Let’s make Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski do something good for cancer patients for a change

I can’t imagine how painful it must be to lose your child and I have a “moton” (sp?) in the throat right now just thinking about them.

Richard, please have my best wishes and I wish I could say more but I can’t.

Alain

Interesting to note that Eric Merola complained to professor Blaskiewicz’s employer a couple of weeks ago about his anti-Burzynski activities online. The e-mail from Merola is included is this link:

http://skepticalhumanities.com/2013/01/07/burzynski-filmmaker-contacts-my-employer/

In related news, abcnews.com is running a story about a young woman who is in long-term remission from a glioblastoma after chemo and radiation. Speaking about this remarkable outcome, the patient credits God and her team of doctors, and also says this:

“The mind is so much more powerful than anyone can imagine,” she said. “People believe that when they get cancer, it will kill them. But I never once thought that.”

I truly wish the reporter had asked her whether other glioblastoma patients die because their minds are weaker.

h_tp://abcnews.go.com/Health/mom-stuns-doctors-beating-deadliest-brain-cancer/story?id=18135106#.UOrK96xSOSp

@MSII

So Merola is obviously searching for material to pad out his mockumentary.
Merola’s email to the university gives away the intended framework of the forthcoming 2nd part of the “hagiography” of the brave maverick. I predict that the documentary will focus on the tormenting of a genius, how “the establishment” has banded together to persecute the god-like Burzynski, and to thwart Stanislaw’s plans to rid humanity of the curse of cancer forever because treatment of said disease is a major revenue stream for the Big Pharma industrial complex.

If it were not for the credulous and desperate marks of this swindle lapping up such twaddle, Merola’s claims to be a documentary maker and investigative journalist would be laughable, as he is so obviously either an obsequious, toadying shill for the Burzynski clinic, or another rapacious con-artist who sees an opportunity to raise his own profile and turn a buck from the back of the misery of friends and family of Burzynski’s many now deceased ex-patients.

Orac,

But that’s what the first movie concentrated on…

Part one “proved” Burzynski has the cure. After all, a dozen people said so, so it MUST be beyond doubt.

Part 2 will reveal the network of evil Big Pharma shills and corrupt scientists/academics/government types (no doubt all doing the bidding of alien vampire shape-shifting lizard-men??) oppressing the brave maverick.

I hope Merola is about to move into grand conspiracy theory territory. It wont rid us of Burzynski, but it will reveal to all but the most paranoid what a load of claptrap Movie 1 was.

MarkL,

Merola and his brother have already done three conspiracy films, under the series title “Zeitgeist.” True crackpot territory. They use fake names on those movies (how many credible documentary makers need to use phony names?) but it’s Merola and his bro.

Merola’s day job is an art director making commercials for Campbell’s soup and Old Navy. Burzynski’s “services” are yet another product he’s paid to promote to the unsuspecting public.

He uses the name Eric Clinton or Eric Joseph (Peter Joseph is his brother) for the Zeitgeist films. I’ll try to find some links, but I know I did see plenty of references when I first started researching Merola.

Did you know his first cousin died as a Burzynski patient? Her fundraising page hasn’t been updated in two years, and there’s no reference she has died. I postulated that Merola’s motivation initially was to make the movie to pay off his cousin’s bill.

MSII, now that Marc Stephens seems to have been swept into a dustbin somewhere and Merola’s activities, you may just have to change your ‘nym.

I wonder if Burzynski will distance himself from Merola like he did to Stephens.

Dear Orac, I’m a director of a cancer charity in Australia. I have a story I think you’d like to know about – almost as big as the Lance Armstrong ruse – with coercion, intimidation and deception on a grand scale and one negatively impacting millions of cancer patients
Would you please get in touch?

I tried to donate at the linked site…and was unable to.

Dear hubby promises he will assist me tomorrow.

For a “Science Blog” it really is amazing how rarely you acknowledge the peer-reviewed, published evidence that runs counter to your narrative ORAC.

Thank you for the refreshing post Ben – and great site! Instead of ad hominem attacks, why not discuss the research itself on GreenMedInfo.com ORAC. Can you really write off 20,000 MEDLINE-sourced abstracts as “quackery” because you clearly have an agenda to push that is diametrically opposed to evidence, truth, rationality?

Ben,

Here are 36 studies on antineoplastons providing support:

All those studies have been discussed here, and when examined closely they do not support the clinical use of antineoplastons.

For example, probably the most impressive-sounding study on the webpage you link to is one it calls ‘Antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 compares favorably to radiation therapy and chemotherapy in patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma’, though the actual title of the study is Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma: a preliminary report.. This was a preliminary report on a Phase 2 trial that states, “The study continues with accrual of additional patients”.

Whatever happened to this promising trial? It started in 1998 so it must surely have finished by now, but Burzynski doesn’t appear to have published the results. You can see this for yourself on the Clinical Trials website where clinical trials should be registered and their progress recorded: here. Why didn’t Burzynski ever publish the results of this trial?

Nearly all Burzynski’s patients have had previous conventional treatment, and many of the patients in those studies had conventional treatment along with the antineoplastons, so we don’t know what contribution, if any, antineoplastons made to any improvements in those patients. That’s why clinical trials are needed, but Burzynski has failed to complete and publish any Phase 2 and 3 clinical trials, so despite thousands of patients being treated we still don’t know if the treatment is effective.

Also, thanks for a convenient listing of the studies Burzynski points to. It’ll be useful to me as I write the definitive analysis of Burzynski’s dubious treatments.

I look forward to it. It’s easy to imagine a lot of Burzynski trolls would take a shine to using such a list for hit-and-run comments, so it’d be convenient to have a one-link response ready.

Now, now, folks. Don’t diss GreenMedInfo.com. The founder, Sayer Ji (to whom the site is registered, along with Cameron Fillers), has been featured on such stellar science-based web sites as mercola.com, naturalnews.com and garynull.com! With credentials like that, how could we not bow to the wisdom to be found there?

Sayer Ji of GreenMed is a subsidiary of Mercola,* not Merola.

The Google reveals a steady trickle of flying monkeys reading something about Orac over at GMI and following the links to leave a dropping here.

The principle seems to be that anything Orac argues against, must therefore be right. GMI have even jumped aboard the climate-change-denial bandwagon — carbon-emissions control is just part of the evil plot for world domination!! Because Nature.

Here is an amusing webpage in which their contributor “GMIReporter” attempts to use some of Orac’s favourite tropes against another skeptical blogger:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/science-blogs-pseudo-skeptics-crave-scientific-respectablity
————————————————————
* As “Research & Editing Support at Mercola.com”.

Ben,
Orac has tackled that paper here.

!st link fail, but 2nd link works and is more relevant anyway.

(In which comments Clifford delves into general relativity.)

Nevermind, that response is here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15997929

Ben,

Is this criticism, or anything like it, in a peer-reviewed journal? Otherwise, it’s not worth responding to.

That blog post supports its criticism with references to information from peer-reviewed journals. For example it refers to this letter in Clinical Oncology criticizing the paper:

The authors omitted leukaemias, which they curiously justify in part by citing the fact that it is usually treated by clinical haematologists rather than medical oncologists. They also wrongly state that only intermediate and high-grade non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma of large-B cell type can be cured with chemotherapy, and ignore T-cell lymphomas and the highly curable Burkitt’s lymphoma. They neglect to mention the significant survival benefit achievable with high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation to treat newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma [4]. In ovarian cancer, they quote a survival benefit from chemotherapy of 11% at 5 years, based on a single randomised-controlled trial (RCT), in which chemotherapy was given in both arms [5]; however, subsequent trials have reported higher 5-year survival rates. In cancers such as myeloma and ovarian cancer, in which chemotherapy has been used long before our current era of well-designed RCTs, the lack of RCT comparing chemotherapy to best supportive care should not be misconstrued to dismiss or minimise any survival benefit. In head and neck cancer, the authors erroneously claim the benefit from chemotherapy given concomitantly with radiotherapy in a meta-analysis to be 4%, when 8% was in fact reported [6].

The authors do not address the important benefits from chemotherapy to treat advanced cancer. Many patients with cancers such as lung and colon present or relapse with advanced incurable disease. For these conditions, chemotherapy significantly improves median survival rates, and may also improve quality of life by reducing symptoms and complications of cancer.

Either way, what’s it got to do with Buzynski being a fraud?(he asks him knowingly…)

Especially since Burzynski uses conventional chemotherapy as well as his p!ss-panacea.

I predict the DOCumentary will focus on Biased individuals who are supposed to be in charge of Net-Neutrality & Non Fact-Based Pos(t)ers who haven’t yet met a Fact they didn’t enjoy ignoring. 😉

@Ben

Please clarify your position here for me, I wouldn’t want to be accused of mocking you without just cause.

You are saying that because a meta-analysis of current chemo-therapy initially indicates only a small (but still statistically significant) contribution to 5 year survival rates, you are supporting Burzynski, who wont publish ANY data at all?

Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

@Ben

None of the links are to completed trials. The few that are not toxicology reports, case studies, in vitro studies etc. appear to be abstracts presenting a mish-mash of preliminary data drawn from various phase 2 trials dating to the 1990s or earlier. As none of the results of the trials that these “best case scenarios” were drawn from were ever published, I think it is safe to say that this provides NO evidence in favour of Burzynski’s magic bullet, but rather reinforces the impression that the brave maverick is manipulating the trials process to feather his own nest.

@Feli – except the families would not be out of hundreds of thousands of dollars for a treatment that doesn’t work…..

MarkL, still refusing to read I see.

Is that Lawren or LW? Or LW or Lawrence? Or do you have multiple personalities?

MarkyLMark,

Why give you just 1 link?
Non-SRB history:

1995 – Antineoplaston (Ap) – Japan – CLINICALLY TESTED
Kurume Medical Journal
J-STAGE, Japan Science and Technology Information Aggregator, Electronic
http:// www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/m/pubmed/7474850
The effect of Antineoplaston, a new antitumor agent on malignant brain tumors

Antineoplaston (Ap), a new antitumor agent, clinically tested for effects on malignant brain tumors

3 cases of glioblastoma (G,B)
2 cases of anaplastic astrocytoma
1 case of pontine glioma
2 cases of metastatic brain tumor
1 case of medulloblastoma

All patients underwent radiochemotherapy & surgical resection of tumors except cases of
pontine glioma:
metastatic brain tumor
anaplastic astrocytoma

For gliomas, radiochemotherapy was used with Hu-IFN-beta

Ap was administered at a dose a day in combination with remission maintenance therapy of gliomas

1 – Complete response obtained in anaplastic case – M/35 – 330 days

2 – Partial response obtained in cases
pontine glioma:
metastatic brain tumor:
M/53 – 360 days
M/ 7 – 257 days (pontine glioma)

2 – No change observed in cases:
anaplastic astrocytoma – M/35 – 1115 days
multiple brain metastasis – F/48 – 510 days

4 – Disease Progression observed in cases:
3 glioblastomas:
42/F – 720 days
41/F – 90 days
36/M – 180 days
1 medulloblastoma, which showed continuous increase in tumor size – 40/M – 150 days

effects of Ap on malignant brain tumors were considered due to synergy, since administered with other drugs & acceleration of tumor cellular differentiation

Ap is useful as approach to remission maintenance therapy for brain tumors
https:// www. jstage. jst. go. jp/article/kurumemedj1954/42/3/42_3_133/_pdf
(PDF – 8 pgs.)

1995 – A10 & AS2-1 – Japan
Kurume Medical Journal
http:// www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/m/pubmed/8667595
Toxicological study on antineoplastons A-10 & AS2-1 in cancer patients

conducted toxicological study of A-10 & AS2-1 in combination with other anticancer agents or radiation in 42 patients, 46 tumors with terminal stage cancer

14 – A-10 was administered to
25 – AS2-1 was administered to

longest term of administration was:
14 – A-10 – 610 days
25 – AS2-1 – 67 days

AS2-1 was administered in:
33 – oral
10 – injectable

longest term was:
33 – 1070 days
10 – 25 days

major adverse effects that may have been related to these agents used in combination with other conventional chemotherapeutic agents or radiation were general weakness, myelosuppression, & liver dysfunction, but effects not seen when Antineoplaston was administered alone

minor adverse effects observed in single use of A-10 or AS2-1 were excess gas, maculopapullar rash, fingers rigidity, reduced cholesterol, reduced albumin, increased amylase, eosinophilia, increased alkaline phosphatase, headache, hypertension, palpitation, peripheral edema but adverse effects didn’t limit continuation of either agent

evaluation of usefulness of Antineoplastons in combination therapy based on findings during course of treatment revealed disappearance or measurable shrinkage of tumor lasting more than 1 months was seen in 15 tumors (32.6%)

No increase in size of tumor for more than 3 months was observed in 8 (17.4%)

mean survival time of patients significantly longer than patients with tumors showing progressive increasing (17.52 + 3.31 months vs 4.80 + 0.65 months, p < 0.005)

A-10 & AS2-1 less toxic than conventional chemotherapeutics & useful in maintenance therapy for cancer patients

J-STAGE, Japan Science and Technology Information Aggregator, Electronic
https:// www. jstage. jst. go. jp/article/kurumemedj1954/42/4/42_4_241/_pdf
(PDF – 9 pgs.)

1996 – A10 & AS2-1 – clinical experience found antineoplaston A10 & AS2-1 had an inhibitory effect on human hepatocellular carcinoma – Japan
http:// www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/m/pubmed/8755117
Inhibitory effect of A10 & AS2-1 on human hepatocellular carcinoma

hepatocellula carcinoma (HCC) patient whose tumor, after incomplete (TAE) for HCC, has been stable for more than 15 months during which time he has been taking AS2-1 continuously without any serious adverse effects

AS2-1 induced gradual disappearance of viable part of tumor & no metastases of HCC was seen after 13 & 20 months

Patient has been working without any limitations on his normal activity

J-STAGE, Japan Science and Technology Information Aggregator, Electronic
https:// www. jstage. .go. jp/article/kurumemedj1954/43/2/43_2_137/_pdf
(PDF – 11 pgs.)

1997 – AS2-1 – phase I clinical trial – Japan
Oncology Reports
http:// www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/m/pubmed/21590224
Antineoplaston AS2-1 for maintenance therapy in liver cancer

AS2-1 showed minimum adverse effects in a phase I clinical trial

2 clinical cases of liver cancer (hepatocellular carcinoma & multiple liver metastases from colon cancer) in whom we believe A2-1 was useful as a maintenance therapy after (TAE) & (MCN)

The 2 patients have continued to be in good condition for more than 2 years without limitation of their normal activities

AS2-1 may be effective & useful as maintenance agent after TAE & MCN in patients with liver cancer

5 – 6/1998 – A10 & AS2-1 – Japan
Oncology reports
http:// www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/m/pubmed/9538158
Quick response of advanced cancer to chemoradiation therapy with antineoplastons.

A10 & AS2-1 exhibit growth inhibition of cancer cells by diverse modes of action

observed antitumor responses within 2-3 weeks of combination treatment of chemoradiation therapy & A10 & AS2-1 in phase I clinical study

3 clinical cases of advanced cancer (multiple metastatic lung cancer, thalamic glioma & primary lung cancer) in which we believed A10 & AS2-1 may be contributing to rapid antitumor response

11.- 12/1998 – A10 I – Japan
Oncology reports
http:// www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/m/pubmed/9769368
Antineoplaston treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

A10 injection (A101) showed minimum adverse effects in phase I clinical trial

2 cases of advanced HCC treated with A10 I

Both cases showed interesting responses to A10 I.

1 showed massive coagulation necrosis of tumors after intra-arterial infusion of A10 I

other showed resolution of portal vein tumor thrombosis with systemic infusion of A10 I

6/2000 – M/40 – ascending colon cancer with multiple metastases

7/6/2000 surgery
Numerous metastases in & on surface of liver…

7/7/2000 treatment 5 days on/5 off 3 times

8/3/2000 exhibited progression of disease with increased values of tumor

Treatment with A10 5 days, 3 times month

9/1/2000 exhibited reduction in size & # of metastatic tumors in liver

10/5/2000
Combination A10 & AS2-1 continued

12/5/2000 confirmed partial remission of metastatic liver tumors

12/5/2000 AS2-1 administered as maintenance therapy

1/12/2001 after combination therapy. Size & # of metastatic tumors decreased over 1 month & continued decreasing over 6 months. Liver volume reduced as size of tumor decreased – showed a further reduction in size of metastatic tumors in the liver and of the liver itself

showed marked response to combination therapy, despite failure of initial chemotherapy without A10 or AS2-1. enlarged liver returned to normal size as metastatic tumors shrunk

7/1994 – M/61 – treated by PEI, MCN, & TAE for frequently recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma

3/1997 – 5 tumors

TAE & A10 for 3 weeks

4/1997 AS2-1 maintenance therapy

Other treatment 5 days a week for 2 weeks

9/25/1997 detected multiple lesions, increasing in size & # rapidly over 2 months

12/2/1997 numerous lesions & numerous tumors. A marked reduction in size & # of multiple tumors was observed in 3-4 weeks

Other treatment 5 days a week for 3 weeks with A10 for 4 weeks. AS2-1 were continued during treatment. Patient tolerated procedure well

12/22/1997 showed marked decrease in size & # of multiple hepatocellular carcinomas
http:// www. burzynskiclinic. com/images/Pub_Indep_2002_Novel_Strategy_for_remission_Oncology_Reports.pdf
(PDF – 4 pgs.)

7/3/2000 – A-10 – Egypt
Cancer Letters
Potential utility of antineoplaston A-10 levels in breast cancer
potential utility of A-10 as a predictive test for breast cancer

A-10 level was measured in urine of 31 breast cancer patients & 17 normal women

Significantly lower A-10 levels were detected among patients with breast cancer

data suggest a strong inverse association of urinary A-10 level with breast cancer

Such finding was the stimulus for further investigations of A-10 levels in some benign as well as other malignant diseases to determine utility of this approach as predictive test for women at risk of developing breast cancer.
http:// www. cancerletters. info/article/S0304-3835(00)00408-0/abstract

8/31/2000 – A-10 – Egypt
Cancer letters, Elsevier
Immune modulatory potentials of antineoplaston A-10 in breast cancer patients

Women between 30 & 67

Histologically confirmed diagnosis of breast cancer

Only those with no prior treatment for breast cancer were chosen

All age-matched controls had no history of cancer or any other breast disease
28 patients
28 controls

Immune defects among patients with breast cancer
http:// dr-labouzeid. webs. com/A10-Cancer%20Letters%20157.pdf
(PDF – 7 pgs.)

2002 – A10 & AS2-1 – Japan
Oncology Reports
A novel strategy for remission induction and maintenance in cancer therapy
Kurume

4/12/1999 – M/44 – multiple hepatic metastases (possibly from pancreatic cancer)

4/16/1999 Metastatic / Inoperable

Underwent chemotherapy 5 days
2 weeks non-antineoplaston treatment

6/23/1999 some metastatic tumor size reduction over 1 month

1 week treatment along with A10 for 10 days & AS2-1 for 10 days

Marked reduction in size of metastatic tumors continued for 18 months

8/25/1999 after combination therapy sizes of metastatic tumors reduced markedly by combination therapy & continuously decreased over 1 year

Treatment stopped 8 – 11/1999

12/5.- 25/1999 A10 tolerated very well, only some nausea & appetite loss

Reduction of tumor size

Survived 21 months since initial diagnosis without limiting usual activities

responded quicker & better to combination therapy with A10 & AS2-1 than to previous chemotherapy alone

effect of previous chemotherapy may have been sustained by combination therapy but response to combination therapy was much quicker

Considering that it's very rare that pancreatic cancer with multiple liver metastases responds to chemo- therapy, & this patient responded to combination therapy twice, A10 & AS2-1 contributed to marked response
http:// www. burzynskiclinic. com/images/Pub_Indep_2002_Novel_Strategy_for_remission_Oncology_Reports.pdf
(PDF – 4 pgs.)

2002 – A10 & AS2-1 – Japan
Oncology reports
http:// www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/m/pubmed/11748457
A novel strategy for remission induction and maintenance in cancer therapy.

Antineoplaston A10 & AS2-1 are chemically identified & synthesized antineoplastons proven to inhibit cancer cell growth by arresting cell cycle in G1 phase & inhibiting tumor growth by reducing mitosis

These agents are thought to be good candidates for clinically easily applicable non-toxic p53 gene activators

cases of advanced cancer responded well to combination treatment using chemotherapeutics & irradiation with A10 & AS2-1 in clinical trials
http:// www. burzynskiclinic. com/images/Pub_Indep_2002_Novel_Strategy_for_remission_Oncology_Reports.pdf

2003 – AS2-1 – Japan
Oncology Reports
The preventive effect of antineoplaston AS2-1 on HCC recurrence

designed phase II clinical trail to clarify whether AS2-1 prolongs recurrence- free interval of HCC patients who undergo frequent treatments for recurrence

10 patients enrolled in this trial
at initial diagnosis
2 in stage I
6 in stage II
1 in stage III
1 in stage IV-B

10 patients experienced 35 recurrence- free intervals

Recurrence-free intervals during anti- neoplaston AS2-1 administration were significantly longer than those without antineoplaston AS2-1

(16.19±15.916 vs. 5.05±2.897 months: p<0.01)

Patients who experienced recurrence-free intervals with & without AS2-1 showed longer intervals during anti- neoplaston AS2-1 administration than those before & after antineoplaston AS2-1 administration

(14.47±13.821 vs. 5.07±2.989 vs. 5.02±3.009 months: p<0.05)

2 patients in stage I showed longer recurrence-free intervals than those in more advanced stages

AS2-1 prolonged recurrence-free interval between regional treatments & improved survival rate of patients
http:// www. burzynskiclinic. com/images/Pub_Indep_2002_Preventive_effect_of_ANP_Oncology_Reports.pdf
(PDF – 7 pgs.)

6/2003 – A10 & AS2-1 – Japan
Surgery Today
http:// www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/m/pubmed/12768372
Long-term survival following treatment with antineoplastons for colon cancer with unresectable multiple liver metastases: report of a case

report a case of survival for nearly 8 years after treatment of unresectable multiple liver metastases from colon cancer, using microwave ablation & nontoxic antitumor agent, the antineoplastons

72-year-old man diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the ascending colon & 14 bilateral liver metastases underwent right hemicolectomy combined with microwave ablation of 6 metastatic liver tumors

decided to give antineoplastons to inhibit metastatic tumor growth & recurrence

A10 was given intravenously, followed by oral AS2-1

CT scans done 1 & 4 years after the initial diagnosis showed recurrent tumors in S(4) & S(7), respectively

patient underwent a 2nd & 3rd microwave ablation of recurrent tumors, & has survived for nearly 8 years without suffering any serious adverse effects

He is currently free from cancer

case report demonstrates potential effectiveness of nontoxic antitumor agent, antineoplastons, for controlling liver metastases from colon cancer.
http:// link. springer. com/article/10.1007%2Fs10595-002-2503-2

http:// www. springerlink. com/content/b48ch3ha165nbrqp

http:// link. springer. com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10595-002-2503-2

http:// link. springer. com/article/10.1007%2Fs10595-002-2503-2?LI=true

Suppose someone, let’s call her Jeanne, claimed to be able to foretell the future more than half the time, and she asked me for $30K up front to use her powers on my behalf. I say she was either lying or deluded and I certainly will not hand over $30K to her.  Then along comes someone else, let’s call him Diddy, who throws out reams of unformatted copy-pasta of articles which allegedly report successful predictions by Jeanne, and asserts that I cannot possibly express an opinion as to whether Jeanne can foretell the future until I first find, read, and refute each and every article he can find about Jeanne’s alleged abilities.

But I don’t need to read the articles. Actions speak louder than words. If she really could foretell the future more than half the time, she’d beat the stock market and be a billionaire. She wouldn’t *need* my $30K. If she’s trying to get me to pay $30K, then she cannot foretell the future. Period. I don’t know if the articles saying she can are mistaken, lying, cherry-picking, or what; I know she can’t foretell the future by her actions.

Which brings me to Burzynski. I’ve only skimmed the iDJiT’s copy-pasta, but I don’t need to do more. Burzynski with his six million dollar house was squeezing a dying woman who worked as a waitress for more and more and more money. Everything she did to allow her to get the medication he prescribed, without pouring money into his pockets, he countered by throwing in more charges and holding up the drugs she thought she needed, until she paid up. That is vile. That is loathsome. That is nauseating. 

But it is also the act of someone so greedy for money that he will stop at almost nothing to get it.  If he had an effective cure for cancer, he would prove it and make it available to the world at the highest cost the market could bear. He wouldn’t be messing around squeezing waitresses for cash; he’d be putting the squeeze on people like, say, Steve Jobs.

One of Burzynski’s victims described on The OTHER Burzynski Patient Group had pancreatic cancer. If Burzynski could cure pancreatic cancer — if he even had a good track record on pancreatic cancer — wouldn’t Jobs have been the ideal patient for him?  Jobs had plenty of money; Burzynski could have charged anything he wanted and Jobs would have paid it — if Burzynski could have delivered the goods.

But Burzynski didn’t treat Jobs. The Japanese researchers of whom the iDJiT is so fond, didn’t treat Jobs. The Chinese researchers that the iDJiT is now bringing up didn’t treat Jobs.

Actions speak louder than words. Burzynski does not have a cure for cancer.

@herr doktor bimler: “The FDA is bestowing “Phase III” status upon a trial in China? Really?”

Well, yeah. Everybody knows that the FDA controls all medical research and treatment everywhere in the world and possibly everywhere in the universe. That’s why all these cheap, all-natural, 100% effective cures languish in obscurity (despite being widely published on the Internet) instead of being adopted by the numerous non-America countries that have people dying every day for lack of hard currency to pay for Big Pharma treatments.

Chinese scientists are part of the FDA’s paradigm of Phase I, Phase II and Phase III trials? The FDA is bestowing “Phase III” status upon a trial in China? Really?

He actually managed to f*ck it up in multiple ways. This is the original assertion:

Phase III Clinical Trials in breast cancer, NSCLC, & primary hematoma reported 6/2005 by China/Taiwan in the Chinese Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The only thing having even a tenuous relationship to Stanley’s Magic Piss Infusion in that issue is this. Dilday silently (in the editorial sense) changes this later and diverts with the usual shrieking:

MarkLoser, too lazy to look up the Japanese Phase II Clinical Trial I already posted about on the Orac blog I was posting on previously, &/or do an Internet search like some of the other liars on this blog who have made factually inaccurate statements that I’ve caught them with their pants down under on? I thought so!!!

8/2005 Chinese Journal of Clinical Oncology.
Phase 3 clinical trials of cell differentiation agent-2 (CDA-2): [a urinary preparation, isolated from healthy human urine] Therapeutic efficacy on breast cancer, non-small cell lung cancer & primary hepatoma.

One now has this. Still CDA-2. The idea apparently is that because CDA-2 contains phenylacetylglutamine, this validates Burzynski. The first, and seemingly simple, problem is demonstrating that the putatively active “peak 23.2” of CDA-2 corresponds to A10. I can’t even find a chromatogram.

Sorry – for Cytidine Deaminase, read “cell differentiation agent” ………….its late here!

MarkyLMark, you’re wrong, so wrong, because you fail to read & I’ve made it clear before that I am not a fan of Orac’s web-site blocking – awaiting moderation feature, so I add spaces in the web-site addresses to prevent my posts from being blocked or held up. All the links are correct & work; unlike yourself. 🙂
I just proved how wrong you are on the P-blogpost.

Hey LW, you can’t cure insomnia!!! 😉

I take it that you are unable to respond to the observation that your tactic for working around automoderation due to inclusion of multiple links is shockingly stupid in execution.

@Didymus Judas Thomas: “At the Tu-Quack Center LW Lawrence Larry LarryWritus Library”

Yeah, iDJiT, you caught me. I am Lawrence. Transitively, I am also Brian Deer. And Bonnie Offit. And Kathleen. And Spartacus.

Did you actually read The OTHER Burzynski Patient Group? Did you actually read about the way Burzynski convinced a dying woman that she needed his nostrums to stay alive, then, when she found a way to get the real treatments free, added on more charges and held the nostrums hostage until she paid up?* Did you think about what kind of monster would do that?  Did you ask yourself why a monster that greedy for money wouldn’t prove his treatment worked and then put it on the market for all the market would bear?

I know you’re math-challenged, so I’ll work out the numbers for you. The American Cancer Society reports ( http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurveilance/documents/document/acspc-031941.pdf ) over 1.6 million new cancers in the United States in 2012.  Lets say Burzynski’s nostrums worked for just 1% of cancers. I’ll help you out by saying that would mean his nostrums worked for about 16,000 people per year. If he proved his his nostrums worked, he could set the costs of treatment at, say $50K, which is less than he extracts from his average victim, and he would have an annual income of a cool $800,000,000 per year, just from patients in the United States. In the past 35 years, instead of pretending to run clinical trials in order to extract money from desperate dying people, he could have become by far the richest man in the world, not to mention being showered with praise and awards and going down in history.

Why hasn’t he, iDJIT?   

* If I’d been in her shoes, at this point I would have reported him to the Better Business Bureau and the Texas Attorney General as well as the Texas Medical Board.  

Duddy has just one trick in his repertoire, and it’s not even a good trick. I think I’ve come up with a good name for it, though.

Good drivers and bad drivers often distinguish themselves by how they use their horns. A good driver understands that the purpose of the horn is to alert another driver, to say “Hey, be aware! Be careful! You’re doing something ill-advised!” Piss-poor drivers, by contrast, believe that the horn comes standard on the car as a weapon, used to punish other drivers for not doing exactly what the driver leaning on the horn wants them to do.

Duddy would love to be one of those clever people who can actually do things like think through an issue, employing logic. If he could do that, maybe he could win some converts for the wonder-working Mr. B! But since he’s not clever at all, he settles for car-horning, trying to punish with his obnoxiousness anyone who dares to point out the flaws in his precious Mr. B’s behavior.

Nary-d-truth, was this post supposed to be addressed to anyone in particular?
.
“I take it that you are unable to respond to the observation that your tactic for working around automoderation due to inclusion of multiple links is shockingly stupid in execution.”

Narady, your friends at Quakerwatch:
.
“Tracing the biochemistry involved in Burzynski’s synthesis of antineoplastons shows that the …”

Antineoplastons were originally isolated from human urine but are now synthesized from readily available chemicals in the developer’s laboratory

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/healthprofessional/page1

Big Whoop.

You know, I’ve been wondering something. If antineoplastons are so great and miraculous and have been curing cancer for thirty-five years …

Why is Burzynski prescribing chemotherapy?

My guess is that he can extract more money from his victims by extravagently marking up multiple drugs instead of just one, though it’s possible that he’s trying to get the mortality rate down so it isn’t so obvious that antineoplastons have no effect.

Does anyone know his excuse?

Long-Winded, if you were actually paying attention & comprehending what has been posted on this blog you would know that I have already visited that other BlatherBlog & was immediately turned off by the author’s inane sidebar commentary. Anybody can post GIGO on the net but where are they when it comes to backing up their assertions in a court of law? And I don’t want to hear the old lame “they can’t afford it” excuse or other “whine & cheese” excuses, because there are Pro Bono legal services for those who actually have a chance to win in a pissing contest. Gee, I wonder if we can start a blog for all the people who died while on chemotherapy or radiation or pick your choice cancer treatment & whine about all the “Quacks” out there who can’t cure cancer with their particular treatment. Still ignoring the “fact” that SRB doesn’t claim to be able to cure all types of cancers? Still ignoring how much clinical trials cost? Still ignoring that clinical trials require patients with a certain type of cancer? Still ignoring the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health cancer . gov web-site & cherry-picking what you like off of it & ignoring what you don’t like? Still ignoring actual clinical trials & instead relying on the opinion of those who haven’t don’t a kick of actual research re antineoplastons & published it, including where it may be available to be found on PubMed? Still ignoring reality & instead focusing on non-fact-based opinion of those who whine & cheese about something they don’t bother to research? Still ignoring when research by others re antineoplastic was started in other countries & how long it took them to do phase I & II & III clinical trials in their country as compared to the USA? Have you done a comparison study of cancer research & determined how long it took from initial research to market, & how it is that the FDA has allowed other cancer treatments to pass go & proceed to market while skipping certain trials, yet requiring SRB to continue on through phase III? Still ignoring that the USA is in debt to China, & maybe there’s a reason why the USA is being passed in international rankings in a # of areas & maybe this trend is going to contine? Blah, blah, blah…

Narady, don’t comprehend how to address your Blatherposts to a particular individual?

I quoted you, shıtwit.

@iDJiT:

Long-Winded

I’m guessing this is addressed to me.

if you were actually paying attention & comprehending what has been posted on this blog you would know that I have already visited that other BlatherBlog & was immediately turned off by the author’s inane sidebar commentary

Other BlatherBlog? The only other blog the iDJiT has mentioned is Pharyngula, and the only other blog I’ve mentioned is The OTHER Burzynski Patient Group (
http://theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com/ . Here’s the disclaimer on the sidebar of The OTHER Burzynski Patient Group):

Disclaimer

This website is NOT affiliated with the Burzynski Patient Group, the Burzynski Clinic, or the Burzynski Research Institute. Those are all awful. Nor does this site mean to represent the views of any of the Clinic’s current or former patients or those of their families or loved ones. All information posted here was either freely available online or in the press at the time of writing. Please follow the links included and hear the patients’ stories in their own words as well

I wonder why the iDJiT, who claims not to be a fanboy of Burzynski but just interested in seeing all sides of the story told, would be turned off by this. The blogger states very clearly that he is NOT affiliated with Burzynski or any of Burzynski’s PR operations. He needs to state that so he doesn’t get sued for infringement. The blogger observes that “Those are all awful.” That’s his opinion (with which I heartily agree), but it’s expressed politely without cursing or gutter language. The blogger then goes on to say that he doesn’t represent anyone else and that the information is freely available (i.e., that he didn’t breach anyone’s privacy, another statement he needs to make to avoid being sued), and he urges the reader to follow the links so they can see that he is not misrepresenting anyone.

No neutral individual would be turned off by that disclaimer, but the iDJiT was. No surprise there; the iDJiT’s pretense of neutrality wore off a long time ago.

Anybody can post GIGO on the net

Witness, e.g., the iDJiT’s blather.

but where are they when it comes to backing up their assertions in a court of law? And I don’t want to hear the old lame “they can’t afford it” excuse or other “whine & cheese” excuses, because there are Pro Bono legal services for those who actually have a chance to win in a pissing contest.

I’m guessing this is asking why Burzynski’s victims don’t sue him. Well, besides the fact that they’re generally dead, probably for the same reason that victims of other conmen often don’t sue. In this case it would be particularly hard because Burzynski seems to be careful not to make the extravagent claims himself; he leaves it to others. So victims come in believing that he’s a miracle worker who can save them, but there’s no statement by him that could be produced in a court of law, in the same way that he slithered away from the Texas Medical Board by asserting that he didn’t actually treat patients or supervise the doctors who did, which may be a surprise to the patients.

Gee, I wonder if we can start a blog for all the people who died while on chemotherapy or radiation or pick your choice cancer treatment & whine about all the “Quacks” out there who can’t cure cancer with their particular treatment.

Yawn. Typical tu quoque from a quack supporter. Yes, people sometimes die while on chemotherapy. My stepmother did and I miss her every day. But real oncologists use real treatments that have been really tested and have real evidence of effectiveness. They don’t always work, and in some cases they really only make passing less painful. But they’re tested and we know what they do. Burzynski’s nostrums aren’t even tested.

Still ignoring the “fact” that SRB doesn’t claim to be able to cure all types of cancers?

Nope, I pointed out that he could have been the wealthiest man on the planet if he could cure just one percent of all cancers. If he could cure all cancers, his potential income could be measured in the tens of billions, not the hundreds of millions.

Still ignoring how much clinical trials cost?

I know a physician who ran his own clinical trial while he was in private practice (he’s retired now). He could afford it. Burzynski is a whole lot wealthier than he was. Burzynski could afford it too. And even if he couldn’t, what has he been charging his victims for? To be in clinical trials! So he’s arranged funding for his clinical trials and there’s no basis for your whining about the expense of clinical trials. He runs his trials, he watches his victims die, and he doesn’t publish any results. That’s what we object to the most! It’s not just the charging to participate in trials, it’s the charging to participate in trials that don’t produce any results. My stepmother was in a clinical trial. We hoped she would be the lucky one who made it. She didn’t, but at least we know that the results were published and maybe helped somebody else. Burzynski denies his victims even that.

Still ignoring that clinical trials require patients with a certain type of cancer?

What does that have to do with anything? Burzynski lures his victims in and charges them to participate in clinical trials. Whatever the trials require, he’s obviously okay with it.

Still ignoring the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health cancer . gov web-site & cherry-picking what you like off of it & ignoring what you don’t like?

What are you babbling about now? I’ve pointed out that the Phase III trial isn’t open for recruitment. What’s cherry-picking about making that statement?

Still ignoring actual clinical trials & instead relying on the opinion of those who haven’t don’t a kick of actual research re antineoplastons & published it, including where it may be available to be found on PubMed? Still ignoring reality & instead focusing on non-fact-based opinion of those who whine & cheese about something they don’t bother to research?

Again what are you babbling about? Burzynski hasn’t reported the results of his pretended trials. He’s reported a few, cherry-picked, good results. Out of many thousands, a few will get better even with no treatment. So what? Is it your opinion that the only people who can critique Burzynski’s lack of results are people actually researching his alleged cure? Is that your response to every critique of every Big Pharma drug too?

Still ignoring when research by others re antineoplastic was started in other countries & how long it took them to do phase I & II & III clinical trials in their country as compared to the USA?

What does that have to do with anything? Burzynski’s had thirty-five years and hasn’t produced a usable cure. Other countries have had the same thirty-five years and they haven’t produced a usable cure either.

Have you done a comparison study of cancer research & determined how long it took from initial research to market, & how it is that the FDA has allowed other cancer treatments to pass go & proceed to market while skipping certain trials, yet requiring SRB to continue on through phase III?

Do you think Burzynski should be allowed to proceed to market without publishing a single Phase II trial? Is that what you really think? Do you really think it is unfair to demand that Burzynski at least show that his treatment works on something first?

Still ignoring that the USA is in debt to China, & maybe there’s a reason why the USA is being passed in international rankings in a # of areas & maybe this trend is going to contine?

What? Were we talking about global economics here, or Burzynski’s pretended treatments?

Blah, blah, blah…

Yeah, that’s a good summation of your comment.

LW,

DJT meant he was turned off by Bob B.’s very insightful commentary that illuminates each patient’s case story.

@Marc Stephens Is Insane : the iDJiT said s/he “was immediately turned off by the author’s inane sidebar commentary”. So I looked at the sidebar and all I found was the disclaimer. But perhaps you’re right. Still, only a fanboy would be turned off by the commentary. I’m turned off by the horror of Burzynski’s cruelty and his victims’ suffering, but that’s different.

Either Burzynski is conducting clinical trials or he isn’t. If he isn’t, then he is a liar. If he is, then he is suppressing the outcomes. Terence, this is stupid stuff.

@Ditto – what the hell has Dr. B been doing for the last 13 years?

LWhere?
.
Let me assist you:

Didymus Judas Thomas

Looking for a “FACT-CHECKING” Informed Patient Advocate
December 26, 2012
12/24 Comments:
.
Marc Stephens Is Insane
.
December 24, 2012
.
“I just found a new website by chance and wanted to pass it along.”
.
“Kudos to whomever put this website together.”
.
_____Yeah, I was SO impressed when right off the bat I read:
.
_____”They initially might have had a difficult time finding a place to stay because refugees from Hurricane Katrina had been arriving in Houston, but they were set up in an apartment:”
.
_____WHAT? Do we really need someone posting GIGO like that?

LWhine & Cheese, “in the same way that he slithered away from the Texas Medical Board by asserting that he didn’t actually treat patients or supervise the doctors who did, which may be a surprise to the patients.”
.
Whine, whine, whine & Cheese.
.
If the SOAH doesn’t have lawyers that know the law & how to do legal research, shame on them.

@ditto troll – so, if lawyers are able to convince a Judge that Dr. B isn’t actually treating patients, but we see numerous examples of Dr. B actually participating in treatment discussions with “clients” – what exactly are we supposed to think?

Naray, really? Really?? REALLY???
.
Where’s that “quote?”

Piddles is correct; I quoted it in the immediately following and different comment, regarding its failure to understand the meaning of “synthesized.” On the other hand, one might note that it recognized that it was being addressed, reducing this to yet another exercise in diversion.

LWu-quoqu, I love how y’all always pull your “tu quoqu” excuse out.

I guess the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health (cancer . gov) [a part of the US Federal Gub-Ment] is lieing to us!!!

I take it that you missed the parts where (1) linking to a PowerPoint presentation to “demonstrate” what everyone knows in the first place is moronic and (2) that you’re back to the fact that the NCI angle is weaksauce of the first water.

So iDJiT, what’s your view?

Is Burzynski unable to afford to run clinical trials with the tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars he gets from each victim, in which case he’s lying through his teeth when he claims to be running clinical trials?

Or is Burzynski able to afford to run clinical trials with the tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars he gets from each victim, but he just doesn’t bother?

LWikiLeak, “he doesn’t publish any results.?”
.
So, the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health is lying to us?
.
“Published information includes results from phase I clinical trials, phase II clinical trials, and case reports.”
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/patient/page2
.
“Publications have taken the form of case reports, phase I clinical trials, toxicity studies, and phase II clinical trials.”
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/healthprofessional/page5
.
“Table 2 summarizes the following clinical trials and appears at the end of this section.”

Randomized controlled trials give the highest level of evidence. In these trials, volunteers are put randomly (by chance) into one of 2 or more groups that compare different treatments. One group (called the control group) does not receive the new treatment being studied. The control group is compared to the groups that receive the new treatment, to see if the new treatment works. No randomized, controlled trials showing the effectiveness of antineoplastons have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

In 1991, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) reviewed some of Dr. Burzynski’s cases and decided to conduct clinical trials on antineoplastons at cancer centers. By August 1995, only 9 patients had enrolled and the clinical trials were closed before being completed. The U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) gave Dr. Burzynski permission to conduct clinical trials of antineoplaston therapy at his own clinic. Ongoing non-randomized clinical trials at the Burzynski clinic continue to study the effect of antineoplastons on cancer.

Looking at Table 2, I find two entries that are labelled “Phase II clinical trial”; they are footnoted to “Buckner JC, Malkin MG, Reed E, et al.: Phase II study of antineoplastons A10 (NSC 648539) and AS2-1 (NSC 620261) in patients with recurrent glioma. Mayo Clin Proc 74 (2): 137-45, 1999.” — in other words (a) they were in 1999 or earlier and (b) they were not conducted by Burzynski.

In Table 2, I find five entries labelled “Phase II study”; they are footnoted to three papers by Burzynski, in 2003, 2004, and 2005. From the descriptions, it appears there are actually only three studies (but apparently no clinical trials), “Recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma in children”, “Recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma”, and “Primitive neuroectodermal tumor”, and they total all of thirty-seven (37) patients out of the hundreds he presumably treated in those three years.

Finally, there is a “Summary of data, phase II trials” reported in 2006, covering just eighteen (18) patients, and a “Consecutive case series (phase II trial)” reported in 1990, covering fourteen (14) patients.

So out of the thousands “treated” by Burzynski in some sixty “clinical trials”, we have a grand total of sixty-five (65)* whose cases were reported by Burzynski in anything that the NCI called a Phase II trial or study. That is an exceedingly meager output.

* Not 67 because the NCI says two were duplicates.

Actually I guess it’s unfair to say ” From the descriptions, it appears there are actually only three studies (but apparently no clinical trials)”. Maybe they were clinical trials, but all three were “accruing additional patients” when reported between seven and nine years ago. No final results yet.

Of course, Burzynski is quite lackadaisical about accruing patients — his Phase III trial isn’t even open to accruing patients, and it’s supposed to have preliminary results this year.

LWhy, “Still ignoring the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health cancer . gov web-site & cherry-picking what you like off of it & ignoring what you don’t like?
.
_____What are you babbling about now? I’ve pointed out that the Phase III trial isn’t open for recruitment. What’s cherry-picking about making that statement?”
.
So, you completely ignored my previous posts about this subject:
.
Didymus Judas Thomas
.
Looking for Intelligent Life on a ScienceBlog
December 26, 2012
12/24 Comments:
.
LW
.
December 24, 2012
.
And then DJT refers us to this Phase III trial. Ah, yes, I remember it fondly. It seems like only a year ago we were talking about that trial … oh, wait, it was a year ago. I had fun posting progress reports on time remaining to enroll participants. And we find, a year later:
Estimated Enrollment: 70
.
Study Start Date: December 2011
.
Estimated Study Completion Date: December 2015
.
Estimated Primary Completion Date: December 2013 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)
.
And he still hasn’t enrolled seventy participants and started his study: “This study is not yet open for participant recruitment.”
*Yawn*. So much for that “evidence” of the effectiveness of Burzynski’s “treatments”.
.
_____YAWN! So much for you actually understanding the process:
.
_____And you continue to play ign’nt, or maybe you actually are!
.
_____Didymus Judas Thomas
.
Searching for the 0.02%
.
December 20, 2012
.
12/10 Comments:
.
_____ME: And if you were actually paying attention to what’s going on you would understand that:
.
1. There are costs associated with a Phase III Clinical Trail, and therefor funds have to obtained,
.
2. Patients of a sufficient number need to be obtained who specifically fit the “Children with Newly-Diagnosed Diffuse Intrinsic Brainstem Glioma” category,
.
3. Parents need to be convinced to allow their Children to have their Brains be exposed to Radiation,
.
4. And there may be other factors as well.
.
Do I need to repost my post about the Phase III Feasability Study also?

LWhatsit, “So what? Is it your opinion that the only people who can critique Burzynski’s lack of results are people actually researching his alleged cure? Is that your response to every critique of every Big Pharma drug too?”
.
I enjoy how some Tu-Quackers want to reply on opinions of people who have not done independent research on the subject-matter. I can run around postulating that this theory is questionable & that theory is not published in a publication published using “green” technology. I want to ignore any post that has already addressed this. So … as I’ve posted before, if people can’t remember what has been posted, maybe they’re posting too much GIGO.

LWriteItOff, “Do you think Burzynski should be allowed to proceed to market without publishing a single Phase II trial? Is that what you really think? Do you really think it is unfair to demand that Burzynski at least show that his treatment works on something first?”
.
So, you read my prior post about what drugs had been allowed to proceed to market without going through phase III & what they were based on, & you had no problem with that, right?

Marc Stephens Is Insane
.
January 20, 2013
LW,
DJT meant he was turned off by Bob B.’s very insightful commentary that illuminates each patient’s case story.
.
Yeah LW, THAT is soooooi incitefull!!!
.
”They initially might have had a difficult time finding a place to stay because refugees from Hurricane Katrina had been arriving in Houston, but they were set up in an apartment:”

”They initially might have had a difficult time finding a place to stay because refugees from Hurricane Katrina had been arriving in Houston, but they were set up in an apartment:”

One month later and I still fail to see the problem with this sentence and fail to understand how it discredits an entire website full of true stories.

What does bother me is reading how Burzynski sucks his clients dry of every cent they have.

Lu-Wuoque, “Oh, so on Dec 26 (twenty-five days ago), the iDJiT looked at The OTHER Burzynski Patient Group … and consequently should not be expected to ever look at it again. Nor should anyone suppose that the iDJiT could ever learn anything new from later posts on that blog.
Right.
That makes sense to me, actually. It explains a lot about the iDJiT.”
.
I actually have more important things to do than keep checking up on some web-site you may be plugging since the Society of Mutual Agrandizement needs someone to entertain them here where less thick-skinned individuals are run off by the non-fact cited tu quoque Tu-Quackers who pat each other on the head in mutual admiration thinking that if they post enough GIGO it will actually come true. Someone needs to give y’all a “reality check” & I’m happy to do it though I don’t have the time to even address all the inaccurate statements on here. There are enough of you anti-antineoplaston bloggers that you need someone on here to remind y’all that there are actually resources available on the net which you can access before foaming at the mouth. So, has your pal stopped posting inane comments about people maybe finding room in the stable to stay because the inn might have been full?

Lawhinencw, “@ditto troll – so, if lawyers are able to convince a Judge that Dr. B isn’t actually treating patients, but we see numerous examples of Dr. B actually participating in treatment discussions with “clients” – what exactly are we supposed to think?”
.
People with small troll-sized minds resort to calling others “trolls” to mask their inadequacies. No cite. Nice. How do you do it???

(He doesn’t look like he would fetch much for meat, either.)

LWillYouGiveMeACheeseburgerToday&IWillPayYouTomorrow, “LW

January 20, 2013
So iDJiT, what’s your view?
Is Burzynski unable to afford to run clinical trials with the tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars he gets from each victim, in which case he’s lying through his teeth when he claims to be running clinical trials?
Or is Burzynski able to afford to run clinical trials with the tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars he gets from each victim, but he just doesn’t bother?”
.
My view is that you should contact the BC & ask. Or is that taking you out of your comfort level of hiding behind your keypad?

MarcyNCIan, “Both quotes above from Diddumb’s own reference.”
.
Have you gone on cancer . gov & requested that they update their web-site to reflect SRB’s & the Japanese publications after those dates?

I actually have more important things to do

Thank you, DJT; that made my day.

wtf wow um ok

there’s no real compassion or sympathy is there if It is willing to write off all those heart wrenching stories simply because someone had a hard time getting a room…

So no answer on why the hotel room/Katrina story bothered you so much on TOBPG site? I asked you to explain it to me as I really don’t understand the problem. So much for the “intelligent” conversation you’re seeking. I tried to talk to you like a rational adult; I guess I should have known better.

What’s really odd about the comment the iDJiT found so off-putting (”They initially might have had a difficult time finding a place to stay because refugees from Hurricane Katrina had been arriving in Houston, but they were set up in an apartment:”) is that it’s just summarizing part of the history from the parents’ own blog ( http://chasesammut.blogspot.co.uk/2005_08_01_archive.html?m=1 ):

In addition, as we were looking into accommodations for extended stays in the Houston area, we discovered that most hotels, residence inns, suits, etc were taken by people trying to evacuate outlying areas, including Louisiana, due to the hurricane. We were very lucky to get a furnished apartment,…

Like everyone else, I fail to see what is objectionable about this.

@Khani: “’m starting to worry that he’ll hurt himself or someone else somehow.”

That’s why I don’t give more information about the physician I know who conducted a clinical trial. I think it’s a very interesting and inspiring story, but I don’t want the iDJiT or its ilk getting anywhere near him.

LW,

I know! I told DJT that the information on TOBPG all comes from the patients’ own blogs, websites, public newspaper articles, etc. Bob’s comments are there merely to summarize and move the story along.

I gave DJT the chance to answer my sincere, genuine, civil question like a mature, adult human. Without the sarcasm, insults, juvenile puns and Tu-Quacking. Maybe if he did answer once in a mature, adult manner people would be more inclined to listen to what he has to say.

@Marc Stephens Is Insane: “I know!”

I know you know, but the iDJiT seems to be under the impression that the statement about the Katrina refugees was some kind of editorial comment by the blogger. The iDJiT said,

So, has your pal stopped posting inane comments about people maybe finding room in the stable to stay because the inn might have been full?

I checked because I was quite certain that was not an editorial comment (though even if it had been, I’m not clear on what makes it objectionable).

Marc Stephens Is Insanely in the Membrainly, “All the information on TOBPG site is taken directly from patients’ blogs, websites, newspaper articles, etc. If the patient’s family said they had trouble getting a room in the wake of Katrina, what’s the problem? Please explain it to me.”
.
Where did it indicate this in the information from the actual individual(s) involved rather than your pal’s speculation?

NaradGIGO, “I do find it mildly amusing that Piddles, despite having latched onto the term like dog with a dead bird, still hasn’t figured out that GIGO isn’t a noun.”
.
I found it extremely amazing that the majority of your blatherskite is “Garbage In, Garbage Out.

NaradBiased, “Maybe we can ship SRB to Japan or China!!!
Given that Scamley is of no scientific or other value at all to the human race, I think you’re going to have a hard time finding takers.”
.
It’s not like you would know, since you can’t even cite any evidence that you’ve actually read all the publications from Egypt, Korea, Russia, Japan, China, Poland, & Taiwan. Reading an abstract doesn’t count.

Nara-d-Whine&Cheese, “(He doesn’t look like he would fetch much for meat, either.)”
.
Everytime I see one of your posts I think about how much Whine & Cheese you fetch.

al kimeeaCan’tRead, “wtf wow um ok
there’s no real compassion or sympathy is there if It is willing to write off all those heart wrenching stories simply because someone had a hard time getting a room”
.
You obviously didn’t read the blog in question. Come back & try again after you back up your fluff by being able to show that you’ve.actually read the information that’s being discussed.

Bemused, you should be, because you added exactly zip, zilch, nada, nothing, to the discussion. Opinion are like Puckers … Everyone’s got one.

Marc Stephens Is Insane, “So no answer on why the hotel room/Katrina story bothered you so much on TOBPG site? I asked you to explain it to me as I really don’t understand the problem. So much for the “intelligent” conversation you’re seeking. I tried to talk to you like a rational adult; I guess I should have known better.”
.
Get a grip.

LackadaisicalWeasoning, “What’s really odd about the comment the iDJiT found so off-putting (”They initially might have had a difficult time finding a place to stay because refugees from Hurricane Katrina had been arriving in Houston, but they were set up in an apartment:”) is that it’s just summarizing part of the history from the parents’ own blog ( http://chasesammut.blogspot.co.uk/2005_08_01_archive.html?m=1 ):
In addition, as we were looking into accommodations for extended stays in the Houston area, we discovered that most hotels, residence inns, suits, etc were taken by people trying to evacuate outlying areas, including Louisiana, due to the hurricane. We were very lucky to get a furnished apartment,…
Like everyone else, I fail to see what is objectionable about this.”
.
Therefore, you just proved why there was no need for your pal’s speculation.

It’s sad, really. One of my best friends is a creationist. So are other friends. They’re really good people, polite, kind, intelligent — but unfortunately the creationists who comment online are nothing like them. Witness the iDJiT, for a depressing example.

LW, ““Maybe if he did answer once in a mature, adult manner people would be more inclined to listen to what he has to say.”
“If” being the operant word there.”
.
Like you???
.
“LW

December 27, 2012
Quoth the iDJiT, “_____I doubt you could teach me anything, considering your past record.”
I enthusiastically agree as does, I am sure, every reader of this post who isn’t the iDJiT. Plainly no one has succeeded in teaching the iDJiT anything since third grade, and he is quite proud of that record.”
.
I like how the Tu-Quacker Commune want me to read a blog of stories supported by newspaper articles, yet you then turn around & say, we can’t believe those SRB patients & their blogs, or newspaper articles, or blah, blah, blah. We need “DOCUMENTATION.” Where’s your “DOCUMENTATION???”

LW, “@Marc Stephens Is Insane: “I know!”
I know you know, but the iDJiT seems to be under the impression that the statement about the Katrina refugees was some kind of editorial comment by the blogger. The iDJiT said,
So, has your pal stopped posting inane comments about people maybe finding room in the stable to stay because the inn might have been full?
I checked because I was quite certain that was not an editorial comment (though even if it had been, I’m not clear on what makes it objectionable).”
.
Great job LW. For your next act will you be beating a dead horse???

NaraDenialist, “I found it extremely amazing that the majority of your blatherskite is “Garbage In, Garbage Out.
I take it that, in addition to failing to understand that it’s not a noun, it is but you that is available to represent the “garbage in” portion of the construction.”
.
I await more of your posts with no cites to support your position.

NaraDenialist, “I found it extremely amazing that the majority of your blatherskite is “Garbage In, Garbage Out.
I take it that, in addition to failing to understand that it’s not a noun, it is but you that is available to represent the “garbage in” portion of the construction.’
.
“Piddles, after all this time, is there some reason that you haven’t successfully figured out how to use blockquote tags?”
.
Still have me confused with your BEOTCH??? I’m not here to do what you want in case you haven’t been able to get that through your numbskull yet.
.
LW, “It’s not like you would know, since you can’t even cite any evidence that you’ve actually read all the publications from Egypt, Korea, Russia, Japan, China, Poland, & Taiwan. Reading an abstract doesn’t count.”
.
“Burzynski isn’t in Egypt, Korea, Russia, Japan, China, Poland, or Taiwan. If researchers in any of those countries ever manage to find something useful about the so-called antineoplastons, it won’t be Burzynski’s achievement.”
.
Thank you for just proving that you have NO KNOWLEDGE on the subject-matter, since if you did, you would know their publications specifically cite SRB’s publications as references. Again, you are full of (shhhhhhh) “IT.”

Politicalguineapig, “Dude, could you just go away and let the adults talk?”
.
Referring to LWheatChaff & NaraDenihilist by name wouldn’t even help. So “Dude” is going to completely go over their heads.

Does Orac ever ban people? It’s getting hard to have an actual conversation here with this guy around.

Although I think he meant to insult me! Does that mean I’m one of you now? Do I get my sponge now that I’m a real philosopher?

@Khani: We accept you! We accept you! One of us! One of us!

Yay! When do I get hazed? Should I bring extra lipstick?

Still ignoring the troll.

@ Khani: Don’t listen to Narad. 🙂 Feel free to bring bundles of dill. 🙂

Everything is better with dill akvavit.

Sorry after this Donald Duck is more credible …

The entire Board was sued by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) in 2007

That’s proof that the Texas Medical Board is doing something right.

Why is “More brainwashing” spamming material from a Mercola column? Without even any attribution? I am shocked, SHOCKED by the lack of concern for intellectual property rights.
Young people today…

The entire Board was sued by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) in 2007

Are you sure you want to ally yourself with that gang of neo-nazis?

#194 MarcStephensIsInsaneInTheMemeBrain
.
“Not to mention the only reason Stan got off the TMB charge was due to a legal technicality.”
.
I appreciate it immensely when the “Mighty Ducks” refer to it as a “technicality” when they don’t approve of the decision. You remind me of the US Gub-ment lawyers who “Whine & Cheese” when the opposing party cites a case older than 50 years old, but when the Gub-ment cites a case older than 50 years old to support their case, suddenly it’s somehow different. The law is the law is the law, & if you can’t handle it, get over it. 🙂

#200 Yay! I can just run it through the washing machine!

This is the question for tonight!

Eric Thome: Poe or no?

eric’s education
Assumes facts not present in evidence.

For you to attack Dr. burzynski is insane!! He has a !@#$#@! cure through our urine which may not be suitable for you but let one of your family generate this type of serious of cancer which only offers chemo-stupid radiation.

If he did have a cure—if antineoplastons were actually effective at treating advanced cancers—after 20 years of clinical’ studies he’d have a large body of evidence proving it. Why does has withhold publication and rely entirely on patient testimony to support his claims of efficacy?

And if one of my family did develop cancer, I’d certainly advocate they receive standard of care radiation/chemo–unlike antineoplaston’s these have been shown to work.

He is a hero and anyone reading this should either do more research on him or email this idoit who posted this site making him out to be a criminal or even a bad person!!>blockquote>
I’ve done the research—the only information I’ve not been able to examine and consider are the results of Stan’s 60+ clinical trials from the last two decades. Why is that? Stan refuses to publish.

“He probley works for the fda who could care less about you and your family.”

Pharma shill gambit noted and dismissed. (BTW, Orac isn’t an employee of the FDA or other regulatory agency. Perhaps you should have done the requisite due diligence before posting?)

how much will you trust someone who has no love for humanity only profit?

Possibly the most succinct characterization of Burzynski I’ve seen this year.

Please people do your research and tell this ahole to recognize he is in no position to bad mouth this Dr. He is a great man who is persecuted by our government cause they cannot patent his cure for cancer so they make it almost illegal to practice.

Stop telling us to do the research, as if we haven’t: we have and find claims of antineoplaston’s efficacy entirely unsupported. Perhaps that would change if Stan actually published the results of his 60+ trials, but I’m not holding my breath.

As for ‘cannot patent his cure’, two points:
In the absence of any actual evidence that AN’s cure advanced stage cancers, there’s no reason why anyone would want to steal this ‘cure’, protected by patent or not. If the cure does work in the absence of patent protection there’s no barrier to anyone else—the government, Big Pharma, Walgreens for that matter—producing, selling and profiting from it. Patent protection isn’t an absolute necessary togenereat revenues, after all–aspirin is no longer under patent and lots of companies profit from its sales

And as for ‘great man’, recall that only two possibilities exist:

Antineoplastons don’t work, Stan’s clinical trials demonstrate this, but he’s withholding the results to continue selling false hope to desparate people for his own financial gain.

In which case he’s a fraud.

Or antineoplastons do work, Stan’s clinical trials demonstrate this, but he’s withholding the results to maintain a monopoly on an effective cure for cancer and thereby denying millions of patients worldwide access to a cure for the disease that’s killing them–again for his own financial gain.

In which case he’s a monster.

And if the cure does work, in the absence of patent protection there’s no barrier to anyone else—the government, Big Pharma, Walgreens for that matter—producing and selling it. Aspirin is no longer under patent, after all, and lots of companies profit from its sales

If he is a fraud then why has the board never been able to convict him? If his trials don’t work then why has the FDA taken him to a grand jury 5 times only to have patients testify to the effectiveness of the treatments? Why are so many of you shills on here trying to lie for agency’s that would lie to you about products known to cause cancer? Is Chemo a toxic chemical? Is radiation toxic to the body? Don’t give me a bunch of BS like “Well in small doses it does no harm” that’s like saying “Let me treat you with rat poison in small doses” Please clarify your positions because it seems that most of you have a certain agenda to sell to others.

Chris – if he’s right why doesn’t he publish his data in a form that other scientists can read and say, “Wow! This stuff really works!”

FDA taken him to a grand jury 5 times only to have patients testify to the effectiveness of the treatments?
When did patients testify to a grand jury?

Why are so many of you shills on here
Please, name the commenters who are shills.

Just by the by, wouldn’t a more accurate name have been “antineoplastoids“?

Oh, and…

If his trials don’t work then why has the FDA taken him to a grand jury 5 times only to have patients testify to the effectiveness of the treatments?

The proceedings of a grand jury are, by definition, secret. I realize that you’re reading from the Merola/Jaffe playbook, but how do you know who testified as to what?

” a treatment that, as I’ve explained, has no convincing evidence supporting its efficacy.” other than x-rays, MRI, patient statements, and the fact the US Government apparently tried to steal his patents

x-rays, MRI, patient statements, and the fact the US Government apparently tried to steal his patents

These are all subjective, and give no indication as to whether the recipients of B’s treatment live any longer for it. A petty question, I know, but it matters to some people.