residing in the Angle. There were 404 housing units. The racial makeup of the township was 99.2% White (118 out of 119). Native American or Alaska Native of any race were 0.8% of the population (that is, 1 person).

Out of the 66 households, 10.9% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 54.5% were married couples living together, 0% had a female householder with no husband present, and 43.9% were non-families. 37.9% of all households were made up of individuals, and 3% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 1.80, and the average family size was 2.32.

In the Angle the population is spread out, with 10.1% under the age of 18, 0.8% from 18 to 24, 10.1% from 25 to 44, 51.3% from 45 to 64, and 27.6% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 50 years. For every 100 females, there were 120.3 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 124.1 males.

The median income for a household in the township was $28,500, and the median income for a family was $31,250. Males had a median income of $28,500 versus $21,250 for females. The per capita income for the township was $13,932. About 13.3% of families and 12.3% of the population were below the poverty line, including none of those under the age of 18 or 65 and older.

Climate

According to the Köppen climate classification system, the Northwest Angle has a Warm-summer, Humid continental climate (Dfb). Dfb climates are characterized by at least one month having an average mean temperature ≤ , at least four months with an average mean temperature ≥ , all months with an average mean temperature <  and no significant precipitation difference between seasons. Although most summer days are comfortably humid in the Northwest Angle, episodes of heat and high humidity can occur with heat index values > . The Northwest Angle weather station is one of the newer ones, as it only began keeping records in 1981, in contrast with nearby International Falls which has been keeping records for over a century. Since 1981, the highest air temperature was  on July 5, 1988, and the highest daily average mean dew point was  on 4 August 2001. Since 1981, the wettest calendar day was  on June 9, 2002. During the winter months, the average annual extreme minimum air temperature is . Since 1981, the coldest air temperature was  on February 2, 2002. Episodes of extreme cold and wind can occur with wind chill values under . The average annual snowfall total (Sep–May) is between  and .

Ecology

According to the A. W. Kuchler U.S. potential natural vegetation types, the Northwest Angle would have a dominant vegetation type of Great Lakes Spruce/Fir (93) with a dominant vegetation form of Northern Conifer Forest (22). The plant hardiness zone is 3a with an average annual extreme minimum air temperature of . The spring bloom typically peaks in mid-May and fall color usually peaks in late September.

Representation in other media
 Ernie Pyle wrote several columns about the Northwest Angle and its residents, which were collected in Home Country (1947), published posthumously.
 The American writer Tim O'Brien set his bestselling novel In the Lake of the Woods (1994) in the Angle. His short story "On the Rainy River" is also set there.
 William Kent Krueger's novel Northwest Angle (2011) is set in the area.
 The Danny Orlis series of books, a Christian fiction series for youth, were largely set in the Northwest Angle.

See also

 Border irregularities of the United States
 Extreme points of the United States
 Height of Land Portage
 Point Roberts, Washington, another practical exclave

References

Further reading
 Archived at Ghostarchive and the Wayback Machine:

External links

 Northwest Angle in MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society
 Angle Inlet School: Minnesota's last one-room school
 "The Northwest Angle" (radio programme transcript), Minnesota Public Radio
 Boundary Commission Coordinates, International Boundary Commission
 "To the Nub", website – An account of an RV trip to Northwest Angle from Washington, DC
 Northwest Angle Trip Report Visit to the extreme northernmost point of the Angle.

Canada–United States border
Regions of Minnesota
Geography of Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota
Townships in Minnesota
Border irregularities of the United States
Separatism in the United States
Exclaves in the United States
Borders of Minnesota
Borders of Ontario

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


The Roundabout's enjoyed a string of popular and critical successes, including musical revivals of On the Twentieth Century and Cabaret (which extended from the previous season) and the new play Significant Other. (The Humans, which opened this season at its off-Broadway space, recently transferred to Broadway under the aegis of Scott Rudin.) Yet in recent years, playing the role of landlord was more profitable than any of its own shows. Subletting the Sondheim to an outside commercial production, Beautiful: The Carole King Musical, helped it increase rental income 20-fold since 2012, to $8.4 million last season, after subtracting for direct expenses. Also contributing to rental income was a three-month run of An Act of God, a commercially produced comedy in Studio 54, which the Roundabout owns.
Haimes said he won over the trustees, explaining that he could use the space either to produce or sublet, thus subsidizing its mission of creating new works, revivals and education programs. Years later, when Beautiful was announced, he pursued it as a landlord. "I figured, `If I'm obsessed with Carole King, anyone over 45, which is the target theater audience, is probably interested in Carole King too,'" Haimes told Davenport. The show is in its third year on Broadway. The Roundabout plans to produce in the Sondheim after Beautiful closes, a Roundabout spokeswoman said.
While financially more stable, the Roundabout isn't flush. Its $32 million of investments is less than a third of Lincoln Center Theater's nest egg. And it doesn't have the luxury of operating rent-free on city-owned land, like the Public Theater. Being a sometime landlord may not advance the art form, but it does improve the Roundabout's odds of producing for another 50 seasons.


Mandla and Lexi are now parents!
Reality TV couples are now parents, as they welcomed the birth of their first child on Friday.
Lexi shared the news on social media, saying that it's unbelievable she's now a mom.
"I know I've been so quiet, but that's coz i just needed to physically and emotionally prepare myself for my biggest fear (birth!!!) hence, the silence… I can't believe I'm a mom, to be honest, it feels weird and I still have to pinch myself…Pregnancy and motherhood is extremely overwhelming, but im sure I'll be fine. Mandla beat me to it, by posting, he's sooooo inlove, baby was born on Friday.
However, photos of the new born baby is yet to be seen on social media as they are keeping him off the spotlight for now.