An excellent explanation of how dubious Stanislaw Burzynski’s activities are

@Science Mom

I’d be willing to bet that with precognitive powers like that, you’d be a shoe-in for the JREF million. Then again, that’s like proclaiming that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow.

Yeah there’s already a nutter on there posting comments about how great Burzynski is and how wrong C0nc0rdance is.

What a slick marketing tool!! The announcers’ voice was almost “creepy-like!!!”
.
Fire away with that Respectful Insolence!!
.
I on the other hand have already addressed the “why hasn’t he published those final clinical trials results publications” on this blog because I actually did some “fact-checking” on the net, but please continue “beating that dead horse” until it’s deader than dead.
.
I suggest waiting for Part II & seeing what it says.
.
I note the video spiel had some inaccuracies: not recognizing that it has been fully disclosed in print &/or video re why the documentary was pretty much one-sided, & the commentary re MS; who “went off the reservation,” & went bye-bye.

DJT, how are we supposed to know who and what you’re mocking if you don’t learn to use scare quotes correctly?

@prn

I think you are a bit hasty to blame FDA for the woes of drug development in the U.S., especially to paint Burzynski as a symptom of the FDA’s regulatory scheme.

If drugs are available in other countries but not the U.S., there are a couple reasons: 1) the company applied for approval but was not granted it by FDA or 2) the company has not applied at all. In the former case, there may be a good reason (e.g., insufficient evidence of the safety and/or efficacy of the drug). In the latter case, blame the company, not FDA.

It always gets me when people castigate FDA for holding up drugs while at the same time blaming them for overhasty approval leading to recalls or withdrawals. Not saying prn is doing this, but the post is reminiscent of such arguments. It is a fine line to walk: exercise too much caution and people say you’re obstructing progress; exercise too little and they say you’re putting patients at increased risk.

Part of the problem of lack of competitive pricing or available alternatives has little to nothing to do with FDA and much more to do with patents (which with new patent laws is likely to get worse). Patent exclusivity allows companies to charge whatever they want for a new drug. Only after many years, when other companies can finally get in on the market, do prices come down. And then you have to consider how widely the drug is likely to be used. Drugs to treat rarer conditions are going to be considerably pricier than more common ones. In short, the cost of drugs is much more complex than “blame the FDA”.

Is the current system ideal? Probably not. But to blame FDA for all of the problems you see and say they’re “killing the country”? Sorry, but that just doesn’t match up with the facts.

@ Ren:

I’d guess that the number of stupid people may very well be a constant- like the speed of light- BUT the tendency to vocalise and publish is definitely on the rise.
They’re getting bolder post -Wakefield.
The internet makes it easier.

@DW: The internet makes it easier. Just so, & intriguing to me – viral ignorance. That and the proliferation of vanity journals of questionable veracity.

Pareidoliuos, by Lookiting at the person’s name, what’s in quotes, & the what’s not in quotes.

How’s the “blubber” taste?

@ THS:

I’m sure that Ren- or someone else- could write out the fomulae:

there is a reservoir of ignorance in any population that may be spread virally via the internet to un-inoculated members of the population etc.

I have to leave to get curry.

Ren: I’m not *getting* the Thingy Troll vibes from Diddums.

*SFB*, germ phobic, disease-promoting Troll, always posts about vaccines.

I appreciate DJT coming on here bubbling like a drowning loon. It’s a shortcut for anyone who comes here undecided about Burnyzski. Are you going to listen to the guy that sounds like a Russian spambot, or the skeptics?

He just google dumped 15 links, declares victory, disengages from the discussion, and repeatedly mentions flogging horses as though this is some kind witty retort.

Seriously, Burnyzski couldn’t have more deleterious friends.

“Ren and Stimpy”, ’cause I haven’t heard that before. You’re just as original as any other Burzynsky defender. Repeat the same old BS, hope something sticks. *Yawn*

#23 Orac
“Indeed. DJT appears to be all about Burzynski. He almost always seems to show up after a post about Burzynski. It’s almost as though he had a Google Alert set to notify him of posts about Burzynski…”
.
Orac, your research skills are EPIC & legendary; & I don’t necessarily mean that in a “competent” way
.
#8 Orac
January 8, 2013
“Uh, no. Not true. But do provide a citation; it’ll be amusing, and chances are I’ve already seen it.”
https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2013/01/21/quoth-joe-mercola-i-love-me-some-burzynski-antineoplastons
.
Orac, I take it that just because you’ve “seen it” doesn’t mean you’ve “read & comprehended it.”
.
You are allegedly a knowledgeable Doctor, oncologist, & researcher.
.
Yet, in support of your proposition you reference that 1992 Mayo phase II study which found:
.
#103 “CONCLUSION: Although we could not confirm any tumor regression in patients in this study, THE SMALL SAMPLE SIZE PRECLUDES DEFINITIVE CONCLUSIONS ABOUT TREATMENT EFFICACY.”
https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2013/01/21/quoth-joe-mercola-i-love-me-some-burzynski-antineoplastons
.
You then go on with your “conspiracy theory:” “DJT appears to be all about Burzynski.”
.
CONGRATULATIONS on recognizing that I provided links to the comments of:
.
#101 Saul Green, R G Houston, J C Buckner, M G Malkin, E Reed, T L Cascino, J M Reid, M M Ames, W P Tong, S Lim, & W D Figg.
.
Feeling on a roll, you then postulate: “He almost always seems to show up after a post about Burzynski. It’s almost as though he had a Google Alert set to notify him of posts about Burzynski…”
.
Wrong again, Doctor.
.
If you had actually “fact-checked” yourself before posting this “patented” nonsense, you would know that I ignore the blatherskite on here for days sometimes. And that I’ve clearly posted items not exactly complimentary to SRB on here, but I find it more fun to question the tu-quacking tu quoque quoting posters.

#24 Thom Denick
Los Angeles
.
Thommy, thanks thoroughly there for your thoughtful “rubberstamping” of an allegedly knowledgeable Doctor, oncologist, & researcher, who in support of his proposition referenced that 1992 Mayo phase II study which found:
.
#103 “CONCLUSION: Although we could not confirm any tumor regression in patients in this study, THE SMALL SAMPLE SIZE PRECLUDES DEFINITIVE CONCLUSIONS ABOUT TREATMENT EFFICACY.”
https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2013/01/21/quoth-joe-mercola-i-love-me-some-burzynski-antineoplastons

You are in excellent company. BRAVO!!

#26 Renal
“You’re just as original as any other Burzynsky defender. Repeat the same old BS, hope something sticks. *Yawn*”
.
Ho Hum, are you done???

Narad, the Quinlan complaint you linked looks short on detail, including type of cancer and chemical entities. She claimed antineoplasteons, Burzynski’s lawyer said not, and her claimed symptoms sound more like chemo.

It is too bad that she apparently did not get more hard copy – scripts, receipts, etc onto the internet. So far what I see could be a spitball from a less competent, sour grapes patient in the form of a petition with lots of boiler plate, sensationalized here.

I do think Orac has points with potential. But he needs more credible witness bearing and linkable evidence to demonstrate it. With less hypocrisy about pricing, performance and practices in the penumbra of “standard”.
…..
LV vs PA: When the precise original cost of goods becomes lost in the 4th decimal or so, they are close enough to negligible cost wise.

Wow. What a nasty piece of crap.

I have been a silent lurker here for a while, but today felt the need to comment. A person named Didymus Judas Thomas has been very active indeed lately on the Wikipedia “Burzynski Clinic” page, at least in the Talk section, where he has swamped the Talks with attempts to introduce loads of primary studies that are not cited in any secondary source. His status as a Wikipedia user is currently “suspected sockpuppets”.

And DJT, #33, anybody can find out who Orac is with less than a minutes research

So now this is offered as evidence that attacks on Burzynski are unwarranted?:

CONCLUSION: Although we could not confirm any tumor regression in patients in this study, THE SMALL SAMPLE SIZE PRECLUDES DEFINITIVE CONCLUSIONS ABOUT TREATMENT EFFICACY.

Have you ever read a journal article about any phase 2 study? In some form, they all say that part you have in caps.

It doesn’t mean that the treatment works or even that it might work. In this case, it translates to: “No one can say with 100% certainty that it doesn’t work, since we did not have enough patients to be certain of anything. So there.”

#40 Xplodyncow, I look forward to your posting of the links to the phase II studies supporting your proposition.
.
Milk that cow for all it’s worth.

“Conclusion: Although we could not confirm any tumor regression in patients in this study, the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions about treatment efficiency.”

In other words, it didn’t work at all but maybe someday it might. That’s a ringing endorsement, that is.

@LW – wow, I just was checking out DJT’s rants on Wikipedia. Sorry that those guys have to attempt to deal with him too.

@Todd W: I was trying to bite my tongue and not correct the grammatical atrocities, but they just got to be too painful for me to keep still.

DJT: Dude, this is the internet. Very, very few people post under their given names. ‘Sockpuppet’ refers to a user who posts under multiple names, usually to agree with themselves, to spam a page, or to evade a banning. From what I’ve seen, Danish Salmon of Doubt is none of these, since none of their posts ‘sound’ like any other user. I’d suggest you get off the internet and spend a little while growing up.

CONGRATULATIONS Prickly!! Your research ability reminds me of Dr. Orac!!

Mr. Caballero, is that you?

@ cOncOradance: Simply superb!

@HDB and some akvavit to wash it down?

@Edith Prickly (#54)

I don’t think DJT is Mr. Cabellero. Unlike him, DJT would be unable to get out of the wheelchair, as xe hasn’t got a leg to stand on…

After having posted my first post last night I managed to spend some more time looking at DJTs activity on Wikipedia. I agree that the good Herr doctor bimler above that it mainly looks like accidental omission. However, as I looked deeper it turned out, to the best that I could see, that DJT became very active in the talks pages on Burzynski clinic on the 10th of December, and that his account was indefinitely blocked on the 23rd of January due to the usage of the account breaking Wikipedia policy. In between those two dates, again as best as I can see, all activity logged against DJTs account was about the Burzynski clinic. Looking at IncidentArchive783 of the Wikipedia Administrators Noticeboard is that DJTs editing consists of POV pushing at Talk:Burzynski Clinic. The full story can be read under topic 5, heading WP:NPOV.

I don’t think there is any reason for me to answer the issues that DJT raised against me personally. Firstly, much of it was Ad Hominem, and secondly people above have replied better than I would be able to. Thanks for that.

No Narad…the correct answer is this…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_soap_radio

#49 c0nc0rdance
.
Thank you for ignoring:
.
http://www.yesweekly.com/triad/article-9521-winston-salem-filmmaker-makes-waves-with-award-winning-medical-documentary.html
.
http://trustmovies.blogspot.com/2010/06/seek-out-bursynski-documentary-and.html?m=1
.
And the fact that the documentary indicated individuals were given the opportunity to comment, & remained silent.

#51 Stu
.
“It was explained to you on the Talk page, and you ignored it there. Why repeat it here? You’re way too much of a delusional blowhard to listen.”
.
I was sure you couldn’t explain it at an intellectual level, & you didn’t disappoint!!
.
Stu, what does this mean on my User page (down at the very bottom) on Wackypedia?
.
“I think administrators may have concluded that you are already familiar with policy. In fact, you seem to do nothing but cite policy… — 21:53, 28 January 2013”
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Didymus_Judas_Thomas&diff=next&oldid=535384292

#59 W. Kevin Vicklund
.
“Do you ever actually read what you link?”
.
Hey Danish Salmon of Doubt … Oh, wait … You’re NOT DSoD!!
.
Are you ever actually able to read who a post is for & contain yourself by NOT trying to interject yourself by uttering some ejaculation???

#63 Narad
.
Oh doubter from the land of ‘taters
.
“Another DJT triangulation failure. (The correct answer is of course this.)”
.
NaraDenialist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism
.
I realize that asking you to use your brain might be oxymoronic, but have you ever heard of a “‘tater?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_baseball_(T)
.
Or “Tater Salad?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_baseball_(T)
(You Can’t Fix Stupid)
.
http://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ron_White#section_1
.
Or the “‘Tater Famine?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)

@DJT – wow, it would be nice to compare those criticisms against Dr. B’s actual treatment regimen and results, but since he doesn’t publish, I guess we’ll never know if those are legitimate complaints.

what does this mean on my User page (down at the very bottom) on Wackypedia?

That you’re both incompetent and in Pennsylvania.

@Narad (#76): Sounds like the next big rom-com…

“Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan are… Incompetent in Pennsylvania!”

#79 LW
.
In the iDJiT’s list o’ links:
.
LordWriteous,
.
1. You do realize that if I didn’t provide every conceivable link, that NaraDenialist would “Whine & Cheese,” right?
.
2. That’s why I provided mobile & desktop abstract, full text, & PDF links.
.
3. That by accessing the “References” page on the mayo site that you’re able to click on the specific SRB link in order to access that document on the Mayo site (References 2, 20, & 21)
.
4. That the “Related” links are there to reflect that those publications are “Related” to the 1999 Mayo phase II publication; as shown on the PubMed link.
.
5. Orac wanted to know the “Related” SRB publications:
.
#52 Orac
.
“You do realize that that means that the Mayo trial failed to find evidence of efficacy, just as I said, don’t you? The default of a finding like that is that there is no evidence of efficacy, not that failure to have adequate numbers to show an effect means that there’s an effect there. If SRB wants to convince skeptics that his treatments work better than conventional therapy, let him publish the evidence in a peer-reviewed journal in a manner that it can be independently verified. Thus far, he has failed to do so.”
.
6. Orac wanted them in “Peer-Reviewed” medical journals & that’s why there are links to WP showing they are such & those medical journals have been referenced on WP at least 500 times each.
.
7. Congratulations on the copy/paste, otherwise I never would have figured out what you meant. 😉

I suppose the iDJiT’s teachers are impressed by the feat of turning one paper into nine or ten links.

Yah, but how do you feel about nudism as a response to the scourge of Lyme disease?

“Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Present Day Oncology Care: Promises and Pitfalls,” “Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology” (which can be reviewed in HTML:
http://jjco.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/8/512.full?sid=5c546408-071e-4148-abd3-6c295dd5c6d7
or PDFs at pg. 5 of 9 & reference at pg. 9):
http://jjco.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/8/512.full.pdf?sid=f8e0a3cc-2912-40e5-a7c2-dbd6db4b3c1d
.
http://m.jjco.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2008/08/05/jjco.hyn066.full.pdf#page=1):
“A 2008 medical review stated that Burzynski “discovered that peptides and hormones including butyric acid and phenylbutyrate when added to cancer cells results in their differentiation, converting them into normal cells again.” “In the solitary phase II study” of “Antineoplastons” [consisting of A10 (A10I) and AS2-1 injections], “the overall survival at 2 and 5 years was 39 and 22%, respectively, and maximum survival was more than 17 years for a patient with anaplastic astrocytoma and more than 5 years for a patient with glioblastoma. Progression-free survival at 6 months was 39%. Complete response was achieved in 11%, partial response in 11%, stable disease in 39% and progressive disease in 39% of patients.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/18682440
“The Oncologist,” “Complementary and Alternative Therapies for Cancer” (which can be reviewed in HTML:
http://theoncologist.alphamedpress.org/content/9/1/80.full?sid=aeef6d69-bf46-4bd0-93b0-f259cd21d416
or PDFs at pg. 4 of 10 & references at pg.. 7):
http://theoncologist.alphamedpress.org/content/9/1/80.full.pdf
.
http://www.oncocure.ca/assets/byTopic/IntegrativeOncology/2-CAM%20Therapies%20in%20CA-Oncologist%202004.pdf):
“A 2004 Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center medical review stated that antineoplastons therapy “research at the Burzynski Institute was permitted under an Investigational New Drug permit. The group’s preliminary report from a single-arm phase II study of 12 patients showed a 50% response rate.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/14755017
.
Peer-Reviewed medical journals
.
“Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology” (at least 500 references)
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%22Japanese+Journal+of+Clinical+Oncology%22&go=Go
.
“The Oncologist” (at least 500 references)
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=journal+%22The+Oncologist%22&go=Go

http://m.wikihow.com/Spot-a-Pathological-Liar
.
In the USA were not allowed to cut out their tongues, lop of hands, waterboard (unless you’re in Gitmo) …
.
So sometimes they have to be dealt with in a language they understand.

It’s kind of sobering to think that DJT regards RI as a second-best alternative, and is commenting here as the fall-back to being banned from Wikipedia.

#45 LW
.
#grammarpolice
#wordnazi

So it’s “NOT” CHEMOTHERAPY!
.
What do doctors, oncologists, & researchers know anyway??
.
THEY don’t decide what is “CHEMOTHERAPY,” the US courts do!!
.
But it’s “CHEMOTHERAPY” per Orac; because it’s “not” been proven in clinical trials that it’s “CHEMOTHERAPY,” because if it was “CHEMOTHERAPY” it would actually cure cancers like “CHEMOTHERAPY” does!!!
.
Right??
.
NOW I understand how it works!!
.
It’s “CHEMOTHERAPY” when it’s convenient to label it as “CHEMOTHERAPY” & ‘NOT’ “CHEMOTHERAPY’ when it’s convenient to label it as ‘NOT’ “CHEMOTHERAPY!!!”
.
“The full description of service Dr. Burzynski entered in the claim forms reads: “High Dose ANPA CHEMOTHERAPY IV drip”.
.
Try as we might, we are unable to read those words to make a sufficient disclosure that Dr. Burzynski sought reimbursement for the knowing illegal use of an unapproved drug, not ordinary “CHEMOTHERAPY.”
https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/27/27.F3d.153.93-2071.html

#grammarpolice
#wordnazi

Oh, look, it doesn’t understand hashtags either.

#94 Narad
.
#grammarpolice
.
“Oh, look, it doesn’t understand hashtags either.”
.
Hashtag this:
.
GrammarPolice Hashtag
http://www.hashtags.org/…/GrammarPolice/Hashtag information for the GrammarPolice hashtag.

Far out DJt, you do understand this is not Wikipedia? That means WP is of no relevance except when discussing what happens on Wikipedia.

But back to your post of 8 links to 2 almost identical papers. You explanation of why you did this strongly suggests to me a person a sandwich or two short of a picnic.

Perhaps I need to be a bit clearer. You clearly didn’t comprehend what was in those papers. They were effectively lists of treatments not shown to work for cancer and the conclusions were that most won’t work.

And you think these support Burzynski’s antineoplastins?

#98 ChrisPy
.
“Far out DJt, you do understand this is not Wikipedia?”
.
“That means WP is of no relevance except when discussing what happens on Wikipedia.”
.
“But back to your post of 8 links to 2 almost identical papers.”

“You explanation of why you did this strongly suggests to me a person a sandwich or two short of a picnic.”
.
“Perhaps I need to be a bit clearer.”
.
“You clearly didn’t comprehend what was in those papers.”
.
They were effectively lists of treatments not shown to work for cancer and the conclusions were that most won’t work.”
.
“And you think these support Burzynski’s antineoplastins?”
.
Far & ChrisPy, you do understand this was in response to NaraDenialist; who needs help understanding. Right?
.
#80 Didymus Judas Thomas
At the Tu-Quack Center NaraDenialist Nook
.
#79 LW
.
In the iDJiT’s list o’ links:
.
LordWriteous,
.
1. You do realize that if I didn’t provide every conceivable link, that NaraDenialist would “Whine & Cheese,” right?
.
2. That’s why I provided mobile & desktop abstract, full text, & PDF links.
.
#85 Didymus Judas Thomas
At the Tu-Quack Center Clear as Mud bath
.
#83 Narad
.
“I’ve already seen it, you moron. This is the part implied by the fact that I commented on it already. You apparently don’t grasp the dynamics at play, in that, yes, even Wikipedia can identify rank stupidity.”
.
That means WP’s relevant because NaraDenialist needs help understanding it.
.
“But back to your post of 8 links to 2 almost identical papers.”
.
“You explanation of why you did this strongly suggests to me a person a gherkin or two short of a picnic sandwich.
.
“Perhaps I need to be a bit clearer.”
.
“You clearly didn’t comprehend what was in those papers.”
.
They were effectively lists of treatments shown to work for cancer and the conclusions were that most do work.”

#84 Didymus Judas Thomas
The Tu-Quack Center Peer-Review this
.
“Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Present Day Oncology Care: Promises and Pitfalls,” “Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology:”

“A 2008 medical review stated that Burzynski “discovered that peptides and hormones including butyric acid and phenylbutyrate when added to cancer cells results in their differentiation, converting them into normal cells again.” “In the solitary phase II study” of “Antineoplastons” [consisting of A10 (A10I) and AS2-1 injections], “the overall survival at 2 and 5 years was 39 and 22%, respectively, and maximum survival was more than 17 years for a patient with anaplastic astrocytoma and more than 5 years for a patient with glioblastoma. Progression-free survival at 6 months was 39%. Complete response was achieved in 11%, partial response in 11%, stable disease in 39% and progressive disease in 39% of patients.”
.
“The Oncologist,” “Complementary and Alternative Therapies for Cancer”
.
“A 2004 Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center medical review stated that antineoplastons therapy “research at the Burzynski Institute – The group’s preliminary report from a single-arm phase II study of 12 patients showed a 50% response rate.”
.
Reference for published article:
.
49. Burzynski SR. The Present Stage of Antineoplaston Research. Integr Cancer Ther 2004;3:47–58.
50. Burzynski SR, Janicki TJ, Weaver RA, Burzynski B. Targeted therapy with antineoplastons A10 and AS2–1 of high-grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem glioma. Integr Cancer Ther 2006;5:40–7.
.
46. Burzynski SR, Lewy RL, Weaver RA et al. Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma: a preliminary report. Drugs R D 2003;4:91-101.
.
Brainstem glioma is an aggressive and dangerous cancer. Without treatment, the life expectancy is typically a few months from the time of diagnosis. With appropriate treatment, 37% survive more than one year, 20% survive 2 years. and 13% survive 3 years.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstem_glioma#section_5
.
Please provide some chemotherapy, chemo radiation, &/or radiation studies with comparable rates.

Hashtag this:
.
GrammarPolice Hashtag
http://www.hashtags.org/…/GrammarPolice/Hashtag information for the GrammarPolice hashtag.

Leaving aside the fact that you can’t identify that that link plainly isn’t going to work, you don’t understand hashtags, dumbass. This isn’t Twitter.

@ChrisP:

Umm. Citation needed.

It even says so.

It’s been a long and frustrating day and I needed a laugh. Thank you.

#103 NaraDenialist Nietzsche
.
I haven’t seen you post anything relevant at all here.
.
You seem to have difficulty providing any relevant citations.
.
I don’t see you trying to answer post #23, for example.
.
You seem to relegate yourself to what you’re good at.
.
Make snide, vapid, insignificant remarks.
.
I seriously doubt your ability to do any research, considering your “rubberstamping” of all things incorrect.

Appeal
[email protected]
== Clarification request: WP:NPOV/Arbitration Committee decision ==
.
‘Initiated by:
‘[email protected]
(Didymus Judas Thomas)
.
‘List of any users involved or directly affected: 1. Xxxxxxx; 2. xxxxxxxxxxx; 3. XX Xxx; 4. Xxxxxxxxxx:Xxx xx12345 (Xxx xx-23456); 5. Xxx Xxxxxx; 6. Xxxxxxxxx; 7. Xxxx Xxxx; 8. Xxxx; 9. Xxxxxxx; 10. Xxxxx; 11. Xxxxx; 12. xxxx; 13. Xxxxxxxxx; 14. Didymus Judas Thomas
.
confirmation that all are aware of the request:” Blocked/Unable to do.
.
=== Statement by Didymus Judas Thomas ===
.
Arbitration Committee:
.
Thank you for the opportunity to request clarification from the Arbitration Committee.
.
“There are two very important things to realize about the Arbitration Committee and its members: •They do not have much time, and •They care much more about product than process.”
(Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration [[WP:AG]] 7 Evidence and argumentation.)
.
I take it that in this case “They care much more about product than process.”
.
“You are trying to show the Arbitrators that there is a dispute requiring their intervention;” … “you are not trying to prove your case at this time.”
(Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests
[[WP:A/R]] 1 Requests for arbitration, 3.)
.
Therefore, I did not try to prove my case at this time. Please let me know if you want me to prove my case outside the normal process.
.
In my humble opinion; as stated in my Arbitration, editors & administrators engaged in: “Anyone who just complains without foundation, refusing to join the discussion, should simply be rejected and ignored.”
([[WP:SOP]] Statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then. 7.)
.
Editors & administrators did not explain [[WP:NPOV]] when I repeatedly requested they do so. If they can’t get past that in “good faith,” how can we then proceed to their questionable statements re [[WP:MEDRS]], [[WP:NPOVFAQ]] “Balancing different views/Giving “equal validity” &”Balancing different views/Pseudoscience?
.
In my humble opinion; as stated in my Arbitration, editors & administrators did “not” engage in “good faith” in eleven WP policies, statements of principles, core principles, & founding principles, including: Resolve disputes calmly, through civil discussion, consensus-building, neutral point of view, thoughtful, diplomatic honesty, politeness, objectively and without bias, & realistically.
.
Editors indicated to me that I do certain things & they did nothing after I did what they requested.
.
“Looking into your situation, the community were united that your contributions were biased.”
.
WP editors seem to be biased:
.
“We are told that 2013 will be a big year, but apparently his plan is to release another bullshit movie not to publish useful research.” XxX|Xxx User:XxX/help|Help! 21:52, 24 December 2012
.
Bullshit?
.
“The world, right now, considers Burzynski to be at best unethical and at worst a quack…”. Xxx (Help!) 08:58, 30 December 2012
.
The world?
.
“There is unlikely to be any dispassionate debate over ANPs while Burzynski continues with his unethical practices.” XxX|Xxx User:XxX/help|Help! 12:43, 26 December 2012
.
Continues with his unethical practices.? Yet TMB/SOAH had their case dismissed? Is WP judge, jury, & executioner?
.
“What they mean is that nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it, which necessarily means that it’s not considered in the least promising.” Xxx (Help!) 3:54 pm, 24 December 2012, Monday
.
Nobody else is doing meaningful work on it? Ignores independent research done in Poland, Russia, Korea, Egypt, Japan, & China which specifically reference SRB’s publications in their publications re antineoplastons & phenylacetylglutamine (PG); which is AS2-5, & includes phase III trials published in China & continued research being published in China 12/17/2012?
.
“Pretty much false. The studies are listed, but the results are not published.” — Xxxxxx Xxxxx 8:11 am, Today
.
Questionable wording considering what’s on the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health cancer . gov web-site.
.
“The other argument is that the secondary sources (i.e., respected cancer organizations, FDA, etc.) are not reliable because they are Burzynski’s “competitors” — such baseless conspiracy theory nonsense merits no consideration whatsoever.” Xxxxx Xxxxxx Xxx 22:18, 29 December 2012
.
Misstated what I posted &then calls it baseless conspiracy theory nonsense.
.
“Please add re WP:NPOV that Burzynski’s attorney, Richard Jaffe has disputed Lola Quinlan’s claims:
“On February 1, 2012, Dr. Burzynski’s attorney, Richard Jaffe, disputed Lola Quinlan’s allegations on Houston’s KPRC News.”
http://m.click2houston.com/news/Houston-cancer-doctor-draws-new-complaints-from-patients/-/16714936/8581480/-/hmrbjk/-/index.html http://www.jag-lawfirm.com/burzynski-suit-kprc-02012012.html
Thank you very much.” Didymus Judas Thomas 15:03, 26 December 2012
“:So? [OR] Disputing it in the media probably means he doesn’t have a case. [/OR] In any case, a lawyer disputing the allegations against his client is not even news.” — Xxxxxx Xxxxx 15:24, 26 December 2012
“::Xxxxxx Xxxxx, I’m not sure what relevance your above post has re WP:NPOV since the article includes statements from attorneys representing both sides.”. 17:51, 27 December 2012 Didymus Judas Thomas 12/27/2012
.
No response, yet in comparison, WP cites Houston Post CM article.
.
“The Burzynski Clinic Article has:
“…a Mayo Clinic study found no benefit….”
But that was not what the study concluded. See below:
.::”CONCLUSION: Although we could not confirm any tumor regression in patients in this study, the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions about treatment efficacy.” [48]. “Conclusion
Although we could not confirm any tumor regression in patients in this study, the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions about treatment efficacy.”[49]
In the interest of Neutrality, please revove the referen e to MYo entirely or change to;
“…a Mayo Clinic study found that “the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions about treatment efficacy.”
Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas 21:12, 10 December 2012 12/10/12
“How is “found no benefit” not a a fair and pithy description of the Mayo Clinic study’s summary?” Xxxxxxx 21:24, 10 December 2012
“I feel this should be changed under WP:NPOV because not every reader is going to understand the “Fair & Pithy” reason I was provided. I feel that the average reader reading this will read it as meaning a study was done & completed with the necessary # of people for an effective study, when that was not the conclusion as pointed out in my above post.
Thank you very much.”. Didymus Judas Thomas 11:02, 18 December 2012 12/18/12
.
No response.
.
“There was concern raised, just before you started editing, that “Burzynski supporters … are crowd-sourcing others to come edit this page”.
.
I never saw it, nor have I seen a crowd trying to edit said Article. But what I have seen is me, someone who has actually researched the issues, trying to get WP to abide by its ([[WP:SOP]] “Statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then. 7.”)
“Due and undue weight: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3]
“The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered,”
[[WP:NPOV]] “History of NPOV:” (Content # 6, Note 3)
.
I am in “good faith” concerned that certain WP editors &
administrators do not have the appropriate skills or knowledge to deal with WP issues re the above.
.
Thank you very much. DJT
.
=== Statement by other user ===
.
=== Clerk notes ===
.
=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
Xxxxx Xxxxxxx
.
Hello Didymus Judas Thomas
.
The Arbitration Committee look into conduct disputes where the community are unable to resolve them. Looking into your situation, the community were united that your contributions were biased:
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:NPOV
.
I don’t see a case for misconduct against the editors you list as they were following policy, and that was supported by consensus.
.
You were then blocked as it was felt that you do not have the appropriate skills or knowledge to edit Wikipedia with ease. As you have shown to the Committee with your attempts to communicate with us, you do appear to be struggling a little. This does create work for others when attempting to understand what it is you want.
.
You may appeal your block to us, though in the circumstances this is unlikely to be successful. Your edits to Burzynski Clinic were found to be inappropriate both in terms of content and layout, and you have not responded well to discussion on the article talkpage pointing out that the sources you wish to use are inappropriate. We don’t expect users to fully understand how to edit Wikipedia when they start, but we do expect them to show signs of learning.
.
There is also concern that you wish to promote antineoplaston therapy in the article, a cancer therapy that is unproven in independent trials and yet is very expensive. There was concern raised, just before you started editing, that “Burzynski supporters … are crowd-sourcing others to come edit this page”.
.
Xxxxx/XxxxXxxx

I choke every time I read the words “in my <humble opinion”…

Is his formatting getting worse? I once saw a college student’s paper with the professor’s comment in big red letters: “Paragraphing: insane!”. I think that’s an understatement here.

I can see why the Wikipedia editors didn’t want to deal with him; I tried to read the incredible mess he spewed and I just gave up.

Looking into your situation, the community were united that your contributions were biased

The actual exchange, which DJT failed to successfully provide a link for, provides yet more comedy.

@Narad: “That you’re both incompetent and in Pennsylvania.”

Are you sure he’s in Pennsylvania and not in, say, Houston?

Ah, okay, I just wondered if perhaps DJT were Richard Jaffe.

#109. Krebiozen
.
“Nice to know that those at Wikipedia can also recognize an unhinged time waster with nothing useful to add to a discussion.”
.
KreBloggerZeneca, what educational system did you wend your way through?
.
Was it one of those where they just kicked people to the next level because they didn’t want to leave any child behind?
.
Because I want to warn people about it since you apparently have no concept of what this means:
.
“Balancing different views/Pseudoscience: If we’re going to represent the sum total of encyclopedic knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us WITHOUT ASSERTING THAT THEY ARE FALSE. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) VIEW AS THE MINORITY VIEW, and to explain how scientists have received or criticized pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.”

#111. Narad
.
You seem to relegate yourself to what you’re good at.
.
Make snide, vapid, insignificant remarks.
.
“Project much, Piddles?”
.
Everytime I see one of your posts.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=projectile+vomiting

For those who may have missed it, straight from the “Stanislaw Burzynski: “Personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy” for dummies” post, here’s how to compute the survival rate if five survive out of seven (scroll to the bottom of the comment):

If you had 7 patients you could call that: 70%.
5 successful patients would then be: 50%
Change 70% to: 100% (by adding 30%)
Change 50% to: 80% (by adding 30%)
80% minus 100% = 20%
So 20 deaths out of 100 = 80% survival rate.

I am not making this up. DJT really wrote that, and was quite … vigorous … in defending it.

I’ve known some arithmetic-challenged attorneys, but nothing like that. I sincerely hope this guy isn’t an attorney and isn’t involved in any way in advising clients. 

#112. LW
.
“I tried to read the incredible mess he spewed and I just gave up.”
.
Don’t worry, I don’t think anyone’s going to mistake you for Abraham Lincoln or Stephen Douglas.
.
“WP:NPOV doesn’t mean “everyone gets a seat at the table”, it means “everyone of significance gets a seat at the table”.
—Xxxx (talk) 12:22 pm, 10 December 2012, Monday
.
You would probably look about the above statements in quotes & determine that the individual who posted it on WP was “quoting” from some WP policy.
.
Why else would you put “quotes” around something unless you were trying to make it look “official?”
.
Did I let this person get away with this?
.
NO.
.
And when I questioned them on it they couldn’t back it up.

#117. Narad
.
“Are you sure he’s in Pennsylvania and not in, say, Houston?
Nah, and upon closer examination, he’s almost certainly not. ”
.
Lucky YOU!! Because you do know what happens when you ASSume!!! 😉

#124. LW
.
“For those who may have missed it,”
.
Is THAT the best you can do??? 😉
.http://www.unlimitedchoice.org/blog/humour/a-guide-to-truth-and-bullshit
You don’t seem to be able to comprehend the concept of “turn-about is fair play.
.
You post BS, I call BS & post it back in return.

KreBloggerZeneca, what educational system did you wend your way through?

Given your jaw-dropping mathematical abilities and communication skills, clearly not one that bears any comparison to the one you slithered out of.

@Antaeus Feldspar, I asked that exact question and never got an answer. Using DJT’s algorithm, I guessed that the answer would be either 96% or 60%. I won’t spoil the fun by telling DJT how I got either number, nor what the right answer is.

#82. Narad
.
“Yah, but how do you feel about nudism as a response to the scourge of Lyme disease?”
.
NaraDressed, Here’s your Nudism. Ask the NUDE RAT!! 😉

3/2005 – Effects of ANTINEOPLASTON AS2-1 against post-operative lung metastasis in orthotopically implanted colon cancer in
NUDE RAT
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15706406
.
http://www.spandidos-publications.com/or/13/3/389

#132 Krebiozen
.
Let me talk to you in a language you can understand:

0 000 0000 00 00001
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_code

#134 LW
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag

.#137 flip
.
“Re: his attempts at editing the Wiki page for the clinic… is he still trying to deny that he’s defending Burzyinski?”
.
“Holy crap this is so wrong it’s not even right.”
.
Hey flipGumFlap
.
Guess who requested this be added?
.
“In 2009, the FDA issued a warning letter …”
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burzynski_Clinic&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop
Did you notice how I also included the negative comments?
https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2013/01/21/quoth-joe-mercola-i-love-me-some-burzynski-antineoplastons
#101 & 158
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_hypnotism
Chicken? Or Ostrich?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Was_a_Rooster

Wikipedia appeals re indefinite block & WP:NPOV dispute
.
Jimbo Wales,
.
This is just to make sure that you are aware that I filed 2 appeals on Wikipedia as of this date re:
1. Appeal re Arbitration Committee not addressing indefinite block appeal, &
2. Appeal re Arbitration Committee not addressing WP:NPOV dispute.
Didymus Judas Thomas
[email protected]
Any questions may be directed to me re e-mail correspondence from Arbitration Committee members
Thank you very much.

This is just my opinion, but attempting to debate someone who is sick can’t really be of much value, can it?

I don’t think anyone is much attempting to “debate” Piddles, which clearly is pointless, but I don’t get the impression that it’s seriously mentally ill, just utterly clueless about both technology and communication and an all-around asshole.

#145 OccamsLaser
#147 OccamsLaser
.
Oh, LOOKITY!!
.
Another One-Hit- Wonder!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-hit_wonder
Comes in here ejaculating his/her/its opinion; which I don’t give a Yangtze Dam about,
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam
& has nothing whatsoever to add to the SRB antineoplastons argument.
.
AMAZING!!!
.
This Ain’t the Library
http://www.occams-razor.ca
Occam’s Laser is the first in a series of games featuring the characters of Occam’s Razor. In this game…
.
And it’s not a game.
.
Those of us who have actually researched the issues are able to provide citations & references to supportable data.
.
Get thee hence & steal someone else’s name …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_No_Asshole_Rule

#149 OccamsLaser
.
Mr. Laser:
.
Thank you for your post. I admire the effort you have put in to ignore:
.
Post #28 above.
.
“If you had actually “fact-checked” yourself before posting this “patented” nonsense, you would know that … I’ve clearly posted items not exactly complimentary to SRB on here, but I find it more fun to question the tu-quacking tu quoque quoting posters.”
.
Good luck.

#151 OccamsLaser
.
Mr. Thomas –
.
“I hope it encourages you to hear that your efforts are definitely contributing to the public image of the defining characteristics of supporters of Dr. Burzynski; …”
.
Thank you for ignoring my above post #150!!
.
You just don’t “get it,” do you???
.
Let me quote from:
.
1997 – The Dividing Line Between the Role of the FDA and the Practice of Medicine:
.
A Historical Review and Current Analysis (Citing Burzynski)
http://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/8846812
1997 – The Criminalization of Innovation: FDA Misdirection in the Najarian and Burzynski Cases
http://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/9453691
Strong sentiments, pro & con, were expressed by jurors on both sides
.
The jury foreman, John Coan, favored acquittal:
.
He is quoted in the New York Times:
.
“The fact that we didn’t make a unanimous decision 1 way or another does not mean we didn’t make a decision,” Coan said
.
“The decision is that he is neither guilty nor innocent doesn’t mean he doesn’t need to do work within his practice, & the FDA obviously needs to pursue things as well”

1997 – The Dividing Line Between the Role of the FDA and the Practice of Medicine:
.
A Historical Review and Current Analysis (Citing Burzynski)
.
SRB: (39)
http://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/8846812
1997 – The Criminalization of Innovation: FDA Misdirection in the Najarian and Burzynski Cases
.
Pages: (1st # indicates actual PDF pg / actual # ON pg)
(2/1) (3/2) (4/3) (12./.11) (13./.12) (14/13) (15/14) (16/15) [17/16]
.
FDA allowed use then disallowed: (18/17) (20/19) (22/21)
http://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/9453691
(pg. 39)
1977 – The US Attorney stated that SRB was 1st informed that he needed FDA approval in 1977 [157]
(pg. 13./.12)
5/1983 – US District Judge Gabrielle McDonald issued an order that permanently enjoined SRB & his clinic from producing & introducing into commerce the antineoplastons
www. 3rdcoa. courts. state. tx. us/opinions/htmlopinion.asp?opinionid=847
.
http:// openjurist. org/819/f2d/1301/united-states-v-burzynski-cancer-research-institute-r
.
http:// biotech. law. lsu. edu/cases/pro_lic/Texas_v_Burzynski.htm
.
https:// bulk. resource. org/courts. gov/c/F2/819/819.F2d.1301.86-2183.html
.
https:// bulk. resource. org/courts. gov/c/F3/27/27.F3d.153.93-2071.html
.
www. casewatch. org/board/med/burzynski/order_1994.pdf
.
http:// federal-circuits. vlex. com/vid/usa-vs-burzynski-20000301
.
www. bioethicswatch. org/pd/burzynski_txorder19940831.pdf
.
http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/547/Flannery.html
The injunction was to be in place until SRB,
.
1) received an approved IND distinction from the FDA; or
.
2) received written statement from the FDA that the product did not qualify as a “new drug”
.
SRB met neither of these requirements & continued to prescribe & administer the drug to his patients for treatment of many different diseases, including AIDS, Parkinson’s, & numerous forms of cancer [33]
.
1993 – Ms. Ritchey testified that she had been assigned to investigate SRB in 1993 (for alleged “mail fraud”)
.
3/1995 – Ms. Ritchey testified that she had been working on the case full-time since 3/1995
(pg. 3/2)
11/20/1995 – US v. Burzynski , Indictment, # H-95-290, p. 2
US v. Burzynski, Indictment, No. H-95-290, p. 2
http://collinsoneal.net/notable-cases/criminal-defense
US v. Burzynski , Indictment, No. H-95-290, p. 8 [33]
US v. Burzynski , Indictment, # H-95-290, p. 8
(pg. 14/13)
DOJ brought a criminal indictment against him for contempt of a federal order,
.
34 counts of mail fraud [34],
[34]
The mail fraud claims allege that SRB attempted to defraud insurance companies by using improper Current Procedural Terminology Codes (CPT Codes), misstating the medications prescribed to patients in order to get the costs reimbursed. US v. Burzynski , Indictment, supra , note 33, at 16
.
40 counts of violating the federal food & drug law
[159]
11/20/1995 – U.S. v. Burzynski, Indictment p.9 (filed)
[35]
Indictment supra, note 33, at 13
US v. Burzynski , Indictment, supra , note 33, at 13
(pg. 14/13)
Indictment supra, note 33, at 16 [34]
.
The mail fraud claims allege that SRB attempted to defraud insurance companies by using improper Current Procedural Terminology Codes (CPT Codes), misstating the medications prescribed to patients in order to get the costs reimbursed. US v. Burzynski , Indictment, supra , note 33, at 16 [34]
.
Interestingly, the indictment against SRB does not allege that the administration of the antineoplaston treatment itself has caused any harm
(pg. 14/13)
SRB’s attorneys argued vehemently that it is unfair to keep the issues of the drug’s efficacy from the jury, & that the doctor could not receive a fair trial without this important evidence
.
After considering the briefs from both sides, however, Judge Sim Lake reasoned that,
.
“This is not a wrongful death suit
.
Whether the drug worked or did not is not relevant”
.
He ruled that certain testimony from former patients as to the effectiveness of the drug would be allowed only if Burzynski attempts to adopt a “necessity defense”
.
Such a defense implies that a life-threatening situation arose which prompted someone to break the law
.
It is unlikely, however, that the defense attorneys will attempt to make such a claim [37]
.
11/20/1995 – See generally, U.S. v. Burzynski, Indictment 40
.
11/26/1995 – His Nemesis, U.S., Indicts Texas Doctor
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/11/26/us/his-nemesis-us-indicts-texas-doctor.html
2/5/1996 – Outraged cancer patients protest FDA’s deadly action
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Outraged+cancer+patients+protest+FDA's+deadly+action.-a017920789
2/22/1996 – Government Press Releases, Background on Access to Medical Treatment Hearing
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xpw03b00
(pg. 17/16)
3/28/1996 – Sue A. Blevins, Legalize Alternative Medicine, CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR [43]
http://www.csmonitor.com/1996/0328/28204.html
.
http://m.csmonitor.com/1996/0328/28204.html
7/24/1996 – (The Times’s Gina Kolata had blasted SRB in a front-page article)
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/24/us/to-the-hopeless-a-cancer-cure-beckons.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
(pg. 17/16)
7/30/1996 – Access to Medical Treatment Act, Hearings on S#1035 before the Senate Labor & Human Resources Committee, (testimony of Shawn McConnell) [45]
7/30/1996 ‘~ Cong. Testimony, Access to Medical Treatment Act S1035
(pg. 17/16)
7/31/1996 – Jeff Barker, FDA ‘Playing God,’ Parents Say Cancer Drug Sought for Ill Son, THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC, p. A1 [46]
.
Prosecutor Mike Clark seems to be unsure of the righteousness of his own cause
.
In a pre-trial motion, he virtually admitted that SRB’s treatment works
.
When Dr. B’s attorneys asked that jurors be allowed to tour the BRI, Clark called the request
.
“a thinly veiled effort to expose the jury to the specter of Dr. Burzynski in his act of saving lives”
.
“The specter… of saving lives!”
.
Certainly an amazing choice of words, whose significance was not lost on reporters from the Washington Times
.
This was reported in a front-page story
.
12/5/1996 – The Washington Times proclaimed
.
“Doctor’s lifesaving effort could land him in prison–FDA ignores cancer drug’s success”
.
(The article justly commented:
.
“The prosecution marks the first time the FDA has tried to jail a scientist for using a drug on which he is conducting FDA-authorized clinical trials”)
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-56870285.html
The Washington Post carried a long & detailed article, mainly favorable, on the patients’ plight
(pg. 18/17)
The Big Picture: Lessons From … Burzynski Regarding FDA Policy
.
Dr. B. is currently fighting for his life in US District Court
(pg. 19/18)
The wildly creative antineoplastons of today might be the Salk vaccines & penicillins of tomorrow
.
Perhaps the most disconcerting feature … centers around the
(pg. 20/19)
inconsistency of FDA oversight & the mixed meesages sent to SRB over the years
.
SRB’s antineoplastons received their own measure of inconsistent treatment from FDA
.
6 years into production he was enjoined from selling the drug at all,
.
only to be given permission to run clinical studies to prove its efficacy a few years later
.
Finally, the plug was suddenly pulled on the drug altogether,
(pg. 17/16)
Zachary originally qualified for a “compassionate exemption” due to the seriousness of his brain tumor, but the FDA rescinded the exemption shortly thereafter [44]
(pg. 20/19)
leaving 1 patient to remark that,
.
“I am in a war against cancer & the government keeps trying to take away the only weapon I have” [51]
.
Only approximately 300 of what were formerly 1,000’s of patients are allowed to be treated currently under very close FDA scrutiny [50]
.
1 father, testifying to a congressional committee about his son’s treatment by SRB stated:
.
“Burzynski is guilty of saving lives illegally
.
If helping sick people lives is irrelevant to enforcing rules, than the police should start pulling over ambulances & fire trucks for speeding”
.
The Oversight & Investigations Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee heard testimony from SRB patients who testified
that his treatment cured them or helped them
.
Only
(pg. 21/20)
with consistency will the bureaucratic bumbling evident in the SRB case be avoided
(pg. 22/21)
SRB aggressively approached desperate patients
.
SRB has always been considered a bit of a radical & a populist hero
.
SRB maintained a fundamental disbelief in the FDA approval system altogether
.
An acquittal in the SRB case is not a foregone conclusion
.
The saga
(pg. 23/22)
illuminates some important issues with regard to the status quo of FDA policy
.
In order to truly act in the interest of public health, the agency needs to improve the way in which it deals with the creative & brilliant minds who are developing the new drugs of tomorrow
.
The continued threat of criminal prosecutions as used against research physicians & the stringent application of bureaucratic pressure to deny desperate patients of hopeful treatments are not the most effective ways to chart a course toward the FDA’s public health & safety mission
.
1/3/1997 – Deborah Tedford, Doctor Loses Round in Court, HOUSTON CHRONICLE, p. 29
.
Deborah Tedford, Doctor Loses Round in Court, Houston Chronicle, p. 29 [37]
(pg. 15/14)
Tedford, supra, note 37, at 29 [39]
.
1/6/1997 – Rebel Cancer Doctor Goes on Trial for Fraud , CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, p. 19
.
Chicago Sun-Times, Rebel Cancer Doctor To Go On Trial For Fraud, 19 [155]
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-711894.html
.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-4380365.html
SRB has only treated 6 of his patients under FDA approved clinical trials & on the day his trial was to begin
(pg. 39)
approximately 300 patients were receiving the drug [156]
.
1/6/1997 – Jury selection for SRB’s trial began
.
Dr. Stanislaw R. Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D., the Houston physician & researcher who is threatened with life imprisonment for his work
.
He is a licensed medical doctor who treats desperate cancer patients, seems to help many of them, & earns their gratitude
.
Now he faces life in federal prison
.
Outside the courthouse, in increasing numbers, his patients plead,
.
“Free our doctor
.
And don’t let us die!”
.
1/6/1997 – This was the setting as Stanislaw R. Burzynski, MD, PhD, perhaps the best-known cancer specialist in the country, went on trial on Monday, charged with 75 counts of what the FDA & Justice Department allege is fraud
(pg. 14/13)
Dr. B., as his patients call him, faces up to
.
5 years in prison & a
.
$250,000 fine on each of 34 counts of mail fraud &
.
up to 3 years in prison & a
.
$250,000 fine for each of 40 counts of violating the food, drug & cosmetic laws
.
The final count is for contempt’ & will be decided not by the jury of 8 women & 4 men, but by judge Simeon T. Lake III [36]
.
Simple math shows that the charges carry the equivalent of life imprisonment for the 53-year-old Polish-born scientist
.
A guilty verdict on even 1 of these counts will spell ruination for the doctor & for nearly 400 patients who believe they are kept alive by his treatments
.
The trial scene has been marked by extraordinary efforts by patients on behalf of their doctor
.
1/7/1997 – Houston Chronicle, Cancer Doctor Says Patients Need Him 13
(pg. 38)
A recent example of the FDA’s position against the unapproved use of drugs or devices is the criminal trial of a Texas doctor which began 1/7/1997 of this year [154]
[154]
1/7/1997 – The Dallas Morning News, Houston Cancer Doctor’s Trial Delayed, lSA
https:// groups. google. com/forum/m/?fromgroups#!topic/soc.culture.polish/nLdwkV7mOBw
.
https:// groups. google. com/forum/m/?hl=en&fromgroups#!topic/soc.culture.polish/nLdwkV7mOBw
.
http:// news. google. com/newspapers?nid=861&dat=19970224&id=l08KAAAAIBAJ&sjid=3UoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3982,4466569
Dr. B., a Houston physician is being criminally prosecuted for violating the FDCA by his use of an unapproved drug to treat cancer patients
.
The doctor invented, patented, & manufactured an “antineoplaston” treatment which he claims serves as a biochemical switch to “turn off” cancer genes & prevent cancerous cells from multiplying in the human body [155]
.
Over a 2 decade span, the doctor treated over 3,000 patients with his drug, yet never complied with the FDA’s approval requirements [158]
[158]
1/12/1997 – Jesse Katz, Cancer ‘Pioneer’ on Trial After Bucking the System , LOS ANGELES TIMES, A16
.
Jesse Katz, Cancer ‘Pioneer’ on Trial After Bucking the System, Los Angeles Times, A16
.
Los Angeles Times, Cancer “Pioneer” on Trial After Bucking the System, AlE
.
Los Angeles Times, Cancer “Pioneer” on Trial After Bucking the System, A16
.
The FDA finally ordered SRB to not distribute the drug in interstate commerce [159]
.
The doctor was also informed by the Texas Department of Health that use of the drug within the state was also illegal because it did not have FDA approval for use
(pg. 15/14)
The defense states that Dr. B.’s actions were to fulfill his oath as a physician, which states that doctors “do no harm,” & he “believes that to withhold (antineoplaston) is to do harm” [161]
[161]
1/8/1997 – Bruce Nichols, Jury Told Doctor Delivered Drug Illegally , DALLAS MORNING NEWS, p. 19A
.
Bruce Nichols, Jury Told Doctor Delivered Drug Illegally, Dallas Morning News, p. 19A
.
The Dallas Morning News, Jury Told Doctor Delivered Drug Illegally, 19A
.
Interestingly, the indictment against SRB does not allege that the administration of the antineoplaston treatment itself has caused any harm [162]
.
Many of SRB’s patients swear
(pg. 40)
that his treatment has saved their lives when practitioners who provided more conventional treatment told them to prepare for death [163]
[163]
1/12/1997 – Jesse Katz, Cancer ‘Pioneer’ on Trial After Bucking the System , LOS ANGELES TIMES, A16
.
Jesse Katz, Cancer ‘Pioneer’ on Trial After Bucking the System, Los Angeles Times, A16
.
Los Angeles Times, Cancer “Pioneer” on Trial After Bucking the System, AlE
.
Los Angeles Times, Cancer “Pioneer” on Trial After Bucking the System, A16
.
The Oversight & Investigations Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee heard testimony from SRB patients who testified
that his treatment cured them or helped them
.
2/22/1996 – Government Press Releases, Background on Access to Medical Treatment Hearing
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xpw03b00
1/7/1997 – Houston Chronicle, Cancer Doctor Says Patients Need Him
.
A group of 100 patients & their families gathered outside the federal courthouse in support of SRB on the 1st day of his criminal trial
.
On the 1st 2 days of the trial, there were vocal demonstration of over 125 patients & their supporters outside the Courthouse
.
Patient testimony on the effectiveness of the treatment has been barred from the trial
.
When SRB appeared for the 1st day of the trial, he was surrounded by children whose lives he had apparently prolonged or saved
.
They & their parents wanted to tell their heart-rending stories
.
Judge Lake had agreed with the FDA that the effectiveness of SRB’s treatment was not to be an issue in this trial:
.
it could not even be alluded to in the courtroom, “irrelevant” to the charges against him
.
1/7/1997 – prospective jurors were “voir dired” (questioned) by lead Prosecutor Michael Clark as well as defense attorneys Michael Ramsey & Dan Cogdell
.
By 2.pm, 8 women & 4 men had been chosen
.
There were 2 alternate jurors as well (1 man, 1 woman)
.
Overall, the SRB side was pleased with the make-up of the panel
.
Later that day, both sides made opening statements
.
Clark told the jury that he would prove that SRB treated patients living outside the state of Texas & that he knew they were living outside the state of Texas
.
This is the government’s most “damning” charge
.
The problem is that SRB does not deny it
.
Why should he?
.
Both he, his patients, the media, & other courts had always assumed this was perfectly legal
.
Perhaps because of this, Clark’s delivery was considered dull by many in the audience
.
“It would put you to sleep,” 1 observer told us
.
By contrast, defense attorney John Ackerman (a Wyoming colleague of famed “country lawyer” Jerry Spence) told the jury the incredible story of SRB’s life:
.
How SRB’s father, a classical scholar, had been jailed by the Nazis in Poland, & how SRB himself struggled for an education despite his adamant refusal to join the then-dominant Communist Party
.
He told how SRB arrived in the US with $20 in his pocket & landed a research position at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston
.
He let them know about SRB’s discovery of anti-cancer peptides which he dubbed “antineoplastons”
.
Ackerman showed the jury a copy of an attorney’s opinion of the time informing the Houston doctor that it would be legal for him to use his new experimental drugs in the state of Texas
.
He also read them from a 1987 Federal Circuit Court opinion which agreed that SRB’s use of antineoplastons were in fact legal in Texas
.
The opening of the trial was given extensive coverage by many media outlets
.
1/8/1997 – A picture of a heroic-looking Dr. B., holding his 5-year-old patient Dustin Kunnari, appeared in full color on the front page of the Dallas Morning News on Wednesday
.
They stood in front of a sea of posters proclaiming,
.
“Dr. Burzynski saved my life”
.
“Rebel cancer doctor to go on trial for fraud,”
.
proclaimed the Chicago Sun-Times
.
It called the trial “part of the debate over the US FDA’s handling of unconventional therapies for life-threatening illnesses”
.
This was 1 of the few papers to realize the larger dimensions of the trial
.
1/8/1997 – The New York Times, covered the story, although they played up the “untested” nature of the drugs
Doctor Who Offers Untested Cancer Drug Is on Trial in Texas
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/08/us/doctor-who-offers-untested-cancer-drug-is-on-trial-in-texas.html
The local Texas papers were more sympathetic, with articles entitled, like this one in the Houston Post:
.
“Cancer Doctor Says Patients Need Him”
.
A huge picture of Dr. B. with another smiling 5-year-old, Taylor Ulbricht Robb, appeared in a Houston Chronicle article
.
1/9/1997 – The government called its 1st witness, US postal inspector Barbara Ritchey
.
Ms. Ritchey testified that she had been assigned to investigate SRB in 1993 (for alleged “mail fraud”) & had been working on the case full-time since 3/1995
.
She related how she had staked out a branch of Mailbox, Etc. near the SRB clinic in the hope of catching a hapless patient mailing antineoplastons back to his home address
.
She eventually found just such a patient & testified that she then followed him around for a while
.
Throughout the 1st 2 weeks of the trial, the prosecutors repeatedly put up enlarged copies of the informed consent forms that all patients were required to sign
.
Some showed out-of-state addresses
.
The point was to impress the jury with the fact that some patients lived outside of Texas, & that SRB knew this
.
This approach provided an opening for the team of defense attorneys to have the documents read out loud to the jury
.
In these forms, Dr. B. clearly informed the patients that his antineoplastons were experimental in nature & had not been approved by the FDA
.
The forms were explicit that there could be no guarantee that antineoplastons would reduce or stabilize their cancers
.
Attorney Ramsey astutely pointed out that one crucial element of “fraud” is deceit
.
Without deceit, there can be no fraud, he said
.
“Isn’t that Informed Consent form the absolute, honest golden truth?”
.
he then asked the Postal Inspector
.
She had to admit that it was, thereby undermining the government’s main contention
.
Ramsey also had Ms. Ritchey read from a 1987 5th Circuit decision which stated that SRB could continue to prescribe antineoplastons in the state of Texas
.
The decision also stated that Judge Gabrielle McDonald retained the authority to amend or modify her order
.
“In other words,” boomed the Texas lawyer, “the FDA had another remedy, didn’t it?
.
If it felt Dr. B. was violating the order by treating out-of-state patients, it could have simply sought clarification, couldn’t it have?
.
Then we wouldn’t all have to sit here for 4 or 5 or 6 weeks of this trial”
.
Here too, Ritchey had to agree
.
1/9/1997 – Mr. Ramsey continued his cross examination of Ms. Ritchey
.
She admitted what had previously been suspected, that she & 6 other federal agents had known that SRB would be out-of-town when they raided his clinic on 3/24/1995
.
In a dramatic moment, she admitted that the Informed Consent form was truthful, but took issue with the sentence,
.
“Dr. Burzynski may continue to prescribe antineoplastons in Texas”
.
She contended that the legal decision’s actual language read
.
“Dr. Burzynski may continue to treat patients with antineoplastons in Texas”
.
“Isn’t that the same thing? ” asked Ramsey
.
“No,” said Ritchey
.
“Sometimes, I go to the doctor & he treats me but he doesn’t prescribe”
.
Observers seemed non-plussed by this hair-splitting response
.
The next witness called by the government was Barbara Tomaszewski, Dr. B’s long-time office manager
.
She was called to identify records, but in response to a question managed to get in that
.
“Dr. Burzynski is very honest, a `workaholic,’ & his only pleasure is when patients are getting better”
.
The final witness of that day was Ms. Peggy Oakes, an employee of the CNA Insurance company
.
Many have long suspected that the insurance industry was involved in the indictment, not wanting to pay for expensive new cancer treatments
.
Although insurance companies were allegedly “defrauded” by SRB, this witness admitted under questioning that her company knew all along that SRB’s treatment was experimental
.
(If a company is on notice that a treatment is experimental there can be no finding of fraud, say Dr. B’s attorneys)
.
1/15/1997 – On Wednesday, the mother of an ex-patient, David Burleson, was called by the government & testified that SRB knew David lived out of state & that he would take the medicines out of state
.
(Again, something SRB hardly denies)
.
But this experienced head nurse also told the jury that the training her son had received at the clinic in the use of the catheter & pump delivery system was excellent
.
She related that her son was very intelligent, had researched his options thoroughly, & had spoken to 11 other SRB patients before opting for this treatment
.
He was fully informed when he made his decision
.
Ray Goulet, husband of another ex-patient, then testified that he & his wife came from New Hampshire for the treatment, after she was given 30 days to live
.
“New Hampshire–don’t your license plates say `Live Free or Die’?” asked defense attorney Mike Ramsey
.
The point was clear
.
Repeatedly, the defense team turned the tables on the prosecutor
.
Over & over, they used the introduction of the Informed Consent statements to show that the clinics had in fact taken pains to inform patients that this treatment was experimental in nature
.
1/16/1997 – On Thursday, Barbara Murphy, who owns a Bed & Breakfast near the clinic, was called by the government to testify
.
She admitted that she picked up a package at the clinic for a few patients & mailed it to their homes
.
(Apparently this is the government’s idea of `introducing a drug into interstate commerce’)
.
Prosecutors acted as if they had scored a glorious triumph
.
However, during cross, Attorney Ackerman brought out that Ms. Murphy had a personal motive to help these patients:
.
Not only had she received hospice training but she was “working through” her grief at her own sister’s death from breast cancer
.
She testified to the
.
” excellent care, warm attention & hugs patients received at the clinic–quite unlike the care her sister had received at a hospital in Chicago”
.
Patients, she said, could call the clinic any time of day or night & get a 5-minute callback
.
She recalled that she mailed these small packages at the request of a patient, but never at the request of the clinic;
.
she did this for perhaps 3 or 4 out of the approximately 100 SRB patients who stayed with her
.
The next witness was another insurance company employee, who testified that the code used by the BRI on a claim form was not a perfect fit
.
Under cross by attorney Richard Jaffe, she admitted that such codes do not have to be exact fits, & she did not know a better code than the one they used
.
Jaffe then tried to read a sentence from one of the Institute’s letters to the insurance company, but prosecutors jumped to their feet & argued that this would be prejudicial, violating the judge’s ruling that the effectiveness of the treatment was not at issue in this case
.
This time, Judge Lake overruled the prosecution’s objections, pointing out that the prosecutors themselves had quoted extensively from the letter during direct
.
The jury seemed riveted as Jaffe read,
.
“Antineoplastons have shown remarkable effectiveness in treating certain incurable tumors such as brain tumors”
.
The jury suddenly knew not only that the treatment might actually work, but that prosecutors were trying to hide this fact from them
.
It was a dramatic moment
.
At the end of the day, Judge Lake commented that he sent his son to rent a movie the previous night so that their family could get a break from talking about the issues raised in the SRB case
.
And what did his son come home with?
.
he asked, rhetorically
.
“Phenomenon” — a movie starring John Travolta as a man who is diagnosed with an astrocytoma brain tumor!
.
1/20/1997 – Monday, Paul Zimmerman of the FDA testified that patients listed in the indictment were not part of a clinical trial
.
Prosecutor Clark seemed certain that he had delivered a telling blow to the defense
.
But undercutting his own message, he then played a tape of Dean Mouscher clearly telling the FDA that a particular patient was being treated. but not in the context of a clinical trial
.
Zimmerman also admitted that aspirin would never make it through today’s FDA approval process
.
This current FDA official read from a former FDA agent’s letter to a Congressman stating that
.
“Dr. Burzynski may manufacture & sell antineoplastons in Texas, where the FDA lacks jurisdiction”
.
Also interrogated was Bob Moseray, a native of Sierra Leone, who has been a clinic employee since 1988
.
Bob admitted that on a few occasions, when patients were too sick to come to Houston, he helped send them medicine
.
“Why would you do that if you knew it was against the law?”
.
asked prosecutor George Tallichet
.
“Well, if you could see these people–sick & in need of help
.
It is my moral obligation to help the sick & the suffering,” replied the BRI employee
.
“You encouraged patients to make friends in Houston to send them medicine, didn’t you?”
.
Tallichet yelled
.
“No,” said Bob, “I simply told them that if they had a friend in Houston, he could pick up the medicine for them”
.
“Aha!”
.
shouted Tallichet triumphantly,
.
“so you did encourage them to make friends in Houston!”
..
Bob also testified that when he helped patients send medicine, this had nothing to do with SRB
.
At that, Tallichet seemed to smell blood
.
“You used a company van, didn’t you,” he asked
.
“No, I used my own car,” Bob answered, calmly
.
“Well you did it on company time, didn’t you?”
.
“No” replied Bob, “I did it on my lunch hour”
.
1/22/1997 – Wednesday, there were yet more witnesses from the insurance industry
.
An employee of the Golden Rule Insurance Company testified that SRB’s clinic had billed her company for infusion services
.
On cross, Ackerman presented evidence that `Golden Rule’ is well-known throughout the industry as a nit-picking company, which does everything it can to deny claims
.
He showed her a record of a phone conversation in which a patient pleaded for them to cover the costs of his antineoplaston treatment
.
The employee tells the patient that if he sent in his medical records showing benefit, the company might agree to pay
.
“So in fact your company can review the results of an experimental treatment & make an exception if it sees fit?” Ackerman asked
.
“No, I don’t think that’s true,” said the employee
.
“So did you call Mr. Newman & tell him he had been misinformed,”
.
Ackerman probed,
.
“that in fact Golden Rule would not review his medical records?”
.
Witness: “Well, we will review any information we receive”
.
Ackerman: “You just said that your company does not make exceptions to its exclusion of experimental treatments”
.
Witness: “That’s correct”
.
Ackerman: “So in other words that was just a charade?
.
Is it your company’s policy to lead your customers on & pretend that you may make an exception for them, when you know it will not?”
.
Witness: “Well, there’s no such formal policy”
.
Ackerman: “Do you know what the Golden Rule is?”
.
Witness: “Yes. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you”
.
Ackerman: “That’s right. No further questions”
.
Another prosecutor, Amy LeCocq, asked the witness during re-direct if insurance was not a “service industry”
.
That gave the defense an opportunity to point out that the more claims the company denies the richer it becomes;
.
Golden Rule had “serviced” its clients in such a manner that its own assets had grown to over $1 billion
.
Michael Pugliese testified that his family was told by the country’s finest hospitals that no conventional treatment could stop his father’s glioblastoma multiforme brain tumor
.
They finally went to BRI for treatment
.
The jury was then asked to leave, during which time Mr. Pugliese testified that 2 federal agents, a postal inspector & an FDA agent, came to the family’s home & tried to convince them to “not waste the father’s time” on Dr. B’s treatment
.
They said that they had been “trying to get” Dr. B. for the past 10 years

The defense argued strenuously that the jury should be told about this, to show the animus, grudge & bias some agencies had against SRB
.
Judge Lake ruled that the jury could not hear these devastating details
.
Clark is also quoted in the New York Times as saying to the jury,
.
“I submit this case is not about Dr. Burzynski’s character because I realize good men do bad things”
.
“A good man”?
.
One wonders if this is what Clark told the Grand Jury last year, because their indictment paints Dr. B. as nothing less than a money-hungry monster, a picture totally unrecognizable to the majority of his patients & to others who know him
.
1/23/1997 – `Extra!’ aired a segment
.
`Hard Copy,’
.
`48 Hours,’ &
.
`CNN Headline News’
.
are all covering the trial
.
Ironically, the trial coincides with the 25th anniversary of the war on cancer–an expensive effort that has yielded few victories
.
SRB made his discoveries without such support
.
Dr. B’s patient organization has even been running a series of television cable ads in major cities
.
“We didn’t know what else to do,” said Mary Jo Siegel, a 45-year-old mother who has been cancer-free for 5 years after taking SRB’s treatment for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
.
Although both 30- & 60-second ads have appeared in Chicago & Washington, the cable provider in New York at first refused to accept the ads
.
They eventually relented & the ads have appeared
.
“The FDA is deciding who can live & who will die & it’s just not right,” said Ms. Siegel. “Clinton & [David] Kessler promised us back in March [1996] they would speed up cancer drug approvals, but all they’re speeding up is the [SRB] trial”
.
2/10/1997 – Patient advocate Greg Bader also managed to place an op-ed piece on the struggle in USA Today
.
Gabe Pressman, NYC WNBC-TV’s veteran reporter, travelled to Houston to cover the opening of the trial
.
Many other programs have also either filmed or are planning segments on the controversy–so many we can hardly keep track
.
It is mainly the FDA that instigated this whole trial
.
2/22/1997 – Trial of Houston Doctor Linked to Unapproved Drugs Goes to Jury
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/22/us/trial-of-houston-doctor-linked-to-unapproved-drugs-goes-to-jury.html
2/27/1997 – Upon being informed Thursday.evening that the jury was hopelessly deadlocked on every count, Lake read them the “Allen charge,” which is an instruction to a deadlocked jury
.
The judge told them that if they were unable to reach a verdict then the government would just have to bring the charges all over again
.
There was no reason to believe that another jury would be fairer or better informed
.
He told them therefore that they should try harder to reach a verdict & that the minority should consider bowing to the majority
.
2/28/1997 – Friday, the Jury sent Judge Sim Lake a note asking for a printed copy of the “Allen charge” that he had read on the previous evening
.
The jury appears deadlocked after deliberating for a week
.
Friday, they went home once again without reaching a verdict
.
3/3/1997 – Deliberations will begin again on.Monday morning, at 8:30.am, CST
.
Monday.afternoon, Judge Sim Lake declared a mistrial after the jury deadlocked
.
6 were for acquital on all counts;
5 were for conviction on all counts;
1 was undecided
.
After ruling on the mistrial, Judge Lake then issued a “directed verdict of acquittal” on all the mail fraud (insurance) counts (#42-#75)
.
He said that the government had not presented sufficient evidence on those charges
.
That means that nearly half the government’s argument–that SRB defrauded the insurance industry by miscoding reimbursement statements–is now gone
.
“Most of the testimony offered by prosecutors Clark, Amy LeCocq & George Tallichet centered on the fraud counts on which the judge directed acquittal,”
.
according to the Houston Chronicle, which has offered balanced & detailed coverage of the trial
.
In the afternoon, prosecutors announced that they were going to retry SRB on the remaining charges
.
A conviction on these FDA-related charges, could still send Dr. B. away to prison for life
.
Judge Lake set a tentative trial date for 5/19/1997
.
However there is a chance that federal prosecutors will decide to cut their losses in the next few days
.
According to the Houston Chronicle,
.
“Clark said the decision to pursue them could change before then
.
“It’s a horribly sad case
.
We want to reassess what happened,” he said
.
Clark didn’t specify what was “horribly sad”–the fact that our own government prosecuted a leading cancer researcher & clinician, or the fact that Clark & his team failed to convince either the jury or the judge with their charges
.
Clearly, the patients were not impressed
.
According to the Chronicle:
.
“The throng of Burzynski supporters who had been present for much of the trial kissed & hugged one another after the decisions were announced, displaying joy & relief
.
” ‘I have a chance to live,” said Patricia Meade, a SRB patient from Iowa who is afflicted with a rare form of cancer
.
“SRB displayed a wide grin as he & his wife surveyed the jubilant scene outside the 9-floor courtroom
.
” ‘It’s a great relief,” he said, nodding
.
“It’s like going through cycles of living & dying’ ”
.
“I think this was a government witch hunt,” said juror Sharon Wray
.
“I don’t understand why they brought criminal action when they had a civil remedy”
.
3/3/1997 – “I couldn’t find any victims,” Coan added (Houston Chronicle)
.
Another juror, a 40-year-old engineer named Anthony Batiste, said he favored a guilty verdict
.
“I couldn’t go into my kitchen & make things
.
Why should somebody else be above the law?”
.
The Times noted that
.
“many of Burzynski’s patients remained ardent in their support for him, filling the courtroom each day, rallying repeatedly outside the courthouse & filing affidavits on his behalf”
.
Here is the 1st story that appeared on the mistrial, from the UPI wire service:
.
3/3/1997 – HOUSTON (UPI) A deadlocked jury has prompted a Houston federal judge to declare a mistrial in the case of cancer [doctor] Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski following 20 days of testimony & about 35 hours of deliberations
.
SRB & the BRI were charged with contempt, violations of FDA regulations & mail fraud concerning his use of a drug not approved by the FDA
.
Jurors Monday told US District Judge Sim Lake that they cannot reach a verdict on any of the counts in the 75-count indictment
.
It was the 3rd time they had said they were deadlocked
.
Defense attorneys said last week that they would consider a mistrial as good as an acquittal for SRB
.
Prosecutors have the option of retrying SRB however they were not immediately available for comment
.
SRB was indicted on 75 counts, & each of the jurors told Lake in the courtroom that they could not reach a verdict on any of the counts
.
1995 – The indictment stemmed from SRB’s use of a class of cancer-fighting drugs called antineoplastons
.
SRB developed the drugs in the 1970s & has been manufacturing them at his laboratory west of Houston
.
SRB never fulfilled the clinical trials as required by the FDA in order for a drug to be approved by federal regulators
.
Copyright 1997 by United Press International All rights reserved
.
3/4/1997 – Dr. B. is quoted in the New York Times as saying:
.
“We’re going to do whatever is possible to continue to treat our patients, to bring our medicines to final approval
.
If the government wants to waste more money, your money, let them do it”
.
The Times said that the split verdict seemed to reflect the national debate over the rights of patients vs. the government’s “right” to strictly regulate medicines
.
Strong sentiments, pro & con, were expressed by jurors on both sides
.
The jury foreman, John Coan, favored acquittal:
.
He is quoted in the New York Times:
.
“The fact that we didn’t make a unanimous decision one way or another does not mean we didn’t make a decision,” Coan said
.
“The decision is that he is neither guilty nor innocent doesn’t mean he doesn’t need to do work within his practice, & the FDA obviously needs to pursue things as well”
47]
The court’s findings & the popular reaction to the Burzynski case are likely to play a substantial role in the manner in which the political process muddles through this debate
.
1997 – FEDERAL: USA v. Burzynski H-95-290 Acquittal:
http://collinsoneal.net/notable-cases/criminal-defense
5/19/1997 – Monday, Cancer doctor goes on trial again in federal court
http://www.texnews.com/texas97/doc051997.html
.5/19/1997 – dropped 40 of 41 charges
.
5/21/1997 – Unorthodox Doctor Goes on Trial Again on Contempt Charge
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/21/us/unorthodox-doctor-goes-on-trial-again-on-contempt-charge.html
5/1997 – Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski was found innocent of all the charges against him in a 2nd trial
.
5/28/1997 – Doctor Cleared in Trial on Unapproved Drugs
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/28/us/doctor-cleared-in-trial-on-unapproved-drugs.html
7/7/1997 – Monday, Free Market Medicine
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/1895-free-market-medicine
.
http://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/8846812
.
http://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/8846812?show=full
PDF
http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/8846812/cberry.pdf?sequence=1
HTML
http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/8846812/cberry.html?sequence=2
Rich Text Format (RTF)
http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/8846812/cberry.rtf?sequence=3
.
http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/161/cberry.rtf
.
http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/161/cberry.html
.
http://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/9453691
.
http://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/9453691?show=full
.
http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/9453691/mstennes.html?sequence=2
.
http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/9453691/mstennes.rtf?sequence=3
.
ralphmoss. com/burz.html
.
ralphmoss. com/FebChron.pdf
.
ralphmoss. com/cach373.html
.
http:// ralphmoss. com/html/cach373.shtml
.
http:// webcache. googleusercontent .com/search?q=cache:1y8BN2ApUXAJ:leda. law. harvard. edu/leda/data/161/cberry.rtf+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari
.
http:// books. google. com/books?id=6CXmZX0izuMC&pg=PA159&lpg=PA159&dq=%22Rebel+Cancer+Doctor+To+Go+On+Trial%22&source=bl&ots=-CG0fNDDoW&sig=nY-4fcRJEJ7wL-nizYOtGBLoj-g&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VwrQUIGPGYzW8gTtjIHwDA&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBQ

What the hell is he using to post? A commodore 64?

(Although it certainly did have a separate passel of formatting catastrophes at Wikipedia.)

these sentence fragments separated by periods that make these screeds impossible to read.

I see no intention to make them possible to read. Think of them as a one-man denial-of-service attack.

I’ve been wondering if DJT isn’t that poster who suggested running blog comment grey ops: posting comments supporting a position so utterly insane than no rational person would want to be associated with it.

However, the fact that DJT also pestered wikipedia with this nonsense seems stretch that idea a bit far.

@Flip – perhaps doing a websearch & then copy and pasting the raw HTML results?

No idea, but I’ve never seen that kind of formatting come out of any blog, browser or web system before…..

@Krebiozen

mindless copying

Given his inability to engage properly, mindless is pretty much spot on regardless of formatting.

#155 & 165 Krebiozen
#156 & 164 Lawrence
#157 – 159 & 161 Narad
#160 herr doktor bimler
#162 Chemmomo
#163 & 166 flip
.
LOOKITY! It’s the “Duck Dynasty!!”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Donald_Duck_characters
They quack more about FORM, than SUBSTANCE!!!
.
KrebioDuckzen
DuckLawrence
NaraDuck
herr doktor Duck bimler
ChemmomoQuack
Duckflip

#155 & 165 Krebiozen
#156 & 164 Lawrence
#157 – 159 & 161 Narad
#160 herr doktor bimler
#162 Chemmomo
#163 & 166 flip
.
#155 KrebioDuckzen
.
I know, because figuring out that periods are added to give the “Duck Dynasty” something to do since they seem to have an inability to discuss the subject-matter …!!
.
And to make reading easier on a mobile device so the sentences are not all together.
.
#156 DuckLawrence
.
“What the hell is he using to post? A commodore 64?”
.
It’s:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC
#157 NaraDuck
.
“Why in G-d’s name it thinks it needs to repeat the same links over and over again in different formats when the first one identifies all of them is anyone’s guess.”
.
I know you need something to “Whine & Cheese” about because of your lack of ability in discussing the actual topic of the blogsplat.
.
#158 NaraDuck
.
“(Although it certainly did have a separate passel of formatting catastrophes at Wikipedia.)”
.
Yeah, let’s NOT mention the editors there who made a passel of formatting catastrophes.
.
#159 NaraDuck
.
“Seriously, Piddles, if you’re just going to copy and paste, try not to make your sources look as stupid as you are.”
.
I’m sure because of your EPIC & Legendary “fact-checking” ability that you know Orac’s blogsplat doesn’t like RM links & won’t accept posts with them.
.
I mean, it’s important in America to block links to sites of someone who was actually subpoenaed in the SRB case.
.
Free speech?? What’s THAT?? Not if I don’t agree with it!!!
.
#160 herr doktor Duck bimler
.
I think of your posts as a one-man denial-of-service-attack-Quack.
.
#161 NaraDuck
.
“Note also that it’s taking the trouble to modify the text it’s stealing from, and doing a rather poor job of it.”
.
THAT certainly explains the reason for supplying the links!!
.
#162 ChemmomoQuack
.
Re 155 through 161
.
“However, the fact that DJT also pestered wikipedia with this nonsense seems stretch that idea a bit far.”
.
Absolutely!! Because classifying any position as “insane” is much MORE effective than using words like “troll” when you have nothing relevant to post about the actual SUBJECT of the blogosphere.
.
#163 Duckflip
.
“Waiting for my scroll button to be replaced.”

“I think it’s a case of googling stuff and simply copying the results, rather than taking the time to read the content on the pages.”
.
Waiting for the PayPal addition to my account to pay for my corrective LASIK surgery.
.
THAT certainly solves the “great mystery” as to the numerous differences between the cited sources & my post!
.
#164 DuckLawrence
.
“No idea, but I’ve never seen that kind of formatting come out of any blog, browser or web system before…..”
.
It’s called “originality.”
.
#165 KrebioDuckzen
.
“He now seems to be back-pedaling frantically to pretend he was never supporting Burzynski in the first place. He (she or it) is an odd fish, that’s for sure.”
.
Thank you for showing your ignorance in not understanding my reason for being here.
.
Somehow I can’t say I’m surprised!!!
.
#166 Duckflip
.
“Given his inability to engage properly, mindless is pretty much spot on regardless of formatting.”
.
Which explains your “off-topic” ravings & ramblings!
.
#167 NaraDuck
.
“It very much looks to me as though it took the trouble to explicitly add the expansion of RTF.”
.
No shhhhhhh “IT,” Sherlock!!

#165 Krebiozen
.
“He now seems to be back-pedaling frantically to pretend he was never supporting Burzynski in the first place.”
.
Yeah, I’ve only brought up the Harvard stuff since 12/8/12: post #301 😉
https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2012/11/26/significance-of-the-tmb-dismissal-case-against-burzynski