text:
Tag Archives: tweets
SkeptiCowards© CrowdSource http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg/2013/10/a-message-to-a-djt/
Posted on October 31, 2013 by didymusjudasthomas
Woo Fighter – 10/1/2013 – 8:46 pm
"Guy,"
"He also stated quite frankly during the Google Hangout that nothing will ever change his mind"
Woo, Bob did NOT provide enough evidence that would cause me to "change my mind"
"So what's the point of any further discourse?"
Woo, the point is, it gives you the opportunity to explain why you lied to The Guardian [2]
"His idea of "debate" is having critics post comments on his blog; whether that is to drive up page views or merely to seek attention we'll never know"
Woo, who suggested leaving comments on my blog ?
Bob ? [3]
9/28/2013 Google+ Hangout
"Okay, I'll look at that, and I will respond to it once I've taken a look at that, okay ?"
"Um, and I'll respond on your web-site"
"Um, seems only fair"
"… and don't worry I will go to your site and I will comment on on on what you've run"
"Um, I will look at your web-site, and we will, uh, we, uh, you, oh make sure that I I go to your blog and and I talk there"
"What none of us understands is his motivation"
"I have discussed this privately in e-mails with Bob B. and you, Guy"
"When asked about this during the session on Saturday all he said was that he wanted to correct what he perceives as misinformation from Burzynski critics on social media"
Woo, you're obviously NOT from Texas
It's like a whole 'nother Country
My motivation ?
I am a Texan and an American and I do NOT have any respect for individuals who lie about cancer treatment on social media
Verstehen ?
There's a saying:
"It has to go deeper than that"
"He didn't wake up one day and out of the blue decide he was going to champion Burzynski"
"He has to have some connection, either personal or commercial"
Woo, you're still wrong
Prove it
"The sheer amount of time and effort he's pored into writing hundreds, if not thousands of comments on science blogs, his rabid attempts to edit Wikipedia and his own blog posts indicates he something invested"
Woo, why don't you count the amount of comments I posted on "Orac's" Respectful Insolence science blog and let everyone know the results ?
"He denied he works for Burzynski as he stated he doesn't even live in Texas anymore, but that is irrelevant"
"I don't believe Marc Stephens lived in Texas for the duration of time he represented the clinic"
Woo, who cares what you think about Marc Stephens ?
"I wish he would just be honest and tell us why he has spent devoted so much of his time over the past year (almost) promoting and supporting Burzynski (and Merola, for that matter)"
Woo, where have I been "promoting and supporting" them ?
Everything on my blog is devoted to showing how "The Skeptics™" lie
"I was going to say it would be hard to go back to calling him an idiot after hearing him speak on Saturday, as he became humanized"
Woo, I have no problem calling you an "idiot" after you lied about me [2]
"His folksy "y'all" and his laughter made him a real person"
"He was no longer just words on a screen, but a living, breathing human being"
"However after seeing the Tweets he posted immediately following the Hangout, where he reverted to his juvenile insults, his name-calling, his inability to write a coherent sentence and his out-and-out lack of respect for people like you and Dr. Gorksi has made me reevaluate my stance"
Woo, please cite one of these "supposed" Tweets you have a problem with
Surely you did NOT think I was giving Bob carte blanche to continue on Twitter without proving his case ?
"He simply deserves to be ignored"
"He has a serious personality disorder and doesn't merit any of our attention ever again"
Woo, my personality is serious enough NOT to lie about people to The Guardian
Do you have a serious "compulsive liar" personality disorder ?
Guy Chapman – 10/2/2013 – 12:26 am
"He kind of admitted it when he said that he'd be persuaded by the FDA not having granted phase 3 approval; defining your rejection criteria according to some test whose outcome is already know is one of the techniques used by homeopaths"
Guy, which homeopathic "remedy" has received Orphan Drug Designation (ODD) and FDA Phase 3 approval ?
"You do not interpret this thing as I would like, therefore you are denying this thing happened, therefore you lie, is another,"
Guy, what massive cognitive dissonance dreamworld are you living in ?
"Actually, we know what he is"
"A troll"
"Why did we let ourselves get sucked in?"
"Troll" is an excuse cowards use to try and label someone in order to claim that they should NOT be put in a position to do something they agreed to
IamBreastCancer – 10/2/2013 – 12:27 am
"Excellent summary, Guy"
"I agree with WooFighter that his motivation is suspect, but there are some desperately lonely attention-seeking people out there who will grasp onto any controversial issue just to get "in the game.""
"As a cancer patient myself, I was struck by the fact that he could yammer on for almost 2-1/2 hours without showing a shred of concern or compassion for cancer patients or legitimate cancer treatment questions"
"His behavior before, during and since the debate clearly shows he absolutely has no regard for real facts or evidence"
"I'm thankful that he's unable to write coherently, as it cripples his capacity for causing harm to cancer patients"
"Unlike so many other charlatans out there, I don't think he represents much of a threat to patient safety, just a lot of noise and bandwidth waste"
"His 15 minutes of fame needs to end"
Quidama, I'm sorry you have cancer, but it sounds to me like you seriously need a "reality check": [4]
A. Tried to "control the conversation"
1. Bob Blaskiewicz
B. Interrupted the other individual the most:
1. 30+ – Bob Blaskiewicz interrupted DJT
2. (20+ back at ya) – DJT interrupted BB
C. Asked the most questions:
D. Most speaking time:
E. Most words:
1. 13,933 – Bob Blaskiewicz
2. 8,847 – DJT
F. Most characters:
2. 43,245 – DJT
G. Acted as if they were teaching a class, and dictating what your possible responses were, implying that they did NOT consider this to be a "debate" where the participants were free to choose their own responses:
H. Proved they do NOT know how to debate
I. Proved they do NOT have manners
J. Must have thought they were on the Morton Downey Jr. talk show (or do you prefer Jerry Springer ?)
K. Controlled themself best:
2. DJT
L. Did NOT need help from any pro-position pundits
[1] – A message to DJT
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg/2013/10/a-message-to-a-djt/
[2] – Dr. David H. "Orac" Gorski "Oracolyte" Woo Fighter Poo Biter admits to LYING to "The Guardian":
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/10/dr-david-h-orac-gorski-oracolyte-woo-fighter-poo-biter-admits-to-lying-to-the-guardian/
[3] – Why "The Skeptics™" Perfessor Robert J. (don't call me "Bobby") "Bob" Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) of University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire, "Fame," is a Coward and a Liar:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/13/why-the-skeptics-perfessor-robert-j-dont-call-me-bobby-bob-blaskiewicz-rjblaskiewicz-of-university-of-wisconsin-eau-claire-fame-is-a-coward-and-a-liar/
[4] – Fun Facts From September 28, 2013 "The Skeptics™" Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/07/fun-facts-from-september-28-2013-the-skeptics-burzynski-discussion-by-bob-blaskiewicz-21951/
Posted in Bob Blaskiewicz (Robert J. Blaskiewicz @rjblaskiewicz), critique, critiques, critiqued, critiquing, FDA, United States Food and Drug Administration, Guy Chapman, Orphan Drug Designation (ODD), The Skeptics, The Telegraph (The Daily Telegraph) | Tagged "9/28/2013 Google+ Hangout", "A Message to DJT", "A Message to Guy "Can't Git-R-Done" Chapman", "Bob J. Blaskiewicz", "Bobby Blaskiewicz", "control the conversation", "Dr. David H. Orac Gorski Oracolyte Woo Fighter Poo Biter admits to LYING to The Guardian", "Eau Claire", "Fun Facts From September 28, "It's like a whole other Country", "Jerry Springer", "Morton Downey Jr.", "name-calling", "orphan drug designation", "phase 3 approval", "pro-position pundits", "Prove it", "reality check", "Rob J. Blaskiewicz", "Robert Bob Blaskiewicz", "Robert J. Blaskiewicz", "SkeptiCowards© CrowdSource http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg/2013/10/a-message-to-a-djt/", "social media", "The Guardian", "Why The Skeptics™ Perfessor Robert J. (don't call me Bobby) Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz) of University of Wisconsin, "Woo Fighter", "You're Welcome", 2013 The Skeptics™ Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51", @IamBreastCancer, @rjblaskiewicz, @SceptiGuy, @vGuyUK, absolutely, Acted, American, and don't worry I will go to your site and I will comment on on on what you've run", and I will respond to it once I've taken a look at that, and I'll respond on your web-site", and we will, attention, attention-seeking", "15 minutes of fame", "Bob B.", "carte blanche", "change my mind", "compulsive liar", "Don't mess with Texas", "living breathing human being", "Marc Stephens", "Okay, "Um, bandwidth, BB, behavior, blog, blogs, Bob Blaskiewicz, Burzynski, Cancer, capacity, charlatans, choose, class, clinic, cognitive, coherent, coherently, comments, compassion, concern, Controlled, controversial, cowards, cripples, criteria, Critic, critics, Debate, denied, denying, deserves, desperately, devoted, dictating, discourse, disorder, dissonance, DJT, Dr. Gorksi", dreamworld, duration, Eric Merola, evidence, excuse, F.D.A., FACTS, Fame, FDA, folksy, free, granted, grasp, Guy, Guy Chapman, guychapman, harm, homeopathic, homeopaths, honest, http://chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/10/dr-david-h-orac-gorski-oracolyte-woo-fighter-poo-biter-admits-to-lying-to-the-guardian/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/03/a-message-to-guy-cant-git-r-done-chapman/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/07/fun-facts-from-september-28-2013-the-skeptics-burzynski-discussion-by-bob-blaskiewicz-21951/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/13/why-the-skeptics-perfessor-robert-j-dont-call-me-bobby-bob-blaskiewicz-rjblaskiewicz-of-university-of-wisconsin-eau-claire-fame-is-a-coward-an, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg/2013/10/a-message-to-a-djt/, https://mobile.twitter.com/SceptiGuy, https://mobile.twitter.com/vGuyUK, humanized, I will look at your web-site, I'll look at that, idiot, ignored, implying, inability, insults, interpret, interrupted, invested, irrelevant, is a Coward and a Liar", juvenile, laughter, legitimate, lie, lied, living, lonely, manners, massive, merit, Merola, misinformation, motivated, Motivation, noise, ODD, oh make sure that I I go to your blog and and I talk there", Orac, outcome, participants, patients, person, personality, possible", promote, promoting, proved, Questions, Quidama, rabid, real, reevaluate, regard, rejection, remedy, represented, represents, respect, Respectful Insolence, responses, safety, science, seems only fair", serious, seriously, shred, speaking, stance, sucked, support, supporting, suspect, teaching, techniques, test, Texan, Texas, The Skeptics, threat, treatment, troll, Tweet, tweets, Twitter, uh, Verstehen, waste, we, Wikipedia, Woo, WooFighter, yammer, you | Leave a reply
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
[1] – September 28, 2013 "The Skeptics™" Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
"CITE ONE EXAMPLE, of a SKEPTIC MAKING SHIT for a BURZYNSKI shill OR ANYONE ELSE in REAL LIFE"
"That's a quote"
"That's, that's something coming in from, from GUY (CHAPMAN)"
2/18/2013 – 5:00pm – Anna Capunay to GUY CHAPMAN: You also should JUST LEAVE ME ALONE
2/18/2013 – 5:04pm – Anna Capunay: #SKEPTICS LEAVE ME ALONE
2/18/2013 – 5:21pm – Anna Capunay to GUY CHAPMAN: I'm going to politely ask that you STOP ATTACKING my mothers health
2/18/2013 – 5:23pm – Anna Capunay to GUY CHAPMAN: Again, I will politely ask that you STOP ATTACKING my mothers health
</a
2/18/2013 – 5:31pm – Anna Capunay to GUY CHAPMAN: I'm going to politely ask you ONE MORE TIME to STOP ATTACKING my mothers life. THIS is NOW HARASSMENT
2/18/2013 – 5:31pm – BurzynskiSaves to Anna Capunay and GUY CHAPMAN: @annacapunay appears to me (& all watching) this troll @SceptiGuy popped up to ATTACK after you announced good results of your mom
2/18/2013 – 5:47pm – Anna Capunay to GUY CHAPMAN: I really don't know how many times I have to ask you to please STOP the HARASSMENT
2/21/2013 – 8:29pm – Anna Capunay to GUY CHAPMAN: I'd really appreciate if you'd STOP HARASSING ME and my choices. Please STOP HATING the fact that my mother is alive
2/21/2013 – 8:31pm – Anna Capunay to GUY CHAPMAN: Please STOP HARASSING ME and please STOP HATING that my mother is alive
2/21/2013 – 8:32pm – Anna Capunay to GUY CHAPMAN: HARASSMENT IS SERIOUS and I'd appreciate if you'd STOP TRYING to BULLY ME
2/21/2013 – 8:55pm – Anna Capunay to GUY CHAPMAN: I think guy needs a girlfriend or something cause HARASSMENT is OUT OF CONTROL
2/22/2013 – 5:06am – Anna Capunay to GUY CHAPMAN: Then do yourself a favor and STOP TWEETING ME. It's as simple as that YOU MASOCHIST
2/22/2013 – 8:10am – Anna Capunay retweeted to GUY CHAPMAN: #Burzynski isn't making the claim here. It's @annacapunay saying that mom's life was saved. STOP HATING. AWFUL
After reading the above Tweets, IT'S READILY APPARENT WHO HAS "DEMONSTRATED THAT HE's STUCK in a WORLD of MASSIVE COGNITIVE DISSONANCE"
We ALL KNOW WHO "HAS DUG HIMSELF INTO A DEEP HOLE"
What do you NOT understand about THIS, High School Science Teacher ?
DJT – Didymus Judas Thomas
BB – Bob Blaskiewicz
DJT – And my other point is that, uhmmm, when these trials finish, as I've pointed out on my blog, M.D. Anderson finished a trial in 2006 and didn't publish the results electronically until January of this year
So, just think
Burzynski's 1st trial we know that finished in 2009
So we would still have more years to go before he caught up to M.D. Anderson as far as publishing
So for him to actually be trying to publish stuff now and The Lancet not publishing because they have other stuff to do, put in there, that's understandable
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"
"You know, um . . what are the standards that you have that it isn't, what are your standards to show that it isn't efficacious ?"
DJT – Well I can say, well I'm going to have to wait, the same amount of time I had to wait for Mayo (Clarification: M.D. Anderson) to publish their study; which was from 2006 to 2013
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 ?
I just gave you an example
When are YOU going to MAN UP ?
Still waiting for you to name the "open forum", you twit
#EPIC SKEPTIC #FAIL
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/04/september-28-2013-the-skeptics-burzynski-discussion-by-bob-blaskiewicz-21951/
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg/
Posted in Bob Blaskiewicz (Robert J. Blaskiewicz @rjblaskiewicz), critique, critiques, critiqued, critiquing, Debate ?, Gorski ScienceBlogs.com/Insolence ScienceBasedMedicine, Guy Chapman, Keir Liddle @endless_psych, Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski, The Skeptics | Tagged "#SKEPTICS LEAVE ME ALONE", "Anna Capunay", "Cite one example, "Didymus Judas Thomas", "HARASSMENT is OUT OF CONTROL", "HARASSMENT IS SERIOUS", "HAS DUG HIMSELF INTO A DEEP HOLE", "High School Science Teacher", "I just gave you an example", "JUST LEAVE ME ALONE", "M. D. Anderson", "MAN UP", "MD Anderson", "September 28, "STOP ATTACKING", "STOP HARASSING ME", "STOP HATING", "STOP the HARASSMENT", "STOP TRYING to BULLY ME", "STOP TWEETING ME", "The Biggest Loser: The Skeptics™ Guy Chapman (guychapman @vGuyUK @SceptiGuy) http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg/ – September 28, "THIS is NOW HARASSMENT", "Why am I unsure?", #FAIL, 2013 The Skeptics™ Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51", @annacapunay, @SceptiGuy, @vGuyUK, ATTACK, AWFUL, "DEMONSTRATED THAT HE's STUCK in a WORLD of MASSIVE COGNITIVE DISSONANCE", "open forum", BB, Bob Blaskiewicz, BurzynskiSaves, DJT, england, Epic, Guy Chapman, guychapman, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/04/september-28-2013-the-skeptics-burzynski-discussion-by-bob-blaskiewicz-21951/, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg, MASOCHIST, of a Skeptic making shit for a Burzynski shill or anyone else in real life", Skeptic, troll, tweets, Twit, United Kingdom, who said I was unsure?" | Leave a reply
Burzynski: "The Skeptics™" – Harming without Care
United States Supreme Court – Libel
Showing of malice:
"liability is based on a showing of knowledge of falsity"
"reckless disregard for the truth"
While some of "The Skeptics™" might be able to run around and jump up and down, proclaiming that what they smear all over social media about Burzynski, they had no knowledge of falsity about, it is probably harder for someone who claims:
12/.5/2011 – "positions I hold at an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center"
3/7/2013 – "my last two jobs have been at NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers"
11/2/2012 – "Personally having pored over Burzynski's publications"
5/8/2013 – "I've searched Burzynski's publications"
6/5/2013 – "I do know cancer science"
6/7/2013 – "Unlike Mr. Merola, I am indeed very concerned with getting my facts correct"
I can just picture Gorski, in a courtroom, trying to explain to the prosecuting attorney, judge, and jury, how it is that a medical doctor, with a Ph.D., who has had positions at 2 National Cancer Institute (NCI) designated comprehensive cancer centers, is the co-author on a number of scientific publications, blogs on 2 blogs, including one which proclaims:
[7] – "Our only goal is to promote high standards of science in medicine"
how it is that his LIES about Burzynski are NOT:
"reckless disregard for the truth" ? [8]
Gorski, you of all people should be extremely great-full that Burzynski concentrates on cancer science instead of libel lawsuits
I'd pay to see that 🙂
[9] – 3/6/2013 – "Particularly seemingly damning are a series of Tweets flashed on the screen saying things like the Hope for Laura fund (the fund set up by Laura Hymas to pay for her treatment at the Burzynski Clinic)"
"appears to be just a money laundry for a lying quack fraud" and "when Laura dies #Burzynski will just move on to his next mark if she doesn't run out of money first.""
"I think I know whose Tweets these were. In fact, I'm sure I know whose Tweets these were, and all I can say to that person is this:"
"Zip it"
"Stop it"
"Put a sock in it"
"Still, as utterly insensitive and "dickish" as those Tweets were, they do not represent the majority of skeptics, but rather a few jerks"
"However, we as skeptics need to remember that a few jerks perceived (or painted) as attacking cancer patients can do immeasurable damage to the cause of science-based medicine"
"So if you're one of those skeptics making comments like that, knock it off"
"If I see you doing it again, next time I will call you out publicly"
MURDER ?.
Gorski, were you referring to the above 2 JERKS?
[10] – 9/28//2013 – 1:58:04
Bob Blaskiewicz
"But he is a, the thing is, the thing is, you thing you have to understand is Gorski, Gorski is a genuine expert, in matters re re regarding on oncology studies"
"I mean, he has a"
"He, He's able to convince people, he's able to convince people, on the strength of his record, to give him money to carry out research"
"People who know what they're talking about"
"To give him money to carry out his research"
"Right ?"
Are we talking about the same "expert" ?
Because I'm talking about the LIAR
Guy Chapman, "It's a blog, not a peer-reviewed publication"
You twit
It's a medical doctor, with a Ph.D., who has had positions at 2 National Cancer Institute (NCI) designated comprehensive cancer centers, is the co-author on a number of scientific publications, blogs on 2 blogs, including one which proclaims:
Why don't you go play "High School Science Teacher" ?
[1] – 12/.5/2011
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/12/05/personalized-gene-targeted-cancer-therapy/
[2] – 3/7/2013
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/03/07/the-cancer-treatment-centers-of-america-cherry-picked/
[3] – 11/2/2012
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/11/02/stanislaw-burzynski-fails-to-save-another-patient/
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/05/08/eric-merola-and-stanislaw-burzynskis-secret-weapon-against-the-skeptics-fabio-lanzoni-part-2/
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/05/odds-and-ends-about-burzynski-clinic/
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/07/i-want-my-anp/
[7] – ScienceBasedMedicine Editorial Staff
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/
[8] – 9/14/2013 – The List of Dr. David H. "Orac" Gorski LIES:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/the-list-of-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-lies/
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/03/in-which-the-latest-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynskis-cancer-cure-is-reviewed-with-insolence/
[10] – September 28, 2013 "The Skeptics™" Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
William and Mary Law Review:
http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2795&context=wmlr
Criminal Libel in the United States:
Click to access IPI_Report_on_Criminal_Libel_in_the_United_States.pdf
William Mitchell College of Law:
http://open.wmitchell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1070&context=facsch
Libel, Slander, and Freedom of Speech:
Click to access libel.pdf
Quacks Like a Duck:
http://works.bepress.com/carrie_leonetti/72/
Posted in Bob Blaskiewicz (Robert J. Blaskiewicz @rjblaskiewicz), critique, critiques, critiqued, critiquing, David James (Skeptic Canary), Debate ?, Gorski ScienceBlogs.com/Insolence ScienceBasedMedicine, Guy Chapman, humor, comedy, National Cancer Institute (NCI), Peter Bowditch (@RatBags.com), Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski, The Skeptics | Tagged "appears to be just a money laundry for a lying quack fraud", "Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Center / Institute", "Bob Blaskiewicz Faux Skeptic Exposed!", "Burzynski: The Skeptics™ – Harming without Care", "Cardiff, "co-author", "Criminal Libel in the United States", "Dan Buzzard", "David James", "Dianthus Medical", "Didnt take long for the Burzynski trolls to show up", "Eau Claire", "High School Science Teacher", "Hope for Laura fund", "I believe he said Put up or shut up, "I'd pay to see that", "If it's true that #burzynski and his adman Merola have insinuated that parents are to blame for Amelia's death that's utterly disgusting", "jump up and down", "knowledge of falsity", "Laura Hymas", "libel lawsuits", "medical doctor", "National Cancer Institute (NCI) designated comprehensive cancer centers", "National Health Service (NHS)", "Of course it's always possible that the money launderers are appearing as themselves in the #Burzynski advertisement", "Peter Bowditch", "Quacks Like a Duck", "Robert J. (Bob) Blaskiewicz", "run around", "science-based medicine" "If I see you doing it again, "ScienceBasedMedicine Editorial Staff", "scientific publications", "September 28, "Sheila Herron", "Showing of malice", "Skeptic Canary Show", "social media", "The List of Dr. David H. Orac Gorski LIES", "The new Doctor Who will be Stanislaw #Burzynski. He manages to continually avoid getting cornered and he gets away with murder", "The Poxes Blog", "The Skeptic Canary", "University of Wisconsin"rbutr, "Unlike Mr. Merola, "Wayne State University", "when Laura dies #Burzynski will just move on to his next mark if she doesn't run out of money first", "William and Mary Law Review", "William Mitchell College of Law", "Yes, "You are right now having a live debate in front of more than 10, #sciencebasedmedicine, #SkepticCanary, 000 people, 2013 The Skeptics™ Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51", @Ac2cSheila, @bbc5live, @BorisOgon, @BurzynskiSaves I don't care what you think. My only concern is for the cancer patients. People like #burzynski make me sick", @DanBuzzard, @DianthusMed, @drpaulmorgan, @endless_psych, @FauxSkeptic, @frozenwarning, @gorskon, @IamBreastCancer, @medTek, @oracknows, @palMD, @RatbagsDotCom, @rjblaskiewicz, @SceptiGuy, @ScienceBasedMed, @StortSkeptic, @vGuyUK, @_JosephineJones, Adam Jacobs, and Freedom of Speech", and nothing you have presented suggests that you would be more coherent in person", attorney, "I do know cancer science", "I've searched Burzynski's publications", "It's a blog, "liability is based on a showing of knowledge of falsity", "my last two jobs have been at NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers", "oncology studies", "Our only goal is to promote high standards of science in medicine", "Personally having pored over Burzynski's publications", "positions I hold at an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center", "Put a sock in it", "reckless disregard for the truth", "Stop it", "Zip it", Blatherskitewicz, blogs, Bob Blaskiewicz, Boris Ogon, Britain, Burzynski Clinic, but can #Burzynski time travel?", Cancer, courtroom, damage, damning, David Gorski, David H. Gorski, Defamation, Detroit, dickish, expert, FW, Guy Chapman, guychapman, http//www.sciencebasedmedicine.org, http://anp4all.com, http://blog.rbutr.com/, http://cancerbiologyprogram.med.wayne.edu/faculty/gorski.php, http://josephinejones.wordpress.com/, http://lanyrd.com/2013/tam/sckkdy/, http://medicine.cf.ac.uk/person/prof-paul-morgan/, http://necss.org/speakers/bob-blaskiewicz/, http://open.wmitchell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1070&context=facsch, http://rbutr.com/, http://rhysmorgan.co/blog, http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2795&context=wmlr, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/12/05/personalized-gene-targeted-cancer-therapy/, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/11/02/stanislaw-burzynski-fails-to-save-another-patient/, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/03/07/the-cancer-treatment-centers-of-america-cherry-picked/, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/05/08/eric-merola-and-stanislaw-burzynskis-secret-weapon-against-the-skeptics-fabio-lanzoni-part-2/, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/03/in-which-the-latest-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynskis-cancer-cure-is-reviewed-with-insolence/, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/05/odds-and-ends-about-burzynski-clinic/, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/07/i-want-my-anp/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/the-list-of-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-lies/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/04/september-28-2013-the-skeptics-burzynski-discussion-by-bob-blaskiewicz-21951/, http://t.co/EHgW0hnLAc, http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW, http://the21stfloor.tumblr.com, http://thehoustoncancerquack.com/, http://thewelshboyo.wordpress.com, http://twentyfirstfloormirror.wordpress.com, http://virtualskeptics.com/, http://works.bepress.com/carrie_leonetti/72/, http://www.blogtalkradio.com/skepticcanary/, http://www.centerforinquiry.net/speakers/blaskiewicz_bob, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg, http://www.csicop.org/author/rblaskiewicz, http://www.dianthus.co.uk/blog/, http://www.firstamendmentstudies.org/wp/pdf/libel.pdf, http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/, http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics, http://www.freemedia.at/fileadmin/media/IPI_Report_on_Criminal_Libel_in_the_United_States.pdf, http://www.med.wayne.edu/surgery/faculty/DGorski.html, http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/, http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/, http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/peter-a-lipson-md/, http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence, http://www.skeptical.gb.net/, http://www.skepticalhumanities.com, http://www.thetwentyfirstfloor.com, http://www.thetwentyfirstfloor.com/?p=8146/, http://www.uwec.edu/Staff/blaskir/, https://thepoxesblog.wordpress.com, https://twitter.com/Ac2cSheila/status/186164592676843520, https://twitter.com/DanBuzzard/status/186110257402085376, https://twitter.com/frozenwarning/status/312141313451634688, https://twitter.com/gorskon/status/363147810620702721, https://twitter.com/palmd/status/325612864549310466, https://twitter.com/RatbagsDotCom/status/304050113834262528, https://twitter.com/StortSkeptic/status/363088970239840256, I am indeed very concerned with getting my facts correct", immeasurable, insensitive, JERKS, Josephine Jones, judge, jury, Keir Liddle, LIAR, Libel, Lies, lilady, London, M.D.", Michigan, murder, next time I will call you out publicly", not a peer-reviewed publication", onforb.es/11pwse9, Orac, Particularly, Paul Morgan, Peter A. Lipson, Ph.D, proclaiming, Professor", prosecuting, Quidama, r-but-r, Rhys Morgan, rjblatherskiewicz, science, seemingly, Skeptics, Slander, smear, The Skeptics, tweeted, tweets, Twit, United Kingdom, United States Supreme Court, utterly, Wales, Wisconsin, you little bitch." Something like that" | Leave a reply
September 28, 2013 "The Skeptics™" Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
Posted on October 4, 2013 by didymusjudasthomas
All comments by Professor Robert J. (Bob) Blaskiewicz of University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire "fame" should be considered as likely LIES until such time as he keeps his word to respond on this blog, to criticism of him on this blog
"I hope somebody is writing all this down out there, so that we can go back and look at these claims later, right ?"
Seriously, Bob ?
Do you really think one of "The Skeptics™" was going to write all this down, when none of them showed that they had written down much of anything of much note about Burzynski 2 when they attended the screenings ? 🙂
*Some words may or may not be missing, but it doesn't take away from the final result
I will be adding separate critiques that break this down into manageable parts, but wanted to have entire video comments altogether here
(0:04:38)
Are you there ?
Okay, we might as well get started if were going to do this
Alright, so ummm I guess we can start with uhhh bit of a conversation [0]
You've been on the Burzynski Hashtag for a long time – what's you're motivation ?
Well as I put in my about page, I agreed with the juror that he was neither guilty or innocent [8]
So, so since I see all this opposition by these Skeptics, and I see that the they're getting all of their facts straight
(Freudian sarcasm slip)
I decided to take the position of being a Skeptic Skeptic
In other words I am skeptical of Skeptics who do not fact-check their information before they post it on social media
And since I see ahhh y'all pretty much trying to take over the net with y'all's information I decided to come back and correct all the false information that was being put out by other Skeptics
So what information have Skeptics posted that they uhhh that they missed that demonstrates that Burzynski's uhhh treatments are effective ?
What, what have we missed ?
Well the major issue is that the FDA's own information says if phase 3 trials are approved – phase 2 trials is to see if there's evidence of effectiveness
And so if phase 3 trials are approved, that means you've provided evidence of effectiveness
That's the FDA's own information – I have that clearly on my blog [9]
Also the FDA has given Burzynski uhhh Orphan Drug Designation in 2004 for uhhh brainstem glioma and then in 2009 for all gliomas [10]
So that must mean that there is evidence of effectiveness, otherwise I don't think they would be doing that
Well okay, uh one of the issues that Skeptics have with Burzynski is that in order to, let's say, elevate uh the profile of his drug, in order to make sure that everybody who needs it can get, is to complete a phase 3 uh trial uh he started uh I believe was it just the one, right ?
Uhmmm, and that's gone nowhere
In fact, it was withdrawn this I think within the last week
It doesn't look like its going to happen, and this is, you know, for all the the phase 1 and phase 2 trials, those are very preliminary trials
Uhmmm, the phase 3 is is will be the gold standard, and also the bare minimum that that the larger medical community will accept uhhh as evidence, so it's like you've lowered the bar for for evidence in a way that that you know oncologists don't
Well the issue is he was given 2 phase 3 trials that we know of
One was on uh Clinical Trials . gov – the one about eye cancer
The vision cancer
And then the other one was not posted on there, but then again the FDA has said, and I posted this on my blog because I specifically contacted and asked them and they said we don't post all clinical trials on our web-site [11]
(Correction: NCI)
And so he obviously had that other one about brainstem glioma, that he was trying to get started [12]
But the other issue is that Skeptics have posted on there that he could not get that accelerated approval until he had published a phase 2 trial and that is exactly not the case because other drugs have been given accelerated approval before their results were published in phase 2 clinical trial publications, cuz, so that question remains as well [13]
So, do you think that there is a uh uh conspiracy to keep Burzynski from publishing ?
Well, what we do know is that in the movie, Merola showed that one page rejection from The Lancet
where Burzynski was trying to show his results from like 8 to 16 years, and they said we think your uh publication would be seen best elsewhere, or some ridiculous statement like that
And so, I thought that funny of The Lancet [14]
Of course, I understand their 2nd response, which came out, which Eric posted on his Facebook page, y'all, that y'all have talked about – that, you know, they're busy, they get a lot of
I understand that, so obviously he would have to look for a different publication for both of those, things he's trying to get published
Clarification: Burzynski and Tsuda
So, uhmmm, as far as I understand it The Lancet, uhhh the the question of The Lancet publication ehhh is par for the course, that most people are, when they get a speedy rejection from a uh uh, uh journal, are actually uh grateful, because that means there allowed to go ahead and submit their material to another journal more quickly and get it out there
Uhm, but the reaction that we saw on the side of the Burzynski camp was that, see, they'll never publish us
Uhm, which is, eg, taken as far as I can tell as evidence of a conspiracy or that his name is is poison uh I mean, I think it is, but uhmmm, that wasn't indicated in the in the rejection letter in order to uh claim that it is is to go beyond the evidence which again we're not really willing to do
So, uhmmm what is the the ration the the something that I think a lot of of a lot of The Skeptics have been curious about when it comes to your your your blog and your behavior on-line uhhh is that that that, that the format of your blog does not make sense to us, we don't understand exactly what you're trying to do with it
Could you kind of clarify that for us because it's uhhh long and it's it's intense and there's a lot of emotion behind it but we don't understand exactly, what it's supposed to mean
Well a lot of the time I'm making fun of y'all's favorite oncologist, the way he words his blogs, and uhmmm I cite specifically from the FDA, from from the National Cancer Institute, from these other scientific sources, from scientific publications
I give people specific information so they can fact-check me, unlike a lot of The Skeptics who just go out there and say things and publish things on social media, they provide no back-up for their uhhh sayings
And so when I critique an oncologist or any other Skeptic I always provide source material so people can always fact-check me and I specifically said that people should fact-check everything ummm that the oncologist should say because he has, I've proven him to be frequently incorrect about his information and misleading
And so I've tried to add those things and allow people to search, on specific things like publications, or what I posted about The Lancet, or specifically about The Skeptics, or specifically about the oncologist
So whenever I see something posted new on Twitter, by y'all, sometimes I'll check it out and sometimes I won't, and sometimes I'll comment on it
Alright, ah have you read The Other Burzynski Patient Group ?
I was, on there just yesterday to see some more of your post on there [15]
So, ahmmm what is your response say to the story of Amelia Saunders ?
Well the thing is, when you accepted this hangout, I published my newest blog article and I specifically listed all the information I had critiqued from you previously including Amelia, and I posted the specific Twitter responses by BurzynskiMovie; which is probably Eric, to your issues with Amelia, and he disagrees with what the oncologist posted, and so I pretty much let his Twitter responses stand to what the oncologist said [2]
Okay, what part of, what did I get wrong ?
Well I also did a critique of the newspaper story that was put out about Amelia in the U.K. [16]
And they had 2, 2 patients that were dealt with
Uh was that Amelia and Luna ?
I believe, yes
Luna was the other one, correct [17]
And one of the patients, Burzynski has specifically published in one of his scientific publications that maximum dosage is not reached for a month
So if someone, so if someone only goes in there and has treatment for a month, they're not even, you know, they're finally going to reach the uh maximum dosage [18]
And I think that was maybe the case with Luna, I think she was only there for a month
Oh, I, you're talking, oh this is one of the very 1st ones that we did on the, on the site
Uhmmm, oh, her name is, her name escapes me at the moment
Um, but she wasn't there for for very long but uh her condition deteriorated very rapidly
Uhmmm, and one of the questions that we had, we raised, is is, you know, you you don't need to reach full dosage 'cause the the full dosage for these ANP seem to be pretty high, at least the sodium load that that that patients are asked to to carry, or required to carry if they they go on it
And we wondered if the sodium load was ah to great for someone who has a brain tumor, I mean uh, you know uh sodium load will increase your blood pressure, and these people have extra things in their brains that probably won't react well to swelling, right, and and wont react well to pressure, so we were wondering, if in fact you don't have to reach the full dosage in order to have uh severe side effects
Ummm, you know maybe you haven't reached a therapeutic dose level, but that doesn't mean that it didn't have an effect on her
And you can clearly tell, that, you know in the videos, well at least the videos before the family took it down, that she was lethargic and a little bit out of it, she uh the the difference in her conscious state was no noticeable for anyone to see
Ummm, to, you know where she had been up and about to in her bed kind of slurring and and, and and and, in fact just disoriented, just looked like someone had taken the piss out of her
I mean, ummm, so that's, that one, ummm, you know the critique that, reaching therapeutic levels and having a biological effect on someone are are clearly different things in her case
Uhmmm, now I never went on you know on to say ummm that uh she had uh reached therapeutic levels
Uhmmm, I I think as far as I went was that she went, she paid her $30,000 dollars and then she died
Uhmmm, and and and what part of that's not true
Well my only thing is, uh, we know that sometimes he will go to a maximum dosage, or you know, the suggested dosage, but he will back down off it, in fact in the uh adverse effects you mentioned those are specifically adverse effects mentioned in his publications, and when that happens normally they will subside within 24 to 48 hours is what it says once you take them off the treatment and let, you know, those conditions take care of themselves, and then you will slowly raise the medication again [19]
So, you know, it just didn't tell, if only one month of treatment was enough to even start to do anything for her [20]
Okay, so, um, going back to Amelia, um, some of the the most um I think the most serious charges is that we see a uh repeatedly in his uh uh stories of his patients, um those are all cited, those are all backed uh by, you know, um at least as good as anything the Burzynski Patient Group has ever done
Uhmmm, something that we see over and over are patients reporting over and over that signs of getting worse are signs if getting better
Um, in particular a, uh report that's very common from from patients is that the center of their solid tumors are breaking up
One of the problems that we we we see is that that is more frequently a sign of ischemic necrosis that the tumor has outgrown its blood supply and that it's dying on the inside
And when you see something like a 5th of the patients who we've been able to to document, reporting this excitedly, we get extremely concerned about what's happening
Uhmmm, what part of that is not absolutely terrifying to you
Well the thing is, the FDA has approved phase 3 <strong[12]and also given them the Orphan Drug Designation, which means they should have some knowledge about what's going on, I would think [10]
Plus we don't know for sure, we've heard about, ummm, some of the things supposedly the oncologist has talked about, which is cutting off the blood flow, to the tumor, which is something that some uhhh drugs can do, and I think that's one of the things Burzynski has tried to do, ah he's specifically mentioned it in his personalized treatment
But I don't know for sure if it's also something that's done with the ANP's in just the clinical trials environment
So, that could be a possibility
Well, the the yeah I've never seen anyone say that the purpose of the antineoplastons is to cause uhhh, you know, to restrict the blood flow to the tumor and and and uh cause it to die that way, which is certainly one therapeutic approach that's been, that's been floated and research has been done on uh and might even be promising and uh what he's saying is that cancer is caused by a lack of antineoplastons in the system and that basically what he is doing is antineoplaston uh uh supplement therapy uh rath, what's the word I'm looking for, uhm uh, replacement therapy
Uh and there isn't a doctor on the planet, uh not a medical specialist on the planet, who, I, who has identified at at as a contributing factor as a contributor to cancer or antineo or lack of antineoplastons
Why isn't he, you know, you understand that these doctors, ummm like nothing is true or false because a doctor says it is true or false
Uhmmm it's it's it but when the entire medical community uhhh who are des are desperately are are every bit as tired of seeing patients die uhmmm and seeing patients suffer or as anyone else's families are you you imagine what an oncologist sees in that office over the course of of a year and there's going to be unimaginable suffering
I'm sure that they're tired of that
And that they would, you know, that if there was the slightest hint that antineoplaston deficiency was a cause of cancer that it would make it into the literature, with or without Burzynski
Uhhh ummm, why should we trust him when he has uh the sole uh the only person who had identified antineoplastons as a contributor to cancer when he is the sole manufacturer of the of the therapy uh when he is the uh sole prescriber of the therapy and when he is, where the sole distributor of the therapy from his pharmacy
Well what I find interesting about these other doctors is like like the doctors mentioned in the movie and BBC Panorama's report and in some of these newspaper articles where they are mentioned again is that these doctors never do a review of Burzynski's scientific publications and including our favorite oncologist who refuses to do so [20]
Uhhh [21]
He's read everything
Oh yeah he says he's read everything but uh you know he claims that he's uhmmm reviewed, reviewed uh Burzynski's personalized gene targeted therapy but he, but then just a few months ago he admitted, you know, I don't know where Burzynski says which genes are targeted by antineoplastons [22]
And I pointed out which specific publications that Burzynski published, publications which specifically mention which genes are targeted by antineoplastons, and I said how can you claim that you've read and reviewed every Burzynski publication and you didn't know which genes are targeted by antineoplastons when that's specifically in the publications ? [10]
To me that tells me that you do not know how antineoplastons work be because you just admitted you don't know which genes Burzynski talks about
I mean that's just funny as heck to me that he would say that
Can you go ahead and send me that link that that I saw in the chat that you had uh posted a couple of times in the chat
Could you send me that link, to that publication
I can give you a minute to to go find it if that's
Well I've, I've got it on my blog
I mean I can forward it to you at some point
That would be good
Uhmmm
But I agree with you about I don't remember seeing anything about antineoplastons cutting off the blood flow to the, you know the blood brain barrier for sure either
Well, yeah that's a, that's you know one of the major problems that this this cancer has is the location is such a pain to get to
Uhm, and often when we are talking about these cancers, the thing that gets me over and over and over, and this is something that I've learned from from working uh with others on the Burzynski Patient Group is what's it like to be a cancer patient, only by proxy, man I couldn't imagine really going through this myself, and, you know I'd hate to see my family go through this
That these people are at what could be described as a low point, they're um uhhh, you get a diagnosis of uh brainstem glioma the prognosis is very bad
Uhmmm, there are only a few cases of people recovering from that, I mean they're there uhm uhhh but, you know that it's an, it's an extremely grim prognosis
Uhhh and I worry that when they're in that desperate state and especially let's talk about the children, you have these kids who are uh you know 2 and 3 and have had this, you know uh awful diagnosis and the parents are willing to do literally anything to keep their kids alive
What protections are in place for patients as far as that these kids are and and their parents are protected
Well I think i know the point that you're getting at uhhh about the IRB's and all that good stuff
All I can say is that, you know the FDA can come in with any amount of investigators and say that you did this or that but you have the opportunity to respond, and so they can pretty much say anything, it's only when the final report comes out that you can take that to the bank
And so all this speculation about what a investigative team may say about the clinic is, to me just like someone going into a lawsuit and saying so-and-so did this, you know, can you prove that, you know, did so-and-so do that [23]
So it's the same thing with the FDA, these um little reports, the final report is what counts, and so, also what I find interesting is some of Burzynski's publications specifically said, you know this particular uh clinical trial, the IRB was agreed upon by the FDA [24]
Well if if the FDA agreed upon it, you know, then some questions should arise about exactly what did the FDA agree upon
What would we find out from a Freedom of Information Act request on that ?
And, and what I also found interesting is when I did research on other clinical trials for brainstem glioma I found, you know, all these other science based medicine studies where 374 children had died in their studies [25]
And what I found interesting is back in 1999, they reported on a clinical trial, they had better results then all these clinical trials afterwards [18]
Who had the better results ?
Well, I would have to find you one, there were like 3
There were like 3 major ones that Burzynski has mentioned in his publications to cross-reference his trials versus their trials as far as the results
And so, I, there was one back in 1999 that had better results than a lot of these clinical trials that come afterwards
So when we talk about, you know, what's really right for the patients well we can see that the drug companies want to test their drugs through clinical trials and, you know, and if your kid dies, well, unfortunately the kid dies
Even though we showed better results in 1999 with a different type of treatment, you would have thought that maybe they would have poured more investment into that particular treatment but that's not necessarily how the clinical trial system works
Hmmm, yeah, the, Guy Chapman has just um uh tossed in a a, a comment
I guess uh that there are a lot of people who wanna talk to you (laughter)
Uh, Guy Chapman has just jumped in and said it looks like you forgot the phase 3 trial is withdrawn and none of the phase 2 trials were published
Uhmmm, this, this is not a minor thing for for for Skeptics
This, this is exactly what will convince us to get on board the Burzynski train is the publication of these trials
But even the preliminary trials, one has been finished, and none has been published in its entirety for over 15 years
When you consider that this is a, as you just pointed out, this is a a cancer, the, especially the brainstem gliomas
That these cancers uh the cases resolved fairly quickly, we know what the outcome are fairly quickly
Ummm, do you have any sense of when these trials are going to be published ?
Well here's my point, I mean, y'all probably get a better sense from, ummm, Hymas, about what's going on with that
From Laura ?
From her uh fiancé, or husband, whatever his status happens to be right now (laugh)
And uh also from Ric, uh they're more closer to Burzynski than I am, because I have never met Burzynski, I have never e-mailed Burzynski, uhmmm never talked to Burzynski, never met him, blah blah blah
Uh, my sense is that since 1996 when the FDA talked about antineoplastons, that specific FDA Commissioner that was in charge at the time, he set out 7 major points about how there was going to be less people required and there was going to be less paperwork, there was going to be less stringent things about Partial Response [26]
And so, to me, the FDA is the final source to go to when people want to complain about how long their trials have lasted uh because the FDA is bottom line, you know, in charge of that
When you, when you think about a major, sorry, go ahead
And my other point is that, uhmmm, when these trials finish, as I've pointed out on my blog, M.D. Anderson finished a trial in 2006 and didn't publish the results electronically until January of this year [27]
So, we know that he's trying to publish, uh but they're going to keep it close to the vest obviously, from, from how they do their things, and where they're trying to publish
And plus, like I've said before
Yeah, right, uh
We've still got the accelerated approval thing that's out there, you know, like the FDA's given Temodar and, and Avastin, and another drug, whereas they're not doing the same thing for antineoplastons, eve even though for all intents and purposes from what we know, antineoplastons have had better success rates than Temodar and Avastin when they were approved [13]
Antineoplastons has a better rate ?
Well from the information that's been published in certain um publications
And in, and in not only Burzynski's but elsewhere in, in newspapers or articles, or such like that
Right, one of the things that that there there are 2 points to be made here
Uhm, the 1st one is that major pharmaceutical companies that are getting this accelerated approval have a track record of producing results which Burzynski does not have
Secondly, when it comes to ummm the rates of antineoplastons, how can we possibly say without a single published trial he, that he has an improved rate over Temodar or anything like that, and that's exactly what would show to us whether or not his rate is better, the the types of publications that he's done, that look really good on paper, ummm, to the to the, the common persons eye are these case series where he goes through and picks out people who have happened to have survived
But what that doesn't tell us is whether or not the antineoplaston had anything to do with it
What you need to do is go and separate the background noise, the random weird rare but very real survive, unexpected survivals that occur, and separate those, uhhh, from any effect of antineoplaston, he's never done that
Well what I found interesting is when the FDA approved these other 1 or 2 drugs, some of them specifically said that, uhhh, some of these drugs had, you know, better survivability or they showed no better rate than any previous treatment but we're approving it anyway [13]
Basically that's what the publication said and I published this on my blog in an article specifically about, you know, those 2 or 3 drugs that the FDA approved for brainstem or brain related cancers [28]
And so, you know, I'm not going to buy that argument about that, about that specific thing
But if you think about that, I mean that if it does have a a an improvement rate above uh other treatments
That still has an improvement rate, you know, that, that would give another option to people, ummm, even if in the aggregate their rates aren't better
It might work on some individuals tumors rather than on, you know, you you it it is it taken as a, as a lump but extend life by uh quality of life for 3 months or something um in some cases but, you know, it it still has an effect, a real effect, and deserves to be out there
Well one of these newspaper articles specifically said, you know, Avastin would maybe keep you alive for maybe 4 more months
So, you know, take that [2]
That's a long time when someone is dying
Well, we can wonder if some of Burzynski's results are the same, otherwise why would the FDA say, you know, give the ODD [10], why would the FDA give the phase 3 approval [12]
Plus I don't buy some of these doctors coming out and saying stuff, they have the opportunity just like the other doctors in Egypt [29], in Russia [30], in Germany, in, in Poland [31], in China [32 – 33], in Taiwan [34] that have done antineoplaston studies, I'm like, these people can do antineoplaston studies so what's the excuse for all these other doctors who say that they supposedly can't do them
You know, the information's out there and
Well, one of
and like these other doctors can do it
One of the problems that that doctors have in in this country when it comes to doing ummm antineoplastons studies to verify any any effect that uh Burzynski has uhhh I i think back to the one where people say well that the FDA sabotaged his trials, and
Well, we kind of know that that's a fact [35]
Clarification: NIH, NCI, and the Investigators
Well, if if you think about it though, um, the, the proposed action as I understand it of the antineoplaston is that it's a deacetylase inhibitor, which slightly unspools DNA, that allows uh, which would allow uh proteins to get into a pair of damaged DNA
And we have drugs that do that which carry a much lower sodium load
Uh, um, it, that would have a therapeutic effect on and that the risks outweigh the possible benefits of using this one particular drug
Um, I've seen any number of people looking at um, if you look at the Luna ah Pettiguine uh uh story on The Other Burzynski Patient Group um you see that the doctor is absolutely horrified by the insane sodium load that that Burzynski's patients are carrying
Um in in some ways that that sodium load is uh leading people to constantly drinking up to I've seen 12 liters of water a day
That's not necessary for other deacetylase inhibitors
Um the, why would you prefer that to to another drug if it did essentially the same thing, that didnt have this massive side effect ?
Well what we know from 1996 from Burzynski's own information that he's published, is that not only does he have the original parent antineoplastons, but he's developed 2nd and 3rd generations, but he can't just stop in the middle of his clinical trial and use the 2nd and 3rd generations which may be better [36]
(Clarification: 1997)
He can't uh use these other types of um antineoplastons that other researchers, researchers like Egypt [29], or Japan [37] have found um that may be better because he can't just switch in the middle of the clinical trial
Now if he, if the FDA approves his product, well then, maybe he can roll out the 2nd and 3rd generation and these other types of antineoplastons that may be less harsh, but that's all he's got to work on and that takes us back to the FDA, having control over the entire process, as far as the paperwork, how many people are in the trials, etcetera
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 [38]
ah he has asked everything that Burzynski does looks sort of like the behaviors of pseudo-science
So what we're saying uhhh he does uh uhhh Burzynski like for instance like I said he has vertically integrated, ah, he controls all parts from identification to the creation of the drug uh to the diagnosing uh well he doesn't do the diagnosing but he does um um prescribe and distribute, he does all that vertically, which is actually something that snake oil salesmen do
Another thing that that's a red flag in Skeptic circles is that his one compound seems to be a sort of panacea for all sorts of different types of, of of cancers, um where we know that cancer has a a varied uh, uh, ideology and and the uh panaceas are are are to be and a variety of different types of causes um, in fact in any one tumor you would, you could say that these, these tumors are are completely uh heterogenous
The idea that there's gonna be one knockout, it seems rather unrealistic
Um, additionally he charges immense amounts of money for this drug, um, even though the components cost pennies
Um, on top of that, um, there's something that he asks for a a huge payment up front
That's something that's been warned against for generations of uh by anti-quack um uh crusaders if if they're asking for everything up front, then be afraid
Ummm, another thing is that uh the kind of cult that's sprung up around Burzynski, uh, one that is immune to uh criticism, reason, and pits people who are doing standard cancer research, as enemies, um, creating a black and white version of the world where there are good people and there are bad people
There are people who are fighting the disease, and then there are people who are really helping the disease
I mean, if you look at the, the new web-site by the Burzynski patients fighting back group, they say support the cure not the cancer
That's a manikin world-view of black and white
Um, these are all huge red flags, that you're dealing with a quack
Um, why hasn't Burzynski done anything to change that ?
Well I find it interesting that you talk about the cost, because I've done a lot of research about the cost, and I was just looking at the cost again this morning, and put it into that particular blog article I was talking about, that I did for this particular program [39]
And, um
The thing that's funny is that people can say, ohhh Burzynski charges a lot, but the fact is, so does chemo, radiation, and some of these newspaper articles that have been published, and specifically in the movie, Burzynski 2, one of the people mentioned how much someone was paying for standard treatment
And I noticed our
favorite oncologist didn't comment about that in his movie review [40]
Well, there, this is important
This is really important though
Wha, when she's talking about, that's Luna Pettiguine's mother, is is talking about the costs there
Uhmmm, you, when someone is not insured in in this country,
Ahm, the, the the base cost that that's calculated is, is the hospital only expects to get a fraction, a tiny fraction of that back from the insurance companies, and that's why the costs are so inflated
Um, usually, when a patient is self-pay there is a self-pay price which is a more reasonable price
Additionally, all of those therapies, have demonstrated efficacy, and if Burzynski were to demonstrate his efficacy, $30,000 dollars to start on a life-saving treatment for a child would be a steal, and he would earn every nickel of it
Um, so, those arguments hold very little weight with us
Well what I find interesting, you know, I'm not sure how people think he's supposed to pay for the clinical trials, you know, if he's supposed to go into debt, millions of dollars
He has a a an enormous house that's valued in the tens of millions of dollars, he could do that if if the other, the other thing he could do, and this, we would love to see him do this, wousa, would be apply to Federal grant
That, that would be amazing, if he could get a grant to study this stuff
But, you know, um, I I don't think he'd be able to get one, I don't think he's shown uh that he can carry off a uh a research program responsibly
I find that funny considering the FDA approved phase 3, has given him ODD for brainstem glioma and also also all gliomas [12]
You know, that's kind of ridiculous [10]
And the people
gettin' off about his house, well who cares ?
They don't know where his money came for that particular source
(Clarification: "They don't know the particular source where his money came from for that house")
Oh he, have you noticed the the, the thing on his web-site where if you make a donation to the clinic it goes directly to him ?
Well, you know, when you have good tax lawyers your tax lawyers will tell you how to structure things, and everybody in America has the right to structure their taxes in a manner that effectively serves them according to our Supreme Court
So, if you have a tax lawyer who tells you, hey this is the best way to do it, to save money, well, you may do that uh based upon your lawyer's advice
So, maybe Burzynski has taken his tax lawyers advice, just like I'm sure he's taken Richard Jaffe's ad advice (laugh), which has proved well, for him
You know, you know
That's another thing
Ummm, o-kay
Uh, I want to turn this over to the people who are watching
Um, I want to give them a a chance to address you as well
Uhmmm, hi everyone
Uhmmm, so, um, let's, let's wait for for that to roll in, and I do wait to go back to the, the the, the and let's be very specific about this, the the things that you see on The Other Burzynski Patent Group, a patient reporting that um uh getting worse is getting better
How do you explain that ?
Well I guess we could ask, you know, Ben and Laura Hymas [41]
What was their experience, you know ?
Did they have, did she have to drink uh a lot of water because she was thirsty ?
You know, did she have to drink a lot of water due to the high sodium ?
Well that's just a known side-effect, your going to know that going in, but we actually have people say
So I would ask her about her personal experience instead of saying, you know, instead of quoting some of these other people
Are there, why why why not, these people, see this is the thing though
The reason that site was started was because the people that don't make it don't have a voice
And when you, when you whittle away, when you only look at the at the, the positive outcomes, which is exactly in Burzynski's favor to only look at the positive outcomes, and to have no sense of how other people's diseases progressed, right, you're gonna get a skewed and inaccurate version of the efficacy of this particular drug
Now lets lets lets go back and not talk about Laura, lets talk about these patients who report symptoms of getting worse, as if they were signs of getting better
Some people say that oh it's a healing crisis or it's progression of the disease
Or other people say it's breaking up in the middle, hurrah
No, it's actually a tumor that's growing
That record there, that's being left by patients, whose stories are every bit as important as the as the stories of the patients who have lived, are painting a completely different picture
Well we all know the FDA is in charge of this, and so hopefully they know what's going on
Are they feeding these people their stories ?
Are they feeding these people their stories
No, I'm sure the FDA can look at the records because Burzynski sent them 2.5 million pages according to our friend Fabio [42]
And uh, you know just something the doctors who came in and did the little ol' one day, 6 patient records, where they reviewed all the records and slides, and MRI's, etcetera, you know they can do the same thing, the FDA can do the same thing with all these patients [35]
(Clarification: 7)
And see the same MRI's and scans, etcetera
I mean, we, we know that with all these 374 children I mentioned dying in other science-based medicine clinical trials [25]
I mean, they, FDA probably went through all their records
And, so, all these people didn't look good either but, you know, the FDA still gave approval to Avastin and Te Temodar even though a lot of people died in their clinical trials [25]
Okay I'm going to go back, I want to point something else out to you
Um, I have to, I don't remember the exact patient so I have to go back to my web-site to take a look at it
Because we are, because we're on a Google+ stream that that's a lot of data it takes awhile to bring up my, my site
Let me
I mean, we could agree that since Burzynski's publication says that it's going to take a month to get up to required dosage, and so we know, the tumor can still grow, like he said, up to 50%, he specifically acknowledges that in his publication, so, we know that can happen [43]
Well, that seems to give him an instant out, no matter what happens
That turns his claims into something that's unfalsifiable
If I could give you an example of what unfalsifiable is
Um, and I'll I'll draw an uh, uh, case, uh hypothetical case of um uh proposed by Carl Sagan as the invisible dragon in your garage
If you say you have have a dragon in your garage, um, you know, you should be able to go over and verify that there's a dragon in the garage
So let's say we go over to Carl Sagan's garage and, you know
Well, I don't see anything
Well it's an invisible dragon
Well okay, well then, let's uh spray paint it
Well, it's incorporeal
Well, uh, let's measure for the heat of the breath
Well it's heatless flame that it breathes
And, you know, okay, well then we'll put flour down on the ground to see that it's it it's standing there
And, oh no it's ah it's floating
Well, you know, at some point, when you can't falsify something
When you cannot, even in principle, prove something false, it's indistinguishable from something that's not there
And that kind of out, that oh well the tumor can keep on growing
Th (laugh) that that that's an invisible dragon, as far as I can tell
Well we know from his own publications, he says he can't just go in and start giving the maximum dose, or recommended dose right off the bat because a particular condition will occur, and he specifically mentions, in the publications what that condition is, I don't remember it right off the top of my head [20]
But then again, his 2nd generation, his 3rd generation, his other form of antineoplastons that may work in the future, if approved, well those could possibly (not) have the same uh adverse effects that the current parent generation have [36]
But we don't know, and like I said the FDA I'm sure knows because they have all the records, we don't have them, and so unlike our favorite oncologist I'm not going to speculate, about what the FDA knows and I do not know
A every time that I and and and and , and David points this out, that um, you you know your not going to speculate about the the FDA but then at every turn your invoking the FDA as being obstructionist
I, I just find that to be contradictory and and self-defeating
Um, let me see
Well we know they stopped this particular trial, supposedly because a patient died
So what's the hold-up ?
I mean, hopefully they've done an autopsy
What was found
Well, that's not necessarily true
I mean uh when it when it comes to the case um I've i've talked to oncologists about this
And when it comes to uh for instance in in this case it sounds like it was a pediatric patient who was dying, ummm, who had died, ummm, the,
the 1st inclination is to ascribe the death to, um, to the tumor, which actually, would be to Burzynski's benefit if there were other cases, I'm not saying there were, but if there were other cases where this type of complication arose, and it was ascribed to the tumor they might well not do it, uh, do an autopsy
Um, it's ah as you could imagine it could be very difficult for the families to do that especially when they have ooh ah, a possibility of what, you know, led to the ultimate demise, that didn't involve them ultimately somehow being responsible for it, right?
So, it it it doesn't seem to me that necessarily an autopsy would be um a a done deal
And we don't have a final report from the FDA on what the findings were
No we don't and it would be irresponsible to completely speculate on on, on, the outcome of that uh, uh, uh, individual patient, I am still scrolling through looking for this story that I wanted to talk about
Uh, and, I guess I'll
It should be in Amelia's I I, I packed Amelia's story with all the stories, um, that I could find um in what we'd written up already
Hold on a sec
She is a cute kid though
Um, alright
Now, our favorite oncologist (laugh), as you keep putting it, um, uh, with with the Amelia story, um, uh, was able to correctly determine that the Saunders family, had a, did not understand the significance of this cyst that had opened up in, uh, that had opened up in the center of the tumor, in fact they were ecstatic
They were delighted
Um, the family, of Haley, um, S, also
Uh, the the family of Haley S., also, had the same reading given to them
Um, the same diagnosis uh same prognosis was to, was given to Justin B in 2006
A similar cyst in Lesley S's story uh ah, was in 2006
Um, and that kept her on uh treatment for a a another month so that could be another $7,000 some odd dollars
We same thing in the, in the case of, uh, Samantha T in 2005
We see it again as far back as 1994, in Cody G's story
And then lastly and and the worst uh thing that we've seen, the patients report that Burzynski himself told Chase uh Sammut
The exact same thing
Um, and that was a
Have you read Chase's story
I don't remember specifically
Possibly not
It would stick with you, because that case is grotesque
The parents, uh, there was even a uh, uh, a fight over whether or not the parents should be allowed to continue treating this kid
He was basically lying, uh, in a uh uh brain dead uh for all intents and purposes, uh, in a in a coma uh without possibility of reversal, in his parents living room for months
Um, eh, all the while, he's still on the, uh, we'll I don't actually, I can't say that, I don't exactly know if he was on the treatment the whole time
Um, but, we do have this pattern, that is there, of people believing, that this particular pattern is, uh, progress, a a is not progression of disease but is is inducement to to stay on, um, eh, and this has been going on for decades
Eh, eh just based on what we've been able to find that patients have been reporting this for decades
At some point, you would think that a doctor would realize that perhaps what these patients are walking away with is inaccurate
Why hasn't that changed ?
Well he's using the same 1st generation drug
E wel that that that that's not it
This is this is like the 2nd day of oncology class, that that's what the tumor looks like
People are reporting that the tumor is no longer growing, um, or that the growing has slowed after they've started
Well, okay
There, there is an explanation for that, and why you can't take that as necessarily being evidence of efficacy
Ah, the tumor grows exponentially while the resources are available to it, but then it reaches a point where it's a self-limited growth, so it, the time between uh doublings in size decreases logarithmically
Um, so this is, this is like basic tumor physiology that we're talking about, and his patients don't leave his office, knowing these facts, for decades
This doesn't have anything to do with the, do with the drug
This this
Well I'm sure a lot of people leave the doctors office not knowing things (laugh), for decades
But, but when it's, this treatment is working or this is not evidence that the treatment is working
That's pretty basic
I mean we're not, we're not talking about deacetylase inhibitors or anything like that were you'd really need to know something about
This is, whether or not, you're getting the outcome that you want
This is the whole reason for going
And it has nothing to do with the with the with the drugs
Well we know the contin, the tumors can uh continue to grow for awhile, at least, and certain effects that they probably would
Which is, which is like which we just pointed out was a was an invisible dragon
Well I'm sure, I mean, it's going to continue to grow, in any other clinical trial too, for a certain awhile
I mean like
you're you're you're assuming
You're you're you're assuming that
You're assuming that
Um, I'm not assuming that
Well we know that all these other kids died in these science-based medicine trials, and, you know, we can assume that that was the case there too [25]
Ultimately it would, but whether or not it it it had a genuine therapeutic effect is a different matter all together
Um, this, what would, what would convince you that you're wrong
The FDA not giving him phase 3 approval [12], the FDA not giving him ODD designation [10]
So you're saying because the Orphan Drug Designation and the face that there's a phase 3, therefor it works ?
And showing that, and showing the FDA that there's evidence of effectiveness [11]
So what you're saying is there's nothing that would convince you now, that it doesn't work
Not until the FDA says it doesn't work
O-kay
Um, it's it's it's not the FDA's, but you understand it's not the FDA's job to tell someone that their drug doesn't work
Well they seem to be doing a good job of it
it's it's it's up to Burzynski
It's up to Burzynski to show that his drug does work
And it's always been his burden of proof
He's the one that's been claiming this miracle cancer cure, forever
Well I'm sure, I'm sure they wouldn't have done things if they didn't see some evidence that it was working
Um, I don't know if you've read Jaffe's book
No I haven't read it [44]
There seems to have been a lot going on there you really should look at it because it's it's it's kind of revealing
Um, that that that it seems that there was a lot of political pressure applied to the FDA which may have been, uh, uh, have influenced the way in which these these trials were approved
I I would say that it is a genuine con uh uh bit of confusion on the parts of Skeptics
We don't know why the phase 3 trial was approved
I don't know that we've seen even the phase 1 trials, we don't know why he's getting a phase 3
And there's a real story in that, we think
Um, that we'd love to see, however we can't see, however we can't see it because of proti protri proprietary uh protections that the FDA is giving to Burzynski, right ?
They're not sharing his trial designs because they are his trial designs, right?
That the makeup of his drug that he's distributing are his, uh design, and his intellectual property
So the FDA is protecting him, uh from outside scrutiny
While you may imagine that that, that that the FDA is is somehow antagonistic toward him
They've given him every opportunity, over 60 opportunities to prove himself worth uh their confidence and hasn't
Um, but I definitely recommend that you look at Jaffe's book and you will see, I think, um that um it's called um, uh Galileo's
I know what it's called [44]
You know what it's called, okay, yeah
Um, definitely look at that
Um, you, you will see, the ways in which, the way that we got to this point, isn't necessarily having anything to do with the efficacy of the drug
That comes across very clearly
Um, you, you mentioned it yourself, he he's done well to listen to Jaffe's advice, right ?
So, there there's a lot to that
Um, uh, but yeah, let me go back to the Twitter feed
Well I'm just gonna say, you know, the F, the FDA doing what they've done, since they approved those 72 initial trials, pretty much speaks for itself [45]
I mean they've had every opportunity to shut this down, since then
Well it sounds to me like they're they're not um, the the the you know, they've put the clinical hold on now because they now have evidence that somebody may have died because of the treatment
Um, I don't know what the state of that is right now
Um, uh, oh my gosh, um, let me see
Someone has just sent me a, a ah a link to, are you following the Hashtag, as this is going on
No, I'm just concentrating on what we're doing
I'm doing, I'm doing the 2 things at once and it's um, ok ok well it's well ok I can't I can't go in and read that right now
Um, I would, ok let me tell you exactly what it will take, for me to come around and promote Burzynski
Um, for me, he needs to get a publication in a uh, yeah, uh uh uh publication in a peer-reviewed journal, a respected peer-reviewed journal, not like the the Journal of Medical Hypothesis or things we just made up
Um, something, you know, a a good, respectable journal that oncologists would read, that research oncologists would read
I would need an completely independent group to replicate his findings, and then I'd be all for it
I would say that right now, the business model that the Burzynski Clinic seems to depend on, as best as I can tell from an outsider, that, um, uh, that it depends on people paying money up front
It doesn't depend on him developing and taking away a viable drug, that he can market to the entire world
His business model as best I can tell, is to keep it in house
That seems, if it works, if his drug genuinely works, and he hasn't sent it along to mass approval, where he gets, for a couple of years at least, you know, exclusive rights to produce and sell this stuff, for one of the most intractable diseases, uh that man eh can can can, you know, can get, um, that suggests to me that there's something else going on here
Now, someone has just sent a a note, uh that he has failed 3 different Institutional Review Board audits; this is Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy), uh no other institution has a 3 for 3 fail, according to to Guy iye he knows no other one
Um, that 45% of phase 3 clinical trials fail due to deficient phase 2 design
Um, he has an approved phase 3, but phase 2 was deficient so phase 3 fails
Do you think that that could possibly have anything to do with why we're not seeing the phase 3 advance
Well #1 I don't think the one with brainstem glioma where they wanted to use radiation with ANP was really the right way to go, I mean he's already proven that uh he seems to have better results without [12]
He's claimed
first starting radiation [20]
That's a different thing altogether
And in fact
Yeah but the thing is radi, I, the FDA was not saying, ok, one study, one side of the study we're only going to use ANP, in the other side of the study we're going to use radiation and and ANP like like they would normally do
No, they wanted to make him use radiation in both sides of the study [20]
Well, you understand why they do that, because in order to, it's
They don't do that with other drugs [13]
No, they do do this with other drugs, well, it depends on the type
Some drugs it's ethical to give something completely questionable, what they want to make sure that they at least get the standard care, you know which includes radiation
Um, and radiation does seem to extend life, reduce the size of some tumors some times
Um, do you concede, that in order to have a phase 3, you do not need to have a successful phase 2 ?
When 45% of phase 3 fail because they have a deficient phase 2 design, do you concede that ?
Well I don't buy anything Guy Chapman sells, considering his past record [46]
Well, ok
It doesn't matter where
(laughing)
It doesn't matter where it comes from uh, um
Well his theories are suspect, anything he hands out, let me tell ya [47]
So-kay, um that would be shooting the messenger as opposed to dealing with the question, but
But the question may be bogus, because of where the messenger has been bogus a lot of times before (laugh) [48]
the idea, the best, well, the best, well in that case the best response is "I don't know"
Well I'm just gonna say what I think about Chapman because he's proven himself, many times to be questionable
I don't see him on my blog responding to my criticism [7]
There's something that that we don't know, you're coming, honestly we didn't know what to expect when we talked to you
We, were looking at the design, of your web-site and wondering whether or not we would be able to get a a coherent sentence out of you, because the web-site is disorganized, uh
Um, at at at at least it's the organization is not apparent to the readers
Um, and um according to
That's like, that's like saying that Gorski's web-site is disorganized, his blog is like anti vaccine one day, Burzynski the next, blah blah blah
No, that is tied together
But let me, we know that that the the, the central concern is Burzynski
Ah, the source of this ah of of those #'s that I just gave you, Chapman has just updated me and he says um that it is, and I'll go back to the, the ADR research . com issues in clinical research, so it's the question, Bay Clinical uh Research and Clinical Development,a white paper called "Why do so many phase 3 clinical trials fail ?"
Uh, it's prepared by Anistazios Retzios, Ph.D
Is Anistazios Retzios reliable ?
There is a correct here
Well how would I know ?
That's the right answer
You need to look into it
Alright ?
Before you dismiss it you have to look into it
Everytime somebody throws uh uh something to me, I have to look into it
That's just, it's my responsibility as a reader
Well you didn't when I tried to get you to do stuff the 1st time, did ya ? [2]
What, what stuff would you like
What stuff would you like me to do ?
I generally, I don't read your blog
Well I, the most, the mostly, excuse me, the most recent article I posted on there is the one about this particular conversation, where I went through all your comments that you had posted, and my response to them
And so I tried to consolidate everything into one, particular article
Uh um, alright
And that's the newest article [2]
Um, one question I'd wondered, what is the Didymus Judas Thomas reference to
Well I thought that was pretty funny because doing biblical research, you come upon, Didymus Judas Thomas, or he's all, also known by other names
He's basically The Skeptic
And so, like I said, I consider myself to be Skeptic of The Skeptics
Oh, so this is the Doubting Thomas
I thought it was apropos
This is the Doubting Thomas
I'm doubting The Skeptics
Okay, so this is the one, you show me the, you put your your, the, your hand inside the wound
You know, Jesus says, basically, ok, bring it on, check me out, right ?
That that, I didn't, I didn't realize that he was also, that that was the same guy
So, it's it's the Doubting Thomas
Um, what we would say, um, is that if Burzynski is the savior that he claims to be, that he should, open up his trials, he should open up his uh research uh protocols um and just say, "Look, bring it on"
Check out these wounds
But he's never done that
Instead he he he wants us to just take the words of of of of his apostles
I don't necessarily trust his apostles
I don't think that they're unbiased
I wanna see the data
I wanna see the the wounds in his hands and the the mark on his side
Well I like how The Skeptics say, you know, all of Burzynski's successes over the years are anecdotal and uh I consider on the same way that everything negative about Burzynski is anecdotal
Oh, hey when when we talk about The Other Burzynski Patient Group, I don't make any pretensions to make that my site proves anything
I I I really don't
It's not my job to prove anything
It's Burzynski's job
It is a researchers job to prove these things
Well my point is he's proven them to the FDA because they're the ones
But we just pointed out, we just pointed out, that the FDA, often approves, phase 3 trials, based on flawed phase 2 clinical trials
That is therefor a real possibility in this case
Could be, but I would have to read, read the
Yes you would
T t and what I would honestly expect and hope, is that you would be honest about this, to yourself, and and and that's the thing we don't, we often don't realize that we're not being honest with ourself
I try to fight against it, constantly
But, um, uh but the way that you'd earlier phrased your uh your response to "could you possibly be proved wrong ?", . . really did exclude other possibilities of of of of yourself being wrong
So if the FDA
Well when it comes to Guy Chapman, yeah
Well I'm not talking about the Guy Chapman
What you off, when I asked you, yourself, you know, what would prove you wrong, you said that the FDA hasn't approved a phase 3
Let's let's back, let's back up
What would the FDA, what happens if the FDA occasionally op op opposes, approves uh phase 3 trials, based on bad phase 2 trials
Would that be, would that cause any doubt in your mind ?
About the efficacy of ANP
You still there ?
Yeah, hello, yeah, you're back
Yeah, something cut off there for awhile
Yeah Google+ is a little wonky sometimes
But, would, does, if you were to learn, that sometimes phase 3 trials, uh, are approved, and failed, based on flawed phase 2, would, would that make you reconsider your position of the phase 3 being evidence that it works
Well I would certainly look at that, but then again I would also look at the FDA granting him Orphan Drug Designation [10]
Uh um could you send me that link, the, the, um . me see
I'm just looking at other things that are coming in on the Hashtag right now
Um, so the ANP is Orphan Drug status but is it Orphan Drug for glioma ?
Orphan Drug for brainstem glioma and all gliomas [10]
Is it sodium phenylbutyrate or is it the the versions of the drug, the AS10 stuff or A1 or whatever it's called ?
Right, it's both AS10 AS2-1 and AS
Clarification: A10 and AS2-1
Okay, that's what has Orphan Drug status
Alright, I'll look into that
So, oh, um
Do you have any questions for me ?
I've spent a lot of times asking questions of you
Well not really, since you mentioned that you'd go in and look at my most recent article, anything you show in there or any reply you give is going to cover, what we've gone over
And so we can re debate it there
Mhmm
Guy Chapman, throws up the the, the comment, permission to investigate is not evidence of anything other than evidence of a valid protocol, not a uh, evidence of efficacy, in and of itself
That's another comment
Um, alright then, this is your chance t, there are lots of people have lots of questions about me out there
Uh, about what my motivations are and such
I might as well put that out on the table just so it's on the record, is that I am taking exactly no money from anyone for this, and have gotten nothin' but grief from a lot of people, even people who (laugh), even people who support me have given me grief for this
Um, just so that you know, um, there have been, some of the things that have happened, oh, this is an important point too
Um, that when we have criticized this, uh, a # of us, especially Gorski, uh myself, uh Rhys Morgan, uh, um, and and uh Popehat, the the lawyer, blog, uh, um, who else was on there, um, oh, the Merritts, uh, t, uh Wayne Merritt, and his family, people have been critical of of of Burzynski have faced retaliation for opposing him ah and intimidation, and including, um, I had my uh a couple weeks before Christmas my, my, the Chancellor of my University was contacted via e-mail, and uh Eric Merola said that I had been um, uh, been spreading mis truths about Burzynski, that I had been a be, on my my show um had said things that were demonstratively untrue, and he also said that the drug was FDA approved, which it, you know, that's not right
But um, he said that he was gonna do, talk about me in his new movie, in, uh, relat, in millions of homes, um, and he wanted to get a statement from the University
The University of course ignored him, and immediately let me know that I was going to get smeared
Um, I consulted my lawyer and uh uh, you know, the best course of action was figured out, and um uh a Gorski has had his accreditation board contacted, he's had his bosses contacted, Rhys Morgan received threats of liable suits from somebody who had been hired, by the clinic, to clean up his on-line reputation if he didn't take down his on-line review of Burzynski, uh, had his a picture of his house sent to him, clearly the message being, "We know where you live kid," uh, Wayne Merritt; a pancreatic cancer patient, this is something that, that people generally, do not recover from, like generally, die from, received phone calls at home, from, this individual, threatening him with lawsuits; he doesn't have a law degree so he's misrepresenting himself
Um, but all of this, was done, to critics
Do you think that is deserved ?
Do you think that that is right ?
Well I've specifically stated on my blog that Marc Stephens uh obviously didn't know what he was doing and went about it the wrong way
My position was he should of bou, got around it, gone about it the way I did, which is, I blog, and show where Rhys is wrong [49], I blog and show where Gorski is wrong [40], I blog and show where you are wrong [2], or Josephine Jones [50], or Guy Chapman [7], etcetera
And, eh, y'all have every opportunity to come on my blog, and I've had very few takers, uh, one claiming to be from Wikipedia, who I shot down [51]
And hasn't come back
So, you know, I am welcome to anybody trying to come on my blog, and prove what I posted is wrong, and debate anything
Unlike some of The Skeptics I don't block people on my blog
I don't give lame reasons for blocking people on my blog because I'm an American and I actually believe in "Free Speech"
Well to be fair
It it it doesn't strike me as necessarily a "Free Speech" issue, you know
Well to me it is when Forbes removes all my comments, in response to Skeptics some, and I showed this from screen-shots
You know, stuff like that [52]
Was it down-voted ?
It wasn't down-voted
They, I mean I've got screen-shots of where my comments were there, between other people's comments, and uh, and they just decided to remove all my comments, and I blogged specifically about, you know, what they did and, uh, Gorski's good friend and pal who authored that particular article
So I, I like how The Skeptics run things, you know
Well we do have for for for for one thing, um, I guess to understand is that we are uh motivated by um uh a respect, this is the one thing that that all Skeptics I think um are uh respect critical thinking, um, and um respect scientific uh a we we're mostly scientific enthusiasts, there's some Skeptics who are not um, uh, you know oh u space nerds, or whatever who are um just sc scholars and the humanities but for the most part we all respect scientific consensus and we respect scientific method and have an enthusiasm for living in the real world, this is something that like all of us us are about
And to that end, sometimes that influence is how we run, is how we decide to run our personal web-sites
Um, uh, that whether or not we want our, to give a platform to people who disagree with us, um, you know, uh, when we do, uh . . it it is our sandbox, you know, right ?
This, this (laughter), we're allowed to to let whoever we want into our sandbox if we, you know, uh if we want
Well I think that people who really believe in "Free Speech," and when it's done rationally, I mean, Gorski would never, really respond to any of my questions, so I [53]
Did he, did he leave them up ?
Did he leave them up ?
Well I know that he specifically removed a review I did uh of his review of Burzynski I on his web, on his blog
But he's pretty much left a lot of my comments up that I've seen
Uh, but he never really responded to my questions about, what he based his beliefs upon
Right, um, do you think that he is required to answer you
Well I would think, if you're going to base your position on a certain thing, and then you can't back it up with scientific literature, uh, you should answer, maybe not specifically to me, but answer the question
Answer to your readers
You know, I can tell his readers come on my blog because it shows that they come on my blog
Um so a a question uh why were why do you have so many Twitter and Wikipedia sock-puppets
Well the reason I have so many Twitter things is because, obviously, some of The Skeptics will be on there lying about some tweet I sent, and so Wikipedia, excuse me Twitter will do a little ol', do their little, hey we're going to block your account while we do blah blah blah, and I'm not gonna waste my time, going through their little review process, I'll just create another uh Twitter address because, like, you know, if you read the Twitter information you can have a ridiculous amount of uh Twitter I.D.'s, and I'll just use another Twitter I.D. and continue on
And so Wikipedia can say what they want, because I've only ever used one I.P., I've only got on there during one time, and when they finally said hey, you know, we're not gonna uh grant your appeal, I completely left their web-site alone, so all that stuff [54]
You left Wikipedia
that they post [55]
Yep [56]
So all that garbage that they posted about me, about how I supposedly got on-line, on these other articles is just entirely B.S. [57]
Um a
And if they can prove otherwise, I'd sure like to see it [58]
Uh We have uh a response from David James, everyone uh gave you a fair shout
You were a spammer plain and simple
You couldn't, you couldn't
work out your questions
But that's what y'all always say
That's what y'all like to say, about everything
Twitter does not
Twitter does not block people for for arguing
Only for spamming and policy violations
Yeah I'm sure that's what they like to say
I mean, you can report an e-mail, or report a twit, and they'll block it
But um they'll never come back and say, and this is why we blocked you, for this particular twit, for this particular reason
Each new account was blocked for additional violations of policies
Um, this is a uh uh referring to the Wikipedia rules too
Um, so
Wikipedia is a joke [59]
Um, Wikipedia, do you know why um they've locked the Burzynski page ?
Oh sure, I'm sure, that's no problem [60]
I don't have any problem with them locking that [61]
You know, I could tell when I was on there, and when Merola was on there, because he had a different I.P. address than me, I could tell they were his questions because of the way they were formed [62]
So I said, well they're not answering his questions, I'll just take on that role, and uh ask his questions and ask further questions, and they didn't wanna deal with it, you know [63]
Did you notice the part where he threatened, did you notice the part where he threatened to expose Wikipedia
Expose them for what ?
For doing what they do, which is basically provide false information and one-sided information ? [64]
We have to, well, they they uh are looking that it's not one-sided information they want to show
Like they discuss, there is controversy about this guy
Oh, please
They get on there and they say hey, Lola Quinlan filed a lawsuit, but they don't tell you anything else
They don't tell you, you know, Jaffe's side of the story, and her lawyer's side of the story
Yeah, Jaffe's on there
Jaffe's on there
Oh Jaffe's on there but on that specific article about Lola, they didn't say, here's the article that was posted on uh Lola's attorney's web-site that, that mentions both his responses and Jaffe's responses, to the uh lawsuit
uh well you could add that if you hadn't gotten blocked
Uh, trust me, I tried to add that and they wouldn't add it
Um, so, who are you
You know, The Skeptics like to be nasty, and so, I've been like Josephine Jones (@_JosephineJones)
If she wants to play anonymous, I'll play anonymous [65]
She's gotten threats
Well, I don't threaten people
I don't threaten Gorski
I don't send letters to people's employers
I deal with them directly, and, you know, if if they won't answer questions, then, you know, I'll just post them on my blog for other people to see, and question uh themselves
So we don't know who you are
Like I said, I'm going to be like Josephine Jones [66]
Like, she has suffered at the hands of some really mess, and she's also, you have to realize she's in the U.K, where libel laws are very lax at this point
That's changing, ah, but uh, the the legitimate criticism, there is a big case last, me maybe 2 years ago of Simon Singh, talking about an alternative therapy, and, um, he was just saying that there's no evidence for it but it's promoted by um chiropractors, or something, or something like that
And he got slapped with a libel suit that cost him several years of his life and a lot of money
Um, so, there are several reasons why someone in the U.K. might uh be uh reticent to use their real name um, uh, and legitimate reasons
Um, in the U.S., I'm not sure that there is
I've been using my real name for a long time now
Um, you know, Gorski blogs under his real name, and is critical of uh, uh, also, let's face it, everyone know, knows who "Orac" is
Um, how do we know that you don't work for the clinic ?
Because I've said so
I'm not even in Texas
I was born in Texas, but I don't live in Texas
I don't even, didn't even, uh live in Houston
Wasn't even close to Houston
Well see, one of the the problems is, Ju, I don't know if you were around for the BurzynskiSaves thing
Did you ever see that account ?
Oh, of course, I, I've seen a lot of stuff goes on Twitter [67]
I've see y'all saying "Oh, we're "The Skeptics" and y'all know are names," but, there's a lot of Skeptics that post on there with pseudonyms, also [68]
Oh no, I mean you have a right to do that but but I I've found that posting under a pseudonym diminishes my credibility
Um, so, . . the quote was uh um, uh, "Happily promotes bogus therapies," was Simon Singh's quote that got him sued
Um, but Josephine Jones does it to, quote "protect her family"
So there's that
Um, are you afraid for you're family ?
Well, I'm just not sure how some of these uh Skeptics will react considering their past behavior [69]
I mean, when Skeptics refuse to, I mean they block you on your blogs [70]
They block your comments [71]
You know, they decide, "Well, I'm maybe going to accept one comment from you, but I won't accept anymore [72]
You know, to me that's just ridiculous [73]
Uh, the action on Forbes that happened, the action on The Guardian that happened, where, you know, you had someone on Gorski's blog basically lie to the Gua, to The Guardian to get them to get them to uh block my comment [74]
So, you know, I'm Skeptical of The Skeptics and their uh and what they would do [75]
Um, you don't see that there would be anything to gain from, from going on-record ?
Not really [76]
I like my anonymity just like Josephine Jones likes hers [77]
I mean, I will read her stuff and reply to it and treat it seriously jus, just like any other blogger [78]
Um I I haven't, I've never, honestly, I've never seen a Skeptic actually go after a person individually
Um, you know, uh, you, unless they were doing colossal harm to people
Um, to to focus on an, uh, let's say, call someone's work for um, yeah
That's, that's something coming in from, from Guy
Well the thing is, some of these Skeptics use names, and they're not necessarily their real names
So, you know, I've seen
Like had anyone ever contacted Sheila Herron, or has anyone to to um, go after her job, or go after um, you know, my brother has gotten stuff from people
He didn't tell me because he didn't want to upset me, but my brother gets things from Burzynski supporters that are violent and threatening
I get letters telling me that I suck cancer's dick
Um, I I've all sorts of things um, and I just, I've never seen that, that intrusion into real life on the part of uh, um, uh, Skeptics
I've never seen them doing that type of of of stuff
I've never seen them threatening bogus lawsuits
Um, and I I I wonder there, if there is some sort of, what do you think accounts for that, that difference?
Well I think that some people just have bad manners
I mean see, I've seen Skeptics on Twitter basically harass someone pro-Burzynski and keep sending them tweets, and that person specifically send them a tweet saying please keep, stop sending me tweets
You know, they didn't go in and ask Twitter to block the, that particular person
That person just kept sending them tweets
So, you know, I've seen that stuff before
I've I've I've shown up on, you know, as you, as you might, I imagine you moni, you monitor the Hashtag, right ?
Yeah, I'll look at it, and if you notice, I don't uh, I usually don't reply to Skeptics individually because I pretty much figure that y'all are gonna try and get my next account blocked whenever I do that kind of junk, so, well, you know, I just post what I want to post, under the Hashtag
Um, which is, which is your right
Um, uh, but every so often I jump in and say, you know, this movie has some flaws in it
You know, that's something I say rather frequently
Um, and I invite people, if they're interested, to take a look at a couple of links
I don't, I, you'll notice that I no longer force people to like, "Well how do you explain this ?," because that doesn't seem to be very persuasive, or work at all
Ah, only people who are open minded to having their mind changed, those are the only ones I want to talk to
So I give them a choice
Kind of like Morpheus in The Matrix really
Um, b, that was a joke for me
Um (laugh), um anyway
Um, but, it it I, honestly, I would encourage you to go on-record, um, but I have, less than nothing invested in that, so, um
(Why would I want to reveal my identity, when David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., FACS, a/k/a "Orac" claimed that he was pretty certain he knew who I was ?
Just Bring it, Gorski)
Uh, what's next for you
Well I'll just keep reviewing the, any inaccurate statements I see posted
You know, it depends on if it's Gorski, you know
Gorski's gone on there and posted inaccurate stuff, and I call him out, you know he's basically said on his blog, you know, if I do something inaccurate, you know, I'll 'fess up to it
Well, I've pointed out where he's done that and said "Hey, you said you were gonna 'fess up to it"
If I said on my blog that I was going to 'fess up to doing something wrong, and you caught me, well, then I should, come out and say, "Okay, you got me"
But Gorski won't even do that, you know, he just continues to go on down the road, as if
Well what happens
Well what happens if he doesn't understand what you're saying ?
I mean one of the
I mean seriously
Well, one of the problems I think that a lot of Skeptics have had, in in back channel discussions about this is that we don't understand exactly what you're saying
We certainly don't understand why you're so attached to him if you've never had any uh, you know, close dealing with uh, uh, with Burzynski
We don't really understand that
I find, I find
Actually, especially when you consider, that all the information that we've put forward, that we've backed up with statements from uh, you know, uh, it, it, the statements that we have from from patients saying that you know, we've we've, we were told that, no that's not exactly, they put it usually that but that that we believe that getting worse is getting better
Like how could someone continue to defend someone, when we pile up all of these different, you know, sources, saying the same thing ?
It it is, it is beyond us and we wonder if there's absolutely anything that we could say that would convince you otherwise
You know, I'm just going to let the FDA do their job, and let y'all speculate all y'all want
Uh, I mean (laugh)
But, I mean, but that means
See, I'm here for full discussion
And y'all don't seem to want to discuss, after y'all just go out there and spam the Internet with garbage, that you don't back-up with citations and references and links
Everything on The Other Other Burzynski Patient Group is referenced
It goes
But some of your other stuff that you tweeted that you haven't backed up with links, and some of the stuff on thehoustoncancerquack isn't backed-up with links, and Gorski's stuff
There's very little on
thehoustoncancerquack
thehoustoncancerquack in the 1st place
Well, that and the anp4all one
isn't backed up
Eh, right
The they both go to the same place
Uh un but, you know, we, the thing that that totally befuddles us, and is just endlessly frustrating, is like how many more examples, of patients believing that getting worse is getting better, and it's not us saying it, it's the patients saying it
And how many more of those patients do we need to to give you before you will like reconsider that perhaps you might be wrong ?
When the FDA says he's wrong
I mean, I'm not, I'm not just gonna accept your story
I don't, the thing is though that, that that's a inver, shifting the burden of proof off of Burzynski
Burzynski has to prove them wrong, has to prove him right
The FDA is not there to say this doesn't work
Burzynski provides the FDA with the evidence, and the FDA makes the
The evidence would be
the FDA doesn't approve a drug
if something's not proved
The evidence would be phase 2 trials
And ev the evidence would be a completed and published phase 3 trial
That's not forthcoming
The phase 3
Well you know that he's trying
I mean, y'all can sit there and jump up and down all you want
You don't know that he's trying
He'd start completing these trials
And he would, he would be soliciting um, uh, lots of um, uh, you know, you know he'd be putting out papers constantly um and if the the British Medical Journal example's anything uh representative of how Burzynski works, he'd immediately tell everyone that his he's being . . blackballed by the, by the journal, even when it's just a courtesy that he gets a a rejection
So, I mean, honestly, um, saying "Well, when the F, FDA tells you that it doesn't work, the FDA's never gonna say that because that's not their job
So, given that what would, how many more patients do we have to show you before you consider that you may be wrong ?
Well, I'm gonna go with what the FDA is gonna do still because they're running the show
That's not an option, because they're never gonna do it
They relinquish, a lot of authority, over to Burzynski, and his Institutional Review Board, which, I would mention, has failed 3 reviews in a row
It is Burzynski's job to be convincing
It is not our uh, uh, it it it he hasn't produced in decades
In decades
In hundreds and hundreds of patients, who've payed to be on this
What I find funny is that y'all complain, "Well, he hasn't published, uh a final report"
Well his 1st final, was completed in 2009, and like I said, the M.D. Anderson 2006 study wasn't published until 2, 2013
I mean, so y'all can jump up and down all you want
Y'all want a final report
Well, the final report will be done when the clinical trial is over
Hell, we'd we'd we'd like a prelim, well when you're talking about something that is so difficult as brainstem glioma, that type of thing gets, really does in the publishing stream get fast-tracked there
Well, unless you're The Lancet, I guess
they test it
Yeah, and they they they want uh, that was evidence of fast-tracking is what, that rejection was uh e was very quickly
Um, so, uh, uh again, the FDA is not the arbiter of this
It's ultimately Burzynski
So, how long will it be before Burzynski doesn't publish, that you decide that uh perhaps he's he's, doesn't have the goods ?
Well, I'm not gonna get into speculation, I'm just going to wait and see
You've been speculating about what the FDA's motivation are like crazy
Why not speculate about Burzynski a little bit
Well, how have I been speculating ?
Well actually I'm not even asking you to speculate about Burzynski, I'm only asking you to tell me, how long would it take, uh how, for him to go unpublished like this, um, for this long, before you would doubt it ?
what the journals keep saying, in response
What ?
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
But these but but but that doesn't have any bearing on
That doesn't
Oh I'm not asking you how long, how long, would it take you for you to start doubting whether or not he has the goods ?
How long would it take ?
It's a it's a it's a question that should be answered by a number uh uh months ?
Years ?
How long ?
It's been 15 years already
Well, you like to jump up and down with the 15 year quote, but then again I always get back to, Hey, it's when, when the report, when the clinical trial is done
Not that he's been practicing medicine medicine for 36 years, or whatever, it's when the clin, clinical trial was done
I could push it back to 36 years
He hasn't shown that it works for 36 years
I was being nice
The FDA A believes there is evidence of efficacy
Perhaps based on bad phase 2
Well, we don't know that
We don't have the Freedom of Information Act information
He withdrew
He withdrew the the phase 3 clinical trial
I that before recruiting,
although I've seen lots of people say they were on a phase 3 clinical trial
I wonder how that happened
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
Uh did do do you think that if they thought that he was a real doctor that they all would have refused like that ?
Well, Eric gave the reasons that they said they would not take a particular uh phase 3
And so using that excuse that you you just gave there, I'm not even gonna buy that one, because that's not one of the reasons
He's changed things
Eric said they gave
That The Lancet is a top-tier journal like New England Journal of Medicine
It's basically be, besieged by uh 100's of people submitting their, their, their reports
Um, it's just, you know, let's say he, someone has such a thin publishing record as Burzynski does, do you think that it's likely that he will ever get in a top-tier journal ?
What about the the Public Library of Science ?
It's not the only journal there
What about BMC Cancer ?
There's lots of places that he can go
We'll I'm
Um, and he doesn't seem to to have evailed himself of that, as far as I can tell
And I would know because he'd get rejected, or he'd be crowing, you know
Either way, he's gonna tell us what happens
He told us what happened with The Lancet, you know
I don't have any evidence that suggests to me that he's even trying
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
So let's go back to this
How long will it take ?
How long will it take before you, the Japanese study's interesting too because we should be able to find that in the Japanese science databases, and we can find, we can't find it at all
We can't find it anywhere
And, and those are in English, so it's not a language problem
We can't find that anywhere
We've asked
We asked Rick Schiff, for, for that study
And, and it hasn't come to us
He is now I believe on the Board of Directors, over there
He should have access to this
We can't get it
How how long will it take before you recognize that, nothing is forthcoming ?
How long would that take ?
Well that's like me asking "How long is it going to take for y'all's, y'all's Skeptics to respond to my questions ?"
Because y'all haven't been forthcoming
Well, I mean, were talking about a blog here
We're talking about life
No, we're talking about a blogger's feelings in that case
In in this case we're talking about, 1,000's of patients, over the course of of of generations, you know
This is important stuff
This is not eh eh equating what's happening to to patients with what's happening to you is is completely off-kilter as far as I can tell
It's nothing
It's nothing like you not getting to say something on my web-site
This is they they have thrown in with Burzynski, and they've trusted him, and he's produced nothing
Nothing of substance
Nothing thas that has made all of that um, uh, n nothing th th th that uh his peers would take seriously
The other thing that that that strikes me now is that, you know, you you you you keep saying that, well Eric is going to to share things with you
Does it ever concern you eh uh eh occur to you that Eric might not be reliable ?
Well, he gave you The Lancet information and he posted the e-mail in the movie, and Josephine Jones posted a copy of it
He then, and then he
And then he he, you know, the the the the dialogue that sprung up around that was, well see, he's never going to get to get published
Well you're just setting yourself up for wish fulfillment
You want him to be, persecuted, so you are ecstatic when he doesn't get to publish, which is unfortunate for all the cancer patients, who really thought that one day, all the studies were going to be published
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
Where has Eric been wrong ?
Well I don't necessarily believe, what Eric would say about, you know, The Lancet that refused to publish the 2nd one, for the reasons he stated, and which y'all have commented on, including Gorski
You know, I don't necessarily agree with that
I am more agreeable to y'all, saying that, you know, they're busy, they've got other things to do, but I'm kind of still laughing at their 1st response which he showed in the movie about how they felt about, you know his results would be better in some other publication
I thought that was kind of a ridiculous response to give someone
It's it's it's it's a form letter
They're just saying, "No thanks"
"Thanks, but no thanks" is what they were saying, in the most generic way possible
Like I said, they're besieged by researchers trying to publish
Well you would think that if its a form letter they would use the same form that they used the 2nd time
You know, they didn't use the same wording that they used the 1st time
I would have think that, you know, their 2nd comment
So, so, possibly
So possibly what you are saying is that they in fact have read it, and after having read it they've rejected it
Is that what you're saying ?
Because that's what peer-review is
Nah, I'm not saying that they did that all
I'm just sayin', you know, that they gave, 2 different responses, and I would think that the 2nd one they gave
Do you know it was the same editor, that it came from the same desk ?
You can't make that assumption that that the form letter will be the same form letter every time
I mean you just can't
I mean in in some ways we have a lot of non-information that you're filling in, with what you expect, as as opposed to what's actually really there, and I I I just think you're putting too much uh stock in one uh, uh, in in in in this uh the publication kerfuffle
Well I find it funny, something along the lines of, you know, "We believe your message would be received better elsewhere, you know
I don't see that as a normal response, a scientific publication would send to someone trying to publish something
I mean, to me that sounds, like, if you're doing that, and you're The Lancet Oncology, maybe you need to set some different procedures in place, 'cuz you would think that with such a great scientific peer-reviewed magazine, that they would have structured things in as far as how they do their operations
Well, not necessarily
I've been in any # of professional groups where the organization is just not optimal, and publications certainly th there are all sorts of pressures from all sorts of different places
I I have no problems whatsoever with seeing that this might not be completely uh um uh streamlining uniform processes as possible
The fact that it's not uniform, doesn't have anything to do with Burzynski not publishing, not producing good data
Not just going to a, you know, god, even if, even if, let's put it this way, even if he went to a pay to play type publication where you have to pay in order to get your manuscript accepted; and he has the money to do this, it wouldn't take that much, and he were to put out a good protocol, and he were to show us his data, and he would make his, his his stuff accessible to us, then we could validate it, then we could look at it and say, "Yeah, this is good," or "No, this is the problem, you have to go back and you have to fix this"
So we really, every time we talk about the letter that he got, yeah that doesn't have much to do with anything, really
We wanna see the frickin' data
And if he had a cure for some cancers that otherwise don't have reliable treatments, he has an obligation to get that out there anyway he can
And if if peer-review doesn't, you know, play a, if peer-review can't do it, you know, isn't fast enough for him, then he should take it to the web, and he should send copies out to every pediatric, uh, you know, oncologist that there is
That's the way to do it
Well, I'm sure, I'm sure Gorski would have a comment about that, as he's commented previously about how he thinks uh Burzynski should publish
Oh I, I I I certainly don't think that he would put a lot of stock in it, but I, I, I know Dave Gorski enough, he wants this to work
He has patients who are dying, you know
And if if if let's say that that Burzynski could get ah his gene-targeted therapy to work on breast cancer patients in in a reliable way, that would be, such a help to these people, that that Gorski's trying to help
And, it it it doesn't make sense, I mean, there, some of the best um, one of the the most important developments in medical history, was the development of of just washing your hands uh uh before uh uh going in and delivering a baby
The guy who did it, was a colossal jerk, but it still worked and it's the standard now
Um, yea, it doesn't matter now whether or not Burz, whether or not Gorski agrees with how Burzynski publishes
It's the, it's the data itself
If if Burzynski is is, is confident in his data, he will put it out there
One way or the other
Like I said before
Like I said before on my blog, you know, even if Burzynski publishes his phase 2 information, Gorski can just jump up and down and say, "Well, that just shows evidence of efficacy, you know, it's not phase 3, so it doesn't really prove it"
So then he can go on, you know, for however many years he wants to
This is, this is a guy who must phone it in because, he went in there and posted the old Josephine Jones response that, you know, no drugs had been approved by the FDA without their final phase 2 publication 1st being published, which was not a factual statement, and you've made the same statement
So I, I'm thinking that Gorski just bought her statement and took it and ran with it, and before he fact-checked it, and what, what happened, it was wrong
I mean, Gorski needs to stop phoning stuff in, and check his sources before he posts stuff, because I've found many cases where, he hasn't seemed to do that, and that's why I question him
Well what about all the other physicians, um, going back long before the Burzynski thing broke on-line
Of all these patients, with whom they have long-established relationships, and then doctors essentially after years, of treating these patients, basically saying, "I can't work with you anymore if you go to Burzynski"
What about that ?
Di, are all of these doctors just as biased ?
Well, I found it interesting that uh the one on the, Burzynski 2, you know he gave his ex excuses for not, working with uh, that patient, and, but yet, he was the same doctor that treated a another Burzynski patient, according to the movie
I mean, so what does he do ?
Pick and choose ?
Or do doctors pick and choose over there in Britain ?
Did he get burned at some point ?
Well, the movie didn't say anything
We don't know
Yeah, well, you wouldn't expect Eric Merola to say that he got, that a doctor got burned
Would you ?
Well, I fail to see these doctors on there, providing any factual information, anywhere on the Internet about, uh their disagreements, in a serious way, instead of just making these over-broad statements, you know, "He hasn't published anything in the blah blah blah," and
But he, he doesn't have, he hasn't given us his data
Well, he's provided some data, and specifically 4 publications
He's given, he's given, he's given case studies
He's given more than the case studies
He's done
He's done more than the case studies
He's specifically given uh, almost all the information om an oncologist would want
And Gorski, and Gorski
Except for a ph, completed phase 3 clinical trial
I mean, I love Gorski, but he comes up with these stupid excuses like, "Well, Burzynski is not an oncologist"
Well, Gorski doesn't go go in there and look at his other, his phase 2 clinical trial publications, as far as the preliminary reports, and look at the co-authors, and see if any of those guys are oncologists, and that they're working with Gorski, I mean they're working with Burzynski
I find that ridiculous
One of the things, one of the things that I've noticed going through these um, well, well there there is that
Uh, Guy Chapman, "It's a blog, not a peer-reviewed publication" [79]
Um, almost no treatment goes out without trials
Massive amounts of data are required
Um, so, it it is kind of, slightly disingenuous to hold uh Gorski to the same . . standard that you would, it on his blog
I think that professionally he would make, he he he would follow-up on these things, but u what I've noticed when you you mention these other people who are working with with Burzynski as co-investigators, the co- investigators don't seem to have access to these, to these records
Um, you know, when they have to, when a patient has to, and often you have someone like a pediatrician, uh, signing on um uh to eh eh to work with with, uh and arrange care for patients when they're out of state, away from Burzynski
Um, it's it's it's often not an oncologist
It's accurate to say that B Burzynski is not a board s uh certified oncologist
It's accurate to say that no trial has been completed and fully published
Um, yeah it's um, it it it if, all of the arguing on behalf of Burzynski doesn't give him a single phase 3
It doesn't give him um a uh uh of of a completed and and published phase 2
Uh, in in in that sense, you know, uh all the the the, you know, kind of back-peddling and and and trying to defend him is is going to, not going to help his case at all
You are, honestly as far as I can tell you are doing the um, you know, you're you're ah throwing up uh, uh, uh, you're giving me another uh invisible dragon in the garage, um
Well y'all, y'all can call things what y'all want
I mean, y'all can give these, fallacy arguments and all that garbage that y'all like, because that's what y'all like to talk about instead of dealing with the issues
I mean, Gorski doesn't want to deal with the issues
What is the issue were not talking about
Hey, I've said it to Gorski
He liked to back his stuff up on the Mayo study, yet he wouldn't, he wouldn't uh debate about the Mayo study
He likes to say, "Well, Burzynski is not an oncologist," but he won't, say Hey, look at the publications, are any of the guys on the publications oncologists ?
We know that Gorski, we know that Burzynski works with oncologists in his practice
So, just because Burzynski himself is not an an oncologist, does not necessarily mean anything
Do we need to go out, onto PubMed, and, and review every particular person that's published something about cancer and see if they're all oncologists ?
I mean, Gorski will just
Yeah, but they
post a lot of stuff without backing it up
But they have track records that support the idea that you should trust them
Well, (laughing), I, you know, that's up to someone's opinion, considering some of the information that's that the FDA has accepted, as far as giving these guys approval
Okay, so
What you're telling me is that you trust the FDA to to be able to tell you when he's not doing, good science, but also that you don't trust the FDA
Do you see an inherent conflict there ?
How did I say I, I didn't trust them ?
Well, when I, whenever I would ask about, like, why would these trials aren't happening uh and, you know, you say well the the FDA's arranged it
The FDA's in control
They sign off on these things
But they're they're they're they're at the same that they're, they're trustworthy they're also not trustworthy depending on what you need for the particular argument at the time
Well, I didn't say that they weren't trustworthy, I just raised questions that no one wants to answer about 'em
You're suggesting that they're untrustworthy
No, I'm just sayin' that I've raised questions and none of The Skeptics wanna to uh talk about 'em
I I would say that the the FDA has given Burzynski every opportunity for decades
When he didn't have r r really, he got special treatment as far as I can tell
Uh, the, I'm rather stunned every morning I wake up and don't see in the paper, that that place has has been closed down
I, I really am
Uh, so, you know,that one doesn't really fly with me either
Well, to me the FDA owes Burzynski for a lot of the garbage they pulled off against him (laugh), not to say, you know, they owe him in that way, but they owed him
Do you know that the FDA pulled out of the prosecution ?
Did you know that the FDA pulled out of the prosecution um of his criminal case, because they were backing a researcher ?
Well, we know a lot stuff they did, but that still doesn't impress me that they pulled out of the prosecution
I mean
Yeah, the the the it wasn't the FDA who was pressing charges, it was a Federal prosecutor
And and, they declined to provide information that the prosecution needed
That's important
That that that's really important
That he has been given the benefit of the doubt, and he has come up wanting, for decades now
Well I find it interesting a lot of this uh, a lot of these letters that were provided between, you know, the government and Burzynski, when the uh phase 2 study was going on, at the behest of the NCI
You know, anybody who reads that stuff knows, that when just ignore the person that's been doing, do treating their patients for 20 something years, or close to 20 years, and you change the protocol without his approval, and you don't use the drugs in the manner that he knows works
The, no, claims works
He claims works
Well, he says they work together and they're not going to work if you don't use them that way
One of the things I think
One of the things that I think is happening here
One of the things I think is happening here, is that lots of people have worked with Burzynski and then have stopped working with B Burzynski
Uh, you know, uh lots of uh uh uh these partnerships do not seem to work out in the end
I often wonder, if the uh, the way that these things are, are are playing out, because it's s so reliable that they're, that these partnerships are going to fail, I I wonder if th they are designed in such a way, that for instance, um a, uh, a a partner would be uncomfortable working with him
Or um or that the specifications for what it takes to enter one of these trials is so high, that nobody will ever enter the trials
I mean, I wonder if they are, what, especially, like why hasn't Burzynski left the country ?
That's what I want to know
Why would he leave the country ?
I think he's made it clear
If he was so, if he was s so persecuted and really cares about getting his treatment out to the world, why wouldn't he ?
They're, they're lots of things going on here
David James has pointed this out, that a lot of questions I'm asking are not going answered
"I still don't know how long it would take before you would have any doubts about Burzynski"
"I still have no idea, how often we can see patients reporting that signs of getting worse are getting better, before you would change your mind"
I've made it very clear that he just needs to have a completed study published and replicated before I support his right to go out and charge people what he's charging for these, for these drugs, and I'm I'm just not seeing that here with you, and I I wonder what could come from, and don't worry I will go to your site and I will comment on on on what you've run
Um, but, you know, I I I I it's hard for Skeptics to imagine, what could be gained from engaging with you, if there seems to be no conceivable way, that we can, one, get a straight answer for, how many patients will have to report that getting worse is getting better before you starting doubting your opinion, or, uh, how many uh, uh, how many years does this have to go on before you decide that, "No, we probably just can't produce the goods"
One of the interesting things about Doubting Thomas that I think you should definitely consider for yourself, is that at some point, when faced with the real opportunity to prove or disprove his assertions, he doubted himself
And that's important
And that's where you're falling short in the analogy
Well, I think The Skeptics, Skeptics are falling short because, you know, they don't own up to
I've laid out exactly what it would take for me to turn on a fucking dime
I have, I have made it abundantly clear what I need
Gorski has made it abundantly clear
Everybody else, Guy, and David, and Josephine Jones, uh, the Morgans, all of them have made it abundantly clear, what it would take to change our minds, and you've never done that
And even in this, this was an opportunity to do that
To come up with a basis for understanding, where it's like, you know what, If we can show this, you know, if we can show a this guy, that, that, there, that his standards are not being met, then, you know, we could possibly have some sort of ongoing dialogue after this
So I can say that since the Mayo Clinic finished their study in 2006, and it took them until 2013, to actually publish it, then I can say, well, Burzynski finished his in 2009, which was 3 years later, which would give Burzynski until 2016
Correction: M.D. Anderson
Why wasn't that study
for me to make up my mind (laughing)
Why wasn't that , that that that, still . . again, it it doesn't seem really to to approach the the the, main question here
Well I can say, well I'm going to have to wait, the same amount of time I had to wait for Mayo to publish their study; which was from 2006 to 2013
Clarification: M.D. Anderson
Why was the Mayo
Why was the Mayo study delayed ?
How do you know it was delayed ?
Well you said you had so many years before you finish it and go in
I mean, has anybody
Why, why did it take so long ?
done a review of when a clinical trial is studied, and completed, and how long it took the people to publish it ?
If they could point to me a study that's done that, and say, well here's the high end, here's the low end of the spectrum, here's the middle
I have something for you, okay ?
Send me that
Could you send me that study the way that it was published because um, just just send me the final study, um, to my e-mail address
Um, because, I can ask that question of those researchers, why was this study in this time, and what happened in-between
Why did it take so long for it, for it to come out
Sure, but that's not gonna, you know like, answer an overall question of, you know, somebody did a comparative study of all clinical trials, and, when they were finished, and at, and when the study was actually published afterwards
You know, that's only gonna be one, particular clinical study
Um, but it it would, perhaps, answer the question; because you're using it as an example on the basis of which to dismiss criticism, whether or not, uh, it is the standard, and therefor you're allowed to accept that Burzynski hasn't published until 2016, or, um, it's an anomaly, which is also a possibility, that most stuff comes out more quickly
Well, we know that the Declaration of Helsinki doesn't even give a standard saying, "You must publish within x amount of years," you know ?
So, I've yet to find a Skeptic who posted something that said, "Here are the standards, published here"
I I, yeah, the other thing that David James points out is, you know, why 2016 when he's had 36 years already ?
Again, we get back to, when the clinical trial is finished, not when Burzynski started
Treating people
I mean, you would expect to find a results to be published after, the final results are in
You would expect the Burzynski Patient Group to be a lot bigger after 36 years, and in fact is
You would expect some people would want to have confidentiality, and maybe not want to be included
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"
Why am I unsure ?
Uh about the
(laughing) I just gave you an example
The reasons, the reasons for which that he's, no, why are you defending him so hard, when you're unsure ?
Oh, who said I was unsure ?
I mean, I'm just, I believe in free and open debate
I mean, I believe, if y'all are gonna spam the Internet, the Internet with garbage that y'all do not back-up, with specific
I've backed-up everything that
Every time that I've tried
and then other people
Like your tweet that said uh, "antineoplastons is uron, is Unicorn pee," right ?
Way back
It is about
It is about as efficacious
We have the same
"Burzynski is a vampire"
Good one (laughing)
Yeah, I've, and and I based that on a a a that type of thing
He sucks their blood out of 'em right ?
Yeah (laughing)
Okay, I understand humor
You, you, you can read that how you want, right ?
He does have the accent though
No (laugh)
Well, that's because he's Polish
No, but listen, like, it it it's not, it, we we don't understand why you defend himself so hard, when there is such a paucity of of of information out there
What I defend, is that, y'all post stuff, a lot of Skeptics post stuff, including Gorski, and they do not back it up, with references, citations, or links
Gorski will just post stuff, like he did about saying, you know, the FDA would not approve, uh, accelerated approval, without a final phase 2 clinical trial being published, which was an incorrect statement, he did not provide any link
Even if it's true or false you, honestly though
We know it's false
Even if it's true or false, in in that particular instance, you know, eh let's just say that you're right
Gorski gets that point completely wrong
It has no bearing on whether or not, ANP works
Well, I'm just
That's a Red Herring
I'm just
You're just focusing on this, on this little niggly stuff, where the real question, is does it work ?
Are patients getting better at a better rate then not
or otherwise ?
Well, that is just lame
Y'all, Skeptics, like to sh spam Twitter, and social media, with all this negative stuff about Burzynski, but then when I ask you to back it up, you can't back it up, and then, and then on this conversation you want to come down and pinhole it, to a specific subject, you know, the nitty-gritty
Well, if y'all were only debating the nitty-gritty, we would only be d debating the nitty-gritty, but that's not what y'all do
We're were talking about whether or not there's evidence to suggest it works
Well, we know the FDA's said there is
The FDA, see that's the thing
You, the FDA are are, you know, you invest them with, we're just, we're just circling around again
Well, this has gone on for rather a, longer than I thought it would
Um, I, uh, wanna thank you for coming on here
I wasn't sure that you would actually do it
Um, I'm glad that you did
I'm glad that we talked
And I'll give you those links that I told you I would give you
Please do
And I will look at those
Maybe not in the next few days; I've got a lot going on but
Yeah, that's fine
Well, I thought it was productive too
You know, I don't see why Gorski is afraid of debating issues
I don't think he is
on the Internet, on his blog
I don't think he's afraid
I just think he's got a lot going on
He is act, a full-time surgical oncologist and researcher
He does have insane am, he has to pick and choose his battles
And if, if if he saw that we were going to ultimately be circling around our same arguments again and again; kind of like we've done here, um, he uh, you, he doesn't have time for that, I don't think
Hey, he has time to post about, "Hey, uh, Burzynski got a Catholic award from somebody," which, has nothing to do with antineoplastons, whatsoever
So, you know, he's not focusing just in on, "Do antineoplastons work, yes or no?," "When will Burzynski publish ?," yes or no ?
You know, he's putting all this ridiculous side junk, you know
So, I am not going to take that seriously
I I would ask that you to to go back over The The Other Burzynski Patient Group and take their stories seriously, because they deserve at least the same amount of consideration that the survivors do
That's my
That's my kids, okay
Well, Thanks for much for talking
I greatly appreciate it
You bet
You too
I thought that this was very productive, because it proved that Randy Hinton was correct when he commented on #Forbes:
"[Y]ou people always control the conversation"
[0] – Bobby Blaskiewicz Bows Up 'Bout Burzynski:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/bobby-blaskiewicz-bows-up-bout-burzynski/
[1] – 9/28/2013 – Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
http://m.youtube.com/?client=mv-google#/watch?v=pa97hXMbUL0
[2] – The Skeptics™" Robert J. (don't call me "Bobby") Blaskiewicz wants to Debate:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/27/the-skeptics-robert-j-dont-call-me-bobby-blaskiewicz-wants-to-debate/
[3] – "The Skeptics" are "debatable":
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/29/the-skeptics-are-debatable/
[4] – Bob Burzynski Skeptic Sez Multiforme Manuscript Meme Message Memorable:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/30/bob-burzynski-skeptic-sez-multiforme-manuscript-meme-message-memorable/
[5] – What to do when a Burzynski Skeptic suggests you not do it:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/what-to-do-when-a-burzynski-skeptic-suggests-you-not-do-it/
[6] – "The Skeptics™" Definition of "Debate"
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/03/the-skeptics-definition-of-debate/
[7] – A Message to Guy "Can't Git-R-Done" Chapman:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/03/a-message-to-guy-cant-git-r-done-chapman/
[8] – About | Didymus Judas Thomas' Hipocritical Oath Blog
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/about/
[9] – Burzynski: The FDA's Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-the-fdas-drug-review-process-ensuring-drugs-are-safe-and-effective/
[10] – Critiquing: The Institute of Medicine report on cancer care: Is the system "in crisis"?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/critiquing-the-institute-of-medicine-report-on-cancer-care-is-the-system-in-crisis/
[11] – Burzynski: Not every cancer clinical trial taking place in the United States is listed on our NCI clinical trials database:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/burzynski-not-every-cancer-clinical-trial-taking-place-in-the-united-states-is-listed-on-our-nci-clinical-trials-database/
[12] – Burzynski Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Links:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/29/burzynski-securities-and-exchange-commission-sec-links/
http://www.itnonline.com/article/fda-approves-trial-radiation-therapy-brain-stem-glioma
[13] – Burzynski: Why has the FDA NOT granted Accelerated Approval for Antineoplastons A10 (Atengenal) and AS2-1 (Astugenal) ?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/burzynski-why-has-the-fda-not-granted-accelerated-approval-for-antineoplastons-a10-astengenal-and-as2-1-astugenal/
[14] – FINALLY, one of "The Skeptics™" has the "Balls" to do what even Dr. David H. "Orac" Gorski would NOT do:
https://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/
[15] – The Guardian: Censorship and Bias – Six stubborn myths about cancer:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/31/the-guardian-censorship-and-bias-six-stubborn-myths-about-cancer/
[16] – Critiquing: Amelia's family 'mislead by cancer clinic':
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/23/critiquing-amelias-family-mislead-by-cancer-clinic/
[17] – Critiquing: Watford Observer – 'He said he hoped to cure my daughter':
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/22/critiquing-watford-observer-he-said-he-hoped-to-cure-my-daughter/
[18] – Review Articles on Clinical Trials:
1. 3/2004 – The Present State of Antineoplaston Research
Integrative Cancer Therapies 2004;3:47-58
Volume 3, No. 1, March 2004
DOI: 10.1177/1534735-403261964
Volume 3 Number 1.March.2004
Pg. 50
Click to access 994.pdf
[19] – Antineoplastons: Adverse Effects:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/antineoplastons-adverse-effects/
[20] – Critiquing David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/critiquing-david-h-gorski-md-phd-facs-www-sciencebasedmedicine-orgeditorial-staffdavid-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
[21] – Critiquing: Dr. David H. "Orac" Gorski, M.D., Ph.D, LIAR: Stanislaw Burzynski versus the BBC:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/04/critiquing-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-m-d-ph-d-liar-stanislaw-burzynski-versus-the-bbc/
[22] – Critiquing: Dr. David H.
"Orac"Gorski, M.D., Ph.D, L.I.A.R.:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/07/critiquing-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-m-d-ph-d-l-i-a-r/
[23] – My Critique of Bob Blaskiewicz (Colorado Public Television – PBS CPT12):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/my-critique-of-bob-blaskiewicz-colorado-public-television-pbs-cpt12/
[24] – Burzynski: Institutional Review Board (IRB):
[25] – Critiquing https://theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/24/critiquing-httpstheotherburzynskipatientgroup-wordpress-com/
[26] – WHAT IS MISDIRECTION? Critiquing
"Antineoplastons: Has the FDA kept its promise to the American people ?"
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/what-is-misdirection-critiquing-antineoplastons-has-the-fda-kept-its-promise-to-the-american-people/
[27] – Burzynski: HYPERNATREMIA:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/burzynski-hypernatremia/
[28] – Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, quickly realized that David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS is NOT doing something wrong when he LIES about Burzynski:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/wayne-state-university-detroit-michigan-quickly-realized-that-david-h-gorski-md-phd-facs-is-not-doing-something-wrong-when-he-lies-about-burzynski/
[29] – Burzynski: Egypt antineoplaston publications:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-egypt-antineoplaston-publication/
[30] – Burzynski: Russia antineoplaston publications:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-russia-antineoplaston-publications/
[31] – Burzynski: Poland antineoplaston publications:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-poland-antineoplaston-publications/
[32] – Burzynski: China antineoplaston publications:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-china-antineoplaston-publications/
[33] – Burzynski and China / Taiwan, ROC:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/burzynski-china-taiwan-roc/
[34] – Burzynski and Taiwan, ROC:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/burzynski-taiwan-roc/
[35] – Critiquing: Dr. Michael A. Friedman, Dr. Mark G. Malkin, Dr. Mario Sznol, Robert B. Lanman, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Mayo Clinic, Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), Public Health Service, Quality Assurance and Compliance Section, Regulatory Affairs Branch (RAB), Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP), Division of Cancer Treatment (DCT), National Cancer Center (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Stanislaw Burzynski: On the arrogance of ignorance about cancer and targeted therapies:
[37] – Burzynski: Japan antineoplaston publications:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/burzynski-japan/
[38] – Critiquing the #SkepticCanary: "The Skeptics™" (SkeptiCowards©) Bob Blatherskitewicz and the so-called, self-proclaimed "Cancer Researcher":
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/critiquing-the-skepticcanary-the-skeptics-skepticowards-bob-blatherskitewicz-and-the-so-called-self-proclaimed-cancer-researcher/
[39] – September 28, 2013 "The Skeptics™" Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51:
[40] – Critiquing: In which the latest movie about Stanislaw Burzynski "cancer cure" is reviewed…with Insolence:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/critiquing-in-which-the-latest-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-cure-is-reviewed-with-insolence-2/
[41] – What to do when a Burzynski Skeptic suggests you not do it:
[42] – Critiquing "When is a skeptic not a skeptic":
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/26/critiquing-when-is-a-skeptic-not-a-skeptic/
[43] – Critiquing: In which Orac does Stanislaw Burzynski propagandist Eric Merola a favor…:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/critiquing-in-which-orac-does-stanislaw-burzynski-propagandist-eric-merola-a-favor/
[44] – Galileo's Lawyer
http://www.richardjaffe.com/jaffe/
[45] – Burzynski: The Original 72 Phase II Clinical Trials:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/09/burzynski-the-original-72-phase-ii-clinical-trials/
[46] – Critiquing "Burzynski: Another fact-blind troll, who predicted that?":
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/critiquing-burzynski-another-fact-blind-troll-who-predicted-that/
[47] – My review of "Burzynski: A note to the PBS ombudsman":
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/23/my-review-of-burzynski-a-note-to-the-pbs-ombudsman/
[48] – guychapman (Guy Chapman) Critiquing "The Skeptic" Burzynski Critics: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics (page 9):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/05/guychapman-guy-chapman-critiquing-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics-page-9/
[49] – I find Rhys Morgan abnormally prehensile:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/i-find-rhys-morgan-abnormally-prehensile/
[50] – josephinejones (@_JosephineJones), D Nile ist
http://josephinejones.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/happy-birthday-dr-burzynski-and-goodbye-antineoplastons/comment-page-1/#comment-8921
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/23/josephinejones-_josephinejones-d-nile-ist-httpjosephinejones-wordpress-com20130123happy-birthday-dr-burzynski-and-goodbye-antineoplastonscomment-page-1comment-8921/
[51] – I show JzG what a
"FACT" is: Burzynski: FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions): Clinical Trial Results:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/i-show-jzg-what-a-fact-is-burzynski-faq-frequently-asked-questions-clinical-trial-results/
[52] – Dr. Peter A. Lipson (and / or his Censor(s)) is a Coward: Critiquing "A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics":
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/dr-peter-a-lipson-and-or-his-censors-is-a-coward-critiquing-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/
[53] – IMPORTANT: The live "debate" that wasn't-A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/important-the-live-debate-that-wasnt-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/
[54] – "The Skeptics:" Your problem is, Wikipedia IS censored:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/the-skeptics-your-problem-is-wikipedia-is-censored/
[55] – Wikipedia, what's your motivation?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/wikipedia-whats-your-motivation/
[56] – WikipediA or WikipediAin't ?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/wikipedia-or-wikipediaint/
[57] – Wikipedia, your Burzynski BIAS is showing:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/18/wikipedia-your-burzynski-bias-is-showing/
[58] – Wikipedia, you've sprung a Wiki Leak:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/wikipedia-youve-sprung-a-wiki-leak/
[59] – On the 6th day, HE created WIKIPEDIA, and on the 7th, WikipedBiaS:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/30/on-the-6th-day-he-created-wikipedia-and-on-the-7th-day-wikipedbias/
[60] – Wikipedia, do you serve up Mud Pies with your Wikipedia Lies ?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/31/wikipedia-do-you-serve-up-mud-pies-with-your-wikipedia-lies/
[61] – Critiquing: Wikipedia – Burzynski Clinic:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/10/critiquing-wikipedia-burzynski-clinic/
[62] – Critiquing Wikipedia: Burzynski Clinic, Colorado Public Television (CPT12), and Public Broadcasting System (PBS)
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/12/critiquing-wikipedia-burzynski-clinic-colorado-public-television-cpt12-and-public-broadcasting-system-pbs/
[63] – A Critical Analysis of Wikipedia's "Failure to Communicate"
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/13/a-critical-analysis-of-wikipedias-failure-to-communicate/
[64] – Critiquing Wikipedia: Burzynski Clinic – 2013 BBC documentary, Curing cancer or 'selling hope' to the vulnerable?
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/22/critiquing-wikipedia-burzynski-clinic-2013-bbc-documentary-curing-cancer-or-selling-hope-to-the-vulnerable/
[65] – Josephine Jones and the Cult of Misinformation:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/josephine-jones-and-the-cult-of-misinformation/
[66] – The Burzynski Skeptics:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/the-burzynski-skeptics/
[67] – "The Skeptics" (Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business, Part II) |:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/the-skeptics/
[68] – Critiquing the Skeptics re "Funny how you never see Orac and this person in the same place at the same time":
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/critiquing-the-skeptics-re-funny-how-you-never-see-orac-and-this-person-in-the-same-place-at-the-same-time/
[69] – "The Skeptics"-Tracking the Twits that Tweet:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/the-skeptics-tracking-the-twits-that-tweet/
[70] – Shall We Play A Game? "The Skeptics" (SkeptiCowards) vs. "The Skeptics'" Critics #Burzynski The 1st ever "LIE OFF":
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/23/shall-we-play-a-game-the-skeptics-skepticowards-vs-the-skeptics-critics-burzynski-the-1st-ever-lie-off/
[71] – "The Skeptics" Theme Song:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/25/the-skeptics-theme-song/
[72] – Thawing out "The Skeptics" @FrozenWarning (FrozenBoring):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/01/thawing-out-the-skeptics-frozenwarning-frozenboring/
[73] – "The Skeptics™" Doctor David H. Gorski is one of the "SkeptiCowards©" (I kid you not): Houston, We Have a Problem:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/02/the-skeptics-doctor-david-h-gorski-is-one-of-the-skepticowards-i-kid-you-not-houston-we-have-a-problem/
[74] – QUESTIONS the Critics and Cynics, "The Skeptics™" do NOT want to ANSWER:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/23/questions-the-critics-and-cynics-the-skeptics-do-not-want-to-answer/
[76] – Critiquing: Stanislaw Burzynski comments on new cancer science, hilarity ensues because of The Skeptics™ comments:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/critiquing-stanislaw-burzynski-comments-on-new-cancer-science-hilarity-ensues-because-of-the-skeptics-comments/
[78] – The Skeptics @Majikthyse reveals madjik research skilz:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/26/the-skeptics-majikthyse-reveals-madjik-research-skilz/
[79] – The dishonesty of Guy Chapman, "The Skeptics" shill:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/12/the-dishonesty-of-guy-chapman-the-skeptics-shill/
[80] –
Posted in adverse effects, Antineoplastons (ANP), Bob Blaskiewicz (Robert J. Blaskiewicz @rjblaskiewicz), Brainstem Gliomas (DBSG), Burzynski II, Burzynski Personal Gene Targeted Therapy, Burzynski Phase II Clinical Trials, critique, critiques, critiqued, critiquing, David James (Skeptic Canary), Debate ?, FDA, United States Food and Drug Administration, Forbes #Forbes, Gorski ScienceBlogs.com/Insolence ScienceBasedMedicine, Guy Chapman, humor, comedy, Hymas (Laura, Ben, and Jacob), Institutional Review Board (IRB), JosephineJones (@_JosephineJones), National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Peter A. Lipson, Richard A. Jaffe, Scientific Publications, Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski, The Guardian, The Lancet Oncology, The Skeptics, Visual (Optic) Pathway Glioma (Tumor), Wikipedia | Tagged ", " proprietary protections", "$7, "1994 Cody G", "1st generation drug", "1st inclination is to ascribe the death to the tumor", "2.5 million pages", "2nd and 3rd generation", "2nd and 3rd generations", "374 children died", "374 children I mentioned dying in other science-based medicine clinical trials", "45% of phase 3 clinical trials fail due to deficient phase 2 design", "7 patient records", "72 initial trials", "9/28/2013 – Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51", "A Critical Analysis of Wikipedia's "Failure to Communicate", "a little bit out of it", "A Message to Guy "Can't Git-R-Done" Chapman", "About Didymus Judas Thomas' Hipocritical Oath Blog", "accelerated approval", "ADR research . com", "all of those therapies, "all these other kids died in these science-based medicine trials", "alternative therapy", "Amelia Saunders", "And if, "Anistazios Retzios, "ANP's", "anti-quack", "antineoplaston deficiency was a cause of cancer", "antineoplaston supplement therapy", "antineoplastons is Unicorn pee", "Antineoplastons: Adverse Effects", "appears to be just a money laundry for a lying quack fraud", "approved phase 3", "Are they feeding these people their stories?", "ascribed to the tumor", "B.S.", "back channel discussions", "back it up", "back-peddling", "backed-up", "backing it up", "bad manners", "Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Center / Institute", "basic tumor physiology", "Bay Clinical Research and Clinical Development", "BBC Panorama", "behaviors of pseudo-science", "benefit of the doubt", "biological effect", "blood pressure", "BMC Cancer", "board certified oncologist", "Board of Directors", "Bob Blaskiewicz Faux Skeptic Exposed!", "Bobby Blaskiewicz Bows Up 'Bout Burzynski", "bogus lawsuits", "Bottom Line", "brain cancers", "brain dead", "brain tumor", "BRAINSTEM GLIOMAs", "breaking up in the middle", "breast cancer", "bring it on", "British Medical Journal", "burden of proof", "Burzynski 2", "Burzynski and China / Taiwan, "Burzynski and Taiwan, "Burzynski I", "Burzynski Patient Group", "Burzynski Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Links", "Burzynski: China antineoplaston publications", "Burzynski: Egypt antineoplaston publications", "Burzynski: HYPERNATREMIA", "Burzynski: Institutional Review Board (IRB)", "Burzynski: Japan antineoplaston publications", "Burzynski: Not Every Cancer Clinical Trial Taking Place In The United States Is Listed On Our NCI Clinical Trials Database", "Burzynski: Poland antineoplaston publications", "Burzynski: Russia antineoplaston publications", "Burzynski: The FDA's Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective", "Burzynski: The Original 72 Phase II Clinical Trials", "Burzynski: Why has the FDA NOT granted Accelerated Approval for Antineoplastons A10 (Atengenal) and AS2-1 (Astugenal) ?", "business model", "but for the most part we all respect scientific consensus", "cancer is caused by a lack of antineoplastons in the system", "Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP)", "Cardiff, "Carl Sagan", "case series", "case studies", "center of their solid tumors are breaking up", "Chase uh Sammut", "check his sources", "check me out", "Cite one example, "clean up his on-line image", "clinical hold on now because they now have evidence that somebody may have died because of the treatment", "Clinical Trials . gov", "co-author", "co-authors", "co-investigator", "comparative study of all clinical trials", "components cost pennies", "conscious state", "controls all parts from identification to the creation of the drug", "criminal case", "Criminal Libel in the United States", "Critiquing Burzynski: Another fact-blind troll, "Critiquing David H. Gorski, "Critiquing Dr David H. "Orac" Gorski, "Critiquing the Skeptics re Funny how you never see Orac and this person in the same place at the same time", "Critiquing When is a skeptic not a skeptic", "Critiquing Wikipedia: Burzynski Clinic – 2013 BBC documentary, "Critiquing: Amelia's family 'mislead by cancer clinic'", "Critiquing: Dr. Michael A. Friedman, "Critiquing: In which Orac does Stanislaw Burzynski propagandist Eric Merola a favor…", "Critiquing: In which the latest movie about Stanislaw Burzynski "cancer cure" is reviewed…with Insolence:", "Critiquing: Stanislaw Burzynski comments on new cancer science, "Critiquing: The Institute of Medicine report on cancer care: Is the system in crisis?", "Critiquing: Watford Observer – 'He said he hoped to cure my daughter'", "Critiquing: Wikipedia – Burzynski Clinic", "cross-reference", "current parent generation", "cutting off the blood flow to the blood brain barrier", "cutting off the blood flow to the tumor", "cyst that had opened up in the center of the tumor", "Dan Buzzard", "Dave Gorski", "David James", "deacetylase inhibitor slightly unspools DNA that allows proteins to get into a pair of damaged DNA", "deacetylase inhibitor", "dealing with the question", "Department of Health &Human Services (HHS)", "design trial", "Dianthus Medical", "Didnt take long for the Burzynski trolls to show up", "Didymus Judas Thomas", "diseases progressed", "Division of Cancer Treatment (DCT)", "Do antineoplastons work", "Do you have any questions for me?", "Do you think that is deserved?", "Do you think that that is right?", "does all that vertically", "donation to the clinic", "Doubting Thomas", "down-voted", "Dr. Mario Sznol", "Dr. Mark G. Malkin", "Dr. Peter A. Lipson (and / or his Censor(s)) is a Coward: Critiquing A Film Producer, "Eau Claire", "efficacy of the drug", "evidence of effectiveness", "evidence of efficacy", "exclusive rights to produce and sell", "extend life", "eye cancer", "fact-check", "Fact-Checked", "fair shout", "falling short", "false information", "fast-tracked", "fast-tracking", "favorite oncologist", "FDA approved phase 3", "FDA Commissioner", "FDA is protecting him from outside scrutiny", "Federal grant", "Federal prosecutor", "final report", "FINALLY, "follow-up", "form letter", "free and open debate", "free to express his opinion", "Freedom of Information Act", "Freudian sarcasm slip", "full dosage", "gene-targeted therapy", "genuine therapeutic effect", "get on board the Burzynski train", "getting worse is getting better", "getting worse is getting better" "Ben and Laura Hymas", "gold standard", "good, "good protocol", "good science", "Google+ stream", "Google+", "Gorski is a genuine expert, "Gorski's good friend and pal who authored that particular article", "guychapman (Guy Chapman) Critiquing The Skeptic Burzynski Critics: A Film Producer, "Haley, "have an enthusiasm for living in the real world", "He does have insane am, "He is act, "he's able to convince people, "healing crisis", "heatless flame", "High School Science Teacher", "his bosses contacted", "his name is is poison", "Hope for Laura fund", "How do you know it was delayed?", "hypothetical case", "I am taking exactly no money from anyone for this", "I believe he said Put up or shut up, "I don't block people on my blog", "I don't see why Gorski is afraid of debating issues", "I don't think he is", "I don't think he's afraid", "I find Rhys Morgan abnormally prehensile", "I hope somebody is writing all this down out there, "I just gave you an example", "I just think he's got a lot going on", "I show JzG what a FACT is: Burzynski: FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions): Clinical Trial Results", "I suck cancer's dick", "I wanna see the data", "I will look at those", "I'm doubting The Skeptics", "I've found that posting under a pseudonym diminishes my credibility", "I've laid out exactly what it would take for me to turn on a fucking dime", "I've spent a lot of times asking questions of you", "I.P. address", "I.P.", "I'd pay to see that", "if Burzynski is the savior that he claims to be", "If it's true that #burzynski and his adman Merola have insinuated that parents are to blame for Amelia's death that's utterly disgusting", "if they can prove otherwise, "IMPORTANT: The live debate that wasn't-A Film Producer, "improved rate", "improvement rate", "independent group to replicate his findings", "Institutional Review Board audits", "Integrative Cancer Therapies 2004;3:47-58 Volume 3, "intellectual property", "intractable diseases", "intrusion into real life", "invisible dragon in your garage", "ischemic necrosis that the tumor has outgrown its blood supply and that it's dying on the inside", "issues in clinical research", "It is about as efficacious", "Japanese science databases", "Japanese study", "Josephine Jones and the Cult of Misinformation", "Journal of Medical Hypothesis", "jump up and down", "Just Bring it", "just looked like someone had taken the piss out of her", "Justin B 2006", "keep it in house", "knowledge of falsity", "Laura Hymas", "lawyer's advice", "Lesley S 2006", "less paperwork", "less people required", "lets go back and not talk about Laura", "libel laws", "libel lawsuits", "libel suit", "life-saving", "Lola Quinlan", "long-established relationships", "low point", "lowered the bar", "Luna Pettiguine", "M. D. Anderson", "major pharmaceutical companies", "makeup of his drug", "manikin world-view of black and white", "mass approval", "massive side effect", "maximum dosage is not reached for a month", "Maybe not in the next few days; I've got a lot going on but", "Mayo Clinic", "MD Anderson", "medical community", "medical doctor", "medical history", "medical specialist", "Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center", "miracle cancer cure", "Morpheus in The Matrix", "mostly scientific enthusiasts", "movie review", "My Critique of Bob Blaskiewicz (Colorado Public Television – PBS CPT12)", "My review of Burzynski: A note to the PBS ombudsman", "National Cancer Institute (NCI) designated comprehensive cancer centers", "National Health Service (NHS)", "neither guilty or innocent", "New England Journal of Medicine", "no better rate than any previous treatment", "non-information", "Nothing of substance", "Of course it's always possible that the money launderers are appearing as themselves in the #Burzynski advertisement", "off-kilter", "Oh, "on my my show um had said things that were demonstratively untrue", "On the 6th day, "on-record", "one month of treatment", "one-sided", "open minded", "original parent antineoplastons", "orphan drug designation", "out of state", "own up", "pancreatic cancer", "Part II", "patient died", "patients believing that getting worse is getting better", "patients reporting that signs of getting worse are getting better", "patients who report symptoms of getting worse, "pay in order to get your manuscript accepted", "pay to play type publication", "pediatric patient who was dying", "People are reporting that the tumor is no longer growing, "personalized gene-targeted therapy", "personalized treatment", "Peter Bowditch", "phase 2 clinical trial publications preliminary reports", "phase 2 clinical trial publications", "phase 2 was deficient so phase 3 fails", "phase 3 trials", "phone it in", "political pressure applied", "Popehat, "positive outcomes", "preliminary trials", "pressing charges", "pro-Burzynski", "Professor Robert J. (Bob) Blaskiewicz", "progression of disease", "progression of the disease", "proposed action", "proposed by the researchers", "protect her family", "Public Library of Science", "publication in a peer-reviewed journal", "publishing stream", "Quacks Like a Duck", "quality of life", "QUESTIONS the Critics and Cynics, "radiation does seem to extend life, "reaches a point where it's a self-limited growth, "real doctor", "red flag", "red flags", "Red Herring", "Regulatory Affairs Branch (RAB)", "rejection letter", "reliable treatments", "replacement therapy", "required dosage", "respect critical thinking", "respect scientific", "respected peer-reviewed journal", "restrict the blood flow to the tumor", "Review Articles on Clinical Trials", "Ric Schiff", "Rick A. Jaffe", "Rick Jaffe", "Rick Schiff", "risks outweigh the possible benefits", "Robert B. Lanman", "Robert J. (Bob) Blaskiewicz", "run around", "Samantha T 2005", "science based medicine", "science-based medicine" "If I see you doing it again, "ScienceBasedMedicine Editorial Staff", "scientific literature", "scientific publication", "scientific publications", "screen-shots", "self-defeating", "self-proclaimed" "CANCER RESEARCHER", "September 28, "severe side effects", "Shall We Play A Game? The Skeptics (SkeptiCowards) vs. The Skeptics' Critics #Burzynski The 1st ever LIE OFF", "Sheila Herron", "shooting the messenger", "Showing of malice", "signs of getting worse are signs if getting better", "Simon Singh", "since you mentioned that you'd go in and look at my most recent article, "sit there and jump up and down", "Skeptic Canary Show", "Skeptic of The Skeptics", "Skeptic Skeptic", "skeptical of Skeptics", "Skeptical ofThe Skeptics", "snake oil salesmen", "so we can re debate it there", "social media", "sodium load is leading people to constantly drinking up to 12 liters of water a day", "sodium load", "SODIUM PHENYLBUTYRATE", "sole distributor of the therapy from his pharmacy", "sole manufacturer of the therapy", "sole person who identified antineoplastons as a contributor to cancer", "sole prescriber of the therapy", "Some drugs it's ethical to give something completely questionable, "source material", "space nerds, "special treatment", "spreading mis truths about Burzynski", "standard cancer research", "Stanislaw Burzynski: On the arrogance of ignorance about cancer and targeted therapies", "stop phoning stuff in", "subside within 24 to 48 hours", "suggested dosage", "support the cure not the cancer", "Supreme Court", "tax lawyer", "tax lawyers", "Thawing out "The Skeptics" @FrozenWarning (FrozenBoring)", "The Burzynski Skeptics", "The dishonesty of Guy Chapman, "the FDA are are, "The Guardian", "The Guardian: Censorship and Bias – Six stubborn myths about cancer", "The List of Dr. David H. Orac Gorski LIES", "the Merritts", "The new Doctor Who will be Stanislaw #Burzynski. He manages to continually avoid getting cornered and he gets away with murder", "The Poxes Blog", "The Present State of Antineoplaston Research", "The Skeptic Canary", "The Skeptic", "The Skeptics (Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business, "The Skeptics @Majikthyse reveals madjik research skilz", "The Skeptics are debatable", "The Skeptics Theme Song" https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/25/the-skeptics-theme-song/, "The Skeptics-Tracking the Twits that Tweet", "The Skeptics: Your problem is, "The Skeptics™ Definition of Debate", "The Skeptics™ Doctor David H. Gorski is one of the SkeptiCowards© (I kid you not): Houston, "The Skeptics™ Robert J. (don't call me Bobby) Blaskiewicz wants to Debate", "The they both go to the same place", "therapeutic dose level", "therapeutic levels", "thin publishing record as Burzynski", "this is not evidence that the treatment is working", "threats of liable suits", "top-tier", "track records", "treatment is working", "trial designs", "tumor grows exponentially while the resources are available", "Twitter I.D.", "U.S.", "University of Wisconsin", "University of Wisconsin"rbutr, "Unlike Mr. Merola, "vertically integrated", "viable drug", "violations of policies", "vision cancer", "Volume 3 Number 1.March.2004 Pg. 50", "Wayne Merritt", "Wayne State University", "we respect scientific method", "We wanna see the frickin' data", "WHAT IS MISDIRECTION? Critiquing "Antineoplastons: Has the FDA kept its promise to the American people ?", "What to do when a Burzynski Skeptic suggests you not do it", "when Laura dies #Burzynski will just move on to his next mark if she doesn't run out of money first", "white paper", "Why am I unsure?", "Why do so many phase 3 clinical trials fail ?", "Wikipedia is a joke", "WikipediA or WikipediAin't?:", "Wikipedia rules", "Wikipedia sock-puppets", "William and Mary Law Review", "William Mitchell College of Law", "wish fulfillment", "Yes, "You are right now having a live debate in front of more than 10, "you couldn't work out your questions", "[Y]ou people always control the conversation", #FAIL, #sciencebasedmedicine, #SkepticCanary, $30, 000 dollars", 000 people, 000 some odd dollars", 2013 The Skeptics™ Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51", 50%, @Ac2cSheila, @bbc5live, @BorisOgon, @BurzynskiMovie, @BurzynskiSaves I don't care what you think. My only concern is for the cancer patients. People like #burzynski make me sick", @DanBuzzard, @DianthusMed, @drpaulmorgan, @endless_psych, @FauxSkeptic, @frozenwarning, @gorskon, @IamBreastCancer, @medTek, @oracknows, @palMD, @RatbagsDotCom, @rjblaskiewicz, @SceptiGuy, @ScienceBasedMed, @StortSkeptic, @vGuyUK, @_JosephineJones, A Cancer Doctor, a full-time surgical oncologist and researcher", A10, absolutely, abundantly, accessible, Adam Jacobs, adverse effects, aggregate, agreeable, alright", America, American, analogy, and Freedom of Speech", and his family", and I will respond to it once I've taken a look at that, and I'll respond on your web-site", and nothing you have presented suggests that you would be more coherent in person", and on the 7th, and Public Broadcasting System (PBS)", And Their Critics, And Their Critics (page 9)", and we will, anecdotal, anomaly, anonymity, ANP, anp4all, antagonistic, antineoplaston, antineoplastons, anything you show in there or any reply you give is going to cover, appeal, approve, approved, apropos, arbiter, arguing, argument, arguments, arranged, as if they were signs of getting better", AS2-1, assertions, assumption, attorney, authority, autopsy, availed, Avastin, "Before you dismiss it you have to look into it", "Burzynski is a vampire", "Everytime somebody throws uh uh something to me, "Happily promotes bogus therapies", "I do know cancer science", "I've searched Burzynski's publications", "It's a blog, "liability is based on a showing of knowledge of falsity", "Marc Stephens", "my last two jobs have been at NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers", "Okay, "oncology studies", "Our only goal is to promote high standards of science in medicine", "Personally having pored over Burzynski's publications", "phase 2 trials", "positions I hold at an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center", "Put a sock in it", "reckless disregard for the truth", "Stop it", "That's just, "The Lancet", "The OTHER Burzynski Patient Group", "The Skeptics™" do NOT want to ANSWER:", "Uh um, "Um, "What stuff would you like me to do ?", "which genes are targeted by antineoplastons", "withdrawn", "you know", "Zip it", back-up", bearing, befuddles, behavior, besieged, beyond, Biased, black and white version of the world", blackballed, Blatherskitewicz, block, blog, blogger, blogs, Bob Blaskiewicz, bogus, Boris Ogon, BRAINSTEM GLIOMA, breath, breathes, Britain, burned, Burzynski Clinic, BurzynskiSaves, but can #Burzynski time travel?", Cancer, cancers, Chancellor, Chemo, China, chiropractors, citation, citation(s), cited, clarify, Clinical Trials, closed, Co-Investigators, coherent, Colorado Public Television (CPT12), colossal, coma, commented, comments, completing, complication, concede, conceivable, condition, confidence, confident, confidentiality, conflict, confusion, consider, conspiracy, constantly, consulted, contradictory, controversy, conversation, convince, convincing, courtesy, courtroom, critical, criticism, criticized, critique, critiqued, Critiquing the #SkepticCanary: "The Skeptics™" (SkeptiCowards©) Bob Blatherskitewicz and the so-called, crowing, crusaders, Cult, CURE, Curing cancer or 'selling hope' to the vulnerable?", D Nile ist", damage, damning, DATA, David Gorski, David H. Gorski, Debate, debating, decades, Declaration of Helsinki, Defamation, defend, defending, design, designed, deteriorated, Detroit, developing, developments, diagnosing, diagnosis, dialogue, dickish, die, died, disagree, disagreements, discuss, discussion, disease, disingenuous, dismiss, disorganized, disoriented, disprove, distribute, distributing, do you serve up Mud Pies with your Wikipedia Lies ?", Doctor, doctors, DOI: 10.1177/1534735-403261964, doubt, doubted, doubting, drug, drugs, dying, ecstatic, effective, efficacious, Egypt, emotion, employers, endlessly, engaging, equating, Eric Merola, essentially, even people who support me have given me grief for this", evidence, excuse, excuses, expert, Expose, F.D.A., Fabio, Facebook, FACS is NOT doing something wrong when he LIES about Burzynski:", FACS", fallacy, false, falsify, Fame, FDA, floating, fly, focusing, FOIA, Food and Drug Administration, Forbes, forthcoming, Free Speech, frustrating, funny, FW, gained, Galileo's lawyer", garbage, generations, generic, Genes, Germany, GLIOMAS, god, grotesque, grow, growing, grows, Guy Chapman, guychapman, hangout, harass, harm, hashtag, have demonstrated efficacy", HE created WIKIPEDIA, he doesn't have time for that, he has to pick and choose his battles", he uh, heat, heterogenous, Hideaki Tsuda, hilarity ensues because of The Skeptics™ comments", honestly, Houston, http//www.sciencebasedmedicine.org, http://anp4all.com, http://blog.rbutr.com/, http://cancerbiologyprogram.med.wayne.edu/faculty/gorski.php, http://josephinejones.wordpress.com/, http://josephinejones.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/happy-birthday-dr-burzynski-and-goodbye-antineoplastons/comment-page-1/#comment-8921, http://lanyrd.com/2013/tam/sckkdy/, http://m.youtube.com/?client=mv-google#/watch?v=pa97hXMbUL0, http://medicine.cf.ac.uk/person/prof-paul-morgan/, http://necss.org/speakers/bob-blaskiewicz/, http://open.wmitchell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1070&context=facsch, http://rbutr.com/, http://rhysmorgan.co/blog, http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2795&context=wmlr, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/12/05/personalized-gene-targeted-cancer-therapy/, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/11/02/stanislaw-burzynski-fails-to-save-another-patient/, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/03/07/the-cancer-treatment-centers-of-america-cherry-picked/, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/05/08/eric-merola-and-stanislaw-burzynskis-secret-weapon-against-the-skeptics-fabio-lanzoni-part-2/, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/03/in-which-the-latest-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynskis-cancer-cure-is-reviewed-with-insolence/, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/05/odds-and-ends-about-burzynski-clinic/, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/07/i-want-my-anp/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.files.wordpress.com, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/burzynski-china-taiwan-roc/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/burzynski-japan/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/burzynski-taiwan-roc/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/josephine-jones-and-the-cult-of-misinformation/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/23/my-review-of-burzynski-a-note-to-the-pbs-ombudsman/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/critiquing-burzynski-another-fact-blind-troll-who-predicted-that/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/the-skeptics/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/my-critique-of-bob-blaskiewicz-colorado-public-television-pbs-cpt12/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/critiquing-the-skeptics-re-funny-how-you-never-see-orac-and-this-person-in-the-same-place-at-the-same-time/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/12/the-dishonesty-of-guy-chapman-the-skeptics-shill/ "Burzynski: The Skeptics™ – Harming without Care", https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/the-skeptics-your-problem-is-wikipedia-is-censored/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/i-find-rhys-morgan-abnormally-prehensile/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/burzynski-hypernatremia/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-china-antineoplaston-publications/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-egypt-antineoplaston-publication/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-poland-antineoplaston-publications/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-russia-antineoplaston-publications/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-the-fdas-drug-review-process-ensuring-drugs-are-safe-and-effective/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/burzynski-not-every-cancer-clinical-trial-taking-place-in-the-united-states-is-listed-on-our-nci-clinical-trials-database/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/dr-peter-a-lipson-and-or-his-censors-is-a-coward-critiquing-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/the-skeptics-tracking-the-twits-that-tweet/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/important-the-live-debate-that-wasnt-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/wikipedia-whats-your-motivation/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/05/guychapman-guy-chapman-critiquing-the-skeptic-burzynski-critics-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics-page-9/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/i-show-jzg-what-a-fact-is-burzynski-faq-frequently-asked-questions-clinical-trial-results/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/wikipedia-or-wikipediaint/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/18/wikipedia-your-burzynski-bias-is-showing/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/wikipedia-youve-sprung-a-wiki-leak/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/23/shall-we-play-a-game-the-skeptics-skepticowards-vs-the-skeptics-critics-burzynski-the-1st-ever-lie-off/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/26/critiquing-when-is-a-skeptic-not-a-skeptic/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/30/on-the-6th-day-he-created-wikipedia-and-on-the-7th-day-wikipedbias/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/31/wikipedia-do-you-serve-up-mud-pies-with-your-wikipedia-lies/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/01/thawing-out-the-skeptics-frozenwarning-frozenboring/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/02/the-skeptics-doctor-david-h-gorski-is-one-of-the-skepticowards-i-kid-you-not-houston-we-have-a-problem/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/critiquing-the-skepticcanary-the-skeptics-skepticowards-bob-blatherskitewicz-and-the-so-called-self-proclaimed-cancer-researcher/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/what-is-misdirection-critiquing-antineoplastons-has-the-fda-kept-its-promise-to-the-american-people/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/23/questions-the-critics-and-cynics-the-skeptics-do-not-want-to-answer/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/antineoplastons-adverse-effects/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/burzynski-institutional-review-board-irb/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/09/burzynski-the-original-72-phase-ii-clinical-trials/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/critiquing-in-which-the-latest-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-cure-is-reviewed-with-insolence-2/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/critiquing-in-which-orac-does-stanislaw-burzynski-propagandist-eric-merola-a-favor/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/burzynski-why-has-the-fda-not-granted-accelerated-approval-for-antineoplastons-a10-astengenal-and-as2-1-astugenal/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/04/critiquing-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-m-d-ph-d-liar-stanislaw-burzynski-versus-the-bbc/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/07/critiquing-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-m-d-ph-d-l-i-a-r/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/the-burzynski-skeptics/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/critiquing-david-h-gorski-md-phd-facs-www-sciencebasedmedicine-orgeditorial-staffdavid-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/24/critiquing-httpstheotherburzynskipatientgroup-wordpress-com/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/wayne-state-university-detroit-michigan-quickly-realized-that-david-h-gorski-md-phd-facs-is-not-doing-something-wrong-when-he-lies-about-burzy, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/29/burzynski-securities-and-exchange-commission-sec-links/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/31/the-guardian-censorship-and-bias-six-stubborn-myths-about-cancer/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/critiquing-stanislaw-burzynski-on-the-arrogance-of-ignorance-about-cancer-and-targeted-therapies/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/10/critiquing-wikipedia-burzynski-clinic/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/critiquing-stanislaw-burzynski-comments-on-new-cancer-science-hilarity-ensues-because-of-the-skeptics-comments/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/12/critiquing-wikipedia-burzynski-clinic-colorado-public-television-cpt12-and-public-broadcasting-system-pbs/, https://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/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/13/a-critical-analysis-of-wikipedias-failure-to-communicate/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/the-list-of-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-lies/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/critiquing-the-institute-of-medicine-report-on-cancer-care-is-the-system-in-crisis/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/22/critiquing-watford-observer-he-said-he-hoped-to-cure-my-daughter/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/22/critiquing-wikipedia-burzynski-clinic-2013-bbc-documentary-curing-cancer-or-selling-hope-to-the-vulnerable/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/23/critiquing-amelias-family-mislead-by-cancer-clinic/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/23/josephinejones-_josephinejones-d-nile-ist-httpjosephinejones-wordpress-com20130123happy-birthday-dr-burzynski-and-goodbye-antineoplastonscomme, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/bobby-blaskiewicz-bows-up-bout-burzynski/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/26/the-skeptics-majikthyse-reveals-madjik-research-skilz/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/27/the-skeptics-robert-j-dont-call-me-bobby-blaskiewicz-wants-to-debate/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/29/the-skeptics-are-debatable/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/30/bob-burzynski-skeptic-sez-multiforme-manuscript-meme-message-memorable/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/what-to-do-when-a-burzynski-skeptic-suggests-you-not-do-it/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/03/a-message-to-guy-cant-git-r-done-chapman/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/03/the-skeptics-definition-of-debate/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/10/04/september-28-2013-the-skeptics-burzynski-discussion-by-bob-blaskiewicz-21951/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/about/, http://t.co/EHgW0hnLAc, http://t.co/vh3cgAR6hW, http://the21stfloor.tumblr.com, http://thehoustoncancerquack.com/, http://thewelshboyo.wordpress.com, http://twentyfirstfloormirror.wordpress.com, http://virtualskeptics.com/, http://works.bepress.com/carrie_leonetti/72/, http://www.blogtalkradio.com/skepticcanary/, http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/images/stories/Publications/994.pdf, http://www.centerforinquiry.net/speakers/blaskiewicz_bob, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg, http://www.csicop.org/author/rblaskiewicz, http://www.dianthus.co.uk/blog/, http://www.firstamendmentstudies.org/wp/pdf/libel.pdf, http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/, http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2013/04/19/a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics, http://www.freemedia.at/fileadmin/media/IPI_Report_on_Criminal_Libel_in_the_United_States.pdf, http://www.itnonline.com/article/fda-approves-trial-radiation-therapy-brain-stem-glioma/, http://www.med.wayne.edu/surgery/faculty/DGorski.html, http://www.richardjaffe.com/jaffe, http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/, http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/, http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/peter-a-lipson-md/, http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence, http://www.skeptical.gb.net/, http://www.skepticalhumanities.com, http://www.thetwentyfirstfloor.com, http://www.thetwentyfirstfloor.com/?p=8146/, http://www.uwec.edu/Staff/blaskir/, https://theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com, https://thepoxesblog.wordpress.com, https://twitter.com/Ac2cSheila/status/186164592676843520, https://twitter.com/DanBuzzard/status/186110257402085376, https://twitter.com/frozenwarning/status/312141313451634688, https://twitter.com/gorskon/status/363147810620702721, https://twitter.com/palmd/status/325612864549310466, https://twitter.com/RatbagsDotCom/status/304050113834262528, https://twitter.com/StortSkeptic/status/363088970239840256, humanities, humor, I am indeed very concerned with getting my facts correct", I don't think", I have to look into it", I thought it was productive too", I will look at your web-site, I'd sure like to see it", I'll look at that, ideology, if if he saw that we were going to ultimately be circling around our same arguments again and again; kind of like we've done here, immeasurable, immune, in a serious way, in matters re re regarding on oncology studies", inaccurate, incorporeal, incorrect, indistinguishable, inducement, influenced, inherent, insensitive, instead of just making these over-broad", Institutional Review Board, institutions, intense, Internet, intimidation, investigative, investigators, IRB, irresponsible, it's my responsibility as a reader", Japan, jerk, JERKS, joke, Josephine Jones, JosephineJones (@_JosephineJones), judge, juror, jury, Keir Liddle, kerfuffle, Knockout, L.I.A.R.", laughing, lawsuit, lawsuits, lawyer "accreditation board contacted", lax, legitimate, lethargic, letters, LIAR, LIAR: Stanislaw Burzynski versus the BBC", Libel, lie, Lies, lilady, link, link(s), literature, locked, locking, London, lying, M.D.", March 2004", market, MD", MDAnderson, medicine, mention, mess, Michigan, misleading, misrepresenting, money, motivated, Motivation, motivations, MRI, MRIs, murder, National Cancer Center (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Cancer Institute, NCI, next time I will call you out publicly", niggly, NIH, nitty-gritty, No. 1, not a peer-reviewed publication", obligation, obstructionist, ODD, of a Skeptic making shit for a Burzynski shill or anyone else in real life", oh make sure that I I go to your blog and and I talk there", on the strength of his record", oncologist, oncologists, oncology, one of The Skeptics™ has the Balls to do what even Dr. David H. Orac Gorski would NOT do", onforb.es/11pwse9, open up", opinion, opportunities, opportunity, opposed, opposing, opposition, optimal, option, or that the growing has slowed after they've started", Orac, organization, otherwise, outcome, panacea, panaceas, papers, Partial Response, Particularly, partnerships, paucity, Paul Morgan, pediatric, pediatrician, peers, persecuted, persuasive, Peter A. Lipson, Ph.D, Phase 1, PHASE 2 TRIAL, PhD, physicians, pinhole it, platform, Poland, policy violations, Polish, possibility, prescribe, pressure, pressures, processes, proclaiming, produced, producing, professionally, Professor", prognosis, promoted, prosecuting, prosecution, protocol, protocols, prove, proved, pseudonyms, Public Health Service", PubMed, quack, Quality Assurance and Compliance Section, question, questionable, Questions, quickly realized that David H. Gorski, Quidama, r-but-r, RADIATION, Randy Hinton, Reason, reconsider, records, recruiting, reduce the size of some tumors some times", reference, referenced, References, refuse, refused, rejected, rejection, reliable, relinquish, replicated, representative, researcher, researchers, respect, respectable journal", retaliation, reticent, revealing, reviewing, Rhys Morgan, Richard A. Jaffe, Richard Jaffe, ridiculous, right ?", rjblatherskiewicz, ROC", Russia, S.", sabotaged, sandbox, scans, scholars, science, screenings, seemingly, seems only fair", shifting, signing, Skeptics, skewed, Slander, slapped, slides, slurring, smear, smeared, so that we can go back and look at these claims later, so the time between doublings in size decreases logarithmically", soliciting, spam, spammer, spamming, specific, specifications, spectrum, speculate, speculating, speculation, standards, statement, statements, streamlining, stunned, subject, submissions, submitting, suffer, suffered, suffering, survivability, survivals, survive, survived, survivors, suspend, swelling, Taiwan, taxes, Temodar, terrifying, Texas, The Skeptics, The Skeptics shill", the the lawyer", thehoustoncancerquack, threaten, threatened, threatening, threats, throwing, thrown, TOBPG, treatments, true, trust, trusted, trustworthy, tumor, tumors, Tweet, tweeted, tweets, Twit, Twitter, Twitter address", U.K., uh, UK, unbiased, uncomfortable, understand, understandable, understanding, unexpected, unfalsifiable, unfortunate, uniform, unimaginable, United Kingdom, United States Supreme Court, University, unpublished, unrealistic, unsure, untrustworthy, utterly, validate, violent, Wales, we, We Have a Problem", we're just, we're just circling around again", well, what they want to make sure that they at least get the standard care, what we've gone over", what's your motivation?", whittle, who predicted that?", who said I was unsure?", WikipedBiaS, Wikipedia, Wikipedia IS censored", Wisconsin, withdrew, wonky, www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/, you, you invest them with, you know which includes radiation", you little bitch." Something like that", you've sprung a Wiki Leak", your Burzynski BIAS is showing", [4] - Bob Burzynski Skeptic Sez Multiforme Manuscript Meme Message Memorable" | Leave a reply
DJT's Comments – September 28, 2013 "The Skeptics™" Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51
Well as I put in my about page, I agreed with the juror that he was neither guilty or innocent
That's the FDA's own information – I have that clearly on my blog
Also the FDA has given Burzynski uhhh Orphan Drug Designation in 2004 for uhhh brainstem glioma and then in 2009 for all gliomas
And then the other one was not posted on there, but then again the FDA has said, and I posted this on my blog because I specifically contacted and asked them and they said we don't post all clinical trials on our web-site
And so he obviously had that other one about brainstem glioma, that he was trying to get started
But the other issue is that Skeptics have posted on there that he could not get that accelerated approval until he had published a phase 2 trial and that is exactly not the case because other drugs have been given accelerated approval before their results were published in phase 2 clinical trial publications, cuz, so that question remains as well
And so, I thought that funny of The Lancet
I was, on there just yesterday to see some more of your post on there
Well the thing is, when you accepted this hangout, I published my newest blog article and I specifically listed all the information I had critiqued from you previously including Amelia, and I posted the specific Twitter responses by BurzynskiMovie; which is probably Eric, to your issues with Amelia, and he disagrees with what the oncologist posted, and so I pretty much let his Twitter responses stand to what the oncologist said
Well I also did a critique of the newspaper story that was put out about Amelia in the U.K.
So if someone, so if someone only goes in there and has treatment for a month, they're not even, you know, they're finally going to reach the uh maximum dosage
Well my only thing is, uh, we know that sometimes he will go to a maximum dosage, or you know, the suggested dosage, but he will back down off it, in fact in the uh adverse effects you mentioned those are specifically adverse effects mentioned in his publications, and when that happens normally they will subside within 24 to 48 hours is what it says once you take them off the treatment and let, you know, those conditions take care of themselves, and then you will slowly raise the medication again
So, you know, it just didn't tell, if only one month of treatment was enough to even start to do anything for her
Well the thing is, the FDA has approved phase 3, and also given them the Orphan Drug Designation, which means they should have some knowledge about what's going on, I would think
Well what I find interesting about these other doctors is like like the doctors mentioned in the movie and BBC Panorama's report and in some of these newspaper articles where they are mentioned again is that these doctors never do a review of Burzynski's scientific publications and including our favorite oncologist who refuses to do so
Oh yeah he says he's read everything but uh you know he claims that he's uhmmm reviewed, reviewed uh Burzynski's personalized gene targeted therapy but he, but then just a few months ago he admitted, you know, I don't know where Burzynski says which genes are targeted by antineoplastons
And I pointed out which specific publications that Burzynski published, publications which specifically mention which genes are targeted by antineoplastons, and I said how can you claim that you've read and reviewed every Burzynski publication and you didn't know which genes are targeted by antineoplastons when that's specifically in the publications ?
And so all this speculation about what a investigative team may say about the clinic is, to me just like someone going into a lawsuit and saying so-and-so did this, you know, can you prove that, you know, did so-and-so do that
So it's the same thing with the FDA, these um little reports, the final report is what counts, and so, also what I find interesting is some of Burzynski's publications specifically said, you know this particular uh clinical trial, the IRB was agreed upon by the FDA
And, and what I also found interesting is when I did research on other clinical trials for brainstem glioma I found, you know, all these other science based medicine studies where 374 children had died in their studies
And what I found interesting is back in 1999, they reported on a clinical trial, they had better results then all these clinical trials afterwards
From her uh fiancé, or husband, whatever his status happens to be right now
Uh, my sense is that since 1996 when the FDA talked about antineoplastons, that specific FDA Commissioner that was in charge at the time, he set out 7 major points about how there was going to be less people required and there was going to be less paperwork, there was going to be less stringent things about Partial Response
And my other point is that, uhmmm, when these trials finish, as I've pointed out on my blog, M.D. Anderson finished a trial in 2006 and didn't publish the results electronically until January of this year
We've still got the accelerated approval thing that's out there, you know, like the FDA's given Temodar and, and Avastin, and another drug, whereas they're not doing the same thing for antineoplastons, eve even though for all intents and purposes from what we know, antineoplastons have had better success rates than Temodar and Avastin when they were approved
Well what I found interesting is when the FDA approved these other 1 or 2 drugs, some of them specifically said that, uhhh, some of these drugs had, you know, better survivability or they showed no better rate than any previous treatment but we're approving it anyway
Basically that's what the publication said and I published this on my blog in an article specifically about, you know, those 2 or 3 drugs that the FDA approved for brainstem or brain related cancers
So, you know, take that
Well, we can wonder if some of Burzynski's results are the same, otherwise why would the FDA say, you know, give the ODD, why would the FDA give the phase 3 approval
Plus I don't buy some of these doctors coming out and saying stuff, they have the opportunity just like the other doctors in Egypt, in Russia, in Germany, in, in Poland in China in Taiwan that have done antineoplaston studies, I'm like, these people can do antineoplaston studies so what's the excuse for all these other doctors who say that they supposedly can't do them
Well, we kind of know that that's a fact
Well what we know from 1996 from Burzynski's own information that he's published, is that not only does he have the original parent antineoplastons, but he's developed 2nd and 3rd generations, but he can't just stop in the middle of his clinical trial and use the 2nd and 3rd generations which may be better
He can't uh use these other types of um antineoplastons that other researchers, researchers like Egypt, or Japan have found um that may be better because he can't just switch in the middle of the clinical trial
Well I find it interesting that you talk about the cost, because I've done a lot of research about the cost, and I was just looking at the cost again this morning, and put it into that particular blog article I was talking about, that I did for this particular program
favorite oncologist didn't comment about that in his movie review
I find that funny considering the FDA approved phase 3, has given him ODD for brainstem glioma and also also all gliomas
You know, that's kind of ridiculous
Well I guess we could ask, you know, Ben and Laura Hymas
No, I'm sure the FDA can look at the records because Burzynski sent them 2.5 million pages according to our friend Fabio
And uh, you know just something the doctors who came in and did the little ol' one day, 6 patient records, where they reviewed all the records and slides, and MRI's, etcetera, you know they can do the same thing, the FDA can do the same thing with all these patients
I mean, we, we know that with all these 374 children I mentioned dying in other science-based medicine clinical trials
And, so, all these people didn't look good either but, you know, the FDA still gave approval to Avastin and Te Temodar even though a lot of people died in their clinical trials
I mean, we could agree that since
Burzynski's publication says that it's going to take a month to get up to required dosage, and so we know, the tumor can still grow, like he said, up to 50%, he specifically acknowledges that in his publication, so, we know that can happen
Well we know from his own publications, he says he can't just go in and start giving the maximum dose, or recommended dose right off the bat because a particular condition will occur, and he specifically mentions, in the publications what that condition is, I don't remember it right off the top of my head
But then again, his 2nd generation, his 3rd generation, his other form of antineoplastons that may work in the future, if approved, well those could possibly have the same uh adverse effects that the current parent generation have
And we don't have a final report from the FDA on what the findings wer
Well I'm sure a lot of people leave the doctors office not knowing things, for decades
Well we know that all these other kids died in these science-based medicine trials, and, you know, we can assume that that was the case there too
The FDA not giving him phase 3 approval, the FDA not giving him ODD designation
And showing that, and showing the FDA that there's evidence of effectiveness
Well they seem to be doing a good job at it
No I haven't read it
I know what it's called
Well I'm just gonna say, you know, the F, the FDA doing what they've done, since they approved those 72 initial trials, pretty much speaks for itself
Well #1 I don't think the one with brainstem glioma where they wanted to use radiation with ANP was really the right way to go, I mean he's already proven that uh he seems to have better results without
first starting radiation
No, they wanted to make him use radiation in both sides of the study
They don't do that with other drugs
Well I don't buy anything Guy Chapman sells, considering his past record
Well his theories are suspect, anything he hands out, let me tell ya
But the question may be bogus, because of where the messenger has been bogus a lot of times before
I don't see him on my blog responding to my criticism
Well you didn't when I tried to get you to do stuff the 1st time, did ya ?
And that's the newest article
Well I would certainly look at that, but then again I would also look at the FDA granting him Orphan Drug Designation
Orphan Drug for brainstem glioma and all gliomas
My position was he should of bou, got around it, gone about it the way I did, which is, I blog, and show where Rhys is wrong, I blog and show where Gorski is wrong, I blog and show where you are wrong, or Josephine Jones, or Guy Chapman, etcetera
And, eh, y'all have every opportunity to come on my blog, and I've had very few takers, uh, one claiming to be from Wikipedia, who I shot down
You know, stuff like that
Well I think that people who really believe in "Free Speech," and when it's done rationally, I mean, Gorski would never, really respond to any of my questions, so I
And so Wikipedia can say what they want, because I've only ever used one I.P., I've only got on there during one time, and when they finally said hey, you know, we're not gonna uh grant your appeal, I completely left their web-site alone, so all that stuff
that they post
So all that garbage that they posted about me, about how I supposedly got on-line, on these other articles is just entirely B.S.
And if they can prove otherwise, I'd sure like to see it
Wikipedia is a joke
Oh sure, I'm sure, that's no problem
I don't have any problem with them locking that
You know, I could tell when I was on there, and when Merola was on there, because he had a different I.P. address than me, I could tell they were his questions because of the way they were formed
So I said, well they're not answering his questions, I'll just take on that role, and uh ask his questions and ask further questions, and they didn't wanna deal with it, you know
For doing what they do, which is basically provide false information and one-sided information ?
You know, The Skeptics like to be nasty, and so, I've been like Josephine Jones
If she wants to play anonymous, I'll play anonymous
Like I said, I'm going to be like Josephine Jones
Oh, of course, I, I've seen a lot of stuff goes on Twitter
I've see y'all saying "Oh, we're "The Skeptics" and y'all know are names," but, there's a lot of Skeptics that post on there with pseudonyms, also
Well, I'm just not sure how some of these uh Skeptics will react considering their past behavior
I mean, when Skeptics refuse to, I mean they block you on your blogs
They block your comments
You know, they decide, "Well, I'm maybe going to accept one comment from you, but I won't accept anymore
You know, to me that's just ridiculous
Uh, the action on Forbes that happened, the action on The Guardian that happened, where, you know, you had someone on Gorski's blog basically lie to the Gua, to The Guardian to get them to get them to uh block my comment
So, you know, I'm Skeptical of The Skeptics and their uh and what they would do
I like my anonymity just like Josephine Jones likes hers
I mean, I will read her stuff and reply to it and treat it seriously jus, just like any other blogger
Uh, I mean
Well how have I been speculating ?
I mean, we'll see what happens with the Japanese publication
Well, I, you know, that's up to someone's opinion, considering some of the information that's that the FDA has accepted, as far as giving these guys approval
Well, I didn't say that they weren't trustworthy, I just raised questions that no one wants to answer about 'em
No, I'm just sayin' that I've raised questions and none of The Skeptics wanna to uh talk about 'em
for me to make up my mind
He sucks their blood out of 'em right ?
Posted in Debate ?, Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski | Tagged "1st generation drug", "2.5 million pages", "2nd generation", "2nd generations", "3rd generation", "3rd generations", "accelerated approval", "Amelia Saunders", "ANP's", "backed-up", "backing it up", "BBC Panorama", "Ben and Laura Hymas", "blood brain barrier", "Bob Blaskiewicz Faux Skeptic Exposed!", "brain related cancers", "BRAINSTEM GLIOMAs", "Burzynski 2", "Burzynski Movie", "clinical study", "Clinical Trials . gov", "Dave Gorski", "Didymus Judas Thomas", "DJT's Comments – September 28, "Eau Claire", "evidence of effectiveness", "evidence of efficacy", "fact-check", "Fact-Checked", "false information", "FDA Commissioner", "final phase 2 clinical trial", "final phase 2 publication", "final results", "Freedom of Information Act", "genes are targeted by antineoplastons", "Google+ Hangout", "I.P. address", "JosephineJones", "less paperwork", "Lola Quinlan", "M. D. Anderson", "maximum dosage", "MD Anderson", "neither guilty or innocent", "one-sided information", "original parent", "orphan drug designation", "Orphan Drug", "our favorite oncologist", "phase 2 clinical trial publications preliminary reports", "phone it in", "phoning stuff in", "Robert J. (Bob) Blaskiewicz", "science based medicine", "scientific literature", "scientific peer-reviewed", "screen-shot", "screen-shots", "shows evidence of efficacy", "Skeptic Skeptic", "skeptical of Skeptics", "social media", "spam the Internet", "suggested dosage", "Supreme Court", "tax lawyer", "tax lawyers", "The Guardian", "The Lancet Oncology", "Twitter I.D.", "University of Wisconsin", "Wikipedia is a joke", 2013 The Skeptics™ Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51", @bbc5live, @BurzynskiMovie, @FauxSkeptic, @rjblaskiewicz, A10, adverse effects, America, American, anecdotal, ANONYMOUS, ANP, anp4all, antineoplaston, antineoplastons, apropos, AS2-1, Avastin, "Burzynski is a vampire", "high sodium", "Marc Stephens", "Unicorn pee", ", back-up", Blatherskitewicz, blocked, blog, blogged, Bob Blaskiewicz, bogus, brainstem, BRAINSTEM GLIOMA, Britain, China, citation(s), confidentiality, David H. Gorski, Debate, debated, debating, Declaration of Helsinki, disorganized, Doctor, doctors, Egypt, Eric Merola, Expose, F.D.A., Fabio, Facebook, factual, fallacy, FDA, Food and Drug Administration, Forbes, Free Speech, garbage, Genes, Germany, GLIOMAS, Gorski, Guy Chapman, harass, hashtag, 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/, humor, incorrect, Internet, IRB, Jaffe, Japan, Josephine Jones, juror, lawsuit, lawyer, link(s), misleading, MRI, MRIs, National Cancer Institute, NCI, nitty-gritty, ODD, oncologists, parent generation", Partial Response, Phase 2, Phase 3, pinhole, Poland, Polish, Professor", prosecution, protocol, published, PubMed, Put up or shut up, Questions, r-but-r, RADIATION, rbutr, records, References, Rhys Morgan, Richard A. Jaffe, Richard Jaffe, Russia, scans, Skeptic, Skeptical, Skeptics, slides, spam, Taiwan, taxes, Temodar, The Skeptics, thehoustoncancerquack, threaten, trust, tumor, tumors, Tweet, tweeted, tweets, Twitter, Twitter address", Wisconsin, you little bitch" | Leave a reply
Dr. David H. "Orac" Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS, maybe you should check your F-A-C-T-S
Posted on August 30, 2013 by didymusjudasthomas
For years, Gorski has been able to comment on Burzynski's "personalized gene targeted therapy" with impunity
It's about time he received some personal attention, leading to heapin' helpings of not-so-Respectful Insolence
All of the below articles by Gorski were tagged as having to do with:
personalized gene targeted cancer therapy, or mention it
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/tag/personalized-gene-targeted-cancer-therapy/
I AM ADDING TO THIS AS I GO ALONG
[1] – 6/5/2013 – " … in January the Burzynski Clinic removed all references to antineoplaston therapy on its website … "
[2] – 8/4/2013 – I proved Gorski wrong since Burzynski's scientific publications regarding antineoplaston therapy are on the Burzynski website
[1] – 6/5/2013 – "Three years should be plenty of time to line up clinical sites for a phase III trial"
"Of course, given that after three years the clinical trial hasn't been opened, more than likely no reputable institution wants to partner with the Burzynski Research Institute, and ResearchPoint collected its checks"
[3] – 7/18/2013 – This statement by Gorski is disingenuous since 6/3/2013 he reviewed Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II where this issue was addressed, and he made NO COMMENT about it in his review
Gorski can distort, exaggerate, and even lie to the public
[1] – 6/5/2013 – "Another interesting tidbit in the SEC filing is Burzynski's report of the results of several of his clinical trials"
"They aren't really "results' per se, in that the information presented really isn't provided in a form that really allows other investigators to evaluate it and potentially replicate it"
"Basically it's a big table listing Burzynski Research Institute clinical trials"
"Of course, I realize that this is an SEC filing, not a scientific paper in the peer-reviewed literature, but if Burzynski has all this data to produce this table it boggles the mind that, given at least a decade and a half since these trials began, he hasn't been able to publish any meaningful data thus far"
"That he hasn't been able to do so is also a big red flag"
[5] – 8/21/2013 – That Gorski has NOT been able to prove that the 4 Burzynski publications I refer to are NOT "meaningful data" is a big red flag
[6] – 6/4/2013 – "It's a theme that is repeated throughout the report but that ignores the astounding level of sheer deception that goes on at the Burzynski Clinic, the allegations of overfilling, and how Burzynski has abused the clinical trial process to keep treating patients with antineoplastons without actually having to do the science that any other doctor would be required to do to validate a new treatment"
[7] – 6/23/2013 – This is the 1st time I've seen Gorski allege "overfilling," and I sure have NOT seen him provide any proof of that or that Burzynski is NOT doing "the science that any other doctor would be required to do to validate a new treatment"
If anyone is being "deceptive," it seems to be Gorski
[6] – 6/4/2013 – Dr. Elloise Garside, a research scientists, echoes a lot of the questions I have, such as how Burzynski never explains which genes are targeted by antineoplastons, … "
[8] – 8/7/2013 – Gorski has NO response for where I list where Burzynski "explains which genes are targeted by antineoplastons"
[6] – 6/4/2013 – " … what the preclinical evidence supporting their efficacy are … "
[9] – 3/16/2013 – Gorski does NOT mention where he's reviewed "the preclinical evidence supporting their efficacy"
[6] – 6/4/2013 – " … or what the scientific rationale is to expect that they might have antitumor activity"
[10] – 8/8/2013 – Gorski reviewed "Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business" (Part I), but acts as if Dvorit D. Samid was NOT mentioned, and that he is NOT aware that the BurzynskiMovie website contains supporting documentation
I can't let such statements go unchallenged
It means Nada Zero Zip
[6] – 6/4/2013 – "In science, all that matters is what you publish, and Burzynski hasn't published anything other than case reports, tiny case series, and unconvincing studies, mostly (at least over the last decade or so) in crappy journals not even indexed on PubMed"
[5] – 8/21/2013 – I remain unimpressed that Gorski has NOT written a review of Burzynski's 2003-2010 phase II clinical trial preliminary reports
[6] – 6/4/2013 – "Without a doubt, the most effective part of the story is the segment in which Dr. Jeanine Graf of the Texas Children's Hospital is introduced"
"Dr. Graf is the director of the pediatric intensive care unit there and has taken care of lots of Burzynski patients, as her hospital is "just down the road" from the Burzynski Clinic and these unfortunate children are brought to her hospital when they decompensate"
"Indeed, coupled with this segment is an interlude where Luna Petagine's mother complains that the staff there know and recognize Burzynski patients (and, she notes, hate the Burzynski Clinic)"
"Particularly damning is how Ms. Petagine said that the Texas Children's Hospital Staff "were always cleaning up Burzynski's messes.""
"Luna was brought to the Texas Children's Hospital during her time in Houston, and the staff there recognized right away that she was a Burzynski patient because they had seen so many similar patients suffering the same complications before"
"It was also clear how much contempt the staff there had for the Burzynski Clinic"
"If there's one thing Panorama did right in this report, it's showing how seeing so many already dying children show up in our ICU because of hypernatremia due to antineoplaston therapy will do that"
"Perhaps the most devastating part of this segment was seeing Dr. Graf stating, point blank, that she's never seen a Burzynski patient survive"
"True, she does point out that patients don't come to her until they are in extremis, but the fact remains that she's never seen any of them live"
[11] – 4/24/2013 – What is so ridiculous about this is that Richard Bilton wanted numbers from Burzynski, but then when it came to this part of the documentary, he somehow forgets how to ask how many patients this applies to, and Gorski compounds this by trying to blame hypernatremia on antineoplaston therapy, but he refuses to explain how it is that in this Division of Internal Medicine / Department of General Internal Medicine, University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA, cancer study, over a 3 month period in 2006 re 3,446 patients, most of the HYPERNATREMIA (90 %) was acquired during hospital stay, and these patients were NOT on antineoplaston therapy
Arrogance, dismissiveness, and condescension make him his own worst enemy
[6] – 6/4/2013 – "Burzynski also pulls out the old trope that, if the FDA has been letting him use antineoplastons for 20 years in clinical trials if they weren't safe and potentially effective, that the FDA wouldn't let him "sell hope without evidence.""
"(Those of us following Burzynski for a while know, unfortunately, that that isn't necessarily true.)"
[12] – 4/25/2013 – "The FDA's Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective" advises:
"[T]he emphasis in Phase 2 is on EFFECTIVENESS"
"Phase 3 studies begin if EVIDENCE of EFFECTIVENESS is shown in Phase 2″
The FDA has approved Burzynski's phase 3 clinical trials, which means that antineoplastons have shown evidence of effectiveness, whether Gorski likes it or NOT
[6] – 6/4/2013 – " … he goes on to repeat the same refrain he's been repeating for the last decade or so about how he's on the verge of publishing all the results that will convince everyone"
"One notes that we're still waiting"
[13] – 7/25/2013 – Gorski provides NO citation to support his statement, and, he did a review of "Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, Part II," but conveniently does NOT comment in his review about the refusal e-mail shown in the film, and its suspect content
[6] – 6/4/2013 – "Burzynski needs to publish, but I highly doubt that he will, at least not in a form that is informative to real oncologists"
[5] – 8/21/2013 – I'm waiting for Gorski to prove that the 4 Burzynski publications I refer to are "NOT in a form that is informative to real oncologists"
Why don't YOU cite a phase 2 clinical trial final publication that has substantially more data fields than the 4 publications I mention ?
[4] – 6/3/2013 – "I refer you to the link for my discussion of many of the problems with the movie"
"Here I will concentrate mainly on issues that I haven't discussed before, because actually seeing Burzynski II was a revelation"
"(Yes, I put that sentence there on purpose, Eric Merola; quote mine it if you have the cojones)"
[3] – 7/18/2013 – Gorski, don't wait for Eric Merola to quote you
I've quoted you
Now let's see if YOU have the cajones
MY review of your "review" should be a revelation to YOU
[4] – 6/3/2013 – "I'm referring to Chris Onuekwusi, a man who was diagnosed with stage I colon cancer"
"Instead of undergoing straightforward surgery that we know to have a high probability of success (which, I'll also point out, can be done these days through minimally invasive laparoscopic techniques), Onuekwusi balked, as described in more detail than in the movie in this article on the Burzynski Patient Group website"
"He had even gone for a second opinion at one of the leading cancer centers in the world, the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, where the surgeon told him the same thing"
"He needed surgery first"
[3] – 7/18/2013 – Mr. Onuekwusi did NOT want surgery
[4] – 6/3/2013 – "So what did Burzynski recommend instead of surgery?"
"He recommended a cocktail of three drugs given off-label:"
"Zolinza, Xeloda, and Avastin"
"Zolinza is vorinostat, a histone deacetylase inhibitor; Xeloda is capecitabine, which is a prodrug for 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), a pyrimidine analog that inhibits the enzyme thymidylate synthetase and thereby inhibits DNA synthesis to toxic effect in rapidly dividing cells; and Avastin is bevacizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody directed against vascular endothelial growth factor-A (VEGF-A)"
"As I described in a previous post about Burzynski's "personalized, gene-targeted cancer therapy," apparently Burzynski sent Onuekwusi's tumor to Caris for testing"
[14] – 3/2010 – Burzynski advised that a blood or pathology specimen can be used for testing, and that results from a blood test can be obtained within 2 days, and used and refined by a pathology specimen within 2 to 3 weeks
[4] – 6/3/2013 – "Caris generated a report, as it always does, and Burzynski came up with a witches' brew of new expensive targeted agents, all said to be "off-label.""
[15] – 5/17/2011 – Well, not exactly
Burzynski made it clear in part 2 of this interview that there is constant searches of medical literature (phase 2 and phase 3 publications) to research the medications to be used based on the cancer genes involved, and that they have worked on software so oncologists can use it to choose the best medications instead of reinventing the wheel and having to review the medical literature again
So, he does NOT come up with a "witches' brew"
[4] – 6/3/2013 – "One of these drugs is just an old chemotherapy drug in a new form"
"Xeloda is, in essence, 5-FU, a chemotherapeutic drug that has been used to treat colorectal cancer, both as adjuvant chemotherapy and first-line therapy for metastatic disease, for over 40 years"
"There's nothing really "targeted" about the drug except that it inhibits an enzyme, the way that many drugs do and have been known to do for decades"
"The advantage of Xeloda is that it can be administered orally, which is a good thing"
[16] – What Gorski fails to mention is that Xeloda (Capecitabine) is approved to be used alone or with other drugs to treat:
Stage III colon cancer in patients who have had surgery to remove cancer
May also apply to unapproved uses being studied
[17] – fluoropyrimidine carbamate belonging to class of antineoplastic agents called antimetabolites
As prodrug, capecitabine is selectively activated by tumor cells to cytotoxic moiety, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU); subsequently, 5-FU is metabolized to 2 active metabolites, 5-fluoro-2-deoxyuridine monophosphate (FdUMP) and 5-fluorouridine triphosphate (FUTP) by tumor cells and normal cells
FdUMP inhibits DNA synthesis and cell division by reducing normal thymidine production, while FUTP inhibits RNA and protein synthesis by competing with uridine triphosphate for incorporation into RNA strand
[4] – 6/3/2013 – "Similarly, Avastin, although relatively new, is also commonly used for colorectal cancer, albeit usually for metastatic disease and not as adjuvant chemotherapy"
[18] – What Gorski fails to mention is that Avastin (Bevacizumab) is approved to be used alone or with other drugs to treat:
Colorectal cancer that has metastasized (spread to other parts of body)
[19] – A recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody directed against the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), a pro-angiogenic cytokine
Bevacizumab binds to VEGF and inhibits VEGF receptor binding, thereby preventing the growth and maintenance of tumor blood vessels
[4] – 6/3/2013 – "That leaves Zolinza, which is an HDAC inhibitor used to treat cutaneous T cell lymphoma"
[20] – What Gorski fails to mention is that Zolinza (Vorinostat) is a histone deacetylase inhibitor, approved for treatment of cutaneous manifestations of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) in patients with progressive, persistent, or recurrent disease
[21] – A synthetic hydroxamic acid derivative with antineoplastic activity
Vorinostat, a 2nd generation polar-planar compound, binds to catalytic domain of histone deacetylases (HDACs)
Allows hydroxamic moiety to chelate zinc ion located in catalytic pockets of HDAC, thereby inhibiting deacetylation and leading to accumulation of both hyperacetylated histones and transcription factors
Hyperacetylation of histone proteins results in upregulation of cyclin-dependant kinase p21, followed by G1 arrest
Hyperacetylation of non-histone proteins such as tumor suppressor p53, alpha tubulin, and heat-shock protein 90 produces additional anti-proliferative effects
Agent induces apoptosis and sensitizes tumor cells to cell death processes
Vorinostat crosses blood-brain barrier
[4] – 6/3/2013 – "One wonders if Burzynski included a second HDAC inhibitor, his second favorite drug after antineoplastons, sodium phenylbutyrate"
[22] – 11/19/2012 – Gorski, if you had done "exhaustive research" on Burzynski and "Gene-Targeted Cancer Therapy," you would have viewed this @youtube video:
Texas Med. Bd. v. Dr. Burzynski – Gene-Targeted Cancer Therapy – Case Dismissed 11/19/2012
BurzynskiMovie
and you would have heard Mr. Onuekwusi say at 3:45, that he took phenylbutyrate (PB)
[4] – 6/3/2013 – "So, by Merola's own description, what Burzynski did was to administer a toxic form of treatment that was probably not needed (chemotherapy) using drugs that were not approved for that indication, and apparently didn't insist that the patient needed surgery"
[23] – 12/13/2012 – Gorski publishes so much garbage that he may have forgotten his article where he posted:
"Then, there is also this video, produced by the Burzynski clinic itself:"
"At around the three minute mark, the announcer states:"
"We combine gene-targeting drugs and low dose chemo, if needed"
[4] – 6/3/2013 – "Now, it's possible that the combination of drugs did eliminate the tumor"
Gorski, do you think that's because as mentioned in [15], above, Burzynski would review publications like this ?
[24-25] – Xeloda (Capecitabine)
[24+26] – Avastin (Bevacizumab)
[25+26] – Zolinza (Vorinostat)
[24] – 8/23/2011 – A randomized, phase III trial of capecitabine [Xeloda] plus bevacizumab [Avastin] (Cape-Bev) versus capecitabine plus irinotecan plus bevacizumab (CAPIRI-Bev) in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: the AIO KRK 0110 trial/ML22011 trial
[1st-line treatment of patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)]
[25] – 11/2/2010 – Vorinostat [Zolinza] synergises with capecitabine [Xeloda] through upregulation of thymidine phosphorylase
[26] – 4/2012 – Phase I–II study of vorinostat [Zolinza] plus paclitaxel and bevacizumab [Avastin] in metastatic breast cancer: evidence for vorinostat-induced tubulin acetylation and Hsp90 inhibition in vivo
[4] – 6/3/2013 – "In my opinion, Burzynski deserves to have his medical license taken away on the basis of how he treated Chris Onuekwusi alone, not even considering all the other dubious things he's done"
[27] – 8/27/2013 – In my opinion, Gorski deserves to have his medical license taken away on the basis of how he has misinformed, disinformed, and lied about Burzynski, not even considering all the other dubious things he's done
[4] – 6/3/2013 – "All I can say is that Merola and Burzynski must not have searched very hard, because I quickly found a few … "
"Truly, Merola's "exhaustive" research skills need some upgrading"
"It took me two minutes to find those articles"
[22] – 11/19/2012 – All I can say is that Gorski must NOT have searched very hard, because I quickly found this @youtube video about Dr. Burzynski – Gene-Targeted Cancer Therapy, which includes a segment on Burzynski's cancer gene testing at 2:45
Truly, Gorski's "exhaustive" research skills need some upgrading, since nowhere does it indicate that Burzynski was involved with doing Merola's research
It took me 2 minutes to find this out
Seeing is believing?
To me seeing is knowing just how intellectually dishonest David Gorski is
[4] – 6/3/2013 – Seeing The Skeptics
"Particularly seemingly damning are a series of Tweets flashed on the screen saying things like the Hope for Laura fund (the fund set up by Laura Hymas to pay for her treatment at the Burzynski Clinic) "appears to be just a money laundry for a lying quack fraud" and "when Laura dies #Burzynski will just move on to his next mark if she doesn't run out of money first.""
"I think I know whose Tweets these were"
"In fact, I'm sure I know whose Tweets these were, and all I can say to that person is this:"
"In fact, if I'm correct about whose Tweets these are I think I have already done so on Twitter when I've seen this person getting too close to attacking cancer patients"
[28] – 2/19/2013 – Like this ?
Of course it's always possible that the money launderers are appearing as themselves in the #Burzynski advertisement.
— Peter Bowditch (@RatbagsDotCom) February 20, 2013
And this ?
BurzynskiSaves (@BurzynskiSaves) tweeted at 7:42pm – 25 Dec 11:
"@RatbagsDotCom:They will be even more vulnerable when Laura dies and #Burzynski forgets her and moves on to the next mark" #unconscionable https://twitter.com/BurzynskiSaves/status/151115741888909312
[29] – 8/1/2013 – And like you called this guy out ?
David James (@StortSkeptic) tweeted at 7:08pm – 1 Aug 13:
The new Doctor Who will be Stanislaw #Burzynski. He manages to continually avoid getting cornered and he gets away with murder.
— David James (@StortSkeptic) August 2, 2013
@StortSkeptic Yes, but can #Burzynski time travel?
— David Gorski (@gorskon) August 2, 2013
[4] – 6/3/2013 – "Then, there was the kicker"
"Eric Merola and Laura Hymas' fiancé Ben Hymas called me a liar"
"Ben Hymas is quite mistaken in saying about me,"
""He's lying to them.""
"Moreover, if I had screwed up, I would have admitted it"
"Indeed, part of the reason I looked into this so closely was because I wondered if somehow Merola had actually found a mistake I had made"
"You know the saying about the proverbial blind squirrel occasionally managing to find a nut?"
"It's possible, albeit unlikely, and in fact there was no mistake"
"There is nothing in deceptive to change my assessment of what happened in the case of or my opinion of Eric Merola"
[3] – 7/18/2013 – As I said before, Gorski's research skills leave much to be desired
Gorski is a hack and is only funny by accident because he has no filters
If anything, having seen his "review" of Burzynski II, my opinion of Gorski has plummeted even further, something I had thought possible
Gorski, so you got lucky like a blind squirrel and found an error
However, this does NOT change the fact that you've been proven to be a liar
Do you want me to subtract one of your lies from the tally ?
[30] – 5/9/2013 – "On what basis is he "targeting" his therapy?"
"As I've recounted before, Burzynski usually sends off blood and tissue samples to Caris for testing"
"The Caris Target Now™ test, which since my discussion of Burzynski's "personalized therapy" appears to have been renamed Caris Molecular Intelligence and is now available at more levels of service (although its reports look much the same to me), is nothing unique to the Burzynski Clinic"
"Anyone who is willing to pay for it can have it, and the report will be the same"
"In any event, there is as yet no convincing evidence that the Caris tests (or any of the other competing tests) result in better outcomes"
[31] – 5/28/2013 – A key pillar of Gorski's position on Burzynski's "personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy" is that he alleges that he is "someone relatively knowledgeable about the state of personalized cancer therapy"
I can't help but wonder why it is that he did NOT know the above information
Maybe he isn't as knowledgeable about personalized cancer therapy and targeted therapies as he claims
(Oh, wait. He isn't!)
That's why when he wrote his "review" on Sheila Herron, he did NOT even refer to Burzynski's publication:
[32] – 8/2011 – Successful Treatment of Recurrent Triple-Negative Breast Cancer with Combination of Targeted Therapies
When it comes to Gorski's "story writing" pal Robert J. "Bob" Blaskiewicz, I might allow for some leeway since he's only a "Perfessor," but with Gorski on the other hand, I'm not nearly so benevolent
In my ever-Insolent opinion, he and his propagandist are cynically using patients like human shields to deflect criticism
Activities I cannot countenance
[33] – 4/19/2013 – "I now think I probably know with around 95% certainty) and Didymus Judas Thomas (whose identity I'm probably about 75% sure of … also obsessively read anything posted about Eric Merola or Stanislaw Burzynski on any social media"
[34] – 4/19/2013 – Gorski has had over 4 months to say who he thinks I supposedly am, and so far he's been a failure
But then again, as could be expected, he was wrong about his 2nd theory as well
Finally, I believe that people like Gorski are hypocrites, feeling free to paint Burzynski to their heart's content (from what I've read about Burzynski on blogs, Twitter articles, and elsewhere, posted by biased, disingenuous, "holier than thou" Skeptics, in them Burzynski is all but portrayed as Satan Incarnate) but running like whipped puppies to the Coward section when either they or Gorski are criticized, no matter how civil, reasonable, or science-based that criticism is (and my blog is all of the above)
The reason is, of course, clear
Having no convincing science, no convincing medicine, and no convincing evidence to support their hero's antineoplastons hackery or "personalized MUD-targeted therapy for dummies," they resort to Twitter thuggery
Same as it ever was
If Gorski and his crew of sycophants, toadies, and lackeys are offended by my opinion, my characterization of them that I have based on analyses of claims and observation of the behavior of them and their propagandist, they should try something different to shut me up
I have just the thing, too
Publishing the results of some of the responses to my blog for the scientific community comes to mind first
If Gorski really has the goods, as he and "The Skeptics" claim, then he can best shut me up by bringing the science—solid, convincing science, that is
I've said it before many times, and I'll say it again:
I can be convinced by strong truthful and factual evidence
I have yet to see anything resembling strong evidence from Gorski
At least, if he has such evidence he hasn't published it yet, preferring to publish a mixture of whiny blog articles where he takes a swipe at Burzynski, tiny-mind series, unimpressive basic science, and the like in bottom-feeding blog articles, some of which aren't even indexed in PubMed
Nor is a conspiracy of cowardice—excuse me, "The Skeptics"—the reason why trying to ignore criticism will boomerang on "The Skeptics"
It's all because of their own behavior and willingness to distort, misinform, and slime Burzynski
[35] – 1/14/2013 – "As you might recall, antineoplastons are chemicals that Burzynski found in the urine of cancer patients and that (or so he claims)"
[36] – 2/19/2013 – Seriously, Gorski ?
Where did you come up with that ?
After comparing the blood of healthy people to the blood of people with cancer, Dr. Burzynski found that people with cancer have lower amounts of a certain group of chemicals
[35] – 1/14/2013 – "None of this would have been too bad if only he had actually bothered to do the proper science and clinical trials to demonstrate that antineoplastons (1) have significant anti-cancer activity and (2) have acceptable levels of toxicity"
[10] – 8/8/2013 – Here's (1)
[37] – 2/19/2013 – And (2)
[35] – 1/14/2013 – "Oh, sure, he has a bunch of clinical trials listed on ClinicalTrials.gov, but virtually all of them are listed as having "unknown" status, and it's unclear whether most, if any, of them are actually accruing"
[38] – 5/21/2011 – Cancer Breakthrough: 50-60% Success Rate, Cures the Incurable
12 phase 2 clinical trials have been successfully completed under supervision of FDA, and now conducting 3 phase 3 clinical trials
Or I can cite from Burzynski's Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings re his phase 2 clinical trials like you did
[35] – 1/14/2013 – "In any case, Merola named the sequel what he named it … along with a website full of a "sourced transcript" to be used by Burzynski minions and shills everywhere to attack any skeptic who dares to speak out"
[39] – Gorski, you should have used the "sourced transcript" so you didn't end up embarrassing yourself as much as you have
Actually, no one who is an apologist for Dr. Gorski, a.k.a. "Orac," who over years ago unleashed MUD-targeted therapy on unsuspecting cancer patients, much likes Burzynski
It's not surprising
Basically, Gorski's a hack
[40] – Or, you can use this – Burzynski: The Movie — Illustrated Screenplay and Screencap Gallery (Nader Library):
[35] – 1/14/2013 – "Part of the reason that Eric Merola doesn't like me, aside from the fact that I am willing to help publicize Bob Blaskiewicz's present to Dr. Burzynski for his 70th birthday on January 23, is that I think that every so often I happen to run into stories about the bad science and unethical nature of Burzynski's work, and I blog about it"
[41] – 3/26/2013 – Maybe Eric does NOT like you because part of that "present" was your "pal" saying:
"The Burzynski clinic is a place you go to die"
[42] – 8/24/2013 – Gorski, where were you when these 374 children died of brain cancer in #ScienceBasedMedicine clinical trials ?
[35] – 1/14/2013 – "I also run into patient stories"
"Although I don't cover them as systematically as Bob does, I like to think that what I lack in comprehensiveness of coverage I make up for with my in-depth knowledge of cancer science and treatment"
[43] – 8/31/2013 – Your "in-depth knowledge of cancer science and treatment" ?
You sure have NOT presented a very strong case for that
Is your "man-crush", Robert J. "Bob" Blaskiewicz still adding false statements to his "stories" ?
[35] – 1/14/2013 – "There are a number of things about this documentary that one can learn if one is involved in caner care and knowledgeable about Stanislaw Burzynski"
"Indeed, he's even taken credit for pioneering the concept of personalized cancer therapy based on genes and the concept that cancer is a genetic disease, claiming to have published a journal article about it 20 years ago, allegedly long before conventional scientists and oncologists even thought of it"
"The problem, of course, is that, as far as I can tell, he published no such paper and personalized therapy is a concept older than 20 years"
[44] – 7/26/2013 – Indeed, from my perspective Gorski's an egomaniac, full of the arrogance of ignorance about things like Burzynski's "personalized cancer therapy", prone to contemptuously dismissing anyone who has the temerity to question the Great and Powerful "Orac" is god
Because I was able to find the publication with NO problem
"Orac's" Oracolytes remind me of the "believer" who said:
"god said it, and I believe it, so that settles it"
Of course, "Orac" is Oz tends to clam up when questioned by people who are NOT likely to be sycophants, toadies, and lackeys
[35] – 1/14/2013 – "Given that these are all phase II studies, it's hard to believe that the FDA would allow Burzynski to keep them open over 13 years, but apparently it has"
[45] – 7/26/2013 – Gorski, why don't you ask the FDA?
3/29/1996 Then United States Food and Drug Administration Commissioner, David Kessler told the American people:
"The … FDA's initiatives … will allow …the agency … to rely on smaller trials … fewer patients … if there is evidence … of partial response in clinical trials"
[46] – 6/7/2013 – Then you could be like Blatherskitewicz and do this:
Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz)
@FauxSkeptic @bbc5live I believe he said, "Put up or shut up, you little bitch." Something like that.
rjblaskiewicz: @bbc5live "I believe he said
"Put up or shut up
you little bitch"
BB: why not check with the @US_FDA
#Burzynski
BBC Panorama
[35] – 1/14/2013 – "Finally, why doesn't Burzynski offer Seán his "personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy.""
"It probably wouldn't be that big a deal to get the blocks of tissue from Seán's biopsy and have them analyzed"
"Yes, inquiring minds do want to know"
[35] – 1/14/2013 – Gorski, why don't you cite the applicable phase 2 and / or phase 3 clinical trial publications of FDA approved drugs for "inoperable brainstem glioma" ?
And while your at it, is the "girl from England" referred to in your article, the same one that is referred to in Burzynski 2 ?
[47] – 1/7/2013 – "That's why I'm joining P.Z. Myers in asking you to help make Stanislaw Burzynski pay cold hard cash to a worthy cause
[41] – 3/26/2013 – Yes Gorski, your "pal" E.Z. P.Z. who wrote:
He has no shame
But at least ya'll raised money for a worthy cause while at the same time bringing attention to yourself and what I consider to be your incredibly unethical behavior
[23] – 12/13/2012 – "In fact, from my perspective, it appears to me as though over the last few years Dr. Burzynski has pivoted"
"No longer are antineoplastons the center of attention at his clinic"
"Rather, these days, he appears to be selling something that he calls "personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy.""
[48] – 4/26/2013 – Gorski it's great to see you've been paying attention
" … in 1997, his medical practice was expanded to include traditional cancer treatment options such as
chemotherapy,
gene targeted therapy,
immunotherapy and
in response to FDA requirements that cancer patients utilize more traditional cancer treatment options in order to be eligible to participate in the Company's antineoplaston clinical trials"
[23] – 12/13/2012 – "Finally, around the 4:30 mark, we see Dr. Gregory Burzynski, Dr. Burzynski's son, talking about genomic profiling of cancers and biomarkers in the blood and in circulating tumor cells. … plus a claim that surgery will no longer be necessary for surgery, what's left over doesn't sound too different from what quite a few "conventional" cancer researchers say about "personalized medicine.""
[23] – 12/13/2012 – Gorski, "surgery will no longer be necessary for surgery" ?
Is this "attention to detail"" related to:
"because of the positions I hold at an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center" ?
[23] – 12/13/2012 – "Clearly, the producer went to great lengths to make Burzynski's lab look like any other molecular and cell biology lab–even like my lab"
[23] – 12/13/2012 – Gorski, are you trying to suggest that the producer rented or bought equipment to produce this look ?
Do you know how ridiculous that sounds ?
[23] – 12/13/2012 – "When we do this we have a very good chance to have positive results in most patients"
"SS: How many respond?"
"SB: About 85 per cent for whom we have the proper gene signature; about 15 percent do not respond"
"In our responders many of them have tumors which disappear completely and in others the tumors remain small"
"The problem is finding the genetic signature because for many of these different genetic signatures we don't have blood tests…yet"
"Note that at the time this book was published, Dr. Burzynski was claiming that he could identify who would benefit from specific targeted therapies simply from blood tests"
"If he could do this for real, Burzynski could easily publish in high impact journals like Clinical Cancer Research, the Journal of Clinical Oncology, or another high impact clinical cancer journal"
"Heck, a result like that could probably make it into general medical journals, such as the New England Journal of Medicine or The Lancet, which have an even higher impact factor"
"If he were able to demonstrate that his method of testing tumors and picking targeted therapy could result in a complete response rate anywhere near 85% for breast cancer, even more so"
"If, as he claims later in the chapter, Dr. Burzynski has patients with pancreatic cancer and advanced liver cancer whose tumors have disappeared within two months after he began treatment, the same would be true"
"If, as Burzynski claims, he achieves a 50% complete response rate in advanced brain tumors, again, the same would be true"
"He doesn't submit his results to these journals"
[3] – 7/18/2013 – Gorski, why would Burzynski want to publish in The Lancet when you saw the lame excuse they gave in Burzynski 2 for NOT publishing Burzynski's results; which YOU have refused to address ?
Maybe you could find out if you visited the Burzynski Clinic
Oh, wait
You've said that people do NOT need to go to the Clinic to learn things
[23] – 12/13/2012 – "Gene-targeted cancer therapy is currently in its infancy and, except in rare situations outside of the existing currently validated biomarkers (such as HER2, ER, c-kit, and other genes for which targeted therapies exist) for the response of specific cancers, is not to be undertaken outside of the context of a clinical trial"
[23] – 12/13/2012 – Gorski, that's all well and good for you to write, but you provide NO citation, reference, or link in support of your statement, and you've proven that what you post can NOT be trusted
[23] – 12/13/2012 – "Before discussing how the Burzynski Clinic does personalized cancer therapy, I think it's worth looking at how real scientists do it right now"
[23] – 12/13/2012 – Gorski, what are you implying ?
That Burzynski is NOT a "real scientist" ?
Because you stated:
"From the description above, it sounded very much to me as though Dr. Burzynski is combining various targeted agents with metronomic chemotherapy"
"I know a thing or two about metronomic chemotherapy, because I was involved in a project whose end result was to be the testing of metronomic chemotherapy against cancer and because the concept is a spinoff of the work of one of my scientific heros, the late Judah Folkman"
"Whether this is what Dr. Burzynski is doing or not with the chemotherapy part of his approach, I don't know for sure, but it sure sounds like it"
[23] – 12/13/2012 – "Now let's take a look at how the Burzynski Clinic does it, at least as far as I can figure out from my various sources and from Ms. Trimble"
"In response to my query about personalized gene-targeted therapy offered by the Burzynski Clinic, Ms. Trimble stated that a gene expression analysis is performed, as well as mutational analysis, FISH, immunohistochemistry for selected genes and that a blood test is also performed to measure the "concentration of proteins which are products of most important oncogenes.""
"In addition, drugs are supposedly selected based on the patient's clinical information, standard of care, FDA indication, data from phase II and III clinical trials"
[4] – 6/3/2013 – Gee Gorski
In your 6/3/2013 article you act as if you did NOT know this
[23] – 12/13/2012 – "To support this claim, Ms. Trimble also sent me two papers from the Burzynski Clinic, both of which appeared in a journal I had never heard of before, the Journal of Cancer Therapy, which is clearly not indexed on PubMed because these papers never showed up when I searched PubMed for Burzynski"
"One described Burzynski's approach for triple negative breast cancer (TNBC)"
[32] – 8/2011 – Gorski, why am I NOT surprised that you're able to refer to this TNBC publication 12/13/2012, but when reviewing Sheila Herron's TNBC case 5/28/2013, you completely ignored this publication, even though it specifically states:
"Here we report the successful treatment of metastatic TNBC with combination targeted therapy, and we discuss MDT for a group of 16 women including this patient, whose treatment was based on the same principle" (Pgs. 372-373)
How do you NOT provide a link to a previous article you wrote on the same subject, like you normally do ?
[23] – 12/13/2012 – "It turns out that perhaps the best description of what "personalized" treatment means in Dr. Burzynski's hands comes from the Texas Medical Board's complaint against him, which can be found in over at the Ministry of Truth or at Casewatch"
"This complaint is based on the cases of two patients"
"First, here's Patient A, who is described in the complaint thusly:"
"1. Patient A:"
"a. In approximately May of 2008, Patient A presented to Respondent with breast cancer that had metastasized to her brain, lung, and liver"
"b. Respondent prescribed a combination of five immunotherapy agents – phenylbutyrate, erlotinib, dasatinib, vorinostat, and sorafenib-which are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for the treatment of breast cancer, and which do not meet the FDA's regulations for the use of off-label drugs in breast cancer therapy"
"c. In combination with the five immunotherapy agents, Patient A was prescribed capecitabine, a chemotherapy agent"
"This is what's known as "throwing everything but the kitchen sink" at the tumor without any thought of interactions, as most of these agents have no proven role in the treatment of breast cancer"
"For example, erlotinib (brand name: Tarceva) is used to treat pancreatic cancer and non-small cell lung cancer"
"It works by inhibiting the tyrosine kinase of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and is not FDA-approved for breast cancer"
"However, it's not unreasonable to think that it could work in breast cancer, as EGFR is believed to be important in some breast cancers, which is why this is an area of active research"
"Dasatinib (trade name: Sprycel) is also a kinase inhibitor"
"It inhibits the Src family tyrosine kinase"
"Vorinostat is a histone deacetylase inhibitor approved for use against cutaneous T-cell lymphoma"
"Finally, Sorafenib is another tyrosine kinase inhibitor that inhibits the tyrosine kinases of different receptors, as well as raf kinases"
"The big problem with this sort of approach is that the more drugs you add, no matter how "targeted" they are, the more chance for interactions that increase toxicity, and throwing all these kinase inhibitors together in a cocktail with chemotherapy is a recipe for disaster, particularly because such cocktails haven't been tested in proper phase I clinical trials to evaluate toxicity"
Gorski, you make it sound like you reviewed the medical literature and found NO phase I clinical trials were conducted, or NO combinations of some of these drugs were tested
But you do NOT reveal your research
I'm guessing you reviewed these pre 5/2008 publications, right ?
[49] – 4/20/2007 – Phase III study: erlotinib in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer
[50] – 5/2007 – randomized phase II study: sorafenib/erlotinib – advanced non-small-cell lung cancer
[51] – 4/20/2006 – Phase II study: capecitabine and erlotinib
[52] – 1/2008 – Phase II Clinical Trial: Sorafenib
[53] – 4/2007 – Antitumor Activity: Sorafenib – 4 Phase I Trials: Advanced Refractory Solid Tumors
[54] – 6/20/2007 – phase I study: vorinostat (VOR) in combination with capecitabine (CAP) – advanced solid tumors
[23] – 12/13/2012 – "In any case, as we have seen, Dr. Burzynski does give chemotherapy"
"Lots of chemotherapy"
[23] – 12/13/2012 – Gorski, what was the date of the video you quoted above, about low-dose chemotherapy ?
[23] – 12/13/2012 – "Instead, skirting the line between science and pseudoscience, Dr. Burzynski gives every appearance of recklessly throwing together untested combinations of targeted agents willy-nilly to see if any of them stick but without having a systematic plan to determine when or if he has successfully matched therapy to genetic abnormality"
[15] – 5/17/2011 – That sure explains away the review of the medical literature (phase 2 and 3 clinical trials)
[55] – 12/12/2012 – "Note: Orac is away In the meantime, he is rerunning some of his favorite posts"
"Given that the blog seems to have been infiltrated with Burzynski trolls again now seems a perfect time to rerun a post of Orac's from about a year ago"
[55] – 12/12/2012 – "Orac", who's the
idiot who posted that "trolls" had taken over the blog, and who were these "alleged" "trolls" ?
[55] – 12/12/2012 – "No one would ever confuse my reviews with those of Roger Ebert (mine tend to be a lot longer, for one thing, and concentrate on science much more than moviemaking), but I do sometimes subject myself to these movies when I can find a way to watch them online that doesn't cost me any money"
[55] – 12/12/2012 – Gorski
"Concentrate on science" ?
Really ??
REALLY ???
Did you actually count how many characters and / or words you devoted to criticism instead of "science" ?
[55] – 12/12/2012 – "In the process, I might even look into a couple of Burzynski's studies that I've read and found to be–well–lacking, to put it kindly"
[2] – 8/4/2013 – Gorski, why don't you "look into" Burzynski's 2003-2010 preliminary phase 2 clinical trial reports, and write a "review" ?
[55] – 12/12/2012 – "One part of the movie that truly insults the intelligence of anyone with a modicum of knowledge about drug therapy occurs near the beginning of the movie"
"It's a part that, as a cancer surgeon who is interested in targeted therapies for breast cancer, I found particularly idiotic"
"First, there is a screen with this caption:"
"Antineoplastons target the specific genes that allow cancer to grow and flourish"
"A little later we see:"
"There are currently over 25 FDA-approved gene-targeted cancer drugs on the market today"
"Many of them can only target single genes"
"All of which is true but irrelevant if Burzynski is trying to sell antineoplastons as targeted therapy"
"Now here's the kicker:"
"Antineoplastons work on close to one hundred different genes"
"You know what you call a drug that works on "close to 100 genes"?"
"I don't know either, but you don't call it a "targeted" therapy unless all those genes are genes affected by the single target being inhibited; i.e., are downstream targets of the gene targeted by antineoplastons"
[5] – 8/21/2013 – Gorski, how do you NOT know "the single target being inhibited … are downstream targets of the gene targeted by antineoplastons", when you did NOT even know which of Burzynski's publications discussed which genes are "targeted by antineoplastons" ?
[56] – 12/5/2012 – "In reality, oncologists shun Burzynski—and rightly so, given that he has yet to publish anything resembling a convincing result suggesting the efficacy of his antineoplastons against cancer"
"It's painfully obvious from this paragraph that Burzynski doesn't know academic oncologists"
"The reason oncologists don't respect Burzynski is because of how he hasn't show that his treatments work better than conventional treatments—or even that they work at all—and because of the way he abuses patients by charging them huge sums of money to participate in a clinical trial"
"Those are the reasons legitimate oncologists, at least those familiar with Burzynski, look askance at him"
"How could they do otherwise?"
"The ones who don't take him seriously are the ones who know him best"
[57] – 4/24/2013 – Gorski, that certainly explains why this 2011 cancer study that references Burzynski:
Phase II trial of tipifarnib and radiation in children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas
University of California—San Francisco
Children's Hospital Boston, Massachusetts
St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee
Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, Washington
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Children's National Medical Center, Washington, DC
Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Ohio
ADDING MORE
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
[1] – 6/5/2013 – Odds and ends left over after the Panorama Burzynski Clinic report: Burzynski versus his own SEC filing
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/05/odds-and-about-burzynski-clinic/
[2] – 8/4/2013 – Critiquing Dr David H. "Orac" Gorski, M.D., Ph.D, LIAR: Stanislaw Burzynski versus the BBC:
[3] – 7/18/2013 – Critiquing: In which the latest movie about Stanislaw Burzynski "cancer cure" is reviewed…with Insolence:
[4] – 6/3/2013 – In which the latest movie about Stanislaw Burzynski's "cancer cure" is reviewed…with Insolence
[5] – 8/21/2013 – Critiquing David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
[6] – 6/4/2013 – Stanislaw Burzynski versus the BBC
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/04/stanislaw-burzynski-versus-the-bbc/
[7] – 6/23/2013 – QUESTIONS the Critics and Cynics, "The Skeptics™" do NOT want to ANSWER
[8] – 8/7/2013 –
Critiquing: Dr. David H. "Orac" Gorski, M.D., Ph.D, L.I.A.R.:
[9] – 3/16/2013 – Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski Publications:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/stanislaw-rajmund-burzynski-publications/
[10] – 8/8/2013 – Critiquing: Dr. David H. "Orac" Gorski and The Skeptics™
http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/critiquing-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-and-the-skeptics/
[11] – 4/24/2013 – Burzynski: HYPERNATREMIA:
[12] – 4/25/2013 – Burzynski: The FDA's Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective:
[13] – 7/25/2013 – 2 hours 8 minutes and 51 seconds
The Lancet Oncology Peer Review Team D-12-01519: #FAIL
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/25/the-lancet-oncology-peer-review-team-d-12-01519-fail/
[14] – 3/2010 KFNX "Healthy House Call" interview with Dr. Burzynski
http://www.burzynskimovie.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=93
[15] – 5/17/2011 – * Dr. Mehmet Oz with Eric Merola and Dr. Burzynski – May 17, 2011
Interview: Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski and Eric Merola
http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/interview-dr-stanislaw-burzynski-and-eric-merola
Dr. Oz talks with Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski and Eric Merola, director of the documentary Burzynski, the Movie about Burzynski's groundbreaking gene-targeted cancer medicines called antineoplastons and his battle against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
[16] – Xeloda (Capecitabine): National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Cancer Drug Information
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/druginfo/capecitabine
[17] – Xeloda (Capecitabine): National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) – NCI Drug Dictionary definition
http://www.cancer.gov/drugdictionary?CdrID=42852
[18] – Avastin (Bevacizumab): National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) – Cancer Drug Information
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/druginfo/bevacizumab
[19] – Avastin (Bevacizumab): National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) – NCI Drug Dictionary definition
[20] – Zolinza (Vorinostat): National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) – Cancer Drug Information
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/druginfo/vorinostat
[21] – Zolinza (Vorinostat): National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) – NCI Drug Dictionary definition
[22] – 11/19/2012 – Texas Med. Bd. v. Dr. Burzynski – Gene-Targeted Cancer Therapy – Case Dismissed BurzynskiMovie
[23] – 12/13/2012 – Stanislaw Burzynski: "Personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy" for dummies
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/12/13/stanislaw-burzynski-personalized-gene-targeted-cancer-therapy-for-dummies/
[24] – 8/23/2011 – A randomized, phase III trial of capecitabine plus bevacizumab (Cape-Bev) versus capecitabine plus irinotecan plus bevacizumab (CAPIRI-Bev) in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: the AIO KRK 0110 trial/ML22011 trial
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21861888/
BMC Cancer. 2011 Aug 23;11:367. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-11-367
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21861888/
BMC Cancer 2011, 11:367 doi:10.1186/1471-2407-11-367
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3173448/
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01249638 EudraCT-No.: 2009-013099-38
Click to access 1471-2407-11-367.pdf
Department of Medical Oncology, Klinikum Grosshadern, University of Munich, Germany
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/11/367
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG)
[25] – 11/2/2010 – Vorinostat synergises with capecitabine through upregulation of thymidine phosphorylase
Br J Cancer. 2010 Nov 23;103(11):1680-91. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605969. Epub 2010 Nov 2
Br J Cancer. 2010 November; 103(11): 1680–1691
Published online 2010 November.2. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605969
Click to access 6605969a.pdf
British Journal of Cancer (2010) 103, 1680–1691. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6605969
Published online 2 November 2010
http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v103/n11/full/6605969a.html
Experimental Pharmacology Unit, Department of Research, Istituto Nazionale Tumori, National Cancer Institute Fondazione G, Via.M Semmola, Pascale, Napoli, Italy
[26] – 4/2012
Phase I–II study of vorinostat plus paclitaxel and bevacizumab in metastatic breast cancer: evidence for vorinostat-induced tubulin acetylation and Hsp90 inhibition in vivo
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012 Apr;132(3):1063-72. doi: 10.1007/s10549-011-1928-x. Epub 2011 Dec 27
Breast Cancer Res Treat. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 April.1
Published in final edited form as:
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012 April; 132(3): 1063–1072
Click to access nihms407001.pdf
Published online 2011 December.27. doi: 10.1007/s10549-011-1928-x
NIHMSID: NIHMS407001
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10549-011-1928-x
April 2012, Volume 132, Issue 3, pp 1063-1072
The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
[27] – 8/27/2013 – Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, quickly realized that David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS is NOT doing something wrong when he LIES about Burzynski:
[28] – 2/19/2013 – Peter Bowditch (@RatbagsDotCom) tweeted at 8:09pm – 19 Feb 13:
Of course it's always possible that the money launderers are appearing as themselves in the #Burzynski advertisement.
[29] – 8/1/2013 – David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 11:02pm – 1 Aug 13:
[30] – 5/9/2013 – Deconstructing another Stanislaw Burzynski cancer "success story"
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/05/09/deconstructing-another-stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-success-story/
[31] – 5/28/2013 – Paging Doctor David H. Gorski, Paging Doctor David H. Gorski: There's Mud in your Ears … Doktor Gorski?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/28/paging-doctor-david-h-gorski-paging-doctor-david-h-gorski-theres-mud-in-your-ears-doktor-gorski/
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownload.aspx?DOI=10.4236/jct.2011.23050
Journal of Cancer Therapy, 2011, 2, 372-376
(http://www.SciRP.org/journal/jct)
doi:10.4236/jct.2011.23050 Published Online August 2011
[33] – 4/19/2013 – Is Eric Merola issuing bogus DMCA takedown notices against critics of Stanislaw Burzynski?
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/04/19/eric-merola-issuing-bogus-dmca-takedown-notices-against-critics-of-stanislaw-burzynski/
[34] – 4/19/2013 – Critiquing: Is Eric Merola issuing bogus DMCA takedown notices against critics of Stanislaw Burzynski?:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/critiquing-is-eric-merola-issuing-bogus-dmca-takedown-notices-against-critics-of-stanislaw-burzynski/
[35] – 1/14/2013 – The story of Seán Ó'Laighin, patient of Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/14/the-story-of-sean-olaighin-patient-of-dr-stanislaw-burzynski/
[36] – 2/19/2013
http://m.cancer.gov/topics/CAM/antineoplastons/Patient?print=1
[37] – 2/19/2013 – Critiquing David H. "Orac" Gorski, MD PhD and his Personalized MUD-Targeted Skeptic Therapy:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/17/critiquing-david-h-orac-gorski-md-phd-and-his-personalized-mud-targeted-skeptic-therapy/
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/05/21/drs-stanislaw-and-gregory-burzynski-on-cancer.aspx
http://BurzynskiMovie.com
[40] – Burzynski: The Movie — Illustrated Screenplay and Screencap Gallery (Nader Library):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/23/burzynski-the-movie-illustrated-screenplay-and-screencap-gallery-nader-library/
[41] – 3/26/2013 – Critiquing Bob Blaskiewicz
(#Burzynski Cancer is Serious Business, Part II):
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/critiquing-bob-blaskiewicz-burzynski-cancer-is-serious-business-part-ii
[42] – 8/24/2013 – Critiquing https://theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com
[43] – 8/31/2013 – The Guardian: Censorship and Bias – Six stubborn myths about cancer:
[44] – 7/26/2013 – Critiquing: Stanislaw Burzynski: On the arrogance of ignorance about cancer and targeted therapies:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/26/x/
[45] – 7/26/2013 – MISDIRECTION: Critiquing "Antineoplastons: Has the FDA kept it's promise to the American people?":
[46] – 6/7/2013 – Bob Blaskiewicz (Blatherskitewicz), Faux Skeptic Exposed!:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/bob-blaskiewicz-blatherskitewicz-faux-skeptic-exposed/
[47] – 1/7/2013 – Let's make Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski do something good for cancer patients for a change
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/07/lets-make-dr-stanislaw-burzynski-do-something-good-for-cancer-patients-for-a-change/
[48] – 4/26/2013 – Burzynski: FDA requirements that cancer patients utilize more traditional cancer treatment options in order to be eligible to participate in the Company's Antineoplaston CLINICAL TRIALS:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/burzynski-fda-requirements-that-cancer-patients-utilize-more-traditional-cancer-treatment-options-in-order-to-be-eligible-to-participate-in-the-companys-antineoplaston-clinical-trials/
[49] – 4/20/2007 – Phase III study of erlotinib in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: the Tarceva Lung Cancer Investigation Trial
[50] – 5/2007 – A randomized phase II study of sorafenib/gemcitabine or sorafenib/erlotinib
for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in elderly patients or patients with a performance status of 2: treatment rationale and protocol dynamics
[51] – 4/20/2006 – Phase II study of capecitabine, oxaliplatin, and erlotinib in previously treated patients with metastastic colorectal cancer
[52] – 1/2008 – A Phase II Clinical Trial of Sorafenib in Androgen-Independent Prostate Cancer
http://m.clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/14/1/209.long
[53] – 4/2007 – Safety, Pharmacokinetics, and Preliminary Antitumor Activity of Sorafenib: A Review of Four Phase I Trials in Patients with Advanced Refractory Solid Tumors
http://m.theoncologist.alphamedpress.org/content/12/4/426.abstract
[54] – 6/20/2007 – A phase I study of vorinostat (VOR) in combination with capecitabine (CAP) in patients (pts) with advanced solid tumors
http://meeting.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/18_suppl/3576
[55] – 12/12/2012 – Stanislaw Burzynski: A pioneering cancer researcher or a quack?
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/12/12/stanislaw-burzynski-a-pioneering-cancer-researcher-or-a-quack/
[56] – 12/5/2012 – Stanislaw Burzynski: On the arrogance of ignorance about cancer and targeted therapies
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/12/05/arrogance-of-ignorance-about-cancer/
[57] – 4/24/2013 – Burzynski referenced by other Cancer researchers:
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/burzynski-referenced-by-other-cancer-researchers/
] – 11/21/2012 – Yet another patient wasting money on Stanislaw Burzynski's antineoplastons while Burzynski apparently slithers away from justice yet again
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/11/21/yet-another-patient-wasting-money-on-burzynski/
] – 8/16/2012 – Stanislaw Burzynski versus regulations protecting human research subjects
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/08/16/stanislaw-burzynski-versus-regulations-protecting-human-research-subjects/
] – 6/5/2012 – R.I.P., Billie Bainbridge
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/06/05/r-i-p-billie-bainbridge/
] – 12/12/2011 – Respectful Insolence ….. Rather, they appear custom-designed so that Dr. …… http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/11/burzynski_the_movie_subtle_its_not. php
What Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski doesn't want you to know about …
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/12/12/what-dr-stanislaw-burzynski-doesnt-want/
] – 12/5/2011 – When "personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy" really means "making it up as you go along"
Posted in Burzynski Personal Gene Targeted Therapy, critique, critiques, critiqued, critiquing, Gorski ScienceBlogs.com/Insolence ScienceBasedMedicine, research | Tagged "* Dr. Mehmet Oz with Eric Merola and Dr. Burzynski - May 17, "11/19/2012 - Texas Med. Bd. v. Dr. Burzynski - Gene-Targeted Cancer Therapy - Case Dismissed BurzynskiMovie", "2 hours 8 minutes and 51 seconds", "2003-2010 phase II clinical trial preliminary reports", "@youtube video", "A randomized phase III trial of capecitabine plus bevacizumab (Cape-Bev) versus capecitabine plus irinotecan plus bevacizumab (CAPIRI-Bev) in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: the, "ANP's", "anti-proliferative effects", "antineoplastic activity", "antineoplaston therapy", "antitumor activity", "appears to be just a money laundry for a lying quack fraud", "April 2012 Volume 132 Issue 3 pp 1063-1072", "Avastin (Bevacizumab)", "Ben Hymas", "big red flag", "blind squirrel", "blood and tissue samples", "blood test", "BMC Cancer 2011 11:367 doi:10.1186/1471-2407-11-367", "BMC Cancer. 2011 Aug 23;11:367. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-11-367", "Br J Cancer. 2010 Nov 23;103(11):1680-91. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605969. Epub 2010 Nov 2", "Br J Cancer. 2010 November; 103(11): 1680–1691", "Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012 Apr;132(3):1063-72. doi: 10.1007/s10549-011-1928-x", "Breast Cancer Res Treat. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 April.1", "Breast Cancer Research and Treatment", "British Journal of Cancer (2010) 103 1680–1691", "Burzynski II", "Burzynski Patient Group", "Burzynski Research Institute clinical trials", "Burzynski: HYPERNATREMIA", "Burzynski: The FDA's Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective", "cancer genes", "Caris Molecular Intelligence", "Chris Onuekwusi", "colon cancer", "Colorectal cancer", "Critiquing David H. Gorski MD PhD FACS", "Critiquing Dr David H. "Orac" Gorski M.D. Ph.D LIAR: Stanislaw Burzynski versus the BBC", "Critiquing: Dr. David H. "Orac" Gorski and The Skeptics™", "Critiquing: Dr. David H. "Orac" Gorski M.D. Ph.D L.I.A.R.", "Critiquing: In which the latest movie about Stanislaw Burzynski "cancer cure" is reviewed…with Insolence:", "crosses blood-brain barrier", "David H. Gorski Orac MD PhD FACS maybe you should check your F-A-C-T-S", "David James", "Deconstructing another Stanislaw Burzynski cancer success story", "Department of Medical Oncology Klinikum Grosshadern University of Munich Germany", "doi: 10.1007/s10549-011-1928-x", "doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605969", "doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6605969", "doi:10.4236/jct.2011.23050 Published Online August 2011", "Dr. Elloise Garside", "Dr. Graf", "Dr. Jeanine Graf", "Dr. Oz talks with Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski and Eric Merola director of the documentary Burzynski the Movie about Burzynski's groundbreaking gene-targeted cancer medicines called antineoplastons and hi, "Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG)", "Epub 2011 Dec 27", "evidence of effectiveness", "Experimental Pharmacology Unit Department of Research Istituto Nazionale Tumor National Cancer Institute Fondazione G Via.M Semmola Pascale Napoli Italy", "G1 arrest", "genes are targeted by antineoplastons", "HDAC inhibitor", "heapin' helpings of not-so-Respectful Insolence", "histone deacetylase inhibitor", "Hope for Laura fund", "Hyperacetylation of histone proteins results in upregulation of cyclin-dependant kinase p21", "In which the latest movie about Stanislaw Burzynski's "cancer cure" is reviewed…with Insolence", "induced apoptosis", "inhibits VEGF receptor binding", "intellectually dishonest David Gorsk", "Is Eric Merola issuing bogus DMCA takedown notices against critics of Stanislaw Burzynski?", "Journal of Cancer Therapy 2011 2 372-376", "KFNX Healthy House Call interview with Dr. Burzynski", "Laura Hymas", "Let's make Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski do something good for cancer patients for a change", "meaningful data", "medical literature", "misinformed, "Ms. Petagine", "National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) NCI Drug Dictionary definition", "NIHMSID: NIHMS407001", "non-histone proteins", "Odds and ends left over after the Panorama Burzynski Clinic report: Burzynski versus his own SEC filing", "Of course it's always possible that the money launderers are appearing as themselves in the #Burzynski advertisement", "Paging Doctor David H. Gorski Paging Doctor David H. Gorski: There's Mud in your Ears … Doktor Gorski?", "pathology specimen", "patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)", "pediatric intensive care", "peer-reviewed literature", "personalized cancer therapy and targeted therapies", "Peter Bowditch", "Phase I–II study of vorinostat plus paclitaxel and bevacizumab in metastatic breast cancer: evidence for vorinostat-induced tubulin acetylation and Hsp90 inhibition in vivo", "phase III trial", "PMCID: PMC2994231", "PMCID: PMC3486521", "preclinical evidence supporting their efficacy", "preventing the growth and maintenance of tumor blood vessels", "Published in final edited form as: Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012 April; 132(3): 1063–1072", "Published online 2 November 2010", "Published online 2010 November.2", "Published online 2011 December.27", "QUESTIONS the Critics and Cynics The Skeptics™ do NOT want to ANSWER", "R.I.P. Billie Bainbridge", "Richard Bilton", "science based medicine", "SEC filing", "sensitizes tumor cells to cell death processes", "Sheila Herron", "sodium phenylbutyrate (PB)", "stage I colon cancer", "Stanislaw Burzynski versus regulations protecting human research subjects", "Stanislaw Burzynski versus the BBC", "Stanislaw Burzynski: A pioneering cancer researcher or a quack?", "Stanislaw Burzynski: On the arrogance of ignorance about cancer and targeted therapies", "Stanislaw Burzynski: Personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy for dummies", "Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski Publications", "Successful Treatment of Recurrent Triple-Negative Breast Cancer with Combination of Targeted Therapies", "targeted agents", "Texas Children's Hospital", "The Caris Target Now™ test", "The Lancet Oncology Peer Review Team D-12-01519: #FAIL", "The new Doctor Who will be Stanislaw #Burzynski. He manages to continually avoid getting cornered and he gets away with murder", "The Ohio State University Columbus OH USA", "The story of Seán Ó'Laighin patient of Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski", "TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01249638 EudraCT-No.: 2009-013099-38", "tumor suppressor p53", "University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center", "vascular endothelial growth factor", "Vorinostat synergises with capecitabine through upregulation of thymidine phosphorylase", "Wayne State University Detroit Michigan quickly realized that David H. Gorski MD PhD FACS is NOT doing something wrong when he LIES about Burzynski", "We combine gene-targeting drugs and low dose chemo, "What Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski doesn't want you to know about antineoplastons", "when Laura dies #Burzynski will just move on to his next mark if she doesn't run out of money first", "When personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy really means making it up as you go along", "witches' brew", "Xeloda (Capecitabine)", "Yet another patient wasting money on Stanislaw Burzynski's antineoplastons while Burzynski apparently slithers away from justice yet again", "Zolinza (Vorinostat)", #Panorama, #sciencebasedmedicine, 2011 Interview: Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski and Eric Merola", @gorskon, @oracknows, @RatbagsDotCom, @ScienceBasedMed, @StortSkeptic, antineoplaston, "@RatbagsDotCom:They will be even more vulnerable when Laura dies and #Burzynski forgets her and moves on to the next mark" #unconscionable", "Off label", "personalized therapy", Burzynski Clinic, Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business (Part I), Burzynski: Cancer is Serious Business Part II, BurzynskiSaves, cajones, Caris, decompensate, disinformed, disingenuous, Dvorit D. Samid, Eric Merola, HACK, http//www.sciencebasedmedicine.org, http://cancerbiologyprogram.med.wayne.edu/faculty/gorski.php, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gorski, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007s10549-011-1928-x, http://prognosis.med.wayne.edu/article/dr-gorski-named-codirector-of-michigan-breast-oncology-quality-initiative, http://sciencebasedmedicine.org, http://scienceblogs.com/Insolence, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/11/burzynski_the_movie_subtle_its_not. php, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/12/05/personalized-gene-targeted-cancer-therapy/, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/12/12/what-dr-stanislaw-burzynski-doesnt-want/, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/06/05/r-i-p-billie-bainbridge/, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/08/16/stanislaw-burzynski-versus-regulations-protecting-human-research-subjects/, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/11/21/yet-another-patient-wasting-money-on-burzynski/, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/12/05/arrogance-of-ignorance-about-cancer/, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/12/12/stanislaw-burzynski-a-pioneering-cancer-researcher-or-a-quack/, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/12/13/stanislaw-burzynski-personalized-gene-targeted-cancer-therapy-for-dummies/, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/07/lets-make-dr-stanislaw-burzynski-do-something-good-for-cancer-patients-for-a-change/, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/14/the-story-of-sean-olaighin-patient-of-dr-stanislaw-burzynski/, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/04/19/eric-merola-issuing-bogus-dmca-takedown-notices-against-critics-of-stanislaw-burzynski/, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/05/09/deconstructing-another-stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-success-story/, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/03/in-which-the-latest-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynskis-cancer-cure-is-reviewed-with-insolence/, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/04/stanislaw-burzynski-versus-the-bbc/, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/05/odds-and-about-burzynski-clinic/, http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/11/367, http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2407-11-367.pdf, http://www.burzynskimovie.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=93, http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/druginfo/bevacizumab, http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/druginfo/capecitabine, http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/druginfo/vorinostat, http://www.cancer.gov/drugdictionary?CdrID=37944, http://www.cancer.gov/drugdictionary?CdrID=42852, http://www.cancer.gov/drugdictionary?CdrID=43234, http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/interview-dr-stanislaw-burzynski-and-eric-merola, http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v103/n11/full/6605969a.html, http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v103/n11/pdf/6605969a.pdf, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21045833/, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21861888/, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22200869/, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2994231/, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2994231/pdf/6605969a.pdf, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3173448/, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3173448/pdf/1471-2407-11-367.pdf, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3486521/, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3486521/pdf/nihms407001.pdf, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21045833/, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21861888/, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22200869/, http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence, http://www.SciRP.org/journal/jct, http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownload.aspx?DOI=10.4236/jct.2011.23050, http://www.wsusurgery.com/facultyc3/david-gorski/, http://www.wsusurgery.com/research-team-dr-gorski/, http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hCrsn8ziGWU, https://mobile.twitter.com/gorskon, https://mobile.twitter.com/oracknows, https://mobile.twitter.com/ScienceBasedMed, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/stanislaw-rajmund-burzynski-publications/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/burzynski-hypernatremia/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/burzynski-the-fdas-drug-review-process-ensuring-drugs-are-safe-and-effective/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/28/paging-doctor-david-h-gorski-paging-doctor-david-h-gorski-theres-mud-in-your-ears-doktor-gorski/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/06/23/questions-the-critics-and-cynics-the-skeptics-do-not-want-to-answer/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/critiquing-in-which-the-latest-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-cure-is-reviewed-with-insolence-2/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/25/the-lancet-oncology-peer-review-team-d-12-01519-fail/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/04/critiquing-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-m-d-ph-d-liar-stanislaw-burzynski-versus-the-bbc/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/07/critiquing-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-m-d-ph-d-l-i-a-r/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/critiquing-dr-david-h-orac-gorski-and-the-skeptics/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/critiquing-david-h-gorski-md-phd-facs-www-sciencebasedmedicine-orgeditorial-staffdavid-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/wayne-state-university-detroit-michigan-quickly-realized-that-david-h-gorski-md-phd-facs-is-not-doing-something-wrong-when-he-lies-about-burz, https://twitter.com/BurzynskiSaves/status/151115741888909312, https://twitter.com/gorskon/status/363147810620702721, https://twitter.com/RatbagsDotCom/status/304050113834262528, https://twitter.com/StortSkeptic/status/363088970239840256, if needed", key pillar", LIAR, lied, Lies, lying, oncologists, overfilling, personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy", PubMed, ResearchPoint, Respectful Insolence, revelation, tweeted, tweets, Twitter, VEGF, www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/ | Leave a reply
Critiquing: Peter "Head in Ditch" Bowditch @RatBags.com
Posted on August 3, 2013 by didymusjudasthomas
Peter "Head in Ditch" Bowditch @RatBags.com is one of the SkepTicks, The Skeptics™ SkeptiCowards©, who, like Dr. David H. "Orac" Gorski; of Wayne State University and Barbara Ann Kaplan Cancer Center / Institute in Detroit, Michigan "Fame" and Perfessor Robert J. (call me Bob) Blaskiewicz Blatherskitewicz Faux Skeptic Exposed! of University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire
"Fame" and Adam Jacobs of DianthusMed of Dianthus Medical Limited of London, United Kingdom "Fame" and @endless_psych and David James, et al., are too SkeptiCoward© to debate on-line or in person, but hide behind their keypads like a troll underneath a bridge
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 11:02pm – 1 Aug 13:
Funny how Gorski who posted this on his blog:
Gorski mentions an individual who posted tweets:
"I will call you out publicly"
"appears to be just a money laundry for a lying quack fraud"
"when Laura dies #Burzynski will just move on to his next mark if she doesn't run out of money first"
Gee, willikers!
Is that YOU, Peter Bowditch (also known as HeadInDitch)?
@RatbagsDotCom
But instead of calling someone out for being a twit and twitting:
"Stanislaw #Burzynski. He manages to continually avoid getting cornered and he gets away with murder."
he simply twits back to them like the HACK he is
Critiquing: In which the latest movie about Stanislaw Burzynski "cancer cure" is reviewed…with Insolence:
You probably will NOT see that any of them have posted any comments to my blog anytime in the near future, because as has been stated before on #Forbes, The Skeptics™ want to control any debate, which is why the above type individuals block individuals like me from posting to their blogs, because they want their questions answered, but they do NOT want that type of dialogue to be the proverbial ""Two-Way Street"
Forbes Learns a Lesson, but Not the Right One: Censorship and Bias re: A Film Producer, A Cancer Doctor, And Their Critics;
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/05/forbes-learns-a-lesson-but-not-the-right-one-censorship-and-bias-re-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/
For instance, they want to be able to post their Soviet-styled Dezinformatsiya without being held accountable for the veracity of the information on their blogs, Twitter, and elsewhere on Al Gore's Internet
The difference between The Skeptics™ and I is that I actually believe in and practice "Freedom of Speech" while they block people's comments because they do NOT have "The Right Stuff" and they can't handle the truth, thank you, Jack Nicholson
If Dr. David H. "Orac" Gorski had to explain WHY all 33 of the patients in this phase II (2) clinical trial DIED, I am sure "Orac" is god could come up with plenty of excuses why traditional medicine did NOT save them, but if those patients had been Burzynski patients and lived, then Gorski would try to make a lot of excuses why the "standard of care" that did NOT save them, saved them if they were under Burzynski's care
1/1/2005 (11/24/2004) – Role of temozolomide after radiotherapy for newly diagnosed diffuse BRAINSTEM GLIOMA in children:
results of a multiinstitutional study (SJHG-98)
Cancer. 2005 Jan 1;103(1):133-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15565574
Cancer 103, 133-139
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.20741/abstract;jsessionid=6717837591CCC8FCBD8E46163808E221.d03t01
Volume 103, Issue 1, pages 133–139, 1 January 2005
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.20741/full
Article first published online: 24 NOV 2004
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.20741
Department of Hematology-Oncology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA
Gorski defines a "CRANK" as someone who does better research than he does
David Gorski (@gorskon) tweeted at 3:24am – 14 Jul 13:
@Funkmon @HoracioHornblow Ha ha. It's the rather pathetic crank Didymus Judas Thomas. That guy couldn't buy a clue. #Burzynski
@Funkmon @HoracioHornblow Ha ha. It's the rather pathetic crank Didymus Judas Thomas. That guy couldn't buy a clue. #Burzynski
— David Gorski (@gorskon) July 14, 2013
Posted in critique, critiques, critiqued, critiquing, Peter Bowditch (@RatBags.com), research, The Skeptics | Tagged "Al Gore's Interne", "appears to be just a money laundry for a lying quack fraud", "Article first published online: 24 NOV 2004", "Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Center/Institute", "calling someone out", "can't handle the truth", "Cancer 103, "Cancer Volume 103, "Cancer. 2005 Jan 1;103(1):133-9", "control any debate", "Critiquing: In which the latest movie about Stanislaw Burzynski "cancer cure" is reviewed…with Insolence:", "David James", "Department of Hematology-Oncology", "Dezinformatsiya, "Dianthus Medical Limited", "DOI: 10.1002/cncr.20741", "Dr. David H. "Orac" Gorski", "Eau Claire", "Forbes Learns a Lesson, "Freedom of Speech", "Gee, "hide behind their keypads", "I will call you out publicly", "Jack Nicholson", "Perfessor Robert J. (call me Bob) Blaskiewicz Blatherskitewicz Faux Skeptic Exposed!", "Peter "Head in Ditch" Bowditch @RatBags.com", "Peter Bowditch", "results of a multiinstitutional study (SJHG-98)", "Role of temozolomide after radiotherapy for newly diagnosed diffuse BRAINSTEM GLIOMA in children", "Soviet-styled", "St. Jude Children's Research Hospital", "Stanislaw #Burzynski. He manages to continually avoid getting cornered and he gets away with murder", "The new Doctor Who will be Stanislaw #Burzynski. He manages to continually avoid getting cornered and he gets away with murder", "The Right Stuff", "troll underneath a bridge", "Two-Way Street", "University of Wisconsin", "Wayne State University", "when Laura dies #Burzynski will just move on to his next mark if she doesn't run out of money first", 1 January 2005", 133-139", @DianthusMed, @endless_psych, @gorskon, @RatbagsDotCom, @StortSkeptic, A Cancer Doctor, Adam Jacobs, And Their Critics, "@RatbagsDotCom:They will be even more vulnerable when Laura dies and #Burzynski forgets her and moves on to the next mark" #unconscionable", blog, BurzynskiSaves, but Not the Right One: Censorship and Bias re: A Film Producer, David Gorski, Detroit, Fame, Forbes #Forbes, HACK, HeadInDitch, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.20741/abstract;jsessionid=6717837591CCC8FCBD8E46163808E221.d03t01, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.20741/citedby, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.20741/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.20741/references, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15565574, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15565574, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/05/05/forbes-learns-a-lesson-but-not-the-right-one-censorship-and-bias-re-a-film-producer-a-cancer-doctor-and-their-critics/, https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/critiquing-in-which-the-latest-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-cure-is-reviewed-with-insolence-2/, https://twitter.com/BurzynskiSaves/status/151115741888909312, https://twitter.com/gorskon/status/363147810620702721, https://twitter.com/StortSkeptic/status/363088970239840256, Hypocrites, Issue 1, London, Memphis, Michigan, Orac" is god", pages 133–139, proverbial, SkepTicks, SkeptiCoward, SkeptiCowards, Tennessee", The Skeptics, tweeted, tweets, Twit, Twitter, twitting, United Kingdom, USA, willikers!" | Leave a reply
Critiquing: How Stanislaw Burzynski became Burzynski the Brave Maverick Doctor, part 1
Posted on July 22, 2013 by didymusjudasthomas
"Orac" / Dr. David H. Gorski decided that since he can NOT seem to grasp how to do REAL "research," that he would read something from years ago, and blog about it, whilst his Twitter twit compadres have whined like little bitches when anyone tweets anything remotely pro-Burzynski, re anything from the 1990's or before
So Gorski digs to see if he can find any dirt worthy of making into one of his specialty Detroit, Michigan Mud Pies
How Stanislaw Burzynski became Burzynski the Brave Maverick Doctor, part 1
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/07/22/how-stanislaw-burzynski-became-burzynski-the-brave-maverick-doctor-part-1/
Gorski quotes Burzynski:
"The idea of fighting people in authority became natural to me"
"I learned that you must never let them defeat you in your own core"
Gorski blurts:
"In some ways, these can be most admirable traits"
"Virtually all highly successful people who make a difference in the world possess some measure of this sort of determination and willingness to fight for what one believes"
"If only Burzynski had found a good cause to which he could yoke such them
("Yoke such them"? Is that a Polish saying?)
"Unfortunately, he found antineoplastons"
Unfortunately for the world, Gorski has nothing better to do
Maybe he should get to work in the Detroit salt mines, trying to get Detroit out of bankruptcy!
Gorski splats:
"… I'll discuss some of Burzynski's legal battles, up to and including his epic battle in the 1990s that led to his indictment in late 1995 … and his ultimate acquittal based on a hung jury in early 1997, …"
Gorski obviously is desperate as I have already commented extensively on his blogsplat before he BLOCKED me; like the truculent child he is, regarding the 1997 case
3/3/1997 – Associated Press (A.P.) News:
http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1997/Jury-deadlocks-retrial-planned-for-Dr-Stanislaw-Burzynski/id-58e7ec089bfad6697d138d7bfe26c011
5/19/1997 – Associated Press (AP)
http://www.texnews.com/texas97/doc051997.html
5/19/1997 – New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/19/us/all-charges-but-one-dropped-against-doctor.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/21/us/unorthodox-doctor-goes-on-trial-again-on-contempt-charge.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/28/us/doctor-cleared-in-trial-on-unapproved-drugs.html
8/1/1997 – Reason
http://reason.com/archives/1997/08/01/balance-sheet
Gorski utters:
The question becomes:
"Does Burzynski still believe himself to be the man who has cured several forms of cancer, or does he now know that ANPs almost certainly don't work and are definitely not some sort of "miracle cure"?"
Well, it's NOT likely Gorski is going to figure that out any time soon, seeing as how he is stuck in the 90's
One of his "Oracolytes" spurts:
#12 – AdamG – 7/22/2013
"Out of morbid curiosity I just checked out DJT's current cesspool of residence…it's still going full steam ahead with the crazy
"Poor DJT seems to have definitely lost a few more screws since it posted here"
This person apparently has nothing anywhere close to the intelligence of the original Adam, as "it" is unable to formulate a coherent sentence regarding any subject on my blog
This is the class of individuals that "Orac" likes to associate himself with
The lowest common denominator
The Adam G's, "I have Absolutely NOTHING (say it again) worthwhile to say," of the world
Posted in critique, critiques, critiqued, critiquing, Gorski ScienceBlogs.com/Insolence ScienceBasedMedicine, research, The Skeptics | Tagged "ANP's", "Associated Press (A.P.)", "How Stanislaw Burzynski became Burzynski the Brave Maverick Doctor part 1", "Michigan Mud Pies", "New York Times", ANP, antineoplastons, Dr. David H. Gorski, http://reason.com/archives/1997/08/01/balance-sheet, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/07/22/how-stanislaw-burzynski-became-burzynski-the-brave-maverick-doctor-part-1/, http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1997/Jury-deadlocks-retrial-planned-for-Dr-Stanislaw-Burzynski/id-58e7ec089bfad6697d138d7bfe26c011, http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/19/us/all-charges-but-one-dropped-against-doctor.html, http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/21/us/unorthodox-doctor-goes-on-trial-again-on-contempt-charge.html, http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/28/us/doctor-cleared-in-trial-on-unapproved-drugs.html, http://www.texnews.com/texas97/doc051997.html, Orac, Reason, tweets, Twit, Twitter | Leave a reply